Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change 16 Posted 19 hours, 19 minutes ago
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors? 7 Posted 14 hours, 10 minutes ago
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations 0 Posted 17 hours, 51 minutes ago
Big Al succumbs to ethanomania
Here's a film clip of Al Gore making a firm prediction that "next generation ethanol" not dependent on corn or food crops will move out of the lab in "three years."
He discusses the energy balance question, fails to question the use of coal for process heat, and suggests that there is some sort of "distribution network" that's going to be built.
Sad.
Let’s live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change
Comments
View as Flat
Karen Lee Orr Posted 4:34 am
30 Jun 2007
by Russell Hoffman
http://www.counterpunch.org/hoffman03232007.html
Kyoto, Gore and the Atomic Lobby: Nuclear Saviors?
by Jeffrey St. Clair
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03242007.html
Mr. Green Goes to Washington: Another Oscar Performance from Al Gore
By Michael Donnelly
http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly03222007.html
The Green Impostor: When Al Gore Was Veep
by Jeffrey St. Clair
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03172007.html
Glory Boy and the Snail Darter: Al Gore, the Origins of a Hypocrite
by Jeffrey St. Clair
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03032007.html
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:50 am
30 Jun 2007
Well, he left out something that I think is critical. Conversion of "waste" biomass, or grass that "grows anyway", takes nutrients away from the soil from which the stuff came. Lots of nutrients. So unless you somehow can replace those nutrients, you soon have dead soil that won't grow any more biomass, and it's not sustainable in the absence of fertilizer.
To replace the nutrients, you'd have to get them from somewhere else in the natural world, which so far as I know means compost in a post-carbon world. So if everyone is composting everything (crop waste and human waste) and using that on food crops, there is none left to re-grow the biomass.
So if there's nothing wrong with my logic, cellulosic ethanol may have a decent energy return but would still be unsustainable and therefore at best a bridge technology with a lifetime on the order of a human lifetime - and the net result would lots of dead soil. It might be true that it would not compete with food production, as he says - unless you steal compost from the food system for cellulosic crop fertilizer.
Right now, I'm having to steal (actually purchase, that is) fertilizer from the combined local food/biomass system to fix up my own soils, and my guess is that it will take several years before our own compost system can keep up with our needs - if it even can. ...
Those in the peak oil movement definitely would make the argument above, however, and that jives quite well with the soil science books I've read so far. I expect quite a few farmers would also see the faulty logic.
tooj
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:32 am
30 Jun 2007
"We need to build massive infrastructure now, for when the worthwhile ethanol comes out"
Even if we were going to do biofuels to replace gasoline, it wouldn't be ethanol.
Instead we'd create something much more like gasoline, like butanol.
In the same way that biodiesel can use virtually any existing diesel infrastructure.
_
So why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure that will be obsolete in 3 years?
Permalink
greentiger Posted 9:00 am
30 Jun 2007
With that in mind, I believe the useful time frame of biocrops can be extended to a pretty decent length, but as also stated I don't think anyone really sees ethanol (or any related biofuel) as a permanent solution on the scale currently imagined, nor do I think this is a major concern given rapid advances in battery technology. But personally, I think a smaller scale and (quasi-) sustainable niche market for biofuels may develop (e.g. for jet fuel).
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:36 pm
30 Jun 2007
Unless ethanol or any other biofuel is made sufficiently close to the source that %100 of plant residues that are not strictly hydrocarbons is returned to the source field it is unsustainable. Since nobody anywhere is discussing returning phophtes and trace minerals to the soil from the ethanol plants you can bet that this is a logistical no-go zone.
Lybia, Tunisian, Greece, Turkey, Lebonon and Cyprus were all once forested to a sufficient degree that they produced ample old-growth lumber for the production of fleets of ships and fuel for thousands of copper and iron smelters. Now they are all deserts. Where Troy stands today you would be hard put to find sufficient lumber to build a trojan horse. We are attempting to repeat this mistake in North America.
