Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (251100)	4/25/2002 7:14:35 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

RE: Being a farmer, naturally I like the ethanol. It cuts pollution 100% of the time the vehicle is running by making a more complete burn of the hydrocarbons. That's good, but what's the economics on it? How much does it cost to produce versus the price of regular gas. I wouldn't mind paying a little bit more. Also, how much can be produced? You can only grow so many plants at a time. The oil we're using now took millions of years to form.

To: Ish who wrote (251100)	5/24/2002 7:42:13 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 769670

As I said, Ethanol is economic waste. REVIEW & OUTLOOK FROM THE ARCHIVES: May 20, 2002 More Corn Pone Majority Leader Tom Daschle recently pulled off a coup d'corn, mandating billions of gallons of ethanol use across the country in the new Senate energy bill. We've already noted how this would raise gas prices by as much as a dime a gallon. But recent news suggests that the damage from subsidizing the corn-made fuel is far worse than even we thought. Reading their Archer-Daniels-Midland cue cards, ethanol supporters make two arguments. They say that as a replacement for fossil fuels ethanol lessens U.S. oil dependence. They add that ethanol, an oxygenate, reduces tailpipe pollution. If this sounds too good to be true, read on. Scientists have been looking for a cheap, clean "miracle fuel" for years. But the problem with most replacements -- including ethanol -- is that they have to be manufactured in processes that are both energy-intensive and expensive. A study last year by Cornell University agricultural scientist David Pimentel shows that it takes so much fossil fuel to create ethanol, that we end up with a net energy loss. The numbers go like this: It takes 131,000 BTUs to grow and convert enough corn for one gallon of ethanol. A gallon of ethanol, however, has an energy value of just 77,000 BTUs. In other words, it takes about 70% more energy (which comes from fossil fuels, by the way) to produce ethanol than the energy ethanol creates. It'd be easier -- and less costly -- for consumers to pour most of every gallon of gas they buy down a sinkhole. Professor Pimentel also looked at the cost of making ethanol. He found that ethanol costs $1.74 a gallon to produce, compared with 95 cents to produce a gallon of gas. That's why "fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," he says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol." We might add that drivers can't afford ethanol either, which is why the government subsidizes it at the pump. And then there's the question of clean air. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it was investigating ethanol-producing companies for pollution. The EPA says factories are producing carbon monoxide, methanol and "additional emissions that weren't anticipated" at levels "many times greater" than the companies promised. This might be acceptable, if ethanol made skies bluer. But it doesn't. Annual emissions of the worst auto exhaust pollutants have dropped by more than half since the 1960s, but most gains have come from better emissions equipment and cleaner engines. Two years ago the National Academy of Sciences concluded that ethanol had "little impact in improving ozone air quality." In short, the U.S. pumps out pollution to make a product that itself does little or nothing to help air quality. And under Mr. Daschle's plan, the amount of that pollution will triple by 2012. Which raises the question, if there are no energy or pollution gains, why use ethanol at all? The answer is that it is an easy way for Mr. Daschle to transfer billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to farmers in his native Midwest. Farm-state senators get corn votes this November, while Americans get to pay more for gas and breathe dirtier air. What a deal. online.wsj.com

To: Ish who wrote (251100)	5/24/2002 7:43:10 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ethanol is nothing but waste. Clap If You Believe Ethanol Will Solve Anything Well sure, it may cost 131,000 BTUs to produce 77,000 BTUs of ethanol, but what's that when it comes to garnering Iowa primary votes? ("More Corn Pone," Review & Outlook, May 20). The most enjoyable aspect of this political boondoggle (for cynics) is that the stuff is completely worthless for cleaning up our air. Some extra oxygen is needed in gasoline to reduce the production of carbon monoxide. Ethanol served as just such an "oxygenator" back when cars had carburetors, but that was long ago, before fuel-injection systems, which automatically provide the necessary oxygen, became standard equipment. Eric Stork, head of the EPA's Mobile Source Air Pollution Control Program from 1970 to 1978, once said that "the idea of oxygenating gas to reduce carbon monoxide was brilliant 30 years ago. But in cars built in 1983 and later, oxygenates are obsolete and pointless" (New York Times, June 26, 2000). Mr. Stork obviously never wanted to run for president. Christopher Fountain Riverside, Conn. The Ethanol Fable The ethanol fable is even more pernicious than pure "pork": it creates among the public the impression that something is being done about energy and environment while the opposite is true. The impeccable analysis of Prof. Pimentel was preceded by several similar studies over the past 20 years, demonstrating the negative energy balance of making ethanol by using mainly fossil fuels. Moreover, the largely abandoned Brazilian 1980s experiment where (a) there is much more sunshine than in the Midwest, (b) the crop, sugar cane, is a better converter of solar energy to bio-mass than corn and (c) the agricultural labor is much cheaper, should have served as a lesson. Mordecai Shelef Bloomfield Village, Mich. (The author has a Ph.D. in fuel science, Penn State, 1966.) The Big Problem With Corn Not mentioned in your editorial is a basic problem with corn: It is highly susceptible to crop failure due to drought, cold or too much rain. It is unstable as a source for fuel. It's just a cheap political boondoggle. Harry S. Crowder Houston, Texas online.wsj.com