Galatia Forums

Video about why Ethanol is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II

If the expert had been from a more moderate think tank I probably would have been more sympathetic, but the Cato Institute is heavily fiscally conservative and in bed with big oil. I will definitely buy that ethanol isn't all it's cracked up to be, and the fact that it doesn't really do much of anything for the environment is true. However, a 12% reduction on our dependence on foreign oil is fairly substantial and I have no problem giving money to corn growers over oil executives and Middle Eastern elites. The fact that the Cato spokesman tried to paint farmers as a big bad conspiracy is laughable, and shows how much the Cato Institute is funded by oil companies. Perhaps they should stop wasting time trying to make mid-western farmers looks like the bad guys and find a better solution. Go invent me a hydrogen car God damn it.

Thanks Fritz. I knew it was bias, but it raised a different side of the argument. Ethanol is not as green as it appears, and it annoys me they keep passing off as the savior. If it actually was viable, it would not require goverment subsities.

Ethanol = Pay more for water and food.

There is 4x more oil in the great basin states then in all of the middle east. Shell has developed a new method of shale gathering using heat. This, as I understand it, has lead to the recent drop in oil prices as there has been some talk of allowing drilling on US soil. Drill and refine in America, and say so long shieks.

Local nuclear power + buried lines = Super cheap gas and electricity. Its also good for the environment. This is the way I would suggest we go. "In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced." Only China produces more greenhouse gas.

MorGrendel wrote:If it actually was viable, it would not require government subsities.

This is probably the fallacy that annoyed me the most. It is 100% true of ethanol, but is a horrible rule in general. New technologies often require substantial initial investments and most corporations are watching their profit line so much now a days that innovation, especially in energy, has been stifled. Why should oil companies look to new, cleaner technologies when they're making a killing off of the current system? You'll never see any kind of solution that doesn't involve oil if it's not subsidized. It is simply not profitable in the short term, which is all the market cares about now-a-days.

As for nuclear power, it might be cleaner in the short term, but I fear for the long term. The waste produced may be a fraction of that produced by coal and other forms of energy, but it lasts a hell of a lot longer and if much more toxic.

Fritz wrote:

MorGrendel wrote:If it actually was viable, it would not require government subsities.

This is probably the fallacy that annoyed me the most. It is 100% true of ethanol, but is a horrible rule in general. New technologies often require substantial initial investments and most corporations are watching their profit line so much now a days that innovation, especially in energy, has been stifled. Why should oil companies look to new, cleaner technologies when they're making a killing off of the current system? You'll never see any kind of solution that doesn't involve oil if it's not subsidized. It is simply not profitable in the short term, which is all the market cares about now-a-days.

Why again does it fall to the oil companies to find a different power solution? That's like telling a glass tile company they should come out with a longer lasting outdoor paint, or a cigarette company to make a tastier vodka. Nuclear is not "new" technology. As of April 2008 there are 197 reactors (with 8 more being built) in Europe (not counting Russia) providing 72% of the power. Spain is working on using mirrors and salt, and Iceland, Greenland, and Sweden are almost all geothermal, solar, and other. There are already 110 nuclear plant in America, second to coal in power production, that has saved American consumers approximately $44 billion since 1973 (the oil embargo). Why not find a way to use that money or the techology developed in France (I know we hate France)rather than raising my taxes and handing out more free lunches?

Fritz wrote:As for nuclear power, it might be cleaner in the short term, but I fear for the long term. The waste produced may be a fraction of that produced by coal and other forms of energy, but it lasts a hell of a lot longer and if much more toxic.

Errr... Not exactly. Nuclear waste is entirely separated from the environment, where as coal waste is dumped in our air and water. Coal dumps hundreds of thousands of TONS of CO2, SO2, and NOX into our environment which is bad for it NOW, see global warming (yes, I said it). Coal also introduces other toxic heavy metals to our atmosphere like arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Arsenic = Always Dangerous.

I say, "Look nuclear is already here. Stop treating it like some shamed red headed stepchild. Be an adult, embrace it, and realize that we are going to have a planet-wide power shortage in about 10 to 15 years. We already have nuclear waste, and we are about to have a whole lot more. Why not put our heads together and figure out how we can get ahead of the apple cart? Unless you like glowing apples (said in my best Colbert voice)."

Besides Fritz, we can't get you that hydrogen car until we have an effective way to do electrolysis; and it is going to take a lot of power to feed the American machine, and you ain't going to get it done with a wind turbine.

As Nugget would say, Thank you for your time.