Sign In Join 



Is Ethanol good for the environment?

165 messages,  Last post on Sep 24, 2008 at 5:25 AM

You are in the Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Alternative Fuels


Messages Page 2 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
17
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#6 of 165
Re: show me the DATA [john1701a] by gagrice
Jul 29, 2004 (5:50 am)
Reply

Replying to: john1701a (Jul 29, 2004 4:31 am)

That summary is totally void of any detail and clearly has an organizational bias.
You keep Ethanol in the Midwest we don't want it in CA. It is not a left right biased issue, it is a "buying votes from the farmers" issue. If you don't consider "Friends of the Earth" a viable Organization, you will probably continue to believe that it is not costing more to produce than it is worth. The only positive spin you will find on Ethanol is from the folks that are profiteering from it.
 
“If the ethanol producers and the corn growers weren’t benefiting from this, we wouldn’t be doing it,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., last week. “There’s no policy reason to do this.”
 
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540967/
#7 of 165
Re: show me the DATA [gagrice] by john1701a
Jul 29, 2004 (6:03 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Jul 29, 2004 5:50 am)

I want the ACTUAL RESEARCH DETAIL to be able to draw a conclusion for myself.
 
SHOW ME THE DATA!
 
Being shoveled digested information serves no purpose but to entertain. Not knowing how the conclusion was come to is clearly evidence of a non-objective stance.
 
JOHN
#8 of 165
Re: show me the DATA [john1701a] by gagrice
Jul 29, 2004 (6:31 am)
Reply

Replying to: john1701a (Jul 29, 2004 6:03 am)

I want the ACTUAL RESEARCH DETAIL to be able to draw a conclusion for myself.
 What is the 52 cents per gallon subsidy? That comes out of my taxes. you should be paying that with every gallon you purchase, not me. As a MN farmer I can tell you the only way to plant corn year after year is with huge amounts of chemical fertilizer. That in itself is very harmful to the ground water in YOUR state. ADM does not care if you have lousy water. My property was right on the Long Prairie River and we refused to use any chemicals that would leech into the river. Only the stuff our cattle produced. You will have a hard time finding data that is current because it is hidden in a cloak of deception. No one in the business is going to tell you they are spending 2 bucks to produce a bucks worth of Ethanol. Not when Uncle Sam has a 5 billion dollar subsidy sitting on the table for the next 8 years. Alaska got an exemption because it caused way more ice fog in the winter during testing. I'm surprised you don't see more in Minneapolis in the winter.
#9 of 165
Re: show me the DATA [gagrice] by john1701a
Jul 29, 2004 (6:37 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Jul 29, 2004 6:31 am)

> it is hidden in a cloak of deception
 
Yet, you believe the info you have.
 
What's wrong with that picture?
 
The EPA and select colleges perform studies of that nature all the time. They publicly publish their findings. Let's see those.
 
JOHN
#10 of 165
Re: show me the DATA [john1701a] by gagrice
Jul 29, 2004 (6:49 am)
Reply

Replying to: john1701a (Jul 29, 2004 6:37 am)

What's wrong with that picture?
 
Nothing is wrong with that picture. Cornell University's study is the only viable study that has been made public. Show me a study where Ethanol is making money and does not have an adverse environmental impact. Here is an article touting the virtues of Ethanol. What's wrong with this picture?
 
More than 60% of the world’s supply of ethanol is estimated to be derived from sugar, with Brazil – a sugarcane growing country – in the lead.
 
I see nothing wrong with clearing the rainforset to plant Sugarcane, duh!!!
 
http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_old_idea_made/
#11 of 165
Re: show me the DATA [gagrice] by john1701a
Jul 29, 2004 (7:10 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Jul 29, 2004 6:49 am)

I'm for a moderate approach. One that will yield a REALISTIC reduction of gas (oil) consumption, not the total elimination.
 
You are the one insisting the ALL OR NONE approach, not me.
 
Clearly, we have different goals.
 
JOHN
#12 of 165
Here are opposing view points by gagrice
Jul 29, 2004 (7:10 am)
Reply
U.S. Department of Energy Study indicates that ethanol is responsible for more nitrous oxide.
 
 Now let me research Biodiesel for you.....
 
http://www.qctimes.com/qcbizjournal/internal.php?story_id=1030270- &l=1&t=Agriculture&c=93,1030270
#13 of 165
Re: show me the DATA [john1701a] by gagrice
Jul 29, 2004 (7:24 am)
Reply

Replying to: john1701a (Jul 29, 2004 7:10 am)

You are the one insisting the ALL OR NONE approach, not me.
 
Where did you get that impression? I already pay higher prices for fuel in CA than you do. I don't want the added burden of transporting Ethanol for some contrived plan to pull the Midwest out of the doldrums. I am looking for viable alternatives to our dependence on foriegn oil. If we are going to use our coal and Natural gas to produce Ethanol, why not just burn the Natural Gas in the car to start with. Why pass it through several layers of bureaucracy first and come out with a less environmentally sound product. That is like making hydrogen from Natural Gas. Why bother, just burn the gas to start with. There is no way we will eliminate foreign oil in our lifetime. I am all for reducing the consumption. There are too many opposing forces at every step. No matter what technology or resource is used someone is not going to like it and put roadblocks in the way. Just as you would block the use of diesel because of your bias toward hybrid/ethanol burning vehicles. I think your use of those resources is great. You get great mileage from your Prius and I applaud that. There are other options that are good also. I want them all to have an equal chance to succeed.
#14 of 165
Amazing by stevedebi
Jul 29, 2004 (10:30 am)
Reply
Hello? Anyone care to post the links to the actual data on ethanol?
 
I can make a statement here that Ethanol is really good and 100 percent renewable and great for the environment.
 
Hmmm, it seems I didn't post any supporting data (and I'm not talking supporting opinions but rather scientific data).
 
Yet under the rules most people seem to use here, that statement must obiously be true.
 
For the record, the above is in jest, I have no position on ethanol ... because I haven't seen conclusive data either way. However I do have a position on scientific evidence... I am enthusiastically in favor of it!
#15 of 165
Re: Amazing [stevedebi] by gagrice
Jul 29, 2004 (11:37 am)
Reply

Replying to: stevedebi (Jul 29, 2004 10:30 am)

Here is published scientific data from Cornell University. I don't believe they are in it for the money. All the pro data I have found on Ethanol is filtered by companies that have a vested interest in the growing of corn or production of Ethanol. Congress knows it is not viable but they don't want to upset the farm states. It does in fact have a $.52 per gallon Federal subsidy as of today. I would be glad to read any more recent data that is not diluted by entities that stand to get rich on my tax dollars. This corporate welfare to the max.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.- html

Messages Page 2 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
17
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement