Hypocritically, when they are challenged with a critical
point on ethanol, they attempt to cast doubt by questioning the source of funding from the challenger (as shown here).
Not exact matches
(As a extension another animation shows how
ethanol and water are separated based
on boiling
point.
Perhaps this view will become the new received wisdom — it's quoted in today's NYTimes column by economist Paul Krugman, «Grains Gone Wild,» who cites «the rise of demon
ethanol and other biofuels,» and
points out, «Oh, and in case you're wondering: all the remaining presidential candidates are terrible
on this issue.»
Plan 4 is the sneaky plan to increase the
ethanol content of gasoline to the
point where it will destroy many old cars and force people into buying new cars that the EPA considers green, such as the Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius, Nissan Leaf, or at the very least, more fuel - efficient gasoline powered cars that pollute less and will run
on E15.
The
Ethanol market is over-subsidized at this
point, which is the only reason it makes economic sense
on the surface.
When really pressed
on why the USDA and the Obama administration continue to support corn based
ethanol, they
point to using it as helping support the fledgling cellulosic
ethanol industry, which seems to always be just 5 years away from commercial viability.
«We're at the
point where refiners are being pressured to put unsafe levels of
ethanol in gasoline, which could damage vehicles, harm consumers and wreak havoc
on our economy.»
Sustainability and net energy are important, and large scale corn
ethanol fails
on both
points.