No, it was a bad response. All internal combustion engine farm equipment can run on ethanol or bio-diesel made from ethanol. And since ethanol is cheaper than gasoline and petroleum diesel fuel it's actually a better way to go.
However, all ocean and land oil shipping vessels/vehicles require massive amounts of expensive petroleum fuels.
And did you know that it has been 15,862 consecutive days since the 1973 Oil Crisis in which an American serviceman has not been killed defending ethanol?
Steve, what is it that you think "vice presidents" of a company do? In your original article you showed that you have very little business acumen, are you now compounding it to show that you have zero business acumen?
You say that what comes out of my mouth resembles what a politician says. But that can't be true since I've only 'spoken' the truth to you.
You built this little fantasy where you attack ethanol and corn grown for ethanol. You spout words that you know nothing about.
There are farm subsidies, but there are no corn ethanol subsidies. If you have a problem with Federal subsidies, as many people do, then you should have the same problem regardless of whether the farmer is growing corn or wheat or beans or peas or oranges or apples or potatoes or peanuts. But you didn't write a dopey story attacking peanut butter, you wrote a story attacking ethanol.
And as I wrote previously to you, if you hate federal subsidies then your first target should be the petroleum oil industry.
You made a few great miscalculations in how you handled this entire issue. First is that you repeatedly stated that 40% of all corn is used for ethanol. As I wrote in my initial rebuttal, you have done this in order to imply that the use of the corn for ethanol is creating a food shortage and/or causing general food prices to rise. This is the line of attack that all ignorant oil industry shills take. Corn ethanol production is not responsible for either of these things, and I provided ample source information to support me. You provided nothing to support your implication.
Second, if 40% of all corn is used for ethanol, then it still leaves 60% for all the other uses, such as popcorn, fattening candies, fattening soft drinks, baby powder, corn on the cob, canned corn, etc. If the purpose of your article was to decry corn subsidies, then why not attack the larger portion of where corn is used? Do you seriously think that we must have popcorn in movie theaters? Aren't there better ways to sweeten soft drinks then with corn fructose? Don't you know that America is battling obesity? If you're just an honest concerned guy, why not attack these uses of corn?
Third, most corn used for ethanol is not fit for human consumption, so we shouldn't even be considering it as corn. Therefore, the proper way to evaluate the situation is to say that nearly 100% of all corn grown is for human consumption or bodily applications (baby powder). And then we can say that nearly 100% of this other stuff that resembles corn is what is used for ethanol, which works out good because it's not it for human consumption.
And here's the best part, virtually all corn that is used for ethanol (regardless of whether it was fit for human consumption or not) can be used as a high quality animal feed after the distillation process. And by using the remnants, which are called distillers grains, the animals that are used for human food grow bigger and provide more meat.
In essence, Steve, you created a labyrinth of deceit that you can't escape from except by imagining that company vice presidents should have something better to do then post rebuttals to stupid stories and comments.
You've ignored one other thing: I'm not just any vice president of The Auto Channel, I'm the executive vice president of The Auto Channel. This gives me special powers to combat knuckleheads. :)
William, very good. I'm glad to see you know how to look up the definition of a word or term.
Now let's put what you learned into practical application: Mr. St. Angelo expressed the contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments (and he did so with lies and misleading information).
I gladly supplied the correct information that tested, and bested, the strength of his arguments. His arguments had no strength, and I remain standing while he slunk away.
Now you try to interpret what Mr. St Angelo's misinformation was meant to say. If he didn't know what he meant to say, and you come along with equal or perhaps even less knowledge of the entire issue, how can you correctly interpret what he meant?
If you say that you are a respected voice in this arena then I will listen to what you have to say, and then respond accordingly.
In any event, you are incorrect. Mr. St. Angelo backed up his contention that ethanol was "low quality" with an argument about energy content. But as I explained in my published rebuttal that energy content is irrelevant in internal combustion engines.
Additionally, as I explained to him, since