Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:40 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: How the RFS is Benefiting our Economy, Consumers and the Environment Back to Topics
gamechanger2011

Champion Author
Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,590
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 12, 2013 4:07:59 PM



"After the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) testimony last week before the House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), it is clear the organization continues to display a fundamental disconnect in understanding basic proven facts.
There are so many misnomers and fallacies in today’s Politico piece that we don’t know where to begin. If the EWG cared about farmers, American consumers, and our environment – as they claim to – the organization would step up from behind the myriad of lies spun by Big Oil and recognize the value, and truth, behind American ethanol."
How the RFS is Benefiting our Economy, Consumers and the Environment
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Sugarshaneo7
Veteran Author Michigan

Posts:374
Points:72,470
Joined:Nov 2011
Message Posted: Jul 4, 2014 4:59:41 PM

awesome
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 19, 2013 8:44:39 AM

See you make entire leaps of faith and take the data I present and make it fit your story.

"I spend much time in Iowa and this topic has never come up at the dinner table. You just said 72% use ethanol bended fuel. That a majority who make an effort to use fuel containing ethanol."

No I did not say 72% use ethanol blend. I said 28% used clear 87. I said nothing about those who use premium without ethanol of which there is a suprisingly large number considering that overall so few use premium. You are twisting words.

"On the other hand, you can not assume the remaining 28% prefer non ethanol fuel. Many people couldn't care less what they put in their tank and grab the first hose on the left to fill their car."

Based on the fact that clear 87 costs anywhere from 10 to 15 cents more per gallon at the pump then I cannot and do not accept you premise that people could care less what they put in their car. I would contend that you are once again making assumptions to force reality to fit your explaination of the world when your logic is counter intuitive. I would say based on survey data, market research and the information I see the 28% choose ethanol free gas because that's what they want to buy. I would say that almost 85% of those buying 89 octane E-10 buy it because it is the cheapest gas at the pump in this area. The remaining buyers 15% of the previously assumed 72% and maybe 1% of the premium buyers are the ones who actually buy what they buy because of the ethanol. You can delude yourself all you want. Most consummers buy the cheapest fuel at the pump (excluding E-85) when they purchase fuel. It is a small and select group who actually seek high ethanol blends.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,175
Points:21,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 18, 2013 3:45:15 PM

" So yea markets vary and for the life of me I cannot understand why people in the middle of the corn belt are up in arms because they will not be able to buy ethanol free gas after September 15."

I spend much time in Iowa and this topic has never come up at the dinner table. You just said 72% use ethanol bended fuel. That a majority who make an effort to use fuel containing ethanol.

On the other hand, you can not assume the remaining 28% prefer non ethanol fuel. Many people couldn't care less what they put in their tank and grab the first hose on the left to fill their car. I make a dedicated effort to use E10 or E85 and find myself using the E0 nozzle by mistake. It's a small number that really give a rat's keister.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2013 9:24:08 PM

What I will never understand though is why in Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota and Iowa people absolutely demand that they can buy ethanol free gas. 28% of that market uses non ethanol blended clear 87 octane gasoline. That market area will convert to all E-10 in mid September and we have been threatened with lawsuits, protests and all sorts of things. So yea markets vary and for the life of me I cannot understand why people in the middle of the corn belt are up in arms because they will not be able to buy ethanol free gas after September 15. I have not been able to buy ethanol free gas in 5 years and I don't complain.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,590
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 17, 2013 5:43:21 PM

Well good for you Brerrabbitt. So you do realize that markets vary. It happens that in our part of the country, there are a lot of Flex trucks and SUV's and people using E85.

You do seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth at times. I have at times questioned whether there were more then one person posting for you. But maybe not!

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 8/17/2013 5:44:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 16, 2013 11:23:24 AM

"You need to take tomorrow off and go golf or something. You are sounding grumpy! We have plenty of ideas...you merely sit behind a desk at an oil company and push a pencil. Do not judge what you clearly do not know. We are doers....not just big talkers!"

