Posted by frankenfurter (anonymous) on March 25, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Real good for the area?....I suppose in the fact that it creates 30 new jobs? Is that it? Or that it gives local farmers more to grow? It doesn't matter since they all get subsidies anyways.

What about the enormous amount of air pollution ethanol plants create due to slackened restrictions by our government for just that purpose?

Less dependence on foreign oil? How do you figure ethanol is produced in the first place? With _massive_ amounts of water and FOREIGN OIL!

Depleting our land further by over-farming due to increased need for corn? Raised prices for corn and related products?

Cars get even worse mileage with ethanol than with regular gas? It pollutes significantly more due to the obvious fact that cars need to burn more to get the same mileage (E85 has a very low energy content) and that it's mostly alcohol that your car is running on?

Too bad sugar is such an expensive commodity in America, because making it from sugar cane is well more effective and efficient. Not to mention it doesn't pollute nearly as much. But ADM probably wouldn't like that, now would they?

It's all just a big failed government subsidy program gone haywire. And _your_ tax dollars are paying for it.

Good for anything? That's just plain bull. Just because someone presents you with a set of facts doesn't mean it's true. People just seem to refuse to look at the other side of the issue.

You don't make a very good point in your article: "the presence of that active stack in FF is a good thing." No, really it isn't. And none of the statements have any factual basis.

We'll ultimately stop drilling for oil because there will be none left.

But _we_ won't be around when that happens nor should we have to worry about that, right??

Posted by NEW2FF (anonymous) on March 25, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I SEE COMPLAINING BUT NO ANSWERS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO CHANGE THE PROBLEMS.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on March 25, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If we really want to use more ethanol, then let's get the government to lift that 51 cent per gallon tariff on Brazil's ethanol. They want to import it to the US; but cannot because of the tariffs. Just once, I'd like to see this country do just one thing intelligent. Food costs are going through the roof and turning corn into alcohol isn't helping.

Posted by Woodtick (anonymous) on March 25, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So frankenfurter.........are you saying that your "facts" are more correct than the facts in the article?

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on March 25, 2008 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is probably good for the area, with the added jobs.
But reduce the need foreign oil, I don't think so. When the fuel I buy has 10% ethanol and I get at least 10% less miles per gal. (Or less power, it just does not have the BTUs) It is a waste of resorces. Drill in ANWR!

Posted by localfisherman (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

drill in alaska???????? that is definately not the answer.why would you want to ruin alaskas ecosystem over oil ???? i guess well i dont have the answer to this major problem i do know that drilling in alaska is not the answer were looking for

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"why would you want to ruin alaskas ecosystem over oil ????"
First, it would not ruin THE Ecosystem.
Second, it would not RUIN the ecosystem.
Third, it would NOT ruin the ecosystem? Don't believe all the spin from the elected liberals who waste more fuel with their lifestyles than we could ever emagine.
The answer you should be looking for is "waste not want not". (more later,, maybe)

Posted by bobbyfontaine (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have seen consistent complaints from consumers for mileage loss between a 10 to 15% loss. I go through a tank of gas much faster. If I was losing what the government claims because ethanol has a lower energy value of 30 percent which with ethanol added to gasoline at 10% would be a 3 percent mileage loss, I would never notice it. What I’m wondering is if anyone is reaching the conclusion I am which is that if we're adding 10 percent ethanol to gasoline and losing between 10 and 15 percent mileage, well do the math. If this country has been throwing away 10 and 15% mileage while also paying for the ethanol industry to pretend it's producing fuel, well it is no wonder the economy is falling apart.

bobbyfontaine@verizon.net

Posted by ingeborg (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In addition to the use of fuel to make ethanol, there is a heavy use of water for its production. In some places this is affecting our aquafer. The cost of producing the ethanol deflects from any cost savings at the pump. The federal government has in the past heavily subsidized the erection of ethanol plants to such a degree that those who invested in the plants were able to triple their money in three years. Why can't we subsidize solar and wind energy as these are replenishing fuel sources and have minimal negative affect on the environment.

Posted by jetfire63 (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While you all bring up some interesting points, your over looking others. I personally have reduced my dependance of foreign oil but burning nothing but E85 in my one vehicle, the one I use most. Ethanol production actually increases the usefulness of corn, after the sugars are converted to ethanol the by product called distillers grains can be used as cattle feed. In other parts of the nation the ethanol plants are placed next to the feed lots to reduce transportation needs. Then the by product of processing the distillers grains by the cattle is used both as fuel(methane) for the production of more ethanol and/or as fertlizer (manure). There are also many other bio-fuels out there such B100 which is 100% vegetable oil that can be used to power vehicles as well as heat buildings. The remark about the plant causing polution is a valid point however oil refinery's cause just as much in not more. Oh and lets import that Brazillian ethanol and help their economy instead of ours good idea.

