Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ObieX
Come up with something better.
|
Why? What I came up with was good enough. I'm sorry that you have no valid response for that, but your comeback was sub par.
Quote:
|
Those who think the US will ever be independant when it comes to energy are fooling themselves.
|
Yes, I understand that. Which is another example of how the ethanol industry is busy scamming the public.
Quote:
|
As i said.. the problem with the way things work now is that most of the gas coems from places where the government is questionable and taking allt he oil for its own greedy ends.
|
Wow, if that isn't an imperialist American statement I don't know what is. Let's face it. We may not LIKE what the countries who OWN the oil are doing with THEIR oil, but it's THEIR oil. Calling them greedy for profiting off their oil is ridiculous.
Plus a great deal of the profits from gas in this country go to american companies like Exxon/Mobil.
Quote:
|
If you go ethanol you'll be helping the little guy. But i guess you're one of those people who would prefer to see people in other countries suffering just so your car can go "vroom vroom" louder as is evident in the first part of this post.
|
Thank you for analyzing me so ineptly
1) I'm not interested in helping the little guy on the road to economic ruin. What do you think is going to happen when the general public finally figures out that this ethanol thing is total bullshit? They're going to stop buying it. And then all the kajillions of dollars borrowed to build farmer-owned ethanol plants is going to come due, and the plants won't be able to pay it because they can't sell their product. We're looking at the economic destruction of the midwest. It should be quite obvious that this is not good for the country.
2) I never mentioned wanting a loud car. I know you read my post, so that means you're just making crap up. That kind of argument might work on Fark, but it won't fool people here. What I am not interested in is reducing my gas mileage (therefore using MORE FUEL PER MILE) while reducing my power (therefore using EVEN MORE FUEL PER MILE). Why does using more fuel sound like a good idea to you?
OK, look. If you want to have an idiot debate, go find another forum. If you want to debate intelligently, then respond with better stuff than this crap. That didn't respond to my very valid point. If you can't come up with a legitimate argument, then don't respond.
Quote:
|
You must have missed the second half of that part that i typed. Ethanol i already well established in many other countries that we are friendly with.
|
what is your point? We used to be friendly with Iraq. Relationships change. If the industry is going to argue that ethanol is important for economic security, then suggesting that we get the ethanol from anywhere BUT the USA is asinine.
Quote:
|
We can obtain it easily from them at lower prices .. especially if there were no tariffs. And if that supply isnt enough we can make the rest ourselves with our home-grown plants.. and can import whatever else we need.
|
you're still skipping the ethanol efficiency issues. Ethanol costs more to produce than gas. Add in the transportation costs to get the ethanol from Brazil or whereever else someone starts making it, and you're gonna be spending a lot of cash on a BS fuel.
Quote:
|
The industry hasnt really gotten any attention in the US until very recently.. thats why its still int he building stages. Other countries have been using this stuff for quite a while now. The blame falls on us for not keeping up.
|
The only countries that can produce ethanol with anything approaching efficiency at this point are equatorial countries, because that's where you grow sugarcane and sugarbeets. I've said before that if the USA manages to figure out a way to make ethanol where we get more energy out of the ethanol than we use producing it, then I'm all for it. But as it stands, that's not the case. Until ethanol is a VIABLE fuel we should not force it on the public. Period.
What's that supposed to mean? Switchgrass? Good luck getting the corn farmers behind that idea. And if the corn farmers aren't behind it then you can forget the farming states (MN, IA, etc) being behind it because whatever the farmers want, the politicans make sure they get it.
Quote:
|
Why so picky about the yield? And as i said earlier you can import tons of material from other palces for far less money than it will take to produce it here. And saving money is what this is all about, right?
|
Aside from the energy independence issue which I've explained to you many times and really don't feel like typing out again, there is again the farm lobby. If you can figure out a way to get the politicians to get the material from foreign countries, when their voting farm constituents would vote them out of office for doing it, I'm listening.
But aside from saving money, this is supposed to be about finding a fuel that's renewable. If we pump more energy into ethanol than we get out of it, then we are not making a renewable fuel - we are simply wasting another fuel (coal, oil, nuclear, take your pick) in order to make an energy storage medium.