|
southern MN | So, you think this would be a better country with a better energy future if we did not have the 3% liquid gain we have from ethanol?
You think our energy security, prices, and dependency would be equal or better without the 3% gain we get from current ethanol use?
You think the smog decreasing benifits we get from oxygenating the fuel with ethanol is not important, or can be replaced with MTBE and other substances made from petrolium?
You don't think the local jobs ethanol has added are worthwhile, compared to importing 3% more fuel from other countries?
I understand some of what you are saying (I think?) - we don't gain whole bundles of energy savings from ethanol. It's a small thing if you only look at energy gains.
But I don't think sitting on our hands and doing nothing will help either. Corn ethanol is doing something, creating a positive - perhaps small but positive - change, and allows us to explore other ways to change and improve our fuel issues. Any other 'solution' involves going without transportation, or converting the whole fleet of vehicles to electric or a gasious-based fuel, which is a _huge_ investement in new technology and hardware that is more cost prohibitive than the corn ethanol we are doing now.
I think corn ethanol is a stepping stone, and a good one, to help us get there from here. I read messages like yours, and it sounds like we should sit on our hands and do nothing because only 3% isn't worth even trying....
I don't buy that. I think it's well worth trying. I think it's postive, if only 3% at this time, that is 3% more than you have offered. And if we can expand that to 5% or 7%, so much the better, it is doing something and in a positive direction.
Not to pick on you or put words in your mouth, just expressing my opinion in a short, choppy way as these type of forums allow....
--->Paul | |
|
The Future of Switchgrass as a Cellulosic Ethanol Feedstock