Posted by NEParadise (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Although the use of ethanol increased in the early 1970s in response the high price of imported oil controlled by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, (OPEC), it has remained a cost-effective transportation fuel for other reasons. One of ethanol’s most promising short-term opportunities comes with the discovery that MTBE is a devastating environmental problem in regard to groundwater contamination.

Posted by NEParadise (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, is essentially pure grain ethanol that has been made for centuries by fermenting and distilling simple sugars. Ethanol is a renewable bio-fuel made from grown crops like corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, barely and wheat and it can also be made from a broad range of biomass materials such as; woodchips, waste lumber, and switch grass. There are two fundamentally different sources of ethanol; starch ethanol, which is produced from the fruit or seed of a plant, and cellulose ethanol which can be obtained from whole plant materials like the leaves, and stalks (Kim & Dale, 476).

Posted by NEParadise (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The U.S. currently produces over 4 billion gallons of ethanol every year, in plants ranging from farmer cooperative owned facilities to private plants that can produce 100 million gallons per year or more (Hess 2005). However, the U.S. ethanol industry, that manufactures ethanol principally from industrial corn, will have to increase production dramatically to meet growing demand of automobile fuels. Moreover, the use of corn for ethanol will have to compete with other uses of the land. The process of farming corn, fermenting and distilling the corn seed, and transporting costs of ethanol fuel pose several significant energy requirements and environmental risks that should be acknowledged. To properly examine these issues of growing fuel demand, land use, and ethanol process requirements we need to examine many of the factors leading the ethanol industry’s growth. For instance, federal legislation, rising gas and oil prices, state ethanol programs, growth in E85, concerns about MTBE contamination, and the environmental friendly image of ethanol have given rise to its use as a domestic source of fuel.

Posted by NEParadise (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of the leading scientists in the research of biofuel believe that alternative fuels, such as ethanol; can substitute fossil fuels only if the large-scale production is biophysically feasible, environmentally sound, and compatible with socioeconomic structure of society. These criteria, in general, mean that sufficient water and land must be available to grow feedstocks and that water pollution and land degration will not occur while growing or harvesting bio-fuel crops such as ethanol.

In comparing overall consumption of gasoline with that of ethanol, the U.S. in 2005 consumed an estimated 4 billion gallons of Ethanol compared with 140 billion gallons of gasoline (Blum 2006). The production of 4 billion gallons of ethanol means that the U.S. needed to import 170 million fewer barrels of oil in 2005, valued at $8.7 billion, to meet the same demand levels (RFA). With these petroleum figures in mind it is clear to see that using ethanol fuel for transportation faces dependency challenges before it can achieve the success in the United States.

The United States has pursued a policy of promoting alternatives to petroleum based transportation fuels as a means of diminishing our vulnerability to oil price shocks, gasoline supply reductions and reducing emissions from passenger vehicles. Despite these efforts, gasoline and diesel fuel still account for roughly ninety-eight percent of our transportation fuels (RFA). Efforts to develop alternatives to corn-based ethanol because of its significant land use and water use requirements are being developed in the form of bio-ethanol. In fact, two things are going to push the commercialization of cellulosic technology. One is driving the cost down, which is mainly research and development, the other is that environmental concerns are increasingly entered into commercial calculation of corn-ethanol net energy values.

Posted by NEParadise (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Growth in ethanol production has provided an economic stimulus for U.S agricultural sector because most ethanol is made from domestic sources of corn. Government and privately sponsored research has resulted in new technologies that lowered the cost of production of ethanol made from corn. However, renewable fuel policies promote and specifically allow crops to be improved i.e. pesticides and fertilizers to create a higher yield per acre, thus more ethanol (Hohmann 1993). These improvements of crop yield often come at a price, and can have impacts on soil and water quality if not properly implemented. In addition large corporations, including Archer Daniels Midland and Vera Sun Energy support the production of ethanol using corn and are making huge profits from ethanol production, which is subsidized by federal and state governments (Burchett). A 2006 study in Science Magazine found that although biofuels offer a diverse range of alternatives 99% of all biofuel in the U.S. is ethanol. Ethanol producers foresee a steady increase in production because of the growing demand, but this could max out corn production in the U.S. For example, in 2004 farmers in the U.S. produced more than 3.4 billion gallons of corn ethanol, consuming 11 percent of the country’s corn harvest (Burchett).

Posted by NEParadise (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hope my comments help.!. I believe in a balanced and diversified renewable-energy market. Therefore, I believe Ethanol will remain the current and future outlook for renewable fuels. However, I would agree with anybody who said Corn Ethanol is not the answer. These people however, also need to understand, change will not come with comments that are unfactual and bias.... frankenfurter. Only in clarity and communication can we look forward to a ecologically sound and socially susainable energy market.