Comments on: Biofuels Exec Says Government Help Is On Its Way

By: houghton

houghton — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:12:54 +0000

Look guys, The argument is not about who’s btu’s are better. It is about doing business with American farmers and ending the trade for oil with the desert rats and south american dictators who hate us. Shouldn’t this be what we can agree on?

By: Shines

Shines — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:31:33 +0000

Not Left Not Right,
If the Ethanol industry was self sufficient you would be correct. I buy E10 gas because it is 10 cents a gallon cheaper – because it is govt subsidized – I just get a return on my taxes. If the govt didn’t give handouts to the big 3 (allowing them exceptions for meeting the cafe standards for making those big heavy pickups flex fuel )- even though the fuel is much less efficient – you would be correct again. But creating flex fuel vehicles mostly allows the big 3 to avoid the CAFE fuel economy standards and keep selling the big toys to (in your own words):
“The self-indulgent driving of those who; don’t care about fuel efficiency — and, by extension, don’t care about polluting the air and enriching our enemies by buying oil.”

By: Not Left, Not Right, Just Free

Not Left, Not Right, Just Free — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:41:10 +0000

Why pose this false choice between driving a fuel-efficient vehicle and driving a flex-fuel vehicle? We plan to do both!

We own a 2009 Prius and have been emailing Toyota asking them to offer a flex-fuel version.

We are saving to buy a plug-in hybrid ford Escape, which will be avilable in 2012. The hybrid Escape can run on E85, and we expect that the PHEV Escape will have that flexibility too.

And by the way, who exactly has the right to complain about the inefficiency of biofuels??? Not the tens of millions of Americans who needlessly, selfishly drive pickup trucks and SUVS.

Every day I see hundreds of people driving SOLO in a big, heavy, internal-combustion-only gas-guzzling vehicle. Commuting solo, running errands solo.

Many of these people don't legitimately "need" vehicles that size because of a large family or equipment for a small business. So certainly those people can't credibly complain "E15 [or E85] won't get good mileage." They've already proven they don't care about fuel efficiency -- and, by extension, they don't care about polluting the air and enriching our enemies by buying oil.

Ethanol of any blend is not "the problem" with our vehicles. The self-indulgent driving of unnecessarily large, heavy vehicles is a problem. Refusal to carpool or take available transit is a problem. The absence of high-speed rail is a problem. But biofuels are NOT the problem.

By: Dom

Dom — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:18:30 +0000

I don’t know about Ethanol, but I think Biodiesel from non-food sources is a great idea.

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:37:31 +0000

Let automotive ethanol die. Please. Do something more useful with our too-precious farmland.

By: JamesDavis

JamesDavis — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:50:11 +0000

With that low energy output, the pollution it creates, and the food it takes out of our mouths – why is the government still pouring tax payers money into a company that cannot, after many years, sustain itself? A successful company would not need tax payers money to keep crawling and plugging along. It sounds like they are never going to make a profit enough where they can stay in business without the people handing them welfare. Isn’t it time we quit pouring our money into worthless companies like this one?

By: Shines

Shines — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 00:06:11 +0000

If they could produce enough and then sell ethanol for 25% less than gasoline you would only break even on the cost because of the lower energy content which translates into about a 25%lower fuel economy rating. What fun to be driving your flex fuel half ton knowing it would be getting 20 mpg on the highway but is only getting 15 mpg because you’re using E85…