We all know that gasoline is plowing toward /gal.
online pharmacy doxycycline best drugstore for you
I bet you didn't know that the price of corn, which was $2/bushel in 2005, is now over $6/bushel. Part of that is increased fuel and transportation costs. And part of it is in your gas tank.
One of my particularly conservative friends asked me recently why dirty liberals don't get excited about ethanol the same way they get excited about recycling, hybrids, and David Sedaris. A superficial understanding of the issue suggests that we should be excited – it's renewable, it gives farmers an expanded market for their commodities, it aids in "energy independence" or whatever, and so on. Unfortunately my response is pretty straightforward: no one gets excited about ethanol because it is a monumental crock of shit and a terrible product. By the time we wrap up this ludicrous half-century experiment it will hold its own against the greatest boondoggles in history, somewhere between the Concorde and the Iraqi Reconstruction.
Ethanol has been the "fuel of the future" for about 40 years, enjoying a surge in popularity every time the cost of gasoline shocks America. It remains "the next big thing" for the same reasons it never actually becomes the present big thing: it's a quick-fix, politically expedient solution that promises not to make Americans change their habits. We can drive the same idiotic vehicles, only with different fuel in the tank. This is why foot-dragging behemoths like General Motors (and Congress) are pimping E85 like it cures cancer. It's "clean", it subsidizes the idealized vision of rural America, and requires a minimum of mechanical changes in gasoline combustion engines.
Corn grown in the United States may be the single most heavily subsidized commodity on the planet. Since 1995, corn farmers have received over $60 billion in Federal subsidies. The vast majority of corn still goes into the food chain (either directly or as feed) but the amount diverted into the ethanol white elephant has grown five-fold since 2003. Despite banal promises that "new technologies" and more research will suddenly turn ethanol into a miracle cure for our energy needs, nearly four decades' worth of effort have yet to overcome the fundamental flaws in the product. Yet Congress has mandated that by 2022 we have to increase our production of this shit from 6 billion barrels per year to 36 billion (and remember, we're using 150 billion gallons of fossil fuels every year according to the DoE). You're welcome, Iowa Farmers / Welfare Queens.
What's wrong with ethanol? First, ethanol evaporates when mixed with gasoline. Mandating a blend of the two products (almost all gas sold today is E10, i.e. 10% ethanol) dramatically increases the costs of refining to compensate for this problem. Second, ethanol costs more energy per gallon to produce than is contained in the gallon of ethanol itself. Third, a gallon of E85 contains almost 1/4 less energy than a gallon of gasoline, so you need to use more of it. It kills fuel economy. This more than offsets the fact that E85 costs less at the pump. Fourth, it is only cheaper (or economically competitive with gasoline) because of a truly staggering level of government subsidy; almost $1.40 per gallon, compared to subsidies of 0.3 cents per gallon for gasoline.
online pharmacy synthroid best drugstore for you
In other words, without Uncle Sam underwriting every stage of the process from planting to pumping, the cost of ethanol would make regular gasoline look cheap. Real cheap.
A deep flaw in the American character is the blind faith that technology is going to save us. In the 1950s nuclear power was going to be too cheap to meter. Then hydrogen power was going to be more abundant than air itself. Now biofuels are the magic ticket.
buy amoxicillin online buy amoxicillin no prescription
Ethanol is nothing more than a fad – one whose staying power is attributable to the enormous political influence of agribusiness (and ethanol king ADM in particular). But ethanol, which is nothing more than the grain alcohol you put in fruit punch to make weddings more bearable, is a terrible product with absolutely no potential to replace gasoline. To replace our gasoline usage gallon-for-gallon, we'd have to plant corn on every square inch of the United States – and part of Canada. And more efficient ethanol crops ("cellulosic ethanol" produced from switchgrass or sugarcane) are nothing more than pipe dreams at the moment. We are to believe, of course, that shoveling money into this black hole for another 20 years will make cellulosic ethanol a reality. And that's our national neurosis – our behavior doesn't need to change because the solution to all our problems is (always) right around the corner.