Al Gore's misguided support of biofuels is a bid to turn the croplands and forestlands of the US into deserts also. Add this to his massive carbon footprint (no I'm not buying into his indulgences schemes) Al Gore is easily one of the worlds foremost hypocrites.
Alice Friedemann's post at Culturechange.org titled "Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic ethanol and other Biofuels are Not Sustainable and are a Threat to America's National Security" should be required reading before anybody even contemplates using biofuels.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 3:00 pm
30 Jun 2007
By Dr. Thomas D. Bussing, PhD.
In taking a long-term view of our society's dependence on profligate use of cheap fossil fuel, responsible voices in decades past often posed the question, "What do we do when it starts to run out?"
Now that climatic change has usurped the exhaustion of fossil reserves as the crucial consideration in long-term energy policy, we must also confront a dangerously twisted answer to that rhetorical question that has been promoted as a response to the crisis - a veritable "greenwash" for continuing our current extravagant use of energy.
First came a reckless and on-going promotion of ethanol and biodiesel as the way to fuel our vehicles without "changing our habits." This program has been exposed as chiefly an avenue for generous agribusiness subsidies and also as a way to deplete cropland, plow up conservation lands and disrupt our food system for the convenience of keeping all our cars and trucks running as before - all this without reducing our net usage of fossil fuel.
Now comes another nostrum for the public to be seduced by - the generation of "green" electricity from "biomass" fuels.
The proponents are well intended, but naïve. Their vision is of capturing some imagined "waste stream" of deadwood and branches that can provide megawatts of electric power if "harvested" and trucked to power plants for burning.
Such a plan is advancing here in Gainesville, with little scrutiny of the true long-term implications of such a system on our land.
Our elected officials are moving forward thinking that the plant can subsist on "waste wood," but a significant amount of the identified "available" wood that they hope to "capture" is from developers clearing land - hardly a "sustainable" practice.
The rest of the supply stream would be piggybacked on existing pulpwood operations.
In advancing this plan, our commissioners have failed to consider that depleting woodlands of the soil-building residue of the normal sylvan system across a large swath of our region spells long-term doom for a forest that has been here for thousands of years.
They also seem to ignore the fact that municipal solid waste (MSW) is identified as an "attractive" fuel for the burners they are hoping to build.
While the commissioners think they are getting greener, the power plant people are looking to be burning a municipal waste stream as well, a stream that is already in trucks, and has to go somewhere.
At least these industry proponents are honest about their goal.
But incineration in Florida has a long and sordid history, and to see the same type of plant constructed ostensibly for burning "wood waste" should raise concerns for those who want our clean air protected. We are being targeted as a "partner" for the Municipal-Solid-Waste-burning industry.
Even without the disturbing link with the solid waste burners, we are left with the bottom-line premise for building such a plant -- simply to begin consuming all that can be grown, so that we can continue to have more electrical power and increased consumption.
This is not a "green" program. It is a program to transfer the appetite for power that we acquired from cheap fossil fuel to the consumption of our last resource, the biological systems of the planet.
A better future lies in confronting face-on our real need - a need for greater efficiencies and for significant reductions in our use of energy, and for building up our capacity using truly clean and renewable energy, such as solar.
Dr. Bussing was mayor of Gainesville, Florida from 2001-2004.
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:12 pm
30 Jun 2007
If we are not happy with the infrastructure we have developed on oil, I don't think we will be happy with the infrastructure developed on cellulosic ethanol. It could be very ugly in terms of environmental and ecological costs. Who will determine the limits of our addiction to this new energy stream? What new ANWRs will get in its path? If your conscience bothers you now, it is not likely to be salved with brown/green ethanol.
We see this great constriction, this eye of the needle, approaching. Trying to get this monstrosity powered by big oil and coal through the needle's eye is the dream of an alien mindset. It is this delusion that we must confront, starting within each of us. It will be very difficult dealing with the seduction of all this fun shit propelling us toward our next adventure down the big highway. We hurtle through the fog toward the really big pile up.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:01 pm
30 Jun 2007
Promoting cellulosic ethanol. Only one reason for this, to keep agribizz campaign "contributions" coming in.
