21 Comments:
I saw it, too. I can't wait 'til the whole world smells like McDonald's!
»» Submitted by mikeb at 11:37 AM on February 8
If politicians, auto manufacturers, commodity cartels, environmentalists and country entertainers all agree ..... it smells alright. But not like french frys.
»» Submitted by »»» srhcb at 11:46 AM on February 8
Not sure if people know but all Ford Rangers manufactured at the St Paul plant used to be made to use E85 fuel. They stopped a few years ago because it was more expensive to make the engines that way and no one even knew what that little Green Leaf on thier tailgate meant.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 11:54 AM on February 8
don't quote me on it, but I think the 4 cylinder ranger is still E85 compatible.
»» Submitted by »»» gerg at 12:37 PM on February 8
List of Flexable Fuel Vehicles (E85) that Ford makes
(Doesn't look like rangers do anymore)
Taurus FFV
Crown Victoria FFV
Grand Marquis FFV
Town Car FFV
F-Series under 8,500 GVW
Press Release about MN E85 Stations
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=6530
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 12:56 PM on February 8
Complete list of all makes and models of cars, trucks and vans that can use E85 as well as gasoline provided here.
»» Submitted by »»» alamn at 1:02 PM on February 8
I'm for cleaner fuels as the next guy, but there's a huge red herring with these fuels, specifically ethanol, that nobody here in Minnesota seems to be paying much attention to: it requires more energy from petrofuels to produce ethanol than is created. Here is an interesting research study that is worth the read, although if you only read the first sentence of the summary, it will do you well.
In addition, the environmental impact of producing corn is huge -- and increasing corn production will exponentially eat up land and increase herbicide and pesticide pollution. If you want more deformed frogs and ground water pollution, E85 is for you!
After reading that Journal article (well at least a good chunk of it) they are ignoring or omitting alot of things. One of their assertions is that we would have to grow more corn for ethanol processing than it takes to feed all the people in the US. I'm pretty sure we are already producing way more corn than is consumed in the US.
The other thing that seems odd is that they are saying its a net loss of energy to produce ethanol but do not compare the costs of ethanol production to the costs of actual gasoline production. If you didn't know 87 octane doesn't flow out of those wells you see on TV. I wonder how much more it costs to produce a liter of ethanol than a liter of gas? Wouldn't you think that would be a crucial factor?
I think that there are alot of costs associated with petroleum fuels that are not seen in ethanol production. Shipping of crude, spills, ground water contamination, etc. Until I see a full accounting of those costs this article is a recitation of facts, (that I do not dispute), but with little to compare those facts to.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 2:01 PM on February 8
Mpls Simpleton: I stand corrected. By Alamn's list, it was just the 1999-2003 3.0L Rangers.
»» Submitted by »»» gerg at 2:25 PM on February 8
No prob! It's cool!
From my post it sounds like I have something personally invested in the success of E85. I don't other than I think we really need to peruse alternative fuels and energy sources.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 2:43 PM on February 8
Feel free to look for other sources of information, spaceman, but Professors Pimentel and Patzek are the sole sources of 90% of the negative reseach on biofuels in the United States. Pimentel, by the way, is a bug doctor, not a fuel expert. Tad Patzek frequently works as an "expert witness" for Big Oil. Take information from these two guys with that grain of salt.
A more recent and widely respected report on the energy value of ethanol is here by NPR. Hot off the electronic press is this article, "How green is ethanol as a renewable fuel?"
As for the environmental costs of corn farming, keep in mind that Minnesota, the leader in biofuel use, is just using a fraction of its corn crop for fuel. These acres were already in corn production, so it's not as if we are plowing virgin prairie or cutting down forests to plant more corn.
E85 is not a perfect fuel, nor are biofuels the answer to all of our energy and environmental challenges. These alternative fuels are cleaner than petroleum, and can buy us some time until even better solutions can be found.
»» Submitted by »»» alamn at 2:55 PM on February 8
Simpleton, you are right: most of the corn grown in the US is used to feed livestock . . . so your first point doesn't really come into play here.
And right: of course it takes energy to create gasoline, but I think the article -- and numerous others -- demonstrates that ethanol is created by using petro in various forms (including pesticides and herbicides) and therefore the positives may be cancelled out.
MY point is that we don't hear this in the discussions at all. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the increased erosion of land and increase in chemicals in our water -- that is a subject that (as far as I know) hasn't entered into the Minnesota/ethanol discussions. Corn, as grown conventionally in the US, can be extremely destructive to our land, and is not a "sustainable" crop. I believe this needs to be seriously considered as the ag industry heavily lobbies the State of Minnesota for ethanol investment.
Corn is not a sustainable crop? Hmm...is oil a sustainable resource? I don't see alot of dinosuars laying down and turning into more oil. Yes I am aware that it was the plants that made the oil and not Dino.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 3:17 PM on February 8
Bob, here is from your cited article: "Fuel produced from corn via the more traditional approach may yield only marginal renewable energy returns."
And your statement "As for the environmental costs of corn farming, keep in mind that Minnesota, the leader in biofuel use, is just using a fraction of its corn crop for fuel. These acres were already in corn production, so it's not as if we are plowing virgin prairie or cutting down forests to plant more corn" doesn't make too much sense as 1) you are assuming that the corn fields in production now will be replaced by the ones that would be used for ethanol -- they won't, they will be added to them, and 2) of course the fields were once virgin prairie -- god didn't, on the eighth day, create square acres of tilled soil ready for planting.
Bob, in my mind, clean air is not a trade off for poisoned water and degraded land.
didn't say oil was a sustainable resource -- I said corn is not a sustainable crop (as it is described by the ethanol industry) -- therefore it is not a positive replacement to oil in relation to environmental degradation or energy conservation. It is a replacement though.
The irony is that since sugar makes ethanol much more efficiently than does corn, we're going to end up importing almost all of our ethanol from Brazil.
We're just trading one imported fuel for another.
Zenrhino, do you know if Brazil still burns their sugar fields?
If sugar makes ethanol better wouldn't we just grow more sugar beets. The red river valley is one of the worlds largest production areas for sugar. Or wait...are sugar beets a sustainable resource. Or hawaii? Most of their sugar cane fields have been laying fallow for years since sugar beet farming on the continent made it uneconomical to import their Pure Cane Sugar from Hawaii.
Does the ethanol industry consider anything other that solar and wind sustainable resources?
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 4:09 PM on February 8
MY point is that we don't hear this in the discussions at all.
Well, it only took 7 posts for it to pop up in this discussion...
...and I don't think I've personally held a conversation about ethanol that hasn't included someone somewhere (even popping in from across the room) saying, "yeah, but it takes more oil to make ethanol than..."
This was just to say, not to add any gravity.
»» Submitted by anthony at 4:28 PM on February 8
When I say 'discussions' I'm referring to policy or government or media coverage -- that sort of thing.
I did a quick survey of the Strib, PiPress, MPR and City Pages to see if I missed media coverage about potential environmental impacts of increased corn production to make ethanol -- or any drawbacks of corn ethanol production. I found none, except Mike Mosdale's CP article (which, incidentally has the world's best drawing of Coleman and Dayton) from 2003 that barely touches the topic.
Ethanol might be a part of the answer, but let's at least consider what to do with the increases in atrazine in our water and our state's top soil washing down the Mississippi River.
Spaceman, you're looking in those sources for actual news analysis? C'mon. Here's a pretty good story from yesterday's NYT. Personally, I like the cow shit angle.
»» Submitted by Iowa boy at 10:45 PM on February 8
»»» = registered user. click on it to see the user's profile.
|
|
|
