|
I definitely agree with Will, it doesn't seem right to place that demand on the food supply.
Another gripe I have with ethanol is that they claim that ~40% more energy (ethanol product) is made than consumed in the plant, growth, and harvest of the corn to produce it (I believe that University of Michigan was the publisher of this information). As an engineer I have to throw the flag on that one. This is essentially perpetual motion. I believe that the extra 40% is coming from nutrients in the ground and if we keep packing more and more corn on the ground and don't rotate it with beans and whatever else farmers do they are going to deplete the ground of the nutrients needed to grow the corn then all of a sudden we're only harvesting 1/2 the ethanol product that we use during it's creation (read taking more energy to plant, grow and harvest the corn than we get back out of it).
If we're trying to use ethanol to reduce cost problems that's a bs answer, the price of corn changes drastically if you don't get rain for a few days when you really need it, or if it hails in the middle of may.
As far as the "burning cleaner" statement, I've heard that this is actually contrary to the truth. I haven't done any research on this, but I'd advise anyone that thinks this to check on it (read university studies or some scientific evidence not forums/blogs) before you use this as a justification.
In eastern South Dakota we have 3 choices; 87 octane (no ethanol), 89 octane (with 10% E), or premium (91-93 depending on the station; no ethanol). I use 87 in my cars and premium in my motorcycle, I avoid ethanol products, and I would really hate to see ethanol forced into all of our fuel options.
my .02
cory
__________________
|