Ethanol - interesting new study

[BLUEKNIGHT911]

According to the " National Academy of Sciences " adding ethyl " to gas is a hugh environmental mis-take .... besides making gas more expensive, what the hugh amount of corn necessary to feed the industry has an enormous effect of the atmosphere..... and it's ALL bad. Producing all that corn uses a lot of fertilizer which can and does contaminate the water supply. It also gets into the atmosphere. ..... Hopefully this gets lots more attention and ends the use in gasoline ray:ray:ray:.......... google it .... Mike :thumbup:

 

[Little Blue]

Happy Farmers

:chat:.... The Farmers are making bigger dollars for their Corn. We have known the pitfalls of adding corn to gasoline for a long time.

Yes, it's time for us to make a big decision, but will we?
That is why we are seeing all of the EV. .....:dontknow:

 

[troop]

The benefits of pure gasoline have been known for years. But, I never see the ethanol subsidy's ending any time soon for American farmers..

 

[wyliec]

The original study was done by the USDA. Pretty obvious their leanings toward ethanol. Wonder how much data was fudged back then?

 

[BajaRon]

All of this has been known from the beginning. The same fudged numbers are being used for electric power. They only factor in the positive aspects. But if you look at the whole picture, we are much better off right were we are. At least for the present time. Like a used car salesman. They are telling us what they want us to hear. If you don't open the hood before you buy. You're going to get a lemon.

 

[Saluda]

Had read that, hope for some change. Hate ethanol !!!

 

[Schreckftw]

Weird, its almost like the tax breaks, import tariffs, and infrastructure subsidies including the latest $800 million one that provides relief to biofuel producers hit by the pandemic is keeping ethanol around!

I have a couple of stations around the house that are REC 90. I use that when I can just for the heck of it.

 

[ARtraveler]

I don't see ethanol going away. It has been politicized, and funded by the government. It makes the farmers happy. They can plant and sell more corn. Unfortunately, the environment gets kicked in the butt by everyone. We are now paying for it as time progresses. It is a no win situation, and everybody is right about what is going on. A PHD thesis could be written on the subject. But it's not for me. I am done going to college, have even worked for the environmentalists...but I was not a "dyed in the wool greenie." They used to ask me for my opinions on the subject, because they wanted to hear from the "other side." They kept me on because I was a darn good accountant and finance director. :bowdown:

 

[bikerbillone]

Traveler, Ethanol is a scourge, but like some other crazy things forced on society, it's here to stay,

 

[Baron14y]

:chat:.... The Farmers are making bigger dollars for their Corn. We have known the pitfalls of adding corn to gasoline for a long time.

Yes, it's time for us to make a big decision, but will we?
That is why we are seeing all of the EV. .....:dontknow:

From a fraternity brother of mine from Wisconsin.

True. Local, central Wisconsin, farms have been expanded to supply the demand for more corn for the ethanol market. Hedge rows removed, irrigation wells and systems installed, grain dryers (think LP gas burners) and storage bins erected, more and bigger field equipment, grain trucks, you name it. Great for farmers until the cost of production exceeds the market price of the grain (this year fertilizer price has tripled over last year). ��

 

[ulflyer]

The benefits of pure gasoline have been known for years. But, I never see the ethanol subsidy's ending any time soon for American farmers..

Once the Govt starts subsidizing anything, it never stops.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

The big problem with this issue is both sides have deeply vested interests in their entrenched positions. They are unwilling to sit down and have an honest discussion about how to objectively determine the real environmental impact of using ethanol. On the one side, as has been noted, are farmers and ethanol producers. On the other side the NAS study, https://www.pnas.org/content/119/9/e2101084119, was funded in part by the National Wildlife Federation. The NWF has done a lot of good work protecting wildlife, but they are adamantly opposed to converting ground from wild and native vegetation to farm crops. That is one of the key points in their study. We have seen the impact here in Idaho where game birds such as sage grouse and pheasants are teetering on the edge of population collapse since so much of the previous vegetative cover they depend on has been replaced by crops.

