Quote:
Originally posted by yatzr
[B] sounds kind of biased to me.
|
Sure, it's biased but due to the effect that corn production has on your local economy isn't your opinion biased as well? At least the author doesn't attempt to hide the bias.
Quote:
Originally posted by yatzr
[B]there is stuff left in corn after it has been used to produce ethanol and that is still used as feed. He's making it sound like we're completely redirecting the corn to ethanol instead of cattle. Also, I really wouldn't be surprised if that $2.24 per gallon didn't include the selling of the used corn back to farmers for feed (I'm too lazy to look it up).
|
No matter how you look at it, adding ethanol (or any other means of oxygenation) to gasoline is an extra step in the process. That means more equipment needed at the refinery. All those pieces need energy, maintenence, people to watch over them, etc. In the end, you cannot say that it is cheaper to produce oxygenated fuels than it is to produce gasoline. If you remove all the govt pork funding, would it even be profitable?
Quote:
Originally posted by yatzr
I didn't read the whole thing, but I didn't see where he talked about how ethanol makes the US more dependent on foreign oil. If anyone else finds it, please direct me.
|
Anything that reduces fuel economy doesn't help reduce our dependance on foriegn oil either. If a fuel additive is supposed to result in a cleaner environment, shouldn't it actually make a difference?