Environmentalists Were Wrong About Ethanol - Study Shows

[aociswundumho]

This is an interesting video about why government can't do anything right. If you don't want to watch the entire video, from 11:00 to 11:53 is the most important 43 seconds of the whole thing, because once again we see that when decisions are made by politics, the political powerful tend to get their way. That is never going to change.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Ethanol did noting but make matters worse, accomplished almost nothing in the debate on fuel use improvements.

 

[Simpletruther]

This is an interesting video about why government can't do anything right. If you don't want to watch the entire video, from 11:00 to 11:53 is the most important 43 seconds of the whole thing, because once again we see that when decisions are made by politics, the political powerful tend to get their way. That is never going to change.

The poster child for government boondoggles.

 

[Antiwar]

Your title says 'environmentalists' and your comment is the same ol' right-libertarian gobbledygook.

 

[Airyaman]

Ethanol as a fuel source for vehicles was ill advised.

Shocking!

(Not, well except to the OP}

 

[aociswundumho]

Your title says 'environmentalists' and your comment is the same ol' right-libertarian gobbledygook.

No, the point is that environmental legislation, including government action regarding global warming, will nearly always benefit special interest groups while harming society, and corn ethanol is a perfect example.

 

[Antiwar]

No, the point is that environmental legislation, including government action regarding global warming, will nearly always benefit special interest groups while harming society, and corn ethanol is a perfect example.

Like I said.

 

[PirateMk1]

This is an interesting video about why government can't do anything right. If you don't want to watch the entire video, from 11:00 to 11:53 is the most important 43 seconds of the whole thing, because once again we see that when decisions are made by politics, the political powerful tend to get their way. That is never going to change.

Ethanol was always about farmers getting the government to subsidies their disposal of waste after processing corn into high grade high protein feed. The process for making ethanol is the same as making highgrade feed. The waste mash is the feed and the alcohol was the waste. The reason the framers converted corn to high grade feed was for the calories per ton, 3 times more efficient to ship than corn and it fetched much better price per bushel as well. The two trucks they don't need to hire to move the same product equivalent. That saves a boat load of money. Well that caused a hazardous waste problem because you just can't dump a bunch of alcohol anywhere. It was always bullshit and all the players knew it. If the ethanol thing was genuine we would have used sugar cane or sugar beet.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This is an interesting video about why government can't do anything right. If you don't want to watch the entire video, from 11:00 to 11:53 is the most important 43 seconds of the whole thing, because once again we see that when decisions are made by politics, the political powerful tend to get their way. That is never going to change.

Interesting. I did a search and came across this:

How to Convert Switchgrass to Ethanol

Biofuels such as ethanol are compounds derived from plants that can be used to fuel internal-combustion engines such as those in cars and small machinery. Creating these fuels from plants can reduce the environmental and political problems caused by a reliance on oil. Although much ethanol...

itstillruns.com

Many of us have been upset about using ethanol in gasoline. It harms older engines not designed for it, I increases the cost of corn for food, and 10% ethanol in gasoline only has 96% the energy of gasoline.

I didn't watch but the suggested 53 seconds. I have come across this recently too:

The research, which was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy, found that ethanol is likely at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline due to emissions resulting from land use changes to grow corn, along with processing and combustion.​

U.S. corn-based ethanol worse for the climate than gasoline, study finds

Corn-based ethanol, which for years has been mixed in huge quantities into gasoline sold at U.S. pumps, is likely a much bigger contributor to global warming than straight gasoline, according to a study published Monday.

www.reuters.com

 

[Deuce]

uhh yeah environmentalists have been saying this for years, glad you're catching up buddy

 

[Metric Mouse]

Ethanol was always about farmers getting the government to subsidies their disposal of waste after processing corn into high grade high protein feed. The process for making ethanol is the same as making highgrade feed. The waste mash is the feed and the alcohol was the waste. The reason the framers converted corn to high grade feed was for the calories per ton, 3 times more efficient to ship than corn and it fetched much better price per bushel as well. The two trucks they don't need to hire to move the same product equivalent. That saves a boat load of money. Well that caused a hazardous waste problem because you just can't dump a bunch of alcohol anywhere. It was always bullshit and all the players knew it. If the ethanol thing was genuine we would have used sugar cane or sugar beet.