Take some of your own advice. Thanks for telling me all I do is sit behind a desk and push a pencil. Actually I travel to my market areas frequently, and talk to our branded dealers and wholesalers in numerous regions of America. I see what happens based on the feedback I get from them. Interestingly enough everytime they tell me what is happening with customer preferences and sales, I go back to the office and see what is really happening. Yeah I may push computer keys (pencils sound so outdated) but those numbers are a lot of reality. I know what is selling, and what is not. We also have access to extensive market research in the form of surveys exit discussions, focus groups etc. We know what most people are thinking when it comes to fuel type, fuel quality, and fuel price.

As a result we react to the market and in so doing we sell E-85 along with other products. Yeah that's right a big oil company selling E-85. Who woulda thunk!

So while you acuse me of sitting behind a desk pushing a pencil I can honestly say that from that position I see so much more than you do. So much more than you think I do.

As far as my comment that lead to all this realistically take a step back and look at your posts, all of you guys. They are pretty much your way or the highway. There can be 0 discussion if the discussion in any way shape or form is critical of any form of ethanol. That is not realistic and you have to address certain shortfalls. You can't stick you fingers in your ear everytime someone is critical of ethanol. That's all I was trying to say but once again everyone gets ultra defensive.

Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,590
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 6:03:38 PM

BrerrabbittTx..."I would hope he would not want that since according to what he has written on these board that's what he does for a living. The point is and always has been the rhetoric on this board offers absolutely zero ideas and information on how things shift from today till tomorrow. Its all about how bad gas is and how wonderful ethanol is. Have any non interested third party read the posts here and I guareentee you that's what it sounds like ethanols complete victory or death, no comprimise!"

You need to take tomorrow off and go golf or something. You are sounding grumpy! We have plenty of ideas...you merely sit behind a desk at an oil company and push a pencil. Do not judge what you clearly do not know. We are doers....not just big talkers!


[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 8/15/2013 6:05:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 3:15:41 PM

brerrabbitTX, I don't think any ethanol advocates want all or nothing. My postings absolutely lash out at the industry, yes. But look at the propaganda machine that got all revved up when all they were trying to do was allow E-15 for sale and use....right? Nobody wanted to mandate E-15. I may have lost the ability to look at this entirely pragmatically but it's based on the actions of the industry, not all of what they do.

I see E-15 as misguided but feel compelled to defend the misinformation. I am not even for E-15 per se, just against its detractor's data and claims. Get the open fuel standard in place (the one that allows ALL internal combustions a full choice in liquid fuel blends), and dump the RFS if you want, who cares. Tell your peeps to allow a little competition for Pete's sake!

And I am serious, nobody wins in an all or nothing. I talk to alot of folks who believe blender pumps that start with pure gas are an excellent way to go...and by folks I mean ethanol advocates. They just want access and choices, not mandates or any scenario where one fuel is all we got to go to. Even if that were ethanol, that would not be good. This choice, IMO can be very pragmatic when stations blend E-85 from one tank and E-0 in another with a blender pump interface. Why are your industry against that. I assure you, not many ethanol advocates are against that.



[Edited by: Hannie59 at 8/15/2013 3:20:49 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 2:40:48 PM

"Look brer, this comment is not simply because I agree with gamechanger quite stronlgy. Gotta call you out on the claim that GC wants all oil production abolished."

I would hope he would not want that since according to what he has written on these board that's what he does for a living. The point is and always has been the rhetoric on this board offers absolutely zero ideas and information on how things shift from today till tomorrow. Its all about how bad gas is and how wonderful ethanol is. Have any non interested third party read the posts here and I guareentee you that's what it sounds like ethanols complete victory or death, no comprimise!

Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,175
Points:21,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 2:36:38 PM

"For someone to come to this board with any possible issue with ethanol usage is viewed as an attack on ethanol and the troops are rallied to defeat the interloper."

If the "issue" is illogical, false, or propaganda, I'm going to say something. For example: claiming nitrogen runoff from corn production causes the dead zones in the gulf Mexico. That is illogical.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 2:22:48 PM

Message heard. Ethanol and any possible consiquince of it's use is not germaine for discussion.

