Obama Under Secret Service Protection

[Balta1701]

E-85 does burn cleaner, no?

Compared to an equal amount of gasoline burned, yes. But whether or not that makes a difference depends on the scale you're looking at. Allow me to illustrate.

 

If I'm a human being who's main concern is global climate change, then when thinking about the ethanol debate, my only concern is the total energy budget. I simply want to know...if I take corn, harvest it, and distill it into ethanol, is there a net gain of energy when I compare the energy inputs in fertilizing, harvesting, distilling, and transporting compared with the same budget for oil. If ethanol provides an advantage, then it is a benefit. If not, then it is only good for developing systems that can be used if another ethanol source is brought on line other than corn. From this perspective, the question is not whether E-85 burns cleaner, but whether the amount of E-85 + the amount of fuel expended to produce the E-85 is cleaner than the amount of fuel that could be burned alone.

 

But, if I'm the mayor of a city with air pollution problems. Let's call this city Chiangeles, I have an additional potential concern; air pollution. For me, if I put x number of cars on the road, they use y gallons of gasoline, and emit z amount of pollution. If I judge that z is too high, then I have to find some way to decrease either x or y. If I can replace 10% of the fuel consumed in my city with something that burns cleaner, then I have a way to attack that local air pollution problem. All of the energy consumed in creating ethanol is used up in places like Iowa, where there are a lot less people, so I don't care if the skies there are polluted. Even if there is a net energy loss, I have shifted some of the pollution out of my city by using up energy outside the city to manufacture a cleaner fuel that can be shipped in, and that's something I'd be willing to pay a price for.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Balta1701