The Great Ethanol Scam 894
theodp writes "Over at BusinessWeek, Ed Wallace is creating quite a stir, reporting that not only is ethanol proving to be a dud as a fuel substitute, but there is increasing evidence that it is destroying engines in large numbers. Before lobbyists convince the government to increase the allowable amount of ethanol in fuel to 15%, Wallace suggests it's time to look at ethanol's effect on smog, fuel efficiency, global warming emissions, and food prices. Wallace concedes there will be some winners if the government moves the ethanol mandate to 15% — auto mechanics, for whom he says it will be the dawn of a new golden age."
Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Average (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuel vs Food (Score:5, Insightful)
More than anything, this cartoon [imageshack.us] puts me off the whole ethanol idea. It still creeps me out seeing it again now.
just tax carbon (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not ethanol itself (Score:4, Insightful)
He's right, ethanol is a scam (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything I've been reading suggests that ethanol has no advantages, other than for the subsidized corn producers. It takes more energy to grow the corn to be converted to ethanol than what you get out. You get lower mileage from running on a gasoline-ethanol mix than on pure gasoline. You produce less quantity of pollutants per amount of fuel burned, but this is pretty close to offset by the larger amount of fuel that you have to burn to go the same distance.
Maybe I'm wrong. I drive a diesel car that I run on biodiesel made from used restaurant oil, so I'm definitely not against biofuels in principle, but everything I've ever heard or read makes it seem like ethanol does not actually do anybody any good. Its only purpose is to make it SEEM like somebody is doing something, to make us feel good. But it raises the price of corn, and now, it appears, it destroys your car's engine as well.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is stupid. But it's very well connected politically. Like always, it's about bringing home the bacon. The farmers thought they had a winner.
Re:Sounds like a crock ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be a linear curve, dude. It could be 30% at 15%, and 50% at 90%.
Not saying anything about the veracity of the article, just sayin'.
Ethanol (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter that bio-ethanol always was so utterly bone-headed from a thermo-dynamic and food-price point of view (and now this as well) - utterly wrong, right from the start, with back of the envelope calculations.
Some people can make vast amounts of money out of it under cover of doing the "right thing" morally (much like the war on drugs), and hence it gets government support.
Re:it's not ethanol itself (Score:4, Insightful)
My car runs on both gas with 15% ethanol and pure ethanol. Our ethanol is made from sugar cane.
It used to decrease the life of some parts, engine and others, but now cars manufactured in Brazil simply have parts prepared to deal with the extra strain.
Most extremist arguments are just wrong. This is the case.
Re:Average (Score:4, Insightful)
/.ers are fractal, so the average is undefined.
I'm a bit skeptical... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not of ethanol, I'm really skeptical of it. It takes so much energy to make, I'm not sure what the point is.
I'm more skeptical of the other things listed. An E85 vehicle typically will run on E100 with no damage. The only real issue is that if you let the engine cool down, it won't start since ethanol won't vaporize properly in a room temperature engine. But it won't cause any damage, and merely putting 100% gas in the tank (assuming there is room, pumping out ethanol if necessary) until the percentage gets high enough to start the engine is all that is needed.
Also, ethanol doesn't reduce "gas mileage" (the words used in the article) 40-60%, it reduces FUEL mileage 40-60% by volume. This is because ethanol contains less energy per gallon. So consumption goes up, but what you really want to measure is energy efficiency, and burning ethanol isn't significantly less energy efficient (note, I'm not speaking of the energy required to make the ethanol, merely the combustion in the engine). So as long as the fuel is priced correctly and you have the space for the ethanol needed, it isn't an efficiency issue.
I do have problems with E10 ("standard gas") more than E85. With E85 at least you know what you're getting into. With E10, we are made to pay regular rates (or even more!) per gallon for the fuel even though it contains 4% less energy than straight gas.
For the record, I'm against a move to E15. We'll end up paying the same amount again (per gallon), while getting another 2% worse economy (per gallon). And it doesn't seem to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, since the corn used to make it is generally grown using nitrogen fertilizers made from petroleum.
I still like the idea of flex-fuel, but we need to find better wats to make alternative fuels before they represent a real viable alternative.
Re:E85 (Score:2, Insightful)
It would not be a problem if the government were not messing with the economics of it all. I have no problem with a corn farmer selling his crop to the highest bidder.