I am not going to sit here and tell you that gasoline is a good product or that our use of it is sustainable.
buy furosemide online buy furosemide no prescription
But suitable replacements should be things that pollute less, cost less, and are more efficient. Since ethanol is inefficient to produce, pollutes just as much as gasoline, and costs far more, this endeavor amounts to little more than Chuck Grassley, ADM executives, and a bunch of Iowa farmers breaking it off in your ass while exchanging high-fives and lighting cigars with government cash.
Ike says:
I've a personal theory on why my parents and grandparents have such an innate faith in technology. Quite simply, those two generations witnessed magic. The United States put man on the moon. It doesn't get much more mind-boggling than that. Never mind that we basically stacked dollar bills one on top of another until a man was able to stand on them and grab himself a moon-rock.
It isn't just that Americans are being suckered by Congress, ADM, and whoever else, it's that they Want To Believe. Moon landings, polio vaccines, the interweb… all unfathomable and fantastic.
For the last 15 years or so I've been arguing with people who try to tell me that "they'll invent something better, cars will get better mileage. They always do. Science always finds a better way!" Trying to convince people that Moore's law does not apply to internal combustion engines generally results in "shut the fuck up man, you don't know what you're talking about. You're just a pessimist."
Hope springs eternal. Not many people notice that a Honda Civic gets about the same mileage as a 1960 Volkswagen.
vghoul says:
>For the last 15 years or so I’ve been arguing with people who try to tell me that “they’ll invent something better, cars will get better mileage. They always do. Science always finds a better way!” Trying to convince people that Moore’s law does not apply to internal combustion engines generally results in “shut the fuck up man, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just a pessimist.”
You can basically thank irrational Kurzweil devotees for that.
Kulkuri says:
Did you know that Henry Ford wanted to run his cars on alcohol?? Rockefeller got Prohibition passed and that killed Ford's plans for running his cars on alcohol.
I have noticed that the cars of today get less mpg than the cars of the 80's and early 90's. A 1987 Olds Delta 88 easily got 35 mpg on the highway and I had a 1994 Escort that over the 160,000 miles that I drove it averaged over 30 mpg and that included a couple of trips pulling a trailer and the mileage dropped to 16 tp 20 mpg. When I bought the Escort it had 100,000 miles on it and got up to 40 mpg on the highway. For the last decade or so they have been working on getting more power from the engines and not fuel economy.
Rob says:
It is embarrassingly easy to convince someone of something that they want to believe. This is why "mind readers" still exist, and one of the reasons why religious nutcases are so prevalent. Nevertheless, I think it is a bit unreasonable to assume that science and technology is not capable of drastically improving fuel efficiency. I agree that ethanol is not the answer, but don't tell me that cars cannot be made more efficient. More efficient cars already exist. And if you look back at the standards by which they measured average mileage in decades past, you will find that they were much looser – there were numerous ways in which car companies could declare that they got "35 mpg on highway" when in actuality, you got no where near that kind of efficiency. Also, there are other factors such as emission regulations that actually limit fuel efficiency. When you don't care how much crap you're putting into the air, it is easier to acheive improved mileage.
Kreggg says:
I see your on Crooks and Liars today, Great news and congrats!
Ed says:
Americans believe they need (or just flat-out want) cars that go really fast, so as Rob pointed out, all of our advances in technology have gone toward wringing more power out of engines rather than increasing efficiency.
In 1993, for example, a full-sized Dodge pickup had a 175hp engine. Maybe that was underpowered for towing, but today pickups come with 6.0L+ monsters rated at 350-400hp. Normal family sedans (Altimas, Camrys, Malibus, etc) have 200-250-300hp. What in god's name a Camry owner needs 270hp for is beyond me.
Oh wait, they need it to compensate for the feeling of being emasculated by driving a family sedan. Grow up.
Chris says:
What was wrong with the electric car?
Rob says:
It's unfortunate that so many people are so hung up on fast, powerful, (gas-guzzling) vehicles. While people are willing to shell out the cash for inefficient, unnecessary vehicles, there will be manufacturers happily shitting on the environment, wasting our limited gas resources, while reassuring the customer of his penis size. And lets face it, that's what vehicles like the Hummer are all about! :P
But seriously, let's be realistic – we cannot rely on the car industry to do what is right for the environment or even for the economy as a whole. And we cannot rely on the government to help things out either, at least as long as curious George is at the helm.