Sentences with phrase «worse for ethanol»

The issue is even worse for ethanol from wheat, which results in a fractional ratio, that is you get less out than you put in.

In fact, read my answer to see that some emissions (aldehydes) are actually worse for ethanol.

Not exact matches

According to analyses that have been published in Science and carried out by the California Air Resources Board, corn - based ethanol is actually worse than gasoline, mainly because growing more corn for ethanol forces farmers to clear additional grasslands and forests to grow food crops.

In setting state rules for low - carbon fuels, California officials have calculated that corn ethanol is worse than gasoline.

Speaking of a bio-based economy, did the push for biofuels like ethanol from corn make farming's problems worse?

GM has been a big proponent of flex fuels, meaning E85 (85 % ethanol, 15 % gasoline) that gets worse mileage than regular gasoline but does win GM a EPA efficiency credit and is much beloved by America's corn farmers and others who like that the feedstock for E85 is domestic.

E85 is 85 % ethanol, it corrodes the fuel lines of cars not intended for E85, you get worse fuel economy per gallon burned, and it's not widely available.

Heck, our blogging friend Physician on FIRE recently gave away beer for charity, so ethanol can't be that bad.

Ethanol doesn't have the energy density for jet flight and bio-diesel has a high gel point, which is bad news for planes that spend a good part of their time in the chilly 30,000 foot zone.

At least I hope that is what the $ 150 billion is for... it better not be subsidies for ethanol, clean coal, or other just bad ideas.

While ethanol, for example derived from corn but distilled in a facility powered by coal was, in fact, on average worse, than gasoline, some of the envisioned cellulosic - based biofuels could be dramatically better on a g CO2 eq / MJ basis.

We have wasted billions of dollars on such «strong» policies as coal - derived synfuels; subsidies for the commercialization of wind, solar and electric cars; and worst of all, the ethanol mandate.

Today, amid an anemic economy and joblessness far worse than official government figures admit, President Obama balks at approving the Keystone XL pipeline, cancels leasing and drilling on federal lands, tells our budget - sequestered military to buy $ 26 to $ 67 - per - gallon ship and jet fuel, punishes refineries for not buying cellulosic ethanol that doesn't exist, and happily lets EPA shut down coal - fired power plants and kill countless thousands of mining, utility and other jobs.

Ethanol reduces c02 slightly but burns with a lot more polluting solids as found by testing recently, it also clogs motors and catalyic converters and produces nitros oxide which is a lot worse and that is smog, more lies, c02 is essential for every living thing on the planet not a pollutant.

Environmental groups say producing more corn ethanol for fuel could be bad for the environment.

Many of the changes for the worse observed by the author started to occur before the ethanol craze but surely have been exacerbated by it.

Ethanol will always be bad for the environment as a fuel.

I will take a look at your link before I finish, but the more I look into ethanol the worse it is for the environment and the economy.

In years where we have a bumper crop of corn, and produce more than we need for feed, the market to distilleries will provide built in price supports; the DDGS from the other ethanol feedstocks will provide some cushion to food production in years when the corn crop is bad.

California Rules Yes First Commercial - Scale Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Approved for California Biofuel Comparison Chart: The Good, the Bad and the (Really) Ugly

I suspect it'll be a while yet before we see any dent in the massive government subsidies for corn — with ethanol looking worse and worse as a viable alternative fuel, hopefully California's ruling will at least bring attention to the issue.