View Single Post
Old 07-30-2012, 06:48 PM   #8 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,685

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,566
Thanked 3,469 Times in 2,172 Posts
Hah- should I even bother with this?

It is my understanding that the refining process has become more efficient than the oft-quoted old study that "showed" a net energy loss. The ethanol industry didn't even protest the demise of one of their subsidies, as they are making it anyway. If it was so inefficient could they do that?

It is also my understanding that because of the efficient use of "brewer's grains" (the high-quality, non-liquid "leftovers" from distilling) as feed that really, ethanol has not swiped any food out of anybody's mouth.

But even if that was the case, I'd say it points to an overpopulation problem more than anything else. If we are utilizing every square inch of arable land and even that isn't enough to support our food AND fuel needs, me thinks that points to a tipping point of sorts.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
bryn (08-22-2013), pgfpro (08-23-2013), roosterk0031 (07-30-2012)