http://www.365tomorrows.com/01/02/whoops/

admittedly it is fiction, but it could actually happen.

The “knee jerk environmental bashers” stopped needing facts when the environmentalists stopped using the scientific method. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but they can make a lot of noise. This is a perfect example of why the academy should use objective self criticism instead of group think. The sowing has been done, enjoy the reaping.

So much hype over things that aren’t real, and now you have people doubting the existence of something you can walk down to the beach and see with your own eyes (without having to go to Mexico, btw).

Facts? Since when did knee jerk enviromental bashers ever need facts?

Here’s one better alternative to ethanol, distilled petroleum pumped form the ground. Long term solution – nuclear power plants. For any energy source to be viable, it must be able to reliably meet the energy needs of the country as well as be cost effective. At this time, the only technologies meeting that criteria are petroleum products and nuclear power. Wind, solar, and hydro aren’t reliable enough to be used for anything except potentially peak power demands, and they are also not economically feasible even with oil at $100/barrel. At least nuclear power is reliable and is approaching economic feasibility. Corn ethanol is just not practical. You would be hard pressed to find another crop that requires so much fertilizer and does so much damage to the soil. I don’t know why nobody has suggested sugar beets. Not a good crop, but much better than corn. The energy return would be higher and the soil destruction would be lower.

IF peak oil is indeed upon us, $100/bbl will seem cheap by the end of the year. But that’s the beauty of the free market, $150+/bbl will do wonders for conservation, alternatives and a host of other things.

What we don’t need is some slick Washington DC type to command that we shall use fuel X made by process Y to benefit lobbyist Z’s funders…

The only cellulose used in the process is those plants that burn it (as bagasse) to supply heat for distillation. But no ethanol comes from cellulose in Brazil at present, although they are apparently working on it.

I’d consider fishermen hauling “up bucket upon bucket of dead crabs” from the Gulf enough to qualify the use of the indicative mood in lieu of the subjunctive.

The dead zone (unless there’s another one) is right where the Mississippi River Delta dumps into the Gulf. I don’t think you can really pin it on Mexico. Except maybe all the mexicans working on midwest farms…

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/november03/findings/images/photo_deadzone.jpg

Such sustainable fuel sources that have limited negative impact to the environment are for the most part, nonexistent. Pick a fuel, any fuel, and you’ll find environmental red flags either in mass production or large quantity consumption.
Some a clearly better than others. Food has to be the worst. Converting waste into fuel would be the best, solving two problems (waste disposal and fuel production) at the same time. Too bad the waste lobby in Washington DC is so small.

I think cellulosic ethanol might be our best choice at this point.
Cellulosic gasoline or diesel (aka “green” or “renewable” diesel) would be better, as it can be used in ALL existing infrastructure. With only 2/3rds the energy content of gasoline, ethanol is probably not the fuel of the future.

A couple months ago I googled cellulosic ethanol and got a really good website that I can’t find now.
Might have something to do with the fact that there are no existing cellulosic ethanol plants.

History always finds a way to repeat itself…
More like history keeps proving a certain dumbass wrong, and he keeps failing to learn the lesson.

History always finds a way to repeat itself…

I think cellulosic ethanol might be our best choice at this point. I’m not too worried about environmental impacts (at least not about global warming) but as far as reducing our dependence on oil, we may not be able to do better.

While it is more expensive than most fuels right now (and not widely produced) I believe that it is getting cheaper as more people get interested. On the plus side, environmental impact is better than corn ethanol and there is more potential energy.

A couple months ago I googled cellulosic ethanol and got a really good website that I can’t find now. But if you do google it, I’m sure there are other just as informative websites.

I can imagine the day approaching where environmentalits will turn radical and call for population control to save the planet.

That day was sometime back in 1968, when Paul Ehrlich wrote “The Population Bomb.”

I can imagine the day approaching where environmentalits will turn radical and call for population control to save the planet.

It appears that Mexico can react in a number of ways — require cleaner fertilizer, limit coastal farming, encouraging farmers to grow something else, using some of its incredible oil wealth to subsidize its corn farmers — point is the national environmental overreaction has little to do with the feasibility of E85 from corn (or better yet, algae, or whatever).

When commodities like food items become too expensive, people switch to substitutes. Corn gets too expensive? Try wheat. Oranges skyrocketing? Try grapefruits or pineapples. Point is: this is about Mexico’s dietary preference for corn tortillas, and not about anyone starving.

There is plenty of unused land in North America upon which to grow food. As for water, maybe we should stop sending our available water to support and subsidize desert oases in New Mexico, Arizona, and California — and use it more intelligently.

Listen guys, I’m all for giving the chicken-littles their deserved chastising but this article is just a statement of fact. This dead zone in the Gulf is a scientific fact. The size of the dead zone is a direct reflection of mankind’s activities in the Gulf watershed. There’s no question about this relationship.

Now, to link the dead zone with corn subsidies is an opinion, but one that can be supported through observed changes in the Gulf waters and records kept by the DoA regarding farming in the Gulf watershed.

So, what conclusion can we draw from this? Dead zones are not good. Dead zones are caused primarily by nitrogen-rich fertilizers, therefore the use of fertilizers use should be limited if geographic and/or chemical alternatives exist. Certainly, use of fertilizers and other environmentally costly resources (water use, soil erosion, processing & transport) should not be incentivised.

I’m not sure anyone can really argue with this, can they?

I am not in support of corn incentives for ethanol production. I think plug-in hybrids burning dead dinos when required is better then E85 for this country. Money should be funneled to plug-in hybrid technology development…even if it’s earmarked only to the Big 3.

A resurgence of wolves in Montana and Wyoming is causing a problem…there are 1,500 wolves, for 2m humans. Reading that article left me wonder the same thing as you. Oh well, at least corn ethanol will help in this regard: it’s another inefficient way to power our behemoths, and since it leads to food price increases, there’ll be more famine around, i.e. less of us.

This is going too far. Whenever I venture home to the Texas Gulf Coast, I love to wet a line in the Gulf and I gorge myself on Shrimp and fish and the oysters other than the Rocky Mountain variety (Goode Company Seafood, anyone?) and if this market is destroyed by Ethanol, I’m going to move to Tonga.

Good point, Folkdancer. While there are not too many of us to inhabit the earth, the population is reaching a high enough value that we cannot have Macy’s quality at Wal-Mart prices without paying other less obvious prices. Though I have a general loathing and hatred for the Sierra club and their tactics, I really wish that they’d address this issue before going after energy and the automotive industry.