I have heard this from our democratic leaders lately. When we rank and file volunteers diss corn ethanol, they come back with cellulosic ethanol.
So now we have to get to them on this problematic boondoggle.
how do we do this? Volunteer in your local democratic party (pubs won't listen on greeen issues, oppose their extremist version of corporate shilling). get involved in the upcoming congressional campaigns. if you volunteer they will listen.
Tell them cellulosic ethanol burns up soil organic matter adding to GHG problems. tout plugin hybrids of the GM Volt design instead, 200+ mpg. The Volt type design available for government fleet vehicle purchase and tax incentives soon.
Get your representative to pass over fuel farming and go straight to plugins.
The only way US moderately incomed citizens can be heard over the corporate dollar swearing (money doesn't talk it swears, Bobby Z said that) is to volunteer. march in the july 4th parade with your local democrats, arnie and me are.
under the banner.. SLED DOGS AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING.....SAVE OUR SNOW... and the local jobs and businesses that depend on it. Yippeee. Even the curmudeonly are welcome..take note JMG.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:07 am
01 Jul 2007
Obviously some of those at the top have been seduced by the promises that biofuels are sustainable, nonpolluting, and reduce emmisions.
All of which isn't really true.
Now while Al Gore may say he's not a "politician", I would still peg him as an ideology spokesman.
Now as mentioned previously about how "Green" Arnold Schwarzeneggar is, much of that comes from pressue put forward by Green Lobbies.
Like Sierra Club, Greenpeace, NRDC, WWF, and to some extent MoveOn.org
To start with NRDC would be a waste of time, since they are fully entrenched in ethanol.
How I wonder how Grist could influence other Green Activist groups, and get them to see that Ethanol actualy does have downsides (That outweigh the benefits).
_
To start with, I know many of those at The Oil Drum have been shifting more towards "Hey this is a bad idea"
_
So whats the plan of action?
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 4:27 am
01 Jul 2007
Why does this happen? How can we do anything about it? "So what can we do about this?"
I have said it before, so at the risk of being viewed as a crackpot or some such thing, I'll say it again: it is the takeover of the government by the Corporate Oligarchy. Others call it the business elite, the rich, the powerbrokers in the shadows/behind the scenes, etc., etc., etc., but they are all talking about the same group of people. I think my name for them is more specific, less vague. It has always been present, but got a huge boost in 1888 when corporations were given the same protection as real people under the protection of the U.S. amendment to the Constitution intended to protect freed slaves. This decision was and is a perversion of justice. Look up "corporate person".
Most politicians are in it for their own selfish motives, despite the fine rhetoric, so virtually all succumb to the greed. The Corporate Oligarchy buys them out (what do we think lobbyists are for?) in a wide-ranging system, and the system also defends itself against change, with such things on all levels as lobbying, campaign finance, and election fraud.
So, what CAN we do? Three laws to start with: Campaign Finance Reform, Lobbying Reform, and Election Security Reform. PLEASE NOTE: by "reform" I do not mean the Neo-Con BushCo. term for destroying public institutions and policies, as applied to things like 'education reform' and 'Medicare reform'. "Reform" here is used in the correct classic honored undistorted sense of substantially overhauling and significantly improving policy as established in law.
ADM and Cargill and Monsanto are huge multinational companies who are merely some of the most public and well-known of 100s or thousands, and among the biggest pigs sucking at the public teat. To get where they are they spend billions paying off politicians, either through campaign donations, pork-barrel programs, or much worse. Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff are two examples on each side that pop to mind, and they are only the tip of a shit iceberg.
