Dismembering The Lunacracy = By A Reporter PDF Print E-mail
Written by Andy Aplikowski   
Saturday, 16 February 2008 09:19

Scott Goldberg of KARE11 (local NBC affiliate) seems to be the only one willing to buck the trendy trend of claiming ethanol and E-85 will save the world. In his blog on KARE11, he has on post that everyone MUST read. I am reposting it here in its entirety, but make sure you follow through on the links and check back to Goldberg's blog for great Political coverage.

More bad news for ethanol

Today, a quick break from the campaign to revisit an issue about which we reported in November: ethanol.

We ran a series explaining why ethanol made from corn is an inefficient and expensive alternative to gasoline.

Now the Washington Post weighs in, reporting on studies that say "clearing land to produce biofuels such as ethanol will do more to exacerbate global warming than using gasoline or other fossil fuels."

The fact that ethanol is not a "green" fuel - far from it - has never seemed to bother its supporters.

In the recently passed energy bill, Congress mandated the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol annually by 2020. Voting against the mandate would have meant challenging agribusiness giants who produce ethanol even though there's virtually no public demand for it.

Four companies produce 40 percent of the ethanol made in the United States.

Ethanol supporters argue, correctly, that ethanol releases fewer greenhouse gasses (about 12 percent, compared to gasoline) when it's burned in a car engine.

However, they always ignore or dismiss the harm done to the environment when ethanol is produced. Ethanol plants are powered by fossil fuels. It takes so much water and fertilizer and energy to grow and harvest corn; more than four gallons of water for one gallon of ethanol, and enough fertilizer to create a dead zone the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico.

Add that to the fact that a full tank of E-85 (85 percent ethanol) will take you only as far as three-fourths of a tank of gasoline - you have to burn more ethanol to drive the same distance - and it's tremendously difficult to make the argument that corn ethanol actually provides a net benefit to the environment.

One can only hope that cellulosic ethanol, made from plants and other materials, holds more promise.

Clearly the proponents of Ethanol don't want you to see this. Junk science got the ball rolling for renewable fuels like corn ethanol, now good reporting from people like Goldberg can stop the Lunacracy before we destroy our way of life and environment, just for some feel good laws and agricultural welfare (er corporate agricultural welfare).

Crossposted at ResidualForces, go there to comment