Ethanol IS bad for your engines

[anchorclanker]

That sweet corn that "we" eat is only 1% of the corn that is produced.

I disagree. Until the production of Ethanol began, most all corn produced was for food, nearly 100% of it, either to eat directly as corn on the cob or cut corn, indirectly in the form of oils, flours, meal and syrups, or as feed for the animals we in turn eat, or in the case of dairy cows, for the milk we drink. Corn was and always has been food.

Taking 35% of national corn production and earmarking it for ethanol production, bypassing grain elevators entirely and taking it directly from the farm to ethanol plants, is shorting the food supply downstream. There is simply no way to conclude otherwise.

 

[anchorclanker]

Sorry you couldn't figure it out.. of the thousands of results returned, only a handful are things such as the original cover letter for the request and some internal documents.. the vast majority are public comments, both named and anonymous, and many are really pretty interesting.. some kind of funny.

Cheers,
Brad

Are you talking about public comments by regular Joe Citizens, or just public comments made by the people involved, officials, supposed experts etc.. I can see lots of comments between office and inter office, etc., but I didnt see anything like letters presented by the public at large. But again, I didnt take a lot of time to dig through it.

 

[MrUnix]

Dude, I have no idea what you are looking at.. but the very first page of results have 23 (out of 25 per page) comments submitted by "regular Joe Citizens".. and the 500+ other pages are similar. Of those first 23 comments, 9 are from 'anonymous' submitters and the remainder are from people who actually gave their name. Maybe you should just request the printed version

As for 100% corn for human consumption?!? According to the National Corn Growers Association, corn grown for grain accounts for almost one quarter of the harvested crop acres in this country (FY2000 figures). Corn grown for silage accounts for about two percent of the total harvested cropland or about 6 million acres. About 12% of the U.S. corn crop ends up in foods that are either consumed directly (e.g. corn chips) or indirectly (e.g. high fructose corn syrup). The rest is as you say, is fed to livestock, poultry and fish, but not all of those are for human consumption and a lot of it goes overseas; 55% of the corn grown in Iowa, the largest producer of corn in the U.S. is shipped overseas. I think you might be overestimating the impact that ethanol has on corn crops, but I do agree with you that other renewable alternative fuels are much better suited (such as methane) and ethanol should not be made from food sources.

Cheers,
Brad

 

[robertsapp]

For those attempting to point blame where none exists, it should be noted that this was the result of "Growth Energy" and 54 other ethanol producers who petitioned the EPA to allow the introduction of E15. The first paragraph of the executive summery (Federal Register Volume 75-68095 November 4, 2010):

Quote:
I. Executive Summary
In March 2009, Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``The Agency'') to allow the introduction into commerce of up to 15 volume percent (vol%) ethanol in gasoline. In April 2009, EPA sought public comment on the Growth Energy petition and subsequently received about 78,000 comments. Prior to today's action, ethanol was limited to 10 vol% in motor vehicle gasoline (E10).

​

Cheers,
Brad

The blame is squarely on the shoulders of the Government for passing legislation mandating the use of certain volumes of renewable fuels (sometimes even imaginary, non-existent renewable fuels), and that blame most decidely does exist. I don't blame the ethanol producers, they're just responding to the artificial market distortion introduced by the government. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said all motor fuel must contain 10% maple syrup, it's not the maple syrup producers who are at fault when they ramp up production to meet the mandate and make a buck, it's the Government's for passing a stupid law.

The underlying problem is the Government's hubris at thinking that a handful of bureaucrats know better than the outcome of millions of individual economic decisions made everyday by consumers in a free market. If ethanol was such a great thing, people would be demanding it and the market would respond. For example, you're seeing real market forces at work in the power generation industry for the moment (but I fully expect the government to muck that up to.) The Government's solution to lowering CO2 emissions (which is pointless, but that's for another discussion) was Cap and Trade legislation and carbon taxes. Fortunately sanity prevailed and they failed to pass. But the predicted disaster didn't occur. Instead, CO2 emissions are down 20%, due solely to the market's move to cheaper, cleaner natural gas and away from more expensive coal. The government didn't predict that, didn't see it coming, didn't want it to happen, and in fact has fought the fracking technology that has made it possible. But people will gladly accept cleaner energy if it's cheaper. Free markets work. Mandating a four gallon minimum purchase is not freedom, it's a market distortion bandaid to treat a self-inflicted wound.

If only they could learn from that and get the hell out of our fuel tanks. But I have infinite confidence in the Government's inability to recognize a good thing if it reduces their control over our lives or their power over the market.

And remember, the UN (the UN!) has asked us to stop turning corn into fuel. Because even they can see how stupid it is, which obviously means it's stupidity of epic, biblical proportion, because it's hard to conceive of a purer form of stupidity than that embodied in the UN. Which does things like put Libya in charge of the human rights commission, Saudia Arabia in charge of overseeing women's rights, etc. etc.