Ethanol nothing but happy thoughts, gas nothing but evil thoughts.

For someone to come to this board with any possible issue with ethanol usage is viewed as an attack on ethanol and the troops are rallied to defeat the interloper. At some point people other than those who work in the oil industry with no axe to grind are going to ask some logical questions that deserve consideration and you won't be able to chase them away by blaming everything on the Big Bad Oil comapnaies. Every choice made when discussing fueling choices has consiquinces, both known and unknown, and every choice has costs. Not discussing the unintended consiquinces and the real costs associated with something won't make them magically go away.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 2:05:20 PM

No, this is what is said in response to my very first post that said excess nitrogen runoff has increased the size and frequincy of Red Tides and that is something that is never discussed here, the negatives of corn based ethanol. I said nothing about oil spills, I never planned for a minute to even discuss them in the conversation. Ethanol defenders immediately turn to the defensive and said oil spills are worse! Thus seemingly dismissing any and all discussion of the tides, because oil spills are worse!

This has become the typical back and forth on this board. The link disses a Politico article that is full of what the original link calls lies. THe ethanol supporters (and most detractors as well) don't even bother to read the original Politico piece. They just look at the ethanol's side article taking the other one apart.

I on the other hand read all of them and concur the Politico piece makes some erronious claims but also makes some valid points. Points that are dismissed out of hand by ethanol supporters, and done so unfairly.

Anyone on this board who thinks there is only one right answer and it is either all ethanol or all gas, then you don't have a clue about what is going on around you.

I never wanted to talk about, compare and contrast, or choose the good and the bad of an oil spill vs a red tide. The ethanol supporters in an almost primitive protection response drag these things down the rabbit hole, them and shocky.
Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 12:20:13 PM

"Yes the BP spill pissed me off, but the Red Tides have been happening for a lot longer than the oil spills. ... So while I hate both one seems to happen more often than the other."

These are the kinds of comments that give the impression you are comparing oil spills with ag runoff, and even hinting that oil spills are comparatively not as bad. You wisely stepped back from this position in later posts.

Others, however, make these kinds of comparisons and never backtrack from them. The oil industry loves to do this. It benefits from this. And that's why the pro-biofuels advocates react strongly to these types of comments; because they are wildly misleading and people who don't know a lot about ethanol REPRODUCE the inaccuracies by word-of-mouth and spread the misinformation. Viral non-truths are difficult to stop and it seems the only hope for correcting them is to meet them strongly at the outset, which is perhaps what you're experiencing and why it seems to you that ethanol supporters are too distracted to have a nuanced conversation about the problems of agriculture in the midst of mudslinging contest started, funded, perpetuated and enjoyed by the oil industry.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,590
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 10:55:02 AM

brerrabbitt...you fail to read my posts about my support of second generation ethanol or you fail to acknowledge it. You obviously have an issue with the corn industry. Trying to put words in our mouths isn't going to change things.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 10:08:07 AM

All the algae blooms in the history of the world as we know it are not as bad as a single oil spill in terms of detriment.

It's like the kid with his face full of chocalate getting caught and pointing to their sibling and saying "But susie took an apple!"

Right on Soylent
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,175
Points:21,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 9:49:27 AM

" What I said and you have failed to read thus far is the tides are made worse, larger and longer lasting as a result of increased fertilizer usage in growing corn. That's it."

What you oblivious to is agriculture related nitrogen runoff is in check. Not only are farmers and landowners using cutting edged practices to minimize runoff, it's monitored by the DNR. Your claim isn't supported by logic.

Algae blooms and dead zones occur all over the world, even in areas with little or no agriculture production. You are buying into propaganda.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Aug 15, 2013 9:32:59 AM

Look brer, this comment is not simply because I agree with gamechanger quite stronlgy. Gotta call you out on the claim that GC wants all oil production abolished.