In this pro-ethanol article, https://www.agriculture.com/news/crops/industry-experts-say-new-ethanol-study-not-worth-their-time, the claim is made that the author of the study has been previously discredited and has not accepted an offer to sit down and discuss the issue. What I gather is the two sides simply do not agree how carbon impact should be determined.

My observation in life has been that when either party refuses to rationally and objectively discuss the reasons for their stance on a subject, they know their position is not 100% defensible.

Is ethanol use bad for the environment? In some ways, yes. Is gasoline use bad for the environment? In some ways, yes. Which one is worse? We do not know because advocates on both sides refuse to know. A somewhat related example is sprinkler irrigation vs flood irrigation. Sprinkler uses less water, so it's better that way. But it returns less water into the aquifer. So for replenishing the aquifer flood is better. But it uses more water, and much of that water gets dirty and eventually flows into rivers, raising the contamination levels. What's the best answer? I'm not sure there is one!

 

[2dogs]

Have you seen what the increased corn production has done to the gulf coast waters? It's not all attributed to just corn production, but if true it ain't good.

 

[Gwolf]

Don't need to google it. It is true. The people that started the ethanol in gasoline are the same ones that are saying we are killing the planet now, while they fly around in private jets and live in 10,000 square foot homes. Follow the money. It won't stop until the money stops.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Have you seen what the increased corn production has done to the gulf coast waters? It's not all attributed to just corn production, but if true it ain't good.

No, what? Any links to some articles about it? Or did I miss that part in the articles linked to above?

 

[Gwolf]

No, what? Any links to some articles about it? Or did I miss that part in the articles linked to above?

https://www.epa.gov/ms-htf/northern-gulf-mexico-hypoxic-zone

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Don't need to google it. It is true. The people that started the ethanol in gasoline are the same ones that are saying we are killing the planet now, while they fly around in private jets and live in 10,000 square foot homes. Follow the money. It won't stop until the money stops.

The whole environmental world is rife with contradictions. Wouldn't it be more environmentally friendly to go back to buying milk in glass bottles that are then returned, washed, and refilled? Or would it? What's the impact of paper diapers for babies? Might it be greater than cloth diapers that are washed and reused? How about prepackaged prepared food? Maybe we should outlaw frozen dinners, or should we? Does anyone have a real honest answer to all questions environment related? I don't think so. Mostly we don't want to know. It just might upset the serenity of our lives!

I almost got kicked out of a Sunday School class many years ago when I made the comment, "I don't know why we are getting all uptight about environmental concerns. After all, Mother Nature is going to win in the end!" Humans may disappear, but insects will be around forever.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

https://www.epa.gov/ms-htf/northern-gulf-mexico-hypoxic-zone

Interesting. Increased corn planting unquestionably contributes to the use of more fertilizer which is, I believe, the primary source of excess nitrates and phosphates. But, increases in all crop production also contributes to the excess. Some of that crop production supports meat production. So, is a black bean burger better for the environment than a beef hamburger when all aspects are accounted for?

In short, the cold but taboo question is how many humans can the earth support while sustaining an adequate environment to support all those humans? You know, everything we have been addressing in relation to environmental impacts has come about solely because of increased population and technological discoveries. None of these issues was a problem in 1800. I asked an environmental lecturer one time about the attitude among many religious people that there was no need to worry about over population since God would take care of it. He said, "That's right. God will take care of it. It's called a die off!" Historically every population of every living creature has collapsed when the environment they were in would no longer support them.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Willingness to honestly dig for answers is in short supply in our society today. When I was working in quality assurance some years ago I coined the motto, "QA-QA-QA. The Questioning Approach of Quality Assurance leads to the Quintessential Answer!"

 

[Knizar]

Willingness to honestly dig for answers is in short supply in our society today. When I was working in quality assurance some years ago I coined the motto, "QA-QA-QA. The Questioning Approach of Quality Assurance leads to the Quintessential Answer!"

:clap: That's some Heavy Thoughts ! Maybe a bit higher than my comprehension, Guess I will keep on :bdh:. & drinking a little of that corn whisky before they put in the crap and call it ethanol !.....Keep your Chin Up....:thumbup:...Bill