Author Topic: Ethanol Production causes harms the environment! (Read 1938 times)

RTHolmes · « **Reply #60 on:** February 11, 2008, 03:19:17 PM »

biggest problem with biofuels and the reason why they cant replace fossil fuels is that we need that land for food production. great if we can get some fuel out of food by-product but this notion of planting to power vehicles, national grids etc is just nuts.

I mean I like the idea of using biomass for energy, plastics, textlies, building materials etc but we would need a global population of less than a billion to make it feasable. the solution is unclear. or at least its anagram

gunslinger ive got a feeling our posts are related...

Angus · « **Reply #61 on:** February 11, 2008, 03:45:06 PM »

Something will either REPLACE fossil fuels, or NOT. Because the resource is counting down.
And Holmes, while you mention the required land for biofuel, the EU has untill recently been paying cash for NOT using land at all (up to 10%) as well as the USA (AFAIK) still doing so today.

Anyway, for Casca:
I am happy to meet someone here that is into growing. REALLY!!!
There is definately quite some difference between our areas and what we grow. So,- there are things to learn, - from each other!
(BTW I have been involved in agriculture in Europe as well, and already the the difference is quite a bit).
Your problems would definately be more related to insects etc, while ours are more to the shorts windows of proper seasons as well as some impressive metreological abnormalities, noteably in the last years.
(hehe, last weekend we had wind gusts up to 266 KNOTS in the country!!!)
Anyway, nice to correspond with somebody with some knowledge!

john9001 · « **Reply #62 on:** February 11, 2008, 04:16:13 PM »

Angus, i planted 1000 sq ft garden last year, does that count?

Sixpence · « **Reply #63 on:** February 11, 2008, 04:29:08 PM »

So If I grow a crop for four months on 10 acres, chop it down and grow another four months, then chop it down and grow another 4 months and chop it down, in ten years I prevent 300 acres from producing oxygen or food?

With fuzzy math like that in several generations on ten acres we'll cut half the country's oxygen supply and food.

rpm · « **Reply #64 on:** February 11, 2008, 06:43:44 PM »

Again, we need to switch from corn to switchgrass as the primary source for ethanol. Another tidbit, the corn used for ethanol is completely different from the corn used for foodstuffs. The rising cost of food is directly tied to the rise in fuel prices. That stuff don't just magicly appear at the Piggly Wiggly.

Maverick · « **Reply #65 on:** February 11, 2008, 09:41:07 PM »

Uh you might want to check on that corn thing again. Even if all the corn ethanol is from feed corn, that means other corn would be diverted from human consumption corn to make up the feed shortfall. Hence the higher prices for corn used for human consumption as well as feed. That means any and everything related to the use of corn then also rises in price and that has already happened.

Angus · « **Reply #66 on:** February 12, 2008, 02:23:24 AM »

Increased food prices are the result of 2 things. One is the increased demand for land due to alternative fuel production. Second is the increased demand for meat, milk etc by big nations such as in Asia.
And John, did you plant or turf? I am planting 10.000.000 sq.ft. this spring

(It turns to turf, which gets cut and will in the future cover land that is barren today)

lazs2 · « **Reply #67 on:** February 12, 2008, 08:21:26 AM »

last year.. angus and beetle were telling me I was being selfish for not getting on the ethanol bandwagon.. that I didn't want it for my hot rods.

I explained that I would use it in my hot rods to make even more horsepower soooo bring it on.. they hated that answer cause it's no fun to be pious if you can't force people to suffer.

Now.. it seems that "do something right now" has turned into yet another nightmare...

Science magazine just said that we will waste 500 billion bucks on ethanol. that it causes more harm than good.

I guess some "scientist" got it wrong last year eh?

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #68 on:** February 12, 2008, 08:34:36 AM »

Call it scientistic Lazs, but one day, mankind will run out of fossil fuel.
Then call it silly to struggle for other alternatives.
Then call it smart to substitize land for NOT being used while it can be used to produce fuel....

And...you can get horsepowers for biofuel-cocktails...oh yeah...
(And with biofuel around on the market it's going to be longer time before you run out of fossil fuel...or rather your grand-children.)

lazs2 · « **Reply #69 on:** February 12, 2008, 08:48:18 AM »

name one thing we have run out of.

lazs

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #70 on:** February 12, 2008, 10:14:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
name one thing we have run out of.

lazs

Oil made from whales?

Angus · « **Reply #71 on:** February 12, 2008, 10:52:39 AM »

This...we ran out of......

The thumb rule is that we will run out of just about anything if exploitation is not countered. So, mankind still is in the poddle of records being set of running out of many things as fast as possible.
This applies to hunting, fishing, mining, forests, and now partially agriculture.
Oil made from whales?...hmmm, not so much no more, but there are still some whales about.
Cod in the North sea for fish & chips? Nope, almost extinct, so better go shop from the cocky Icelanders who practically waged war to preserve their cod.....funny isn't it.
Easy prey+fast money normally means you're going to "run out" to the extent of the goods being too rare to be useable in industries.

So, Mr. Lazs, how long do you think we can keep the pace with deforestation and current consumption of fossil fuels? Which one is going to cause trouble or run out first? Will it be anything of the same period as i.e. since the industrial revolution? Will we be running on fossile fuels in 150 years as today?

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #72 on:** February 12, 2008, 11:39:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
As stated earlier corn is a very poor crop to make ethanol from. You can thank Archer-Daniels-Midland for corn based ethanol

You can also thank them for the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported Ethanol, and the 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit for US producers.

That's right. US Ethanol blenders get a 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit for domestic production. And people wonder why the approval rating of Congress is so low.

JB73 · « **Reply #73 on:** February 12, 2008, 11:40:29 AM »

I was a manager at a gas station here in WI when the EPA mandated 10% ethanol in gas for the 5 counties around Milwaukee.

it made a HUGE difference in mileage in cars, and wear and tear on lawn mowers and the like.

local mechanics have shown how the ethanol damages fuel injectors corroding the thin lining on the wires leading to tons of fuel injector replacements.

there also have been studies and reports (maybe someone here can find them) that cars made after 1989 IIRC do not show any reduction in emissions as they burn more fuel with the lost mileage. (cars older than that have a different emission system and show a small reduction in gasses and that was the reasoning for switching to mandated 10% ethanol here).

Gotta love how the EPA can just mandate something harmful to our cars, with no gain based on an assumption, and no real hard data.

Bodhi · « **Reply #74 on:** February 12, 2008, 11:53:00 AM »

I see the biggest problem being that all these eggheads scream for the world to start using ethanol and it will save the planet, and they haven't got the science to back it up.

It's just like the theory of man made global climate change. It's a theory that is not proven. So stop trying to act like it is.