Ethanol, Ethanol, Ethanol...It's been the hot topic in conservation for quite some time now and has become well known as the first step in a chain of many that will lead us away from foreign oil and help us fight the war on terrorism. Yay, and personally I love ethanol (well, loved) because I tend to be a love-the-environment, save-the-rainforest, the-future-of-the-atmosphere-is-in-our-hands (or "green") sort of girl. However, yesterday, a tremor of shock ran through my body when I turned on my car radio, and was met by the sound of the announcer blaring, "Ethanol is now dangerous." Yes, that's right, ISU has been doing a series of studies and has now found that our beloved Ethanol produces at least 2x the amount of green house gas as the gasoline that it's supposed to be replacing. I guess this is a perfect example of if it sound too good to be true it really is. I mean really, it must have just been too much to ask for a fuel that could not only save the environment, but also wein us away from using foreign oil. I mean really, who didn't see this coming? And was anyone else wondering what would happen when they finally discovered that Ethanol also poisons the air. However, despite how speculative I was about Ethanol, I must admit I'm bummed, because after it was going so well for so long I was actually hopeful, and actually thought that this Ethanol thing could last. Who's with me? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this subject? Does anyone have any better solutions to let me be able to use my gasoline powered car, and still not kill my beloved trees. Help me out here people! The future of the atmosphere is in our hands.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Wow! ethonl is really bad. Dang they said it was supposed to help keep Mother Earth clean and safe. Now it's dirty and running a muck!
All man my day just got worse.
Time for a trade in with my car
Ethanol was never really a solution to the pollution problem. It was thought not to be as bad as oil but it still was bad. The only thing that can help Mother Earth is to totally loose fossil fuels and switch to something that is emission free such as electric (even though the main production of electricity is through the use of fossil fuels there are ways to get it without burning something wind, water, etc.), or fuel cell. Both of those two fuels have made huge gains but neither have been the main concern of our engineers. For some reason out auto makers seem to still be designing fossil fuel burning cars. They are working on better gas millage but that doesn't solve the problem. Also E85 was bad for your engine and tended to lessen its life span.
It's all about the corn subsidies...
The subsidies which are controlled by foreign countries. Check out my bog titled: Controlling Oil. Imperializing Your Home, One Nation At A Time.
+mspin
I was talking about corn subsidies, which are entirely controlled by good old Uncle Sam.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
There was nothing new about this information. Everybody who has done the slightest modicum of research has long known that ethanol has a negative energy balance. More fossil fuel energy is consumed in making a gallon of ethanol than there is energy in a gallon of ethanol. Ethanol makes a very slight contribution to our energy security because some of those fossil fuels like natural gas and coal are produced domestically rather than imported. But mostly, it has all been about subsidies for the grain farmers. It was an incredibly crappy idea that was shoved down our throats by a coalition of corrupt agri-business and pie-eyed environmental greenies who are so wrapped up in their religion that they have forgotten how to use their brains. And anybody who failed to understand that the consumption of all those fossil fuels for plowing, seeding, fertilizing, irrigating, cultivating, harvesting, transporting and distilling fossil fues did not produce a huge amount of carbon dioxide and also a lot of other REAL actual pollutants simply was not thinking. The result is that billions of tax dollars that could have been used to fund a real solution have been diverted with the help of willing dupes in the environmental movement into the pockets of Archer-Daniels and a few other huge corporate welfare recipients.
The problem with far too many people in the environmental movement is that they approach these problems like a religion rather than a science. They are far to quick to cast aside things like the basic laws of thermodynamics in favor of things like unrealistic hope, irrational fear and mass hysteria. They substitue these things for rational thought based on proven science. It is the same sort of faith based behavior that is characteristic of religion.
When you really look at the science, our options are pretty limited. Unless we are willing to sacrfice our standard of living we are, in the short term stuck with oil and other fossil fuels. There is room for a littlle savings through conservation and a relatively small proportion of our energy needs can be met with solar power in its various forms. In the slightly longer term, we would be wise to begin building nice clean safe nukes as fast as we can.
My greatest anger at environmentalists is that they have virtually destroyed our nuclear power industry. ENVIRONMENTALISTS have done FAR MORE HARM to the environment than almost anybody else because the result of their efforts has been the consumption of billions of tons of incredibly nasty coal in the place of nice clean nukes. Nuclear power plants that were built 30 years ago are providing by far our safest, cleanest and cheapest energy. We could have hundreds more like them and we would now have a lot more options and a lot of the pollution that has already occurred would never have happened. Unthinking and irrational religious zeolots disgust me.