Just got my copy of Consumer Reports The cover story is titled "The Ethanol Myth".

Among the findings:

E85 emits less smog-causing pollutants than gasoline, but provides fewer miles per gallon, costs more, and is hard to find in most places, and government support for flexible fuel vehicles is indirectly causing more gasoline consumption rather than less.

I still dont know what to think about ethanol. Its good that we're trying other things, but I'm not convinced ethanol is the route we should be persuing. It seems like a band aid on a gaping flesh wound. Not to meniton all the other resources that have to go into ethanols production (notably water, which will only be becoming more scarce).

well you have to patch the wound to fix it. this is a solution until we get something or someone better.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Just got my copy of Consumer Reports The cover story is titled "The Ethanol Myth".

Among the findings:

E85 emits less smog-causing pollutants than gasoline, but provides fewer miles per gallon,

The real comparison then becomes pollutants per mile driven. After all, if you produce less pollutants per gallon, but use more gallons...what's the net result?

Quote:costs more,

huh? is this counting subsidies?

Quote:and is hard to find in most places,

But easy to find in some places. This is a damn stupid argument, as no new fuel has the infrastructure currently in place to be widely used. It will take time, and naysayers who complain over every option are not interested in helping, they are making things WORSE! That reads like the f'n Democrats.

Quote:and government support for flexible fuel vehicles is indirectly causing more gasoline consumption rather than less.

Need some more info to justify that conclusion.

Quote:The real comparison then becomes pollutants per mile driven. After all, if you produce less pollutants per gallon, but use more gallons...what's the net result?

Also renewability (is that a word) should come into play. I guess that can be factored into cost, prices for oil will increase as it becomes less available.

DrTorch Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Just got my copy of Consumer Reports The cover story is titled "The Ethanol Myth".

Among the findings:

E85 emits less smog-causing pollutants than gasoline, but provides fewer miles per gallon,

The real comparison then becomes pollutants per mile driven. After all, if you produce less pollutants per gallon, but use more gallons...what's the net result?

Quote:costs more,

huh? is this counting subsidies?

Quote:and is hard to find in most places,

But easy to find in some places. This is a damn stupid argument, as no new fuel has the infrastructure currently in place to be widely used. It will take time, and naysayers who complain over every option are not interested in helping, they are making things WORSE! That reads like the f'n Democrats.

Quote:and government support for flexible fuel vehicles is indirectly causing more gasoline consumption rather than less.

Need some more info to justify that conclusion.

I suggest that you get the latest issue of CR and read it. It is about a five page article, much too long to reprint here. But if you are at all familiar with CR, you know that this is not just an idle thought thrown out there as a conclusion.

I will tell you that the "costs more" is based on cost per mile, not cost per gallon. Reduced MPG is a factor.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Not to meniton all the other resources that have to go into ethanols production (notably water, which will only be becoming more scarce).

Why do you say that?

ZippyRulz Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Not to meniton all the other resources that have to go into ethanols production (notably water, which will only be becoming more scarce).

Why do you say that?

To stir up more fear.

Here's to production

http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum=29572

Here's to availability

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/08/news/com...topstories

CR may have raised some legitimate questions, but it was poor reporting on these issues. I think it was more fear mongering.