 

[kenn]

The blame is squarely on the shoulders of the Government for passing legislation mandating the use of certain volumes of renewable fuels (sometimes even imaginary, non-existent renewable fuels), and that blame most decidely does exist. I don't blame the ethanol producers, they're just responding to the artificial market distortion introduced by the government. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said all motor fuel must contain 10% maple syrup, it's not the maple syrup producers who are at fault when they ramp up production to meet the mandate and make a buck, it's the Government's for passing a stupid law.

You've got the cart before the horse. Pretending that giant corporations and industry groups are merely responding to a capricious government, and not exerting massive pressure through campaign financing and lobbying is simply naive.

 

[Gunni]

Thanks Robert, in my misinformed ignorance of the sinister ties between the United Nations and EPA sleeper agents, I had completely missed the Muamar Ghaddafi connection, and the Maple Syrup syndicate! Good grief, we're so screwed. I salute your resolve, and insightful efforts to resist Government Control of our lives, and our outboards. As my deckhand Glenn says, a fish rots from the head. I am sure you would agree. Coincidentally, he shares your many concerns and fears, and has taken action. Glennie protects his head (and contents) from Government Control with an aluminum bicorne. It takes a nice nod to traditional battle gear, and (he claims) shields the mind from electromagnetic control. It definitely provides UV radiation protections! You should add on to your kit - before it is too late.
Yours in the Struggle,
Gunni

Bosun Glenn, Freeman
​

 

[robertsapp]

Thanks Robert, in my misinformed ignorance of the sinister ties between the United Nations and EPA sleeper agents, I had completely missed the Muamar Ghaddafi connection, and the Maple Syrup syndicate! Good grief, we're so screwed. I salute your resolve, and insightful efforts to resist Government Control of our lives, and our outboards. As my deckhand Glenn says, a fish rots from the head. I am sure you would agree. Coincidentally, he shares your many concerns and fears, and has taken action. Glennie protects his head (and contents) from Government Control with an aluminum bicorne. It takes a nice nod to traditional battle gear, and (he claims) shields the mind from electromagnetic control. It definitely provides UV radiation protections! You should add on to your kit - before it is too late.
Yours in the Struggle,
Gunni

Bosun Glenn, Freeman​

Snark and ridicule is a tool employed by the weak minded who find themselves with neither the facts nor logic on their side. If you can't attack the message, show the moral superiority of your position by attacking the messenger, as they say. Sorry dude, but I spent a lot of years in the US Navy riding submarines, where snark and put downs have been elevated to the highest form of art, and they're relentless, because you can't escape. On your best day you'd never elevate my blood pressure a single point, nor deter me in the slightest from participating in a heated discussion, which I do so love. So how about you guess where I think you should put your tinfoil hat (which is quite becoming, I must say) and explain how ethanol is our salvation if that's what you feel, or maybe reveal the sense behind driving the price of fuel up by assessing fines against refiners for failing to include non-existant fairy dust (umm, I mean cellulosic ethanol) in our fuel supply. OK, friend?

 

[robertsapp]

You've got the cart before the horse. Pretending that giant corporations and industry groups are merely responding to a capricious government, and not exerting massive pressure through campaign financing and lobbying is simply naive.

Way back in the 20th Century when I was a young lad in college, I often whined, begged, pleaded, attempted to cajole and even sometimes bribe my professors into giving me better grades. I was a student - it was expected. If they had acquiesced and inflated my grades, would that mean it was my fault and not theirs? Because they were the only ones who had the power to effect that change.

The biggest, scariest, most evil and sinister corporate capitalistic exploiter of the masses in the country can't pass a single law nor enforce even one mandate. That's solely on the shoulders of Government. A Government that I naively believe should actually act in the country's best interests. Which ethanol mandates do not. Because it's destroying our engines and diminshing our standard of living through higher fuel and food prices, to achieve completely imaginary gains.

 

[RECESS]

Checks top of page



I was thinking I mistakenly clicked on the War Room.

That place scares me a little.

 

[robertsapp]

Yeah, it's not the first time I've gotten a bit carried away and cleared a room. I do so love a good argument though. And I happen to believe that strong minded people of good will should be able to engage in heated discussion, and still maintain respect for each other and have a beer together afterwards. It's when it gets personal that I lose patience.

Speaking of beer - now THERE'S a good use of ethanol if ever there was one. On that I hope we can all agree.

 

[thinwater]

The statement that we eat only a small percentage of the corn crop dirrectly as "sweet corn" is misinformation pushed by ethanol interests.

a. Feilds not used for ethanol corn production would be used for some alternative food crop. Obviously.
b. The corn that is eaten by most of the world is NOT sweet corn, but rather other more heat tolerant varieties that are ground to tortia meal etc. Meal is far more versitile, transportable, and keeps better. Obviously.

So yes, I think subsidizing corn for ethanol is little short of a crime by wealthy corportations (and sutpid politicians) against 3rd world food markets. These people can't aford more expensive food, but we can buy hybrid SUVs as a cocktail party conversation piece.

---------------------

I don't like e10 in my boat, but I've learned to live with it. It is the food issue that burns me.