ALL of them at the top, without exception, including Al Gore, are part of the problem. Until we elect honest progressive populist politicians who are above this crap, and have the integrity to remain so, we will continue to reap the crap reward.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
lilbearlobo Posted 4:45 am
01 Jul 2007
lilbearlobo
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:25 am
01 Jul 2007
That's the plan, a grassroots takeover of the democratic party. We make it over in a green mode.
The parade watchers loved the global warming message. the kids petted arnie the wonderdog. I kept telling them he is fighting global waerming for you kids, so you'll have a future.
A racecar on a trailer in front of our democrat's float started racing it's engine. I said "you hear that racket? That's global warming, we have to stop that."
"Smell those bush fumes? that's sending money to terrorists." Adults agreed. It was great. a few pubs in the crowd yelled out "You'll raise our taxes." hehehey. Really a fun parade, two more to go.
Join up everyone, if you are concerned about this great mother earth. Make our democratic leaders listen on all these green issues. A groundswell of volunteers in this next cycle all talking u[p plugins, conservation, and renewable distributed energy could do it.
Take the nuclear, fossil, and fuel farming corporate bribery right out of the picture. Next big battle is a huge bicycle protest of the pub convention in Minneapolis.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:23 am
01 Jul 2007
For instance, merely getting past "Corn ethanol is bad" is a big leap for many people.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:56 pm
01 Jul 2007
That makes the assumption that there is "waste" biomass to be had. This isn't true.
It's only "waste" if you intend on harvesting a renewable resource in the same unrenewable way that you harvest fossil fuels.
Soil Mining isn't any less harmful than mining for Fossil Fuels.
(Particularly considering how much carbon is in the soils)
_
You can kill the goose that lays the golden eggs for short term gains, but you'll screw yourself in the end.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 7:34 pm
01 Jul 2007
http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=502
GRAIN has just published a special issue of Seedling which focuses on biofuels, or as we like to call them, agrofuels - over 30,000 words of in-depth analysis from around the world.
In the process of gathering material from colleagues and social movements around the world, we have discovered that the stampede into agrofuels is causing enormous environmental and social damage, much more than we realised earlier. Precious ecosystems are being destroyed and hundreds of thousands of indigenous and peasant communities are being thrown off their land.
Worse lies ahead: the Indian government is committed to planting 14 million hectares of land with jatropha (an exotic bush from which biodiesel can be manufactured), the Inter-American Development Bank says that Brazil has 120 million hectares available for biofuels, and lobbyists in Europe are speaking of almost 400 million hectares being available for biofuels in 15 African countries. We are talking about expropriation on an unprecedented scale.
GRAIN's special issue of Seedling with over 30,000 words of in-depth analysis from around the world, plus other resources on agrofuels are available from this page:
http://www.grain.org/go/agrofuels.
SPECIAL ISSUE OF SEEDLING (JULY 2007)
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?type=68
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:20 pm
01 Jul 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:29 pm
01 Jul 2007
There's your waste biomass converted to clean, easily stored backup energy for wind and solar. And used as an orgasnic soil builder and carbon sink. Pyrolisis using waste heat from fuel cell/turbines that run on biogas and pyrolisis gas can provide charcoal soil amendment and sequestration as well.
Using these gases in a solid oxide fuel cell/turbine can backup the grid with very high efficiency as well, 2 to 3 times the efficiency of a standard combustion power plant.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
earthbiscuit18 Posted 11:09 pm
01 Jul 2007
Biofuels are not a panacea, but if done well are not all bad either...
http://www.e3biofuels.com/index.php
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 11:56 pm
01 Jul 2007
Don't fall into the trap of assuming all ethanol is bad, or all bio-derived products are bad. Start from the reasonable premise that ANY shift away from the carbon impact of fossil fuels is good, and then weigh options. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Any change in transportation fuels requires massive changes to multiple pieces of the fuel chain - upstream E&P, refining/production, distribution, retail pumping and the vehicles. These individual pieces are owned by different companies and any fuel that is predicated on the "everyone jump at once" philosophy is doomed to fail (or else be subject to some fairly massive social engineering, in which we better make damn sure we're right about before starting). The big advantage of ethanol is that it requires less change to the infrastructure than any other option out there. Moreover, it has immediate near-term uses as a fuel oxygenate (e.g., you can blend it with existing fuels to run most of the nation's vehicles) that provide a natural way to grow into alt fuels. As opposed to hydrogen, biodiesel, or any number of other alt-fuel candidates.
