Ethanol is worse than Gasoline

Like "Clean Coal", Ethanol as "'GREEN' alternative energy" is fictitious bullshit dreamed up by- surprise surprise- people who stand to gain lots and lots of money from its use. Ethanol is crap. It raises the price of food. It causes more smog than gasoline. It destroys engines to the tune of ~$1000/repair. And it does nothing to curtail our use of crude oil to manufacture all sorts of things.

Environmentalism is Big Business, easily co-opted for it's popularity, and just as suspect as the corporations it so often opposes. Spend some time, and read the following article. The article indicates we need some perspective, better studies, and less Ethanol.

(via /.)
(Article: The Great Ethanol Scam, by Ed Wallace)
(snippets after the fold)

First, the primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).

Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.

Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA's fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.

Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline.

...

On Jan. 16 of this year, Lexus ordered a massive recall of certain 2006 to 2008 models, including the GS Series, IS and LS sedans. According to the recall notice, the problem is that "Ethanol fuels with low moisture content will corrode the internal surface of the fuel rails." In layman's terms, ethanol causes pinpoint leaks in the fuel system; when leaking fuel catches your engine on fire, that's an exciting way to have your insurance company buy your Lexus. Using ethanol will cost Toyota (TM) untold millions.

...

Though the media is ignoring it, one can easily find many stories on BMW (BMWG.DE) blogs relating similar problems with fuel systems damaged by the use of ethanol. Certainly that was the case with Christi Jordan and her 2007 Mini. For weeks it was difficult to start; Moritz BMW in Arlington, Tex., inspected it and found severe carbon buildup inside the engine. On her second trip to the mechanics they decided to test the ethanol content of Christi's fuel and found it was much higher than the federally mandated limit of 10%. This time the fuel pump had been destroyed by the ethanol. The repair bill came to $1,200: As in all cases where vehicles are damaged by ethanol, legally the factory warranty no longer applied.

Read More...

Hack the Planet!

found at WarrenEllis.com:

What do we do if our best efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere fall short? According to a growing number of environmental scientists, we may be forced to try an experiment in global climate management: geoengineering. Geoengineering would be risky, likely to provoke international tension, and certain to have unexpected consequences. It may also be inevitable. Environmental futurist Jamais Cascio explores the implications of geoengineering in this collection of thought-provoking essays. Is our civilization ready to take on the task of re-engineering the planet?

Except, isn't that illegal? Didn't we sign some UN resolutions that said we wouldn't do that kinda shit- as did, presumably, many other countries? Or does that only apply during war/conflict?

Regardless, it's not like it's going to be easy, or cheap, or worth it, most likely.

1) Look at how much China spent to try and control the rain during the Olympics. And look at how well it worked. And notice who is saying it worked perfectly, and who is saying it didn't work at all. But, mostly, just understand that Perry was right when he said "Yes I believe China will control the weather. If it doesn't cooperate they'll have it shot."

2) There's a basic principal that I'm thinking about: The air only holds X amount of moisture, if you force it to rain one place, or divert the rains so that some area gets cloud cover, or similarly attempt to manipulate clouds/rain, aren't you forcing drought in some other place? Presumably this could be diverted, a little, by manipulating on one side of a large body of water, so that moisture content could be reclaimed. But how well would that really work?

3) As with most futurist, this guy seems like a really neat thinker, possibly even highly intelligent. But, in the end, a complete fraud. "Futurist" is a term that, roughly translated, means "sci-fi geek with some amount of journalistic-esque ability" (Yes, -istic-esque.)

4) His book is Hacking the Earth, because Hackers already laid claim to "Hack the Planet".
Read More...