-> Old Fart.
Regarding the harm of ethanol.
There are studies that show that at best you can hope to break even when considering the oil used to produce ethanol compared to the oil not used because of ethanol. Even Al Gore admits that much in the article. The worst case scenario is that it actually uses more oil to produce than what it replaces. In that case instead of reducing our dependency on foreign oil, it actually increases it.
Ethanol has less energy than gas. To do the same thing, you have to use more. The power output is also affected, its physics not an opinion. I found out about the use of ethanol in our gas because I was doing some long term mpg testing of one of my cars.
All of a sudden there was a drop in gas mileage and a noticeable loss of power.
All cars are different, compare the mpg you get from pure gas and ethanol blend see how much more blended gas you have to buy vs the price of pure gas and you know what you want, with performance a bonus.
The ethanol production currently uses more than 40% of total corn production and will get worse. If anybody thinks it does not affect food prices, he needs to consider the uses of corn as food, livestock feed, corn syrup, fructose and many other uses. It is everywhere, and all are affected by the diversion of so much corn to be burned.
What is the upside?
Corporations and lobbyists getting richer off our tax dollars?
MHO.
Michael Wang, a scientist at the Energy Dept.-funded Argonne National Laboratory for Transportation Research, says "The energy used for each unit of ethanol produced has been reduced by about half [since 1980]." Now, Wang says, the delivery of 1 million British thermal units (BTUs) of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels. (That does not include the solar energy -- the sun shining -- used in growing corn.) By contrast, he finds that the delivery of 1 million BTUs of gasoline requires 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels.
Enter your email address to join: