Science magazine declares ethanol worse for the Earth than fossil fuels

Just about every single liberal policy is poorly thought out, and generally produces the opposite result of the intended. Look at our failed war on poverty, it's as bad as ever, with no end in sight, and no exit strategy.

Also, liberal opposition to nuclear power, the safest, cleanest feasible method of elecric generation available.

But why let facts get in the way of a "good" idea?

This was George Bush's policy. And hydropower is the cleanest feasible method of electric generation available. But as CSM Engineer said, why let facts get in the way of a good delusion. You go ahead and blame the liberals.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060425.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012401869.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/09/news/latam.php

Roger, while I agree hydro-electric is the cleanest, you can not put ethanol on the current administrations list of "failed" policies. The concept for ethanol as a gasoline replacement goes back decades before that and there has been a lot of research that has matured along the way. Switchgrass is just another step along the way of our learning path.

On a point-by-point basis there are many issues that prevent progress for energy independence in the USA. Both sides of the political fence get the blame for this.

Fierce, while there may be a preponderance of evidence against the Democratic policies that have hampered our progress, bringing up unrelated subjects such as the war on poverty is simply a diversion from the subject.

However, herein lies the problem. Important social issues become political footballs for the sake of political power. Energy and Global Warming are simply two of the latest casualties in the political war. And true enough, we can see no end in sight and we have no exit strategy for that either.

AH,

No president has done more to encourage ethanol than the current president. President Bush believes it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and is a national security issue. The mandates and subsidies essentially supercharged an industry that barely existed 6 years ago. In his defense, no president since Carter has had to deal with oil prices at these levels and Carter made his own equally bad decisions (Gas Station Lines).

I've been following this Ethanol debacle when it kicked into high gear, right before the 2004 election. I've made money playing the ethanol stock PEIX, even though I knew that ethanol would never work. Politics. It's the same reason I'm buying PEIX right now at $5 and will sell it next year when it jumps again.

Look, I'm not saying the Democratic party is any better. Hilary Clinton, who has long been against Ethanol because she knew it was a bad idea has recently changed her stance on it and says she is now in favor of it. She provided some lame "well now the transport method is better" excuse for the flip flop when its obvious she's pandering to heartland special interests. I'm not sure where Obama stands on Ethanol now, but I can promise you, if he's around in November, he'll be in favor of it.

And as for the Democratic party and their bad ideas, the Republicans have had the Presidency 20 out of the last 28 years and Congress for 10 of the last 12. Where's Utopia? No party has a monopoly on bad ideas.

Politics (yuk).

Roger

...Right On!

...too many of todays "green-wienies" are seeing only the "today" solutions and not looking 'forward' enough toward the "whole" problem(s) and considering the "tomorrow" problems which might/can/may/will arise from hasty and ill-thought-out decisions/policies being made in the clamor of "PC" atmospherics.

...the best analogy is medicine: sure the "new" pill 'cures' today's illness, but what about its as yet unforseen "future" side effects (can you say THALIDOMITE babies)?

Ethanol is a great Idea, depending on what flavoring you mix in with it. I personally prefer a little Anise and Lime.

As a fuel from corn: very bad!! Brazil managed from sugar cane only because they were having to burn several thousand metric tonnes of it every year to get rid of it.

Dragon

As an alternative to corn starch ethanol, why not cellulistic ethanol. It comes from the inedible parts of plants. The other day, I watched a PBS program on how Florida is making strides in the arena. A state program, "Farm to Fuel" sponsored by Florida Agriculture Commissioner-Charles H. Bronson, is promoting developemnt in the arena. A UF researcher (sorry, can't recall his name now) has discovered(engineered?) a bacteria that ferments cellulistic material intead of just common sugars. According to the program, they can now make ethanol out of non edible crops. For instance, sugar cane bagas (inedible left overs from processing cane into sugar) and wood chips/sawdust. There was even mention of using Brazilian Pepper. Which is (for our non-Floridian viewers) an invasive, extremely resiliant and amazinglly fast growing poisonous plant. It was imported in the 50's/60's to dry up swamplands for developement. It was a really stupid idea, cause now that it's here it is killing all of our native plants and we can't get rid of it. It would be nice if we could finally turn it into something useful.

It's no secret that corn based ethanol is energy inefficient. It's also no secret that support for corn based ethanol has nothing to do with energy policy and everything to do with the politics of farm subsidies, and has enjoyed bipartisan support forever.

But don't let these simple facts prevent you from reinforcing your political prejudices.

It's also largely irrelevant since a variety of truly energy efficient ethanol technologies are on the horizon.

I posted about a couple here:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/16973

and here:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/13702

Bhankii,

Do a calculation of the arable land in the U.S. and it's energy consumption and you'll see that it's not even close to possible to meet our energy needs this way. I'm not saying it isn't a worthwhile energy policy accessory to try and turn corn stalks into energy, but that's not what is going on.

This is why I like the technologies that make ethanol from the garbage we already produce - no production of feed stock is required.

...and how do these rises correlate to rises in transportation costs, both through fuel and regulations imposed because of transportation both within the US and from foreign countries importing...

Corn based ethanol does not make sense for "improving" the way non third world societies/economies run. Other types of ethanol use such as those from grasses, invasive species, and plant "garbage," or combinations thereof have a possibility of being a better fuel.

The talk against ethanol is that it has a bigger carbon footprint than fossil fuels. All we would need is a bigger carbon filter

Finally someone got it right

In all fairness, ethanol could still be an important part of the future for several reasons. Sure, it's dirty. But we may need ethanol for cars and trucks in the future. The fuel has to come from somewhere. Something will have to replace oil when it's over $5/ gallon! If cellulosic ethanol becomes cheap, it will be a very helpful addition as we make the transition to alternative energy technologies.. Steve Selverston

No point in starving, just so the big V8 cars can run on corn ethanol, is there.

This was worked out years ago, the same as the "Biodiesel" so-called use for replacement of petroleum diesel.

Kind Regards....