« Could Switchgrass In Guymon Be Used In Ethanol? | Home | Sugar Companies Have Answer To Fuel Shortages »
Ethanol Is A Complex Issue
By Mr Ethanol | June 13, 2008
Barrie Advance:
The issue of ethanol fuel is not as simple as politicians would have us believe:
1. Ethanol is not a clean burning fuel. Moreover, an engine’s emissions on ethanol are more toxic than the same engine produces fuelled with gasoline.
2. Adding ethanol to gasoline will not reduce gasoline prices. Ethanol is considerably more costly than gasoline and must be subsidized before it can hope to compete at the pump. Personally, I object to any fuel subsidy. We should pay for the entire cost of a fuel at the pump, not through our taxes.
3. Any benefit to the rural community is highly selective. Corn producers may be profiting, but dairy, pig, beef and poultry producers – to name a few – are horrified at the increase in their feed costs.
Finally, I object to the “nimby” sentiment. Just because only three to four rural residents may be harmed or endangered by the presence of an ethanol plant nearby doesn’t make it acceptable. In the 21st century, any manufacturing facility must be clean and safe enough to locate in a city, or it should not be built.
Related Posts
- Money Doesn’t Grow On Trees, But Gasoline Might
- Pumping Up Ethanol
- Termite Guts Could Boost Ethanol Efficiency
- McCain Drinks A Glass Of Ethanol Every Day
- Meeting The Ethanol Challenge: Scientists Use Supercomputer To Target Cellulose Bottleneck
- Leading Investment Expert Reveals This Is NOT The Year For Ethanol
- Ethanol Subsidies Reduce Incentives To Build New Oil Refineries
- The Dirty Little Secret Behind The Ethanol Hysteria
- Alternate Energy Holdings’ Proposed Nuclear Plant Would Avoid 11.3 Million Tons Of Carbon
- India Plans To Double Ethanol Blend In Gasoline, Lift Curbs On Biofuel
New Way Of Making Easy Money Online
June 14th, 2008 at 2:00 am
This guy is a fraud! He knows jack about ethanol and what it is.
He states the following:
1. Ethanol is not a clean burning fuel. Moreover, an engine’s emissions on ethanol are more toxic than the same engine produces fuelled with gasoline.
FALSE:
* Ethanol can reduce net carbon dioxide emissions by up to 100% on a full life-cycle basis
* High-level ethanol blends can reduce emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by 30% or more (VOCs are major sources of ground-level ozone formation)
* As an octane enhancer, ethanol can cut emissions of cancer-causing benzene and butadiene by more than 50%
* Sulphur dioxide and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions are significantly decreased with ethanol.
THUS IT IS ACTUALLY FAR CLEANER than gasoline!
2. Adding ethanol to gasoline will not reduce gasoline prices. Ethanol is considerably more costly than gasoline and must be subsidized before it can hope to compete at the pump. Personally, I object to any fuel subsidy. We should pay for the entire cost of a fuel at the pump, not through our taxes.
FALSE! As Ontario with a mixture of only 10% ethanol has kept prices here lower than anywhere else in the country! The subsidies that ethanol receives is FAR less than big oil as it costs less to produce ethanol compared to the toxic tar sands in Alberta! Thus we are not only NOT paying through our taxes. Ethanol is allowing us to get a BREAK from taxes and high gas prices!
3. Any benefit to the rural community is highly selective. Corn producers may be profiting, but dairy, pig, beef and poultry producers – to name a few – are horrified at the increase in their feed costs.
FALSE: As the left over mash from the production of ethanol goes to feed, pigs, beef and poultry produce thus there is no high costs!
finally, I object to the “nimby” sentiment.
You may object to it but the arguments that you have made have actually validated the NIMBY statement!
Just because only three to four rural residents may be harmed or endangered by the presence of an ethanol plant nearby doesn’t make it acceptable.
IF it even did affect only two or there, four rural residents. In fact it has been proven that Ethanol plants do not thus their “arguments” a 100% unwarranted for an industry that benefits the majority over the one, two, three or four minority that want fancy shopping at the expense of low wage paying jobs and no benefits instead.
In the 21st century, any manufacturing facility must be clean and safe enough to locate in a city, or it should not be built.
I agree, so why do wal*marts, zellers, malls, mini malls, Canadian Tires and home depots, Macdonalds, Harveys, Wendys even exist?
Ethanol Production meats all the demands of being clean and safe plus then some as they are more environmentally safe than any big box store that we have already!
http://ccdeinbarrie.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/local-environmentalist-lies-to-barrie-citizens/