Process livestock feed so that it uses 1/3 of the emissions to ship AND use byproduct of that process, which would otherwise be waste, to further lower emissions! Amazing.

I can see why idiots fall for this stuff.

 

[PirateMk1]

Process livestock feed so that it uses 1/3 of the emissions to ship AND use byproduct of that process, which would otherwise be waste, to further lower emissions! Amazing.

I can see why idiots fall for this stuff.

You forgot to read the part were the emissions are raised not lowered.

 

[Mach]

This is an interesting video about why government can't do anything right.

This doesn't demonstrate why government can't do anything right.
There are hundreds of thousands of laws in the books that "get it right" (or right enough), and you have to cherry pick examples on the frontiers of scientific progress, to try and prove your absurd point.
Input/output. Garbage into government laws, garbage out. Good stuff input, good stuff output.

Government is a tool, and we use it for a verity of good reasons in society.
Anti-government is childish nonsense.

 

[Integrityrespec]

As always the left science if fixated on one thing, getting rid of fossil fuels. It's political, it's exaggerated and it's not going to happen because the wind/solar choice of the left can never supply enough energy to replace fossil fuels. The models they use depend upon the numbers they put in and they exaggerate the numbers to fuel their argument. If they were really concerned with cutting down the use of fossil fuels they would be pushing nuclear energy, cleaner, more productive, cheaper and renewable. France is a good example of this. Germany and France took different paths, Germany wind/solar and fossil fuels, France nuclear and fossil fuels and at this point France pays about 1/3 what Germany does for the same amount of energy. In addition, France isn't dependent of Russian for energy.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The scientific community related to climate change reminds me of the road crews I see out working on roads. Two dozen people, 4 of those holding a stop/go sign, 4 others working with shovels, 10 holding shovels, 4 driving road equipment, 2 supervisors drinking coffee. They don't get in too big a hurry. They rip out old asphalt and replace it with new asphalt. They take what seems like forever to get the job completed and then they move on to another section of road and do the same thing. There is no new improved product, just a new layer of asphalt that will need replacing in a couple of decades and constant potholes will need filling along the way. No matter how long we have been hearing about climate change and the threat of it, the numbers have to be constantly refigured because they never seem to match up to what we were originally told. More new roads that will eventually fail and then more new roads that will eventually fail, over and over.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The scientific community related to climate change reminds me of the road crews I see out working on roads. Two dozen people, 4 of those holding a stop/go sign, 4 others working with shovels, 10 holding shovels, 4 driving road equipment, 2 supervisors drinking coffee. They don't get in too big a hurry. They rip out old asphalt and replace it with new asphalt. They take what seems like forever to get the job completed and then they move on to another section of road and do the same thing. There is no new improved product, just a new layer of asphalt that will need replacing in a couple of decades and constant potholes will need filling along the way. No matter how long we have been hearing about climate change and the threat of it, the numbers have to be constantly refigured because they never seem to match up to what we were originally told. More new roads that will eventually fail and then more new roads that will eventually fail, over and over.

BTW, love the road crew guys, they keep the roads passable.

 

[aociswundumho]

This doesn't demonstrate why government can't do anything right.

Most of the bills in Washington DC are written by lobbyists. If you think the congressvermin specifically picking corn to produce ethanol is a simple mistake, then you are incredibly naive.

Here's your progressive hero to back up the point:

 

[smallvoice]

Your title says 'environmentalists' and your comment is the same ol' right-libertarian gobbledygook.

You are right. He should have said "progressives".

 

[Metric Mouse]

You forgot to read the part were the emissions are raised not lowered.

Well yeah, that's the part that idiots believed that replacing gasoline with a renewable plant product would reduce emissions...