Letters to the Editor
-
Fuck careful science
Science--just like everything else--is being spun, selectively picked over, and slanted by the Right and the Left, Libertarians and liberals, business and government and NGOs. The poor schlub hunched over the microscope or telescope doesn't stand a chance.
-
Perspective
The prime argument for corn-based ethanol is Energy Independence. If we grow the corn here, we do not need to import the oil. Americans profit, rather than Middle Easterners.
Brazil already has done this with sugar cane ethanol. That brings up the question of importing Brazilian ethanol, and the whole convoluted controversy of sugar tariffs, but, Holy Energy, Batman!
Ethanol is not the Final Solution. But it has its place.
-
"Basically by turning land now covered with trees, grass, and other natural "carbon sinks" into farmland for corn and other crops used for ethanol...."
Being right in the middle of CA, at the rate that farmland is being turned into suburbs, the only thing left is "land now covered with trees."
-
ethanol: such an obvious blind alley
The reports I've read about the ethanol boondoggle have been that even if all American farmland were somehow turned over to the production of ethanol, this would meet only about ten percent of America's fossil fuel needs (and, incidentally, result in global famine). The global warming implications seem to be beside the point with an energy scheme so fundamentally unhelpful. There are politically-powerful constituencies for ethanol, and this is the only reason it has any traction in our society. But if our country was run by a scientific oligarchy, the ethanol option would be taken out back and shot.
There are a number of biofuel programs that make more thermodynamic sense, but nearly all of them take advantage of tropical growing conditions that aren't present in the United States. Allah must really hate us; we don't get to be the Saudi Arabia of biofuels either.
-
Mobile fuel
What the UC scientists failed to notice is the difference between energy used to generate electricity and energy that can power a car or other mobile vehicle. Coal is abundant and can generate electricty but cannot easily be used in a car. Even though ethanol absorbs many energy inputs in terms of fertilizers and electricty to run the plant, the result is a form of energy that can be used in a car. The talk about carbon in the atmosphere etc., misses the point that ethanol can power a car.
-
I don't know the answer...
... but I'm pretty sure corn farmers are very pleased to see the demands of a new market drive the price their their product up. Also, our government's history of doling out generous subsidies to farmers suggests there are influential lobbyists representing farmers' interests in congress. It is also an election year, so all of the politicians are looking to win votes for themselves and/or their allies.
I think the decision to use corn-based ethanol can be explained entirely by the above factors. I'll bet the politicians simply ignored any input they might have had from the science community.
-
I don't get ethanol
Please explain why it's a superior fuel.
Here's what I remember from primary school: Corn is a tough plant to grow, in that it's a huge nutrient drain on the soil, compared to other plants, no? (Isn't that why Squanto taught the Pilgrims to plant heir corn with fish heads?) So, growing corn commercially (whether for human consumption, animal feed, or fuel) requires huge amounts of fertilizers. Which are petroleum-based, so we are still dependent on black gold (black crack?).
Here's what I see today: I live in CT, where because of ozone levels, we switch over to ethanol-blended gasoline in he summer months. Because this is subsidized, we are taxed a few cents a gallon. But, I've never noticed my car getting better mileage on the ethanol-blend, or performing better. And, since ethanol releases greater quantities of nitrogen oxides, it doesn't seem to diminish the ozone problem.
But I hear a few folks in Iowa are happy.
-
Subsidies
Get rid of all subsidies for the production of ethanol and see how well it does. A better way to become less dependent on oil is to raise taxes substantially on gas and diesel and demand that cars get 45mpg. Make it very expensive to waste fuel. Solutions will follow. Demand will go down and so will our deficits. Public transport anyone?
-
Ethanol is a Hoax
Scientists knew years ago that the amount of petrochemicals and water used for corn ethanol was energy break even at the best.
They are desperately trying to save the internal combustion engine. It provides debt for our debt based fractional banking, millions of jobs in manufacture, sales, maintenance, fuel and finance that create income taxes. The gas taxes also provide many states with abundant revenue.
The deployment of electrical vehicles will destroy all that as they are cheaper to build (-50%), maintain(-90%) and fuel(-70%). So jobs in these areas would suffer commensurate losses which means all those taxes are gone.
The entire post WWII economic model has been increased consumption and planned obsolescence.With the situation we face today that will only lead to catastrophy if we aren't there already.
-
ethanol = famine
Today the global supply and demand for food is in a delicate balance. If we divert a substantial fraction of our crops (corn, sugarcane, etc.) to ethanol production then global food prices will soar. This, in turn, will put potentially billions of poor people at risk of starvation. Do we really want to go down that road?
-
Cars = Extinction, so ethanol is irrelevant
Since we have about two decades to cut our GHG by 80-90% or face likely extinction, what choices do we have? Ethanol is out. Biodiesel has the same issues. Electric cars will both collapse the grid and lead to even more coal burning (very bad GHG emitter).
It looks like we’re going to be faced with eliminating obesity-caused diseases like type II diabetes and heart disease by ditching unlimited use of personal automobiles or go down in history as the enders of history. At least our generation will be famous until the end of time, even if said end is only a century away. I’m glad the WWII generation didn’t respond to the challenge of their times like we have to climate change with our angry rationalizing of the sanctity of our “modern” way of life.