Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ
No, people who use your argument are the same type of people who think an electric motor can turn a generator to charge it's own battery.
Of course it takes fuel to ship fuel. It takes far less fuel to ship a tanker full of fuel halfway around the world than it does to produce and ship and mix and distribute a similar amount of ethanol.
The best analogy for the production process is basically that you're pumping quarters into a change machine that only gives back dimes, and it only takes quarters one at a time.
Put in $0.25, get back $0.20.
Put in $0.25, get back $0.20.
Put in $0.25, get back $0.20.
Put in $0.25, get back $0.20.
Put in $0.25, get back $0.20.
How many quarters do you have?
|
Yeah people who hate ethanol always say these words, all the time.
But then there are
actual businesses that put
actual money on the table every day making and selling ethanol. They keep having enough quarters.
BP.... a petrol company, has invested over $100m into Verenium, a cellulosic ethanol company. Compared to a lot of naysayers typing words into internets, $100 million dollars is pretty significant. And since BP has the word "Petroleum" in their
name, the fact that they are investing actual money into a fuel that competes with petroleum makes me go
There are several companies, such as
Genahol, investigating schemes to produce ethanol from municipal waste, reducing the net ingress of trash into landfills - a secondary benefit which cannot be ignored.
Sorry, with due respect given to individuals, I continue to absolutely disagree with the ethanol bashing at almost every level. While I do not in any way stand to benefit financially from ethanol or its production and
don't think it is the ultimate solution to our energy needs, I see it as a
bridge away from fossil fuels - something we sorely need and something we will never get as long as we continue resisting it.
And it DOES run awesome in my lightly modified, cheap, normal cars.
Cheers