Cynics may suggest that the corn lobby has more to do with that, but this is a separate issue. The worlds of ethanol and corn-based ethanol are not identical, any more than the worlds of hydrogen and renewably-derived hydrogen are identical. As a fuel, ethanol is quite attractive. And while making it from corn in dry mills may be a particularly inefficient way to make it, we ought not diminish the value of the corn lobby in pushing this forward. Just as gasoline oxygenates provide a technical way to bootstrap to an alt-fueled future, so too does the corn lobby provide a political way to bootstrap forward.
All of which gets to cellulosics, which are vastly more environmentally benign. As some commenters have noted, they take much less fertilizer (in many cases, none) and water and can create a way to use existing ag wastes. In addition, if you envision a world that uses woody biomass (probably the most attractive in terms of cost and environmental impact), they come ready-mixed with lignin, a chemical which has enough energy to power the whole ethanol plant and eliminate the need for fossil fuels. In short, the energy balance from a cellulosic-ethanol future is vastly superior to that from a corn-based ethanol future. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 1:11 am
02 Jul 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:18 am
02 Jul 2007
The big picture problem is mechanical energy from high value energy while not using fossil carbon. Liquids from biofuels is an oversimplified myopic solution to this problem, and most inefficient. Using wood and corncob pellet stoves would save home natural gas for use as a vehicle and power plant fuel much more efficiently. This is old technology without ownership. No glory.
Ethanol and driving cars is a side issue of make-believe energy independence. It distracts us from the real problem - coal.
Resisting ethanol is like resisting a popular war of aggression. It is eight years of wasted time, a trillion dollars of wasted value, and a distraction from the enemy within.
I don't subscribe to the notion that ethanol is like the mission to the moon - no value but lots of potential for spin-off new science and technology. I do not believe cellulosic ethanol will ever compete with the economics of cellulosic pellet stoves displacing conventional fuels.
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:29 am
02 Jul 2007
That's not the advantage of ethanol, that's the danger. Ethanol is the bevy of beautiful sirens on the rocks, luring the sailors to their doom.
If that's too metaphorical for you, let's try this:
Car infrastructure IS THE PROBLEM.
There's a saying: When the gods wish to destroy someone, they start by granting them their wishes."
Agrofuels are all about the fantasy that we can thread the narrow passage between peak oil and catastrophic climate disruption with carburbia and carchitecture in tow.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 2:30 am
02 Jul 2007
Moreover, even in a corn dry mill, you could install the plant with a cogen plant co-located on the site, and matched to the thermal load. (A 50 MMgal ethanol plant is a perfect thermal load for a ~50 MW, 80% efficient cogen facility.) In this scenario, the amount of fossil fuel you displace from power generation (remember - the current US power grid is only 33% efficient) is sufficient to displace all the carbon released upstream, both in the conversion plant and in the manufacture of all the fertilizer for the farm, making this a 100% reduction in carbon on a net basis relative to petroleum.
Bottom line is that you have proved my larger point. Ethanol is good. But this doesn't mean that the way we're currently producing it makes sense, and we should not conflate the two. The comparison with hydrogen is apt, but for opposite reasons - that's been held up as a great fuel because it could theoretically be made from renewables, conveniently overlooking the fact that the vast majority of the ways we'd likely make hydrogen are really dirty.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:00 am
02 Jul 2007
I have also been asked to develop solar concentrators for ethanol, turning sunshine into liquid fuel.
It looks like ethanol is going to happen and we are going to put lipstick on a pig.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 3:49 am
02 Jul 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:13 am
02 Jul 2007
George Washington Carver
Forward!