Ethanol is a phenomenal product that has been bullied something awful by your industry. None of us want it abolished, however. We want it to have to compete. We are tired of losing soldiers because of it. We are tired of it causing recessions. We are tired of it's cancer, emphysema and other lung diseases. Just tired! And we want competition. Fair competition, not a game of who has the most money and creates the loudest line of bull. Ethanol is the best shot at that at this point in time. Just make your decision to use it or not on actual facts, not the excuses you try to make for it nor the slanderous lies that many others put out.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 8/15/2013 9:36:18 AM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 10:03:59 PM

You know in the name of defense of ethanol and abolition of all oil products, you tend to not read what is written. I have conceded oil spills are bad and red tides occur virtually every year and in no way related any red tides to being solely caused by over fertilization of corn. What I said and you have failed to read thus far is the tides are made worse, larger and longer lasting as a result of increased fertilizer usage in growing corn. That's it. It is a negative relating to your precious corn based ethanol. I even pointed out that one of the linked articles even calls for growth of second generation ethanol in favor of corn based ethanol, but folks like your self are so intent on bashing everything oil and saying anything ethanol is great that you are willing to ignore any shortfalls or problems ethanol might have.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,590
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 6:48:39 PM

So what is causing the blooms in areas like San Diego...

Red Tide Could Persist for Weeks, Months

And New Zealand....

Harmful Algae: Red Tide

I'm not saying that algae blooms aren't bad....I'm just saying that I'm not sure that you can blame them on corn. I think it's more then a bit of a stretch!


[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 8/14/2013 6:50:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,175
Points:21,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 3:24:33 PM

"Not talking about soil erosion and silt problems here. Talking about increased nitrogen levels from the over fertilization of corn plantings causing the increased damage."

So was I. Nitrogen is a water soluble compound. Hold the water back, the nitrogen stays with it.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 2:49:49 PM

"In the old days we grew corn "organically". Ironically, this produced more runoff than the no-till practices of today. Since the 1970's farmers have utilized no-till practices and relandscaped their operations with tiled terraces, dams, and buffer zones in highly erodable areas. Overall acreage planted has generally been plus or minus 10& over the past 5 decades. Less is going into the streams and rivers, not more. Your accusations that corn is creating "dead zones" might be misguided."

Not talking about soil erosion and silt problems here. Talking about increased nitrogen levels from the over fertilization of corn plantings causing the increased damage.

gamechanger, I have seen all the facts about the oil spill, I am aware of what it has done, I am not for one minute diminishing the effect and the consiquinces. You on the other hand will not even address the issue I am raising. All you want to say is the oil spill is worse. Okay I cnceed it was worse. Now what is your answer to the fact that red tides are there every year and growing larger and more deadly every year and are being increased and fed by the increased corn crops in the Midwest that are grown to make ethanol? Is that okay. Is what you consider a lesser evil okay than a greater evil? The basis of much of the discussion here and on parralel threads is how the evil API and oil companies are blocking the use of renewables, when in fact one of the links actually points out a piece that questions the use and growth of corn ethanol in favor of second generation ethanol. I have no problem with ethanol use but at least lets be smart about it. Smarter than the iol companies you dislike so much.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,120
Points:2,792,880
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 2:33:10 PM

BP's oiled animals: Where are they now?
Mostly dead. But the good news is that the fish and shellfish can go straight into the pan. No need to add extra oil.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,732
Points:2,782,540
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 12:24:44 PM

BP Oil Spill, Two Years Later: Natural Recovery Far Greater Than Expected

"The fisheries have come back like gangbusters," he said. "One of the interesting findings was that after the oil spill, bait fish populations collapsed, and predator populations boomed. The reason was that there was no fishing pressure on the top predators because people stopped fishing after the spill. So the predator fish populations rebounded, and they grazed down their prey."

Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,590
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 11:35:37 AM

brerrabbit....you should watch a DVD called "The Big Fix." The solvents they were spraying sunk the crude to the bottom of the Gulf. I think that something like about 30% of the floor of the Gulf is covered with crude. It's suffocating everything! It would have been much better if they had skimmed it instead of sinking it. The truth isn't being told about what is really going on.