In this case the highest bidder should be the food industry not the energy+government industry.
Obama should know better than most what the high price of food is doing to Africa. (I lived for any years in Africa myself)
Re:Sounds like a crock ... (Score:4, Insightful)
True sustainability (Score:3, Insightful)
I think our society needs to begin to understand that all of the dense, useful energy they are pulling out of the ground took hundreds of millions of years to create. Wasting such a valuable finite resource is useful if and only if it is used to transition to an energy system that uses that day's sun energy to do that day's tasks.
The energy problem is quite simple. Stop zoning cities for cars. As soon as the economy is back in swing, slowly raise the gas tax and funnel all of that money directly into solar and battery technology research. Raise electric consumption taxes for all fossil fuel burning power plants to fund the construction of solar and wind. Build some trains that run off of solar energy sources on main highways. Connect those to neighborhoods with short range electric buses, bikes, and small sugar cane burning scooters.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
"Isn't life wonderful when we just let the government do things? :"
Just because the government makes mistakes does not mean the free market doesn't, there's plenty of mistakes both of them make and I wish the anti-government types would realize just how many free market failurs there out out there.
Nothing is perfect, the idea that there is some ideal perfect system or ideology is bullshit.
Re:True sustainability (Score:2, Insightful)
Government projects only work with a defined goal. Just think of our space program, there was a definite goal of putting a man on the moon within a few years. It was quickly accomplished. On the other hand projects with little to no goals such as the war in Iraq end up wasting money, time and lives.
Public transport also raises a lot of other questions. Not only the general pain of having to deal with the hobo who is sitting in his own pee, but also disease transmission. If swine flu had been a real lethal pandemic and we had mostly public transportation it would spread and wipe out a lot of the population much more quickly than most people being confined to cars for day-to-day travel.
The free market will always, always, always, always come out ahead. Government funding ends up with a lot of wasted money and time. If nothing else at least private corporations are not stealing from your paycheck.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Ethanol is a politician's dream agenda item. Especially if you are running for, or plan to run for president. Why? What state has the first presidential caucus, potentially the most important point in the presidential race*? I'll give you a hint: they grow corn
Ethanol is the great green hoax of politics. It's clearly not the best solution, but by god, it will help you hugely when it comes time to run for president. The price of corn has what? Almost doubled? Since we forced Americans to use 15% corn fuel (ethanol) in our gas for cars and trucks. Now that the flyover states are entitled to all this extra money coming their way, do you think any politician would ever dare take that away from them, effectively removing them forever from presidential candidacy. That's like admitting you're openly gay or like to club baby seals in political circles.
*selecting insane, hunting moose from a helicopter female governors as VPs exempted
Re:Dangerous is worse than stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Aspiration to and the living of Western styles of life are a much bigger problem than over population. America uses much more energy than the 5% of global consumption that would be more reasonable if you want to make population the biggest problem.
That doesn't make population growth a non problem.
Re:E85 (Score:5, Insightful)
The ad hom aside, I've never met an "enviro wacko" who supported corn ethanol.
In fact, anyone who's given any thought to it at all, and subscribes to the wacko idea that our civilization can't handle environmental upheaval of the scale predicted by real scientists... is against the idea of using our topsoil to power our craptacular personal transport. No "enviro wacko" supports an energy infrastructure that damages topsoil that is already in trouble (guess what black gooey stuff is the raw material for organics re-introduced to soil overworked to sterility?) and probably makes the GHG problem worse. And what functional human being wants to use food resources to power Cadillac Escalades?
In other words, you can't blame those of us who think the biosphere of our planet is required for our continued survival (wacky, right?). However, feel free to blame jingoists who marketed this monstrosity as "energy security".
Re:Fuel vs Food (Score:4, Insightful)
No one thinks the corn they use for ethanol could be used for food instead but the land that it is being grown on could be growing food instead. Subsidies for ethanol brings in more money than growing food. This means there is less food being grown and sold. A lower supply with the same or growing demand is going to drive prices up.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
And let's not discount the soda makers trying to take advantage of the current public backlash against HFCS. When the corn producers have to put up ads promoting HFCS you know there's a problem there. Or, for the soda makers, an opportunity.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, the American Ethanol Debacle is not a product of government, as much as it is a product of government corrupted by private interests, in this case the mid-western corn lobby.
