Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Myths of Ethanol

I've made it well known here before that I'm no fan of ethanol, especially when it comes from corn. Here's another short and sweet slam of corn based ethanol by John Stossel.

I see 1988 Libertarian Party of California gubernatorial candidate, Richard Rider, posted a comment in the comments section.

17 Comments:

At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't trust anything John Stossel says.

 
At 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But you will trust the #1 idiot in America,Al Bore. It takes more energy to make ethanol than any reward derived from it. But,hey you're happy with your head in the sand as long as you can feel superior to any republican. Great logic.

 
At 7:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Stossel is not a Republican. He's a libertarian and 7:35 needs to present facts. We're waiting.

 
At 8:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone familiar with John Stossel knows what I'm talking about. Those are my "facts." He's not producing journalism IMHO.

If I wanted to discredit an issue, say ethanol, I wouldn't want Stossel involved because he would do more damage than good. If you want negative opinion about Stossel, use Google. There's no shortage of people who think he's a buffoon.

 
At 8:25 PM, Blogger Fred said...

"There's no shortage of people who think he's [Stossel is] a buffoon."

Simply because he goes public with a non- politically correct take on the issues.

Better to listen to Algore, or Michael Moore instead. Right?

 
At 9:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

we shouldnt monocrop america....we grow too much corn here already...its a heavy feeder and it uses alot of pesticides.....we have sun,wind and water...why would we grow, process and refine corn when we can more direct energy sources?

 
At 7:00 AM, Blogger Pogo said...

8:00PM: "Anyone familiar with John Stossel knows what I'm talking about."

Wow! That's some incisive and hard hitting argument. Translation from leftspeak to English(?): "We don't need no steeengking facts!"

 
At 8:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

uh..yeah..i really hate that Al Gore guy and Michael Moore too!..I mean, they make me sooo mad! Always doin stuff like giving a damn about the future and environment and trying to expose our fine, fair, and just medical industry! grrr!

 
At 3:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Stossel rarely does a piece without a glaring agenda beneath it, and it's true he will disregard facts or misrepresent them to suit his purposes. He's more guilty of this than almost any other network "journalist" out there.

That said, I didn't see anything in this piece I disagree with. Perhaps it could have been produced with a bit more objectivity, but then look who did it.

I've spent most of my life exploring alternative energy resources. I am a very strong advocate of solar. With the new larger, slower turning turbines, I'm generally OK with wind, as long as the siting is appropriate and measures are in place to mitigate its impact on wildlife. Even though I'm a surfer, I have no problem with ocean power and think we should persue it. I understand too well the barriers to implementation of hydrogen but believe in time we can overcome them if we keep working on it.

But biofuels? Nah. I can't get on that wagon. Sure, it's fine for a few hippies here and there to drive around in their french fry mobiles, but there are already markets for that used oil and all we're doing is displacing the demand back onto petroleum products. Growing crops for fuel? That's just plain stupid. I don't know that I believe the claim that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get out of it -- that's probably overstating the case -- but I do believe it's true that it's not nor can it be economic without subsidies. Beyond that, the one thing nobody ever seems to consider in this argument is that SOIL is NOT a renewable resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. And folks, it's going, a lot faster than you might think. It's estimated that 4.5 billion tons per year are lost in the US (http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/se4.html#B5). A small part of that is due to wind and so it's conceivable that it might settle downwind someplace useful, but the vast majority of it is carried off by water, into major waterways that are negatively impacted by it, and ultimately it ends up in the oceans. In my view, this is the single largest impact of the way we do commercial agriculture in America, and it's almost completely ignored.

In order to grow enough biomass, be it corn or whatever, to displace a significant part of our fossil fuel consumption, would require an almost inconceivable quantity of new ground to be put into cultivation. The whole idea is one great big boondoggle, with Archer Daniels Midland at the receiving end of the billions of dollars this foolish lesson is going to cost us.

And there's probably not a damn thing we can do to stop it, now that that idiot John Stossel is on the right side of the issue. ;-)

 
At 6:14 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

3:49 PM: "...the one thing nobody ever seems to consider in this argument is that SOIL is NOT a renewable resource. Once it's gone, it's gone. And folks, it's going, a lot faster than you might think. It's estimated that 4.5 billion tons per year are lost..."

Maybe 3:49 skipped his physics 101 lecture on the Lavosier physical law on the conservation of matter. He is, however right on the biomass issue. If the environazis would relent on the production of nuclear and fossil energy we would have the necessary time to develop economical renewable energy sources.

 
At 6:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To paraphrase Mark Twain: Gasoline is for fightin'(in Iraq) over, ethanol is for drinkin'..

 
At 9:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:14: "Maybe 3:49 skipped his physics 101 lecture on the Lavosier physical law on the conservation of matter. "

Looking back, it seems I was pretty clear that what I meant by GONE is that it goes someplace else, not implying that it ceases to exist. But everybody is real impressed that you know a French word.

 
At 5:06 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

3:49 PM/9:00PM: We would be equally impressed if you would understand that soil is constantly being generated naturally by the decay of plant material (geology 101) but you may have missed that lecture as well.

 
At 5:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see no silver lining to corn-based ethanol, either. However, what do you suggest the car industry does -- see page two of: http://thenewsroom.com/details/380406?c_id=je -- as it continues to build E85 supportive cars by the millions? What happens to these car manufacturers if corn-based ethanol goes defunct?

 
At 6:42 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

5:36 PM: "What happens to these car manufacturers if corn-based ethanol goes defunct?"

Answer: They take a hit financially or the taxpayer bails them out. That is why Big Business is in the rent seeking business and is mostly on board with the warmistas and other enviro wackos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

 
At 6:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:51 am give it a rest. You're not that cool and your two goofball hero's aren't looking out for anyone but themselves. Moore and Gore what a bore.

 
At 8:53 PM, Anonymous deacon mushrat said...

"Warmistas"?

Is Zorba referring to scientists?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home