Science magazine declares ethanol worse for the Earth than fossil fuels

[hitmansb]

The answerer to fuel & environmental problems were solved 50 years ago and in some cases hundreds of years ago. Electric cars are old technology and it works very well. But if your charging your car from a petroleum power source it doesn't really matter. It is all about infrastructure. In order for changes to take place in this world you must redesign the infrastructure. as well as the way we conduct are lives. Solar farms, Wind farms, Hydro electric power. These are all available and unused to there potential. Every property owner can become part of the solar grid. Wind farms should sit along every coast line and hillside. People say they are unattractive well Boo Hoo. as if an oil field is attractive. Nuclear power is an environmentally friendly power source when operated properly. Organic food is also very easy. You can grow food in a flower pot on a deck or rooftop. The answer to these problems were solved along time ago. the real problem is not what to do, it is doing it. Every person has to do it 1 person at a time. Every solar panel you install to heat your pool, power your yard lamps to your home & charge your electric car sends a message to the desire for change. It is the little things we all do that force change. If all you can do is change the bulbs in you home then that is your part. If you can put panels on the roof of your home or business then you have done a part. If you're just going to piss and moan and wait for someone else to fix it for you then you are the problem. We all blame government and big oil, the automotive industry. The real problem is you and me because these establishments will never change if were continue to support them. Change in this world is done 1 person at a time not by government and corporation. everyone has a part to play

I think government has to do their part to force change....

for example, legislate it that any new home or office building being built in an area with significant # of sunny days in a year MUST have solar panels. Sometimes it's easier to force people to do the right thing: if you don't want to shell out for the solar panels...you don't get a permit to build. Also make super high-efficiency A/C units and heating units a requirement on new homes and office buildings. Set high standards for insulation too.

In a profit-driven world, I think that's the only way to make sure these changes start to happen.

[NewbieChris]

I think government has to do their part to force change....

for example, legislate it that any new home or office building being built in an area with significant # of sunny days in a year MUST have solar panels. Sometimes it's easier to force people to do the right thing: if you don't want to shell out for the solar panels...you don't get a permit to build. Also make super high-efficiency A/C units and heating units a requirement on new homes and office buildings. Set high standards for insulation too.

In a profit-driven world, I think that's the only way to make sure these changes start to happen.

The things you mentioned do nothing to actually help profit, infact they do the opposite in a free market system. You create a gap between supply and demand and therefore driving up cost for the consumer, hence less demand. A poor idea at best in the current economic climate. Timber is right. As the social benefits of cleaner technologies come along, these devices will become cheaper and increase demand. You can't do that when companies have officials of their board sitting in the VP seat. Its not that our high ranking officials are unhappy with the UAE and their oil companies. That has little to do with the problem, and arguably is much different. The Bushes are heavily invested in some UAE oil companies.

The radicals, such as Al-Qaeda, are more pissed off about Israel and holy lands than anything else. Dubaie and the UAE care more about our need for oil and the enormous amount of money that is making them than some silly pieve of land.

[hitmansb]

The things you mentioned do nothing to actually help profit.

You misunderstood me bro...I was saying that developers would rather churn out houses as-is, and people would rather (in some cases) not spend the extra for the solar panels and high-efficiency heating/cooling/water tanks....so that's why you have to force them. The idea is that a little dip in profit can't outweigh the need to be more energy efficient, and to integrate some clean energy generation in every new building via solar panels.

[NYCmitch25]

I think government has to do their part to force change....

for example, legislate it that any new home or office building being built in an area with significant # of sunny days in a year MUST have solar panels. Sometimes it's easier to force people to do the right thing: if you don't want to shell out for the solar panels...you don't get a permit to build. Also make super high-efficiency A/C units and heating units a requirement on new homes and office buildings. Set high standards for insulation too.

In a profit-driven world, I think that's the only way to make sure these changes start to happen.

I absolutely agree

[goliath]

ethanol is a political pursuit. the science and economics behind it make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

would would have thought...politics and science can be misaligned!? you're kidding!

[Control]

Humans are doomed. There are way more people who don't care about anything but eating, shitting and fucking than there are people who care about the Earth. Yay, a few people buy hybrid cars, meanwhile rednecks are driving V-8 engines in circles at 200+ mph for 5oo miles in front of thousands of other rednecks who drove v-8 pickups and SUVs in heavy traffic to come watch. It's a lost cause.

[Bouncer]

University of Minnesota: Ethanol no better than gas

The University of Minnesota has released a study on the benefits of three types of fuels: gasoline, corn-based ethanol and cellulosic ethanol. The conclusion was what most readers know: corn-based ethanol doesn't have that many benefits. Corn still needs tractors to be harvested, and some kind of fuel and/or electricity for distillation. However, the study doesn't discard biofuels entirely and puts an emphasis on the benefits that cellulosic ethanol could bring. For instance, the study calculated the total environmental and health costs of making each type of fuel. A gallon of gasoline was about 71 cents, compared with between 72 cents and $1.45 for corn-based ethanol and 19 to 32 cents for cellulosic ethanol, depending, of course, on the technology and type of plants used.

Reactions took very little time to arrive. Mark Hamerlinck, communications director for the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, responded with the benefits of producing domestic fuel and also on how farming techniques could be improved in the near future by farmers themselves. Martha Schlicher, vice president of Illinois River Energy and former head of the National Corn To Ethanol Research Center, also published a press release severely criticizing the study, stating that it put too many hopes in cellulosic ethanol, which is yet-to-be proven at on a large scale, and that the report authors forgot that corn ethanol can be made using sources of non-polluting energy.

University of Minnesota: Ethanol no better than gas - AutoblogGreen