You can't compare the two. Go ahead and try to convince everybody. We live in a neighborhood with lakes. Last year there was a fish kill because there was an algae bloom from fertilizers draining into the lakes. The lake was restocked and is about back to normal. It will take over 100 years for the Gulf to recover from the BP spill....and you know it!

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 8/14/2013 11:37:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,175
Points:21,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 11:02:07 AM

" How many of your corn is green studies take into account the damages done to the Gulf fisheries? "

In the old days we grew corn "organically". Ironically, this produced more runoff than the no-till practices of today. Since the 1970's farmers have utilized no-till practices and relandscaped their operations with tiled terraces, dams, and buffer zones in highly erodable areas. Overall acreage planted has generally been plus or minus 10& over the past 5 decades. Less is going into the streams and rivers, not more. Your accusations that corn is creating "dead zones" might be misguided.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 14, 2013 8:38:59 AM

When was the las time you were on a Gulf Beach? I am there almost every weekend. From Texas all the way through Mississippi and yes bad things happened but honestly you cannot tell by just going there. The spill caused a lot of damage and BP has paid a lot of money to clean it up, I am not dismissing it in any way. However have you seen the effects of a red tide? It completely sucks the oxegen out of the water, coats the gills of all fish and crustations in it's wake and they all die. They then wash up on the beaches. Now the Red Tides happen every year and they have grown significantly as a result of the nitrogen coming from the Midwest corn fields to the Gulf of Mexico.

Yes oil spills are bad, but don't dismiss the effects of increase corn growth in the Midwest, because that has an effect on the economy of the Gulf Coast. Fisherman, Shrimpers, Crabbers etc. are losing a lot of money and the aqua culture industry is severely effected by the unintended consiquinces of increased corn growth. How many of your corn is green studies take into account the damages done to the Gulf fisheries?
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,590
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2013 9:34:54 PM

brerabbitt....one catastrophic OIL spill is all it took to destroy the Gulf. The really sad thing is that it didn't need to happen. I played on the pristine beaches of the panhandle as a small child with my parents and siblings. It rocks me to the core that the Gulf is ruined as I knew it as a child. I think that my great grand children and their grandchildren deserve to enjoy those beaches the way that I did as a child. The Bp spill is what really fueled the fire for me!

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 8/13/2013 9:35:43 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2013 8:01:09 PM

"Red tiding is a natural algae phenomenon which has been happening for 500+ years and is only accentuated by fertilizer ruunoff into the gulf. Nitrogen's contribution to red tides is not in question but to say that it's the cause of red tides and that it's equivalent to an oil spill is not fair."

However since the growth in the amount of corn harvested due to it's use in ethanol production the size and effects of the tides have grown dramatically. Certainly the effects of a catestrophic oil spill such as the BP spill is much worse but the number of, size of and frequency of the red tides since the increase of corn production is an annual event while we hope oil spills are less frequent. The Red Tide fed by nitrogen is an annual event.
Profile Pic
jacksfan
Champion Author Lincoln

Posts:2,572
Points:1,272,615
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2013 4:32:07 PM

"Twisting of statistics. 40% of the harvested corn crop was used to make ethanol in 2011..."

Speaking of misinformation ... no, wait, that's a bald-faced lie.
Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2013 4:26:15 PM

Red tiding is a natural algae phenomenon which has been happening for 500+ years and is only accentuated by fertilizer ruunoff into the gulf. Nitrogen's contribution to red tides is not in question but to say that it's the cause of red tides and that it's equivalent to an oil spill is not fair.

On top of that, biofuel research is exploring algae as a valuable resource, which means in time, the Karenia brevis blooms could be harvested as another renewable, solar-based resource.

Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2013 2:37:28 PM

Yes the BP spill pissed me off, but the Red Tides have been happening for a lot longer than the oil spills. They both make me mad. But the idea that ethanol is 100% green is not factual. I have seen what Red Tides are and can do. They happen every year without fail. I also know that most studies I have seen relate back to the use of nitrogen based fertilizers making their way from the midwest down the Mississippi to the Gulf. I also know that corn does not utilize fertilizer as well as other crops so the tendency is to use more which in turn leads to larger and more frequent Red Tides.