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 4:26 am
02 Jul 2007
Permalink
naturescene Posted 4:28 am
02 Jul 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:44 am
02 Jul 2007
I'm not really following this very closely, but I'm going to comment anyway. Sorry for the massive display of naivete or just plain ignorance. Feel free to ignore me, but I've been angry ever since I watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" -- which I commented on elsewhere.
If the Federal government is going to invest in new infrastructure, wouldn't the ultimate solution be charging stations and an efficient electric car? The power can be generated by a wide variety of means (hydro, wind, photovoltaic, coal, fission, biomass, tides, fusion, pixie dust, et cetera) and as new means are discovered they can be added to the system rather than rebuilding the entire distribution infrastructure every 75 years. It also permits us to disconnect harmful sources of power without causing too much inconvenience. Seems like a no-brainer. No need for future bridge technologys. Just upgrade regularly... better cars, better sources of electricity... and the old stuff can all be recycled.
Forward!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:55 am
02 Jul 2007
We're only so far displacing a whole 1% of our transport fuel.
All while paying hand over fist for it.
Hell, one could easily say that ethanol has been increasing our use of fossil fuels by decreasing CAFE by 0.9 mpg Also especially since the MTBE that it's replacing is largely made from the same natural gas that goes into the fertilizers, herbacides, pesticides, and electricity use for making ethanol.
The USDA studies blatently discount the impacts of fertilizer emmisions, and land use.
Their numbers are also highly suspect.
Food prices are spiking, water use is huge, air quality isn't getting any better.
All of which gets to cellulosics, which are vastly more environmentally benign.
Is it?
Sugar Ethanol uses more more water, however cellulosic would use far more transportation fuel, and cause far more soil degradation.
As some commenters have noted, they take much less fertilizer (in many cases, none)
Initially. However it requires more in the long run. (Since the previous year's grass was the next year's "fertilizer")
Assuming you can keep mining nutrients without any downsides is tantimount to blind optimism.
Cellulosic doesn't get to ignore the laws of conservation of mass, or conservation of energy.
_
It's the same thing as "Lets build lots of coal plants now, and we PROMISE 3 years from now we will make it sustainable"
Bullshit.
"We'll fix it later" just doesn't cut it.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:18 am
02 Jul 2007
Okay, now I'm convinced this guy is just a koolaid zombie.
Ethanol is a VERY difficult fuel to use.
It has low energy content it gets 70.9% of the mileage of gasoline, it's highly prone to water contamination, it has a very high vapor pressure, it is highly corrosive, it freezes in cold weather, and it's not compatible with existing infrastructure.
It is slightly compatible with existing vehicles, however so are all the fossil fuels used to grow it, including Diesel, Natural Gas, Propane, Butane, and Electricity.
_
Should biofuels be entirely abandoned? No.
Algae has some promise (however it's not really anywhere near to primetime)
http://greyfalcon.net/algae
http://greyfalcon.net/algae2
http://greyfalcon.net/algae3
BioButanol, it has some potential to ACTUALLY be compatible with existing infrastructure, HOWEVER it also is nowhere near ready for primetime.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/06/problem-with-biob ...
However, if it cannot be done sustainably, and it cannot be done cost effectively, then We. Should. Not. Do. It.
Study it? Yes.
But for the meantime we should instead pick the best technologies we actually have.
And those best technologies are:
Conservation
Diesel
Compressed Natural Gas (Fleet Use)
Butane/Propane
Hybrids
Plugin Hybrids
Electric Vehicles
_
Remember, even for the most favorable numbers for corn ethanol;
1. Driving on pure coal electricity is better for the environment than corn ethanol.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/lcarough5.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/plugins3
2. Driving on Diesel is better for the environment than corn ethanol. (And saves far more fossil fuels)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:59 am
08 Jul 2007
Despite Its Huge Flaws, Ethanol Is Political Holy Water in DC
Published July 7th 2007
Permalink