Busted Science or the Usual Political BS?

How many years have we been putting ethanol in our vehicles because it was supposedly better for the environment? It's not great for your engine but we had to pay extra for the fuel and extra for the corn that we eat.

In 2005 Congress enacted a Renewable Fuel Standard that mandated ethanol be added to our fuel because it was better for the environment.

Study Says Corn-Based Ethanol 24% More Carbon Intensive Than Gasoline

Initially reported by Reuters, this research paper indicates that the carbon intensity of corn-based ethanol is "likely at least 24% higher" than conventional gasoline, not a promising figure....

But how is seemingly clean corn-based ethanol so much worse than gasoline? When you factor in drilling, refining and transporting them, petroleum-based fuels are plenty dirty. Taking a holistic approach, this study looks at a range of things: "Here we combine econometric analyses, land use observations and biophysical models to estimate the realized effects of the RFS in aggregate and down to the scale of individual agricultural fields across the United States." In other words, researchers looked at a lot more than just, say, the stuff that comes out of a car's tailpipe....

Each year, the RFS has required an ever-increasing amount of renewable energy to be used. In 2022, 36 billion gallons will need to be produced. This sounds like a good thing for the environment, but in reality, it may be quite the opposite. As the study indicates "…our findings confirm that contemporary corn ethanol production is unlikely to contribute to climate change mitigation." If fuels like cellulosic ethanol or biomass-based diesel can be scaled up, the story might be different, but for now those options seem limited.

Neither the USDA nor the Renewable Fuels Association responded to Roadshow's request for comment before this story was published.

So, either the politicians got really bad scientific data that didn't take into account all the carbon and environmental damage caused by the growing/harvesting/ and refining of the corn, or they didn't bother to look at any other negative consequences that would derail their utopian dream of a cleaner energy they could force on us.

Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of this bullshit "science" that masking a kid 8 hours a day is no big deal and they will just get over it. Look beyond your leftist Fauci loving sources and you'll see a whole lot of bad stories where children have been mentally and physically harmed by masks they never needed... but I digress.

www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/study-says-co...nsive-than-gasoline/

It is called comprehensive and complete analysis (something that is rarely done,jmo)....ten years ago is a long time and studies do not come cheap. There are MANY things that show inefficiency and should be re evaluated.... perhaps that is why we have the fubar we now live with (in all things).

homeagain wrote: It is called comprehensive and complete analysis (something that is rarely done,jmo)....ten years ago is a long time and studies do not come cheap. There are MANY things that show inefficiency and should be re evaluated.... perhaps that is why we have the fubar we now live with (in all things).

I agree, a lot of of things forced on us should be looked at and studied to see if there really is a net benefit. I would put wind and solar in that category. along with the full consequences of shutting down the economy and forcing people to take a shot that doesn't prevent infection or spread of a virus.

But we know this isn't how it works with people who think their utopian ideas will work based on their feelings and sub-par science.

Senator John McCain was always against bio-fuels. Why burn up crops when they could be feeding people around the world. Then he ran for President in Iowa. He changed his position to win that caucus in a corn growing Midwest state. I saw one commentator declare that if Iowa lost its caucus to another state, bio-fuels would disappear.

It's always about money and power and they use "science" to get to their desired result. The problem is that the people who really need to know this scam will likely never be informed by the mostly worthless media.

Perfect but sad statement. The current media will only tell you certain stories. It is like a realtor posting photos of a house shot in such ways you don't see the holes in the walls or the water damage.