Corn Ethanol in general is an OK fuel, if you use it within a short distance of where it was made. It's Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) is so low that you end up burning up all your energy profit transporting it. IIRC, it has an EROEI of (at best) 1.5 to 2. Many studies show it has a negative EROEI. (Pimentel et al)
Other forms of ethanol require technologies that don't exist yet (algae etc.) or massive amounts of land to be cleared for energy crops (viz sugar, soybeans) that would better be used FEEDING PEOPLE rather than schlepping fat suburbanites in their SUVs three blocks to go pick up a pack of smokes and some beer.
Ethanol IS a scam.
And not even a very smart one.
RS
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the government makes mistakes does not mean the free market doesn't, there's plenty of mistakes both of them make and I wish the anti-government types would realize just how many free market failurs there out out there.
The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail. This is actually a good thing, as it weeds out (most of) the idiots, making room for others with better ideas to flourish. There is no permanent winner, as even today's top of the heap must innovate and compete or risk being dethroned tomorrow. Even Microsoft, for all its seeming omnipotence and monopolistic behavior, would have failed long ago had it not finally gotten off its duff to address -- however imperfectly -- things like Linux, OS/2, WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and so forth. It's not perfect, and such "market evolutionary pressure" doesn't always happen quickly, but if left alone (i.e. free of government interference) it will always self-correct and product a superior situation.
Government, on the other hand, has no such failsafe. Inefficient, ineffective, insufficient programs are the norm, not the exception. Why? Government is the only state-sanctioned monopoly that can have no real competition, short of a voter revolution. If government fails to make its budget, it does not go bankrupt, it merely raises taxes until the numbers meet up again. Or prints money and waits for hyperinflation to effectively shrink a multi-trillion dollar debt while utterly destroying the life savings of its citizens. Or both, as we're eagerly doing today under Obamanomics. But short of going belly up entirely and leaving people in anarchy, government never has to worry about going out of business. It just has to worry about getting 51% of the voters to force the other 49% to pay more taxes to support them. And unlike a free market, government can legally use force to make you participate in their shoddy products and Ponzi schemes like Social Security. Free markets must convince you to voluntarily consume their products instead of a competitor's.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish the anti-government types would realize just how many free market failurs there out out there.
The free market's whole point is to kill failures, so no doubt there is many. The parent's point was when the government leads a "helping" hand to failures that it only hurts consumers in the end.
This is very idiotic. (Score:1, Insightful)
We Brazilians use ethanol since some 30 years. Our engines are doing well, thanks. /.ers should know better and /. should not carry such misinformation.
Google "history brazil ethanol" and "ethanol octane".
Ethanol is better. End of story.
Unless you're involved with oil trade, then it's bad for you.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
...that would better be used FEEDING PEOPLE...
Yeah, instead of livestock [nebraskacorn.org]..40%
Re:Fuel vs Food (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't starve to death because of lack of food in the world. Yes, that makes no sense. They starve because of lack of infrastructure to get them food.
Local failure means no easy to access food, but warlords and other people out for a buck, hold up food in ports to distribute it at a profit. Without the profit they want, they let it rot at the dock.
Still, the cartoon is good but misleading.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
the American Ethanol Debacle is not a product of government, as much as it is a product of government corrupted by private interests, in this case the mid-western corn lobby.
The way to avoid government corruption by private interests is to have a complete separation of state and economics, just as - and for the same reason - as the separation of church and state.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the American auto industry needs to wake up and start engineering its vehicles for the highest mileage possible by using diesel and hybrid and stop reducing the amount of plastic and sound insulation in cars. It's easy to reduce weight by cutting plastic and sound insulation, which leads to interiors falling apart prematurely and driving the public to foreign vehicles.
I own a 1999 Saab 93 and really like the car - low maintenance, but service is expensive. Also, it's not rusting anywhere. Recently Yahoo recommended Saab and Volvo as excellent cars to own long-term because, well, they last a long time and are built well. YouTube has a few videos of some suped-up Saabs in drag races. One, is a recent All-Wheel Drive 2000-year body style that fries all 4 tires most spectacularly - and it's done with a 4-cylinder turbocharged engine.
