Clean and green? Study debunks ethanol fuel myth

Sep 17, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Motoring.co.za

Cars running on sugar-cane ethanol can produce as many harmful pollutants as those using ordinary petrol, according a study published by Brazil's environment ministry.

Comments
1 - 20 of 34 Comments Last updated Yesterday
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Raptor in Michigan

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 17, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

GOOD. Since the biggest environmental problem is HABITAT DESTRUCTION, maybe we'll quit destroying natural habitat to grow fake fuel that appeases the environmental wackos.

Since: Aug 08

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 17, 2009
 
Raptor in Michigan wrote:
GOOD. Since the biggest environmental problem is HABITAT DESTRUCTION, maybe we'll quit destroying natural habitat to grow fake fuel........
Agree.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 18, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The global warmists are selling us false information, the idea that ethanol saves the climate is pure hoax.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 18, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

They didn't include the CO2 produced because it is suppose to be ofset by thye co2 absorbed when the sugarcane grows while ignoring the co2 generated by farming equiptment and trucks used to grow, harvest, and transport it to the plant.
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 18, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The search for a clean burn fuel to power personal transportation continues.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 18, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Listen, when something is cheap and plentiful, when lots of people use it all the time, then it's green. CO2 makes the planet green. CO2 puts the green back on the land.
frank miller

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 18, 2009
 
I think that the original concept for ethanol
was as a gasoline fuel oxygenating replacement
for MTBE.[Hydration of ethylene gas feedstocks
have for a very long time served to make both industrial solvent, and denatured ethyl alcohol
for fragrances, ie.SD 40!] Corn derived renewable
fuel source became a boom, and bust for many American distillers, until 2008 when futures
locked in at around $8.35/bushell, but mainly because of maize food increases outcries, the price of corn went back down to about $3/bushell
before the time to redeem the anticipated rise
above ~$8.35, as gasoline was climbing to >$4.75
a gallon {derived from a 42 gallons barrel of oil at $144!} Big multi billion dollars loss to forced to close U.S. distillers
Now we have been importing ethanol, for both I
think E-85 flex-fuel, and MTBE substitute from Brazil, thus negating the original idea of independence from foreign oil!
It would make sense to convert ethylene to ethanol on site of gasoline oil fractionation
plants, for the oxygenating portion, thus redu-cing Brazil's cutting of Rainforests to grow sugar cane, for E-85 flex fuels!?
F.M.


Raptor in Michigan

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 18, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:
They didn't include the CO2 produced because it is suppose to be ofset by thye co2 absorbed when the sugarcane grows while ignoring the co2 generated by farming equiptment and trucks used to grow, harvest, and transport it to the plant.
They don't mention the countless wildlife species that are killed and displaced by the destruction of the natural habitat to grow these fuel sources. They don't care about the fawns and nesting birds that are mangled and killed by the harvesting of these fuel sources. They don't have a clue that there is less than 4% remaining of the original tallgrass prairie in the Midwest. With the prairie went many of the plants and wild creatures it supported. ANWR awaits.
http://www.nps.gov/tapr/index.htm

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 18, 2009
 
Raptor in Michigan wrote:
They don't mention the countless wildlife species that are killed and displaced by the destruction of the natural habitat to grow these fuel sources...
They don't appreciate the futility of committing their economy to this folly. When food crops compete for water with biofuel, people don't have clean water. When food crops price inflation cause starvation, its social injustice, not stupid energy policy. The root cause is energy conservation. Energy conservation is a wonderful private value and a hideous failure as an economic policy.

It's this bizarre little bit of common sense, this question, which fuel is better?

Since: Aug 08

Granite Falls, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Raptor in Michigan wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't mention the countless wildlife species that are killed and displaced by the destruction of the natural habitat to grow these fuel sources.
I've always mentioned the negative affects of ethanol, even in websites before I came to Topix. I often was the lead critic of ethanol on some sites. But you already know that. But you have to make a blanket statement against AGW advocates.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 19, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It taints your policy, like your rejection of nuclear power. There is low carbon, and then there is B.S. like wind, tidal and solar. There is real and imaginary. There is cheap and boutique. You go buy whatever you want, but adding taxes to coal, oil and natural gas is dumb. Higher energy prices mean worse economy. This isn't rocket science, I vote against dumb ideas.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 19, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I've always mentioned the negative affects of ethanol, even in websites before I came to Topix. I often was the lead critic of ethanol on some sites. But you already know that. But you have to make a blanket statement against AGW advocates.
He hasn't been here as long as some of us and to know that is one of the few areas that you and I agree on. I thought the whole idea of biofuels was stupid and they had no clue what the other uses were for the materials they wanted to convert into biofuels.
Raptor in Michigan