So while I hate both one seems to happen more often than the other.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,590
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2013 1:25:25 PM

BrerrabbittTX... "being a sports fisher on the Gulf Coast." Then the BP spill must have sickened you like it did the rest of us on here. There's a documentary called "The Big Fix" that shows the true destruction of that catastrophic spill. I spoke to marine biologist that said that it will take the Gulf over a 100 years to recover from the BP spill. It haws also drifted into the Atlantic ocean.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,732
Points:2,782,540
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2013 12:01:57 PM

"The increased use of gasoline blended with homegrown ethanol is reducing our dependence on foreign oil, helping offset imports from 60 percent in 2005 to 40 percent in 2012."

Misinformation...

The reduction in oil imports had far more to do with the increase in domestic oil production then the blending of ethanol into the supply...

"ethanol is also an energy efficient fuel, as it does not pollute the water and ecosystem like fracking and other irresponsible oil processes"

More misinformation...

Corn production pollutes the water and ecosystem, while fracking contributes relatively little since it's done so deep, deep underground, isolated away from the environment...

"And, American ethanol is saving consumers at the pump, lowering gas prices at a time when every penny counts."

Government mandated use of ethanol INCREASES gasoline prices, as oil companies are forced to buy expensive RIN's...

"Not only is the EWG blatantly ignoring factual evidence, they’re twisting around the truth about ethanol’s relationship to the corn crop. In 2011, only 17.5 percent of net corn acres are used for biofuels"

Twisting of statistics. 40% of the harvested corn crop was used to make ethanol in 2011...
Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2013 10:01:57 AM

The problems of ethanol are largely the problems of agriculture. They are tricky. I'm not a fan of monoculture. Planting a square mile of corn where there was once a functional ecosystem with thousands of species (animals, trees, plants) is disturbing to me.

That said, the expansion of the human species across the globe necessitates agriculture. The discussion about agriculture's problems is simultaneously (and implicitly) a conversation about population growth and ecology.

What I see is a gap in approach to agriculture. In a state like Minnesota, there are laws against plowing under wetlands, against installing drain tile in certain areas, against modifying water tables, and where you can spray, etc. The Minnesota DNR is very active in the farming community. So much so, that farmers often see the DNR as an adversary... a "NO" man. This pressure has forced farmers to ease off the throttle of agriculture and explore alternative ways to till their land in a more ecological way.

Inversely, in South Dakota, where farmers and ranchers run the show, the DNR is pretty much a no-show. Farmers are free to redirect rivers and streams as they see fit, drain lakes, divert cow poop into wetlands or plow them under entirely. They are free to pull out shelter belts without even a permit and spray as they please.

There are some regulatory things we can do to improve the downsides of agriculture. Unfortunately, the less-populated areas where farming takes place are also the nests of conservatism, and regulations are not well received there.

I also hope that future incarnations of agriculture will incorporate thoughts of polyculture design and less reliance on fertilizer.

Keep in mind that the present and future problems of agriculture will be problematic whether or not ethanol is in the picture.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 13, 2013 9:33:12 AM

I actually read the Politico article and it makes some interesting points. While some are certainly ones that will be disputed widely here some of the other points seem to make sense. It does not call for a complete walking away from ethanol but rather incentives to move towards more second generation ethanol production. It points out the fact that corn ethanol has some negative effects as well and that is a discussion that never takes place here. The over fertilization and the growing red tides each year a the Mississippi delta are something I have been aware of for some time being a sports fisher on the Gulf Coast. That is never discussed here. The fact that the use of a lot of previously unused farm land for corn crops increasing carbon emmisions was new to me and something I will be looking into.

While there is a lot that most posters here will disagree with there is also a lot of information that is worthy of discussion as well. I will not merely dismiss the information based on a response from the CEO of a renewable energy company anymore than I would dismiss the same type of information because the CEO of an oil company said it.
Post a reply Back to Topics