We need to drill for oil here. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the goal is to stop importing energy then we need to start drilling for more oil here in the USA. The article points out how ethanol can destroy an engine not designed for it, which is a good reason to not put ethanol in an engine not designed for it but a bad reason to stop putting so much ethanol in our gas tanks.
A good reason to not use ethanol as a fuel is because it has a very poor return on energy invested. The fact that people are debating whether or not one actually gets a net energy gain is a good enough sign for me. Even poor performers like solar power has a energy return on investment (EROI) of 5 to 1. Most energy sources in common use have an EROI somewhere around 10 to 1, such as coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal. Petro-fuels like gasoline and natural gas have an EROI that is even higher on average, it varies from well to well and will go down over time as the good wells are used up but still remains well above 10 to 1.
Fuels like diesel fuel, gasoline, and kerosene are very useful because they remain liquid over a wide range of temperatures at atmospheric pressure, have a relatively high energy density, are able to lubricate the pumps and engines they run through, and most of all it is cheap and plentiful.
The USA can be energy independent. If the yahoos in California would allow drilling off of its coast and the yahoos in DC would allow drilling in Alaska we would have a good start. Then those yahoos in DC need to stop holding up the building of more nuclear power plants. We need coal, uranium, natural gas and oil. We have it we just need the politicians to stop changing the rules and get out of the way so capitalism and commerce can meet the supply and demand naturally.
The meat of all this is that this is a problem of politics. We can't drill for oil because some tree hugger would rather think of the fish than people freezing to death. This is also ignoring the fact that the oil is seeping out of the ground and washing up onto California beaches. If we drill for that oil the it won't end up killing the fish. The majority of oil spills have been from oil shipped over the sea. There has been very little lost when pumped through pipes and shipped over land. If the tree huggers want to see fewer oil spills then we need to stop shipping it from other nations.
Some of those tree huggers might just rather we not use any oil at all. That's fine while your riding your bike through southern California but those of us in the Midwest need diesel fuel to harvest the corn and wheat those tree huggers like to eat. Those bike tires had to come from somewhere you know, like perhaps crude oil shipped on diesel trains and trucks.
There may come a time when the EROI of drilled oil might not make it worthwhile to use for fuel any more. We will still need oil for chain oil and bicycle tires. At that point it may make sense to synthesize hydrocarbons. The energy to synthesize those hydrocarbons has to come from somewhere. At that time, likely many decades from now, we will have to use things like nuclear power to create the hydrocarbons we need. Given the many desirable properties of hydrocarbons as a fuel we may still use hydrocarbons as a means to store and transport energy.
Ethanol is a scam. We have better alternatives. We need to stop subsidizing ethanol and put our efforts into something sustainable for our energy needs. In fact the federal government should stop subsidizing all energy and let the market figure things out. If you think the government is the solution then you do not recognize the problem.
Re:Not news. (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, so using a fuel different from the fuel specified by the manufacturer can destroy your engine. I don't think that's news. Ethanol is corrosive to plastic and rubber.
There is a general assumption that if you go to a gas station and purchase gas from a pump labeled "gas", it will not damage your vehicle.
If the pumps are spitting out higher than 10% ethanol, the chain of responsibility is pretty damn clear. Sue the gas seller.
True. But how often do you test the gas you buy? The damage can occur some time after purchase, not to mention tracking down which gas station is the culprit.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail.
Like the private health insurance industry, which works so well that half the American public wants to replace it with socialism.
Re:just tax carbon (Score:3, Insightful)
Sound economics, but it's still a non-starter. Two big problems.
First, taxing carbon would have huge economic impact. I think it would work out in the long term, since it would encourage the new technologies we need. But in the short term, it would cost ordinary people a lot. Worse, it would cost them more to drive. Any politician who proposes that is simply saying "I don't ever want to be elected to anything again, ever."
Hey, California booted a governor out of office just for trying to restore a pretty small car registration fee. And you think you can get people to support a measure that would raise gas to $10/gallon? Not gonna happen.
Another problem: reducing carbon emissions only works if everybody does it. If we rely on every nation to tax carbon, they'll say "sure!" and then corrupt officials will make a fortune from that-smokestack-is-invisible bribes. And when we complain about it, they'll accuse us of cultural arrogance or whatever.
The next best solution, economically, is the cap-and-trade approach trying to get through Congress right now. (I should hate the idea, since evil Republicans invented it, but what can I say, I'm a sucker for logic.) You decide how much carbon you can allow to be omitted this year, then your divvy up the permits among the emitters, who are allowed to sell them to each other. Everybody has an incentive to cut back as much as possible, because they can sell their leftover permits to somebody who's less creative. Then you play musical chairs with the permits, so that less and less carbon gets emitted every year.
It's just possible that rewarding inventiveness in this way could create new technologies that makes energy cheaper. That sort of thing does happen when people start rethinking their methods.
The only problem is that the same politics that makes carbon taxes undoable are causing the cap-and-trade bill to be shot through with loopholes. Oh well, guess we're doomed!
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
People, good or bad, eventually die. Companies, good or bad, eventually bankrupt. Governments, good or bad, eventually collapse. In the mean time, murderers run free, inferior (potentially lethal) products reign, and corrupt governments loot the pulic. It is idealistic to believe that free markets are some magically solution to the ills of any field. People are not always rational, they lack perfect information, and even rationality (as part of game theory) isn't reasonable, at times, to one's own self-interest. Simply put, free markets can't exist with humans, and they don't really want them; they want a magical panacea that fulfills various contradictions. Such a thing obviously can't exist. But, mixed markets do at least approach the ideals of the vast majority of people. Not everyone truly understands the free market concept well enough to know that, though.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the free market has worked out so well over the past several months. It certainly hasn't had an adverse affect on the entire population of the first world. No-sir-ee.
Newsflash: All society is linked. If someone over there fucks up bad enough, it'll hurt you over here. Shutting you eyes and praying for the invisible hand of the free market won't save you.
Regulation is essential. The ethanol subsidies are idiotic and should end, but making the free market out to be some sort of panacea is childish.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Clueless people always trot out Amtrak as the poster child for government waste. But let's think about this for a second...
Hmm... Amtrak consolidated failing passenger rail companies after...
- The government spent trillions of dollars building a "free" interstate highway system with features like 30,000 bridges that need to be replaced within 35 years of construction. (ie. now)
- Tax policy encouraged and subsidized suburban development at the expense of the cities and close suburbs best served by mass transit
- Local government invested billions to build airports in those suburbs
Amtrak does an amazing job at providing a service giving the funding challenges and the political maze that they have to traverse to continue operating. Amtrak is only an example of "hurting consumers in the long run" in the same sense that the highway system and resulting sprawl is.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail.
Ironic you pick Microsoft as an example. The most non-competitive products in the IT world.
The problem with that argument is that what we have is not a free market. It's series of cartels. That's why we spend more than twice as much on health care as other industrialized countries and get treatment closer to the bottom of the scale. Because there are so many entrenched cartels in the health care industry. It's why we have the worst cellular service outside of Nigeria and why banks and credit card companies still run Washington.
New industries might start out competitive but once they get to a certain size, they start bending the rules in their own favor. Using unfair practices to freeze out competition, getting sweetheart legislation pushed through Congress, buying influence.
You free market preachers are just naive. The only free markets are also fair markets. And if you think what we have today is a fair market, you need to pass the bong. Government is the only entity that has the ability to groom a competitive marketplace. What we have today is what happens when government stops doing that job for 10 years. The rich get richer and there's no accountability for cheating. Economic collapse follows right after.
Inefficient government programs are the truism, not necessarily the reality. With some notable and widely publicized exceptions. But the fact you ignore is that without government, without a referee to control the game, our economic system has a very short lifespan. And yet you keep on with 30 year old economic theory in the face of economic meltdown while your 401K loses 65%. I don't think I want advice on government or managing markets from you.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Free markets must convince you to voluntarily consume their products instead of a competitor's.
To paraphrase: Free markets make business ventures. Governments make binding laws.
One is voluntary, and is not legally required to continue. The other will hit you with a fine or send you to a prison if you try to violate it.
The ugliest scenarios are when government starts mingling with, controlling, or becoming business. Then it's just an illusion of free choice in a wrapper with a smiley face. The corruption is not only rampant, but can be buried so deep in the system, itself, that you can't tell what is corruption, and what is the real government, anymore.
Pros and Cons (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
government blows money because they won't run out as a result of poor decisions - they just tax us more. government departments ALWAYS spend their full budget even if it's wasted, because next year it will be cut if it's not all spend, no incentive to be efficent (see above, no risk of going otu of business)
Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me] (Score:2, Insightful)
I think there might be some truth to "Ethanol ruins engines not designed to burn ethanol", but since most cars built in the last 10 years or so are designed around at least partial ethanol fuels, that's only going to affect a (fairly small) subset of people. Whether it's entirely fair to screw around with the people who have older cars is another question, as is how much damage ethanol fuels actually do to those engines.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
A free market does have a point: to set prices. That's it. The 'invisible hand' is a delusion, and the anyone who thinks such a system inevitably maximizes efficiency needs to (a) define his terms, and (b) google the phrase 'local maxima.'
I hate Ethanol (E10) (Score:3, Insightful)
E10 costs the same per gallon as straight gasoline, sometimes more - yet I get at least a 10% drop in fuel economy.
The station closest to my house switched from Mobil to Sunoco a couple months ago. My "winter mileage" never recovered (always get worse mileage in the winter; in April, it comes back up about 20%). Then I quit that station and started filling up at Hess. Immediately gained 2 MPG, because I didn't get E10.
We always hear stories about all gas stations getting "the same gas" but the gas at this station most definitely changed when it went from Mobil to Sunoco - my gas mileage this spring at that station was definitely lower than at the same station last spring.
Sunoco in my area always sells E10. Mobil & Hess don't.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Spoken like a man who's never been seriously ill. Or poor. Or fired without cause. Or blackballed. Or discriminated against.
Re:Sugar cane not corn (Score:3, Insightful)
I just find your wording quite fascinating.
"The only thing wrong with ethanol is that big corporate farms are subsidized" really means... GOVERNMENT is the problem for subsidizing
"If the U.S. just allowed the importation of sugar cane "... really means GOVERNMENT is the problem for preventing free trade.
Yet somehow you manage to make your point without using the name of the entity to blame.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
> The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail.
Ok, when's Microsoft going to die?
How about American Airlines?
When do I get to celebrate the passing of GM?
Did Jack-in-the-Box or Odwalla go out of business when they killed people?
The best selling widget is usually not the best widget. It's
usually the one with the best salesmen. This is the dirty
little secret of capitalism. Consumers aren't perfectly
rational, nor do they have perfectly good information.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
And in fact when you look at the similarly government subsidized railroad systems in Europe, where the other factors you mention either don't exist or are mitigated by geography, they are largely successful. Free market purists always seem to portray Europe as some sort of example of the failure of limited socialism and mixed markets, but frankly I've never understood this. Germany, France and Britain are all lovely countries with economies just as strong (though obviously not as large) as the US. If I had to pick a place to be rich, I'd totally chose the US, that's true. If I had to pick a place to be poor or middle class though I'd probably pick one of the stronger European economies. Since the vast majority of us are not rich, why should we chose a system that clearly favors the people already most privileged?
The Great Ethanol Scam (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading all the articles linked to, I noticed not one mentioned one part of the scam. Business Week and Chicago Tribune said the ethanol was corn based. However the same amount of land would produce more ethanol if sugarcane was used instead. With the world's largest biofuels program Brazil uses sugarcane. And switchgrass [wikipedia.org] produces even more. Another benefit of using switchgrass to make ethanol is that it will grow on marginal land [democratic...ground.com] other crops aren't grown on.
Falcon
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me] (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently there is some difficult understanding here; allow me to provide the information that you seemed to neglect.
95% ethanol doesn't ruin cars designed to run it. However, 15% ethanol will ruin cars designed to run 10%.
See the difference here? If we go all ethanol, fine, do it. This wishy washy crap is just horrible and suckling up to the gas needs of countries which hold us by the balls due to gas dependency.
Brazillians seem to have a good climate for cane sugar, some of the US may or may not as well. I am not an agricultural specialist.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
It is obvious that there is not a free market in the USA - profits
are above 0 for many mature products.
Also, there is no labor mobility (companies can outsource but
workers cannot freely move to USA).
USA economy is probably closer, technically, to a fascist economic
system.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
America is not as high statistically because we have practically the whole fucking third world waltzing across the southern border.
Of course they have no insurance, they just crossed a fucking river holding their shit over their heads.
But all they have to do is show up at the emergency room and they will receive care, including life saving surgery.
I suspect that if they skipped the states and went directly to Canada, your health system would crumble.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your reasoning is that when a free-market entity produces an inferior product, service, or solution, it will eventually fail.
No it won't. If it has the means to compete negatively, by bringing the competition down, rather than positively, by bringing it's own product up, it can easily last indefinitely.
You are implicitly pushing the myth of the "pure free market". That's simply warlordism, might makes right. All functioning, good markets need law, both written and unwritten, to stop all the negative ways that people can compete (e.g. deceptive advertising, monopoly rents, incomplete information, excessive transaction costs, externalities etc.), while still allowing the positive ways that people can compete (e.g. improving product, reducing prices etc.).
Or to put it another way for some things one person, one vote, works better than one dollar, one vote. Both are accountable despite what you claim. And you think tyranny of the majority sucks? Perhaps so but it's better than the only alternative, tyranny of a minority.
---
You communist! Breathing shared air!
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, that sounds an awful lot like the America that used to be. Trust me, it's not that we intended it to be the Federal Government of America, it used to be the United States of America. Then we had a whole lot of people who decided that Statism was a whole lot juicier idea to ram down our throats; they began to put in judges that would rule in favor of the Federal government over the state's rights, and once the school system had enough drones to all chant that More Government is Better Government, well, the devil hasn't had a day off since.
But not for lack of trying. We ever rail against the machine hoping that we can reverse course.
Re: The Great Ethanol Scam (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the scam. It's not about making ethanol, it's about pork dollars for the corn lobby. There is no switchgrass lobby.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
From your link Somalia is fourth from _last_ in estimated GDP (USD600). Zimbabwe is last at about USD200 per capita.
If anarchy only does 3 times better than Mugabe, I don't see how one can responsibly recommend anarchy.
Anyway, anarchy is usually a very temporary state. Anarchy (and violent revolution[1]) in most cases ends up creating dictatorships. In a state where lots of people are being violent to each other (or there's no ruling entity stopping people from doing that), the one who can exert and control the most violence, will rise to the top. It takes a rare person or group to freely relinquish that power once they have it by that means[2].
[1] Like those proposed by Marx and friends.
[2] There are lots of people who would give up power, but they're are rarely the sort who'd go get power in the first place by getting lots of people killed.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't blame me, (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you know how labor intensive sugar cane is? Or what kind of soil/weather conditions are required?
It might be viable in Brazil, but it isn't really an option in the US.
Re: Ethanol is just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
I have never seen business make a drastic change for the better for an entire population. I _have_ seen governments do so, repeatedly. To better understand the situation, I recommend reading this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576754634/ [amazon.com] Flame away conservatives!
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
And that half happens to be the 51% that are being paid for by the 49%.
From what I've heard those 49% are already paying more health care tax than us evil socialist Europeans HA HA HA *Twirls mustache*
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, how are we at fault when we have a choice of voting for a candidate in bed with big oil or a candidate in bed with big media? Would you prefer that we alternate our special interest groups/corporate masters more frequently?
And that attitude is what I predict will lead to the downfall of the US as a superpower within the next 25 years.
So take your pick. There's 3 options:
1. Your government is rotten to the core and has the "free" press in its pocket, so there is no way any party or even an individual politician can make an entry on the playing field and start turning things around. If this is the case isn't it about time people start exercising that 2nd amendment they keep blathering about? And while you're at it, change the system around so that it isn't "winner takes all" anymore but leaves room for debate on issues that matter outside the campaign period? The whole gun laws/abortion/gay marriage crap is getting a bit old, and it distracts so much from the other stuff.
2. Given enough effort, a 3rd party can in fact start making an impact, hopefully for the better. Start voting for them. Get your friends, family, fellow ./ers, etc. to vote for them. Either your vote matters or point 1 applies.
3. Sit around, complain, and watch the place fall apart. Who knows, maybe China and India will learn from your mistakes as they take over.
Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me] (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't blame me, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Brazilian Ethanol [Re:Don't blame me] (Score:5, Insightful)
Brazil has been deforesting to grow food because already-cleared land has been converted to sugar cane production for Ethanol. The Amazon may already be past the point of collapse. Ethanol is a major source of ecological destruction in Brazil.
The big problem with corn is that most corn is grown continuously without crop rotation. That means that not only is it fertilized with oil (so any energy not coming from sunlight is coming from dino juice anyway, and it has a carbon debt) but it also destroys the soil. So it's all bad. Also, many people depend on that corn for food. Making corn fuel feedstocks raises the price of corn for food, because less food corn is produced.
IF you RTFA you'd see that it's not engines being ruined by ethanol, it's fuel pumps and pickup lines. Running alcohol requires a major refit, and many of those vehicles no longer even have their original engines.
Re:Don't blame me, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous is worse than stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Could the concept of overpopulation be too closely tied to illegal immigration?
That's where you lost me. Illegal immigration may make us look bad on paper, but the environment doesn't care if a Hispanic is driving a car in Texas or Mexico.
And, if you're using that reasoning, then why stop at illegal immigration? Granted, we probably couldn't revoke green cards and work visas from people already here, but, if you think that illegal immigrants are harming America by increasing its' numbers, then why would someone who filled out the correct paperwork be any more eco-friendly?
Personally, I can agree with your assessment that the world needs a lower population. All the food in the world won't help as much as a few crates full of condoms, well distributed.
As for why effective birth control plans are never mentioned, you can blame the religious right for that.
Re:Ethanol is just stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry for ten years in several different capacities, and I've seen the effects of regulation firsthand. Health care is actually surprisingly cheap to provide, and the regulation isn't too costly to contend with, even though it does regularly generate stupid anecdotes.
When I get a bill the "cost" is $500... which they "negotiated" down from "$4000" or whatever... and whoopee, I get to pay $300 of that. Some people would think that the insurance company is offering me a product worth $3700. It's like saying the Mafia is offering a product worth whatever it costs to get surgery to fix kneecaps.
In reality the insurance company is providing a service to the health provider, not me. The hospital sees a market with artificially high prices for healthcare services, because of a protective, separate industry that surrounds it and controls access. Doctors basically figure they don't have time to organize a cartel and so they hire people to do it for them. Although it charges you premiums, the idea that your insurer is offering *you* a service is a pretense.
The standard talking point about the high cost of "inefficiencies" and "regulation" certainly helps. They've done their job so well that people have actually been convinced that health care is genuinely this expensive to provide than it really is.
But what do *we* need these people for? The government could afford to pay directly these obnoxious amounts that hospitals and doctors are actually currently getting, and we would still save money by sidestepping these parasites who skim off half the money first. I have to laugh when I hear people say we can't afford to get rid of worthless extortionists committed to annual profit growth.
Re:Don't blame me, (Score:2, Insightful)
One would expect that Brazil's poorest and most exploited people - agricultural workers and sugar cane cutters - would be among the first to benefit from the new wealth sugar cane production has brought to Brazil
Um, why would anyone expect that? It's not that there is no demand for workers to cut cane... it's that any idiot can cut sugar cane all day. THAT'S why they still make dirt money... because they have no skill whatsoever and are easily replaced.
Re:Dangerous is worse than stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny you should say that. The evidence seems to suggest that you are wrong. Mere access to health services for women seems to go a long way towards stabilizing population (and reduces horrible deaths from witch-doctor abortions). No draconian, gender-balance-altering, infanticide-encouraging policy needed.
And as for any sort of "selection" regarding humanity: That horse left the barn 12,000 years ago. We're all human, and astonishingly similar. The "weakest" of us have made huge contributions to our civilization. We tend to see the difference between a 130 IQ and a 90 IQ as vast, but it's a matter of perspective. An alien new to our planet probably wouldn't immediately make such a distinction.
My original point stands, I think. Rapid population growth is largely an artifact of ethnic and religious conflict, and responds well to public policy. In context, "being fruitful" isn't even dumb; up until this last century, it was perfectly rational for a group to multiply as much as possible (with some exceptions, for local resource constraints).
Personally, I think the raw intelligence of any given human being is indistinguishable from others, barring a condition like cretinism or Down's Syndrome. And even with such a condition, our decision to take care of members of our groups who couldn't survive on their own has paid off in a huge way; it may be one of the most successful adaptations in our planet's history.
Take any human being, give them nutrition and access to health care, a little math and logic, some history; add a dash of rhetoric to give them immunity to marketing, PR, propaganda (which was the real culprit in Idiocracy, not genetics). Et voila, another "genius".