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 19, 2009
 
Brian_G wrote:
It taints your policy, like your rejection of nuclear power. There is low carbon, and then there is B.S. like wind, tidal and solar. There is real and imaginary. There is cheap and boutique. You go buy whatever you want, but adding taxes to coal, oil and natural gas is dumb. Higher energy prices mean worse economy. This isn't rocket science, I vote against dumb ideas.
Higher energy prices don't increase the amount of energy we have. It only hurts the poor and middle class who are already struggling. Most people already conserve as much as they can. My coworker, a single mother with two jobs, keeps her thermostat at 58 in the winter. No one should be forced to live like that by a government that is supposed to be for the people.
Raptor in Michigan

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 19, 2009
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't appreciate the futility of committing their economy to this folly. When food crops compete for water with biofuel, people don't have clean water. When food crops price inflation cause starvation, its social injustice, not stupid energy policy. The root cause is energy conservation. Energy conservation is a wonderful private value and a hideous failure as an economic policy.
It's this bizarre little bit of common sense, this question, which fuel is better?
I'll stick with the reliable and abundant sources like oil and natural gas. Nuclear is clean.
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 20, 2009
 
Raptor in Michigan wrote:
Higher energy prices don't increase the amount of energy we have. It only hurts the poor and middle class who are already struggling. Most people already conserve as much as they can. My coworker, a single mother with two jobs, keeps her thermostat at 58 in the winter. No one should be forced to live like that by a government that is supposed to be for the people.
Really poor people don't have thermostats, so they probably won't notice the higher prices, they'll simply continue to struggle to keep warm in winter.
The first time I lived in a house that had one was in 1985, when I was 44.
Raptor in Michigan

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 20, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>Really poor people don't have thermostats, so they probably won't notice the higher prices, they'll simply continue to struggle to keep warm in winter.
The first time I lived in a house that had one was in 1985, when I was 44.
One thing about America. Even the poorest among us have homes, cars that run, TV's, microwaves, comfortable beds, warm running water, shoes, etc...
Some even smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.
Earthling

Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 20, 2009
 
Raptor in Michigan wrote:
One thing about America. Even the poorest among us have homes, cars that run, TV's, microwaves, comfortable beds, warm running water, shoes, etc...
Some even smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.
Maybe you should check how the really poor live in your country.
In LA county alone, there are 82,000 homeless, but that's OK, you're a long way from there, so it doesn't affect you.

NB: "Homeless" means, no car, no home, no tv, no microwave, no comfortable bed, no warm running water and no, "thermostat" either.

Don't worry, the birds need you more than they do.
Raptor in Michigan

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 20, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you should check how the really poor live in your country.
In LA county alone, there are 82,000 homeless, but that's OK, you're a long way from there, so it doesn't affect you.
NB: "Homeless" means, no car, no home, no tv, no microwave, no comfortable bed, no warm running water and no, "thermostat" either.
Don't worry, the birds need you more than they do.
The TRULY poor and homeless have other options. There are shelters and soup kitchens and churches, Salvation Army, etc.. And then there are those that 'choose' to be poor or homeless- like my brother. At 50 he still refuses to work. He thinks no one should ever tell him what to do, and he hates getting up early, so he won't get a job. He lives out of his car... by choice. When he does come across any money it all goes for gambling, cigarettes and alcohol. He is capable of working, but won't. Also claims he never wants a house because he "doesn't want any responsibility." Feel free to send him some of your money. He'll love you for it, and come back for more...often.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 20, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you should check how the really poor live in your country.
In LA county alone, there are 82,000 homeless, but that's OK, you're a long way from there, so it doesn't affect you.
NB: "Homeless" means, no car, no home, no tv, no microwave, no comfortable bed, no warm running water and no, "thermostat" either.
Don't worry, the birds need you more than they do.
Until recently nearly every homeless in the US had issues that kept them where they were. Even then there is help. Shelters and the like. People who work hard to try and get them off the streets. You actually had to work at being homeless in the US because there are so many working to end it.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 23, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Let's all listen to President Obama discuss climate catastrophe while one out of ten workers is out of a job. Let's see if he can help our own economy, before we go to work on the world's climate.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

5 Users are viewing the Alternative Energy Forum right now

Search the Alternative Energy Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nuclear Energy (Dec '13) 2 hr SpaceBlues 256
MID considers customer ATMs, solar rebates, sto... 19 hr Riverbank resident 1
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) Tue SoE 26,942
Plans for A 80m biomass plant at for MOD site a... Tue Lyn Bleakley 1
City of Columbus Dedicates CNG Station Mon Big Johnson 2
A roundup of recent Michigan newspaper editorials Mon Solarman 1
Two wind farms now on hold Jul 19 Joe Jared 21
•••
•••