Sorry, that didn't come out right. I certainly wasn't defending MTBE -- it's
a carcinogen, and the feds rammed it down Californian's throats: "Oh, you
want cleaner air? You gotta take this crap". I understand it was a
problematic byproduct of petroleum production that the oil companies were
glad to be able to foist off on somebody rather than having to pay to
dispose of.
Bu the fact remains that producing ethanol from corn actually uses more
fossil fuel-derived energy than the energy content of the ethanol produced.
It's a net energy loss, and still burns hydrocarbons and uses petroeum-based
fertilizers, so it's essentially a tradeoff between slightly reduced smog in
urban areas and use of diesel equipment, trucks and fertilizer in rural
areas. Perhaps the economics of sugar cane or other crops are different, but
corn-derived ethanol is essentially an agricultural subsidy.
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
on 4/29/06 10:20 PM, Blake Urban at yd3@nvc.net wrote:
> <<<Snip>>>
> I think that is MTBF. What state are you in? I believe only CA was using
> that, but most states have been using some amount of ethanol for quite
> some
> time, due to successful lobbying by the corn interests.
> <<<Snip>>>
>
> Any state or area with high pollution was required to have an oxgenate
> whether MTBE or alcohol. Besides California, I know Denver needed it,
> Perhaps Chicago or all of Illinois, etc.
>
> If you were an oil company would you lobby for MTBE which you produced,
> or alcohol produced by the ag industry? That's a no brainer. AS you
> can't control the production, price, etc., of alcohol, you're going to
> use MTBE which YOU (the oil company) manufactures.
>
> And don't think the oil companies don't lobby either? It's just there
> are only six of them with billions of dollars against many smaller
> ethanol plants whose individual net profits might not exceed a a 1/4 or
> 1/2 million dollars.
>
> Alcohol can be produced from any organic material, not just corn. I
> believe Brazil makes most of theirs from sugar cane! It's just that
> corn is the cheapest material right now. 50 years ago, it wouldn't have
> been. Then it would most likely have been sugar beets.
>
> Regards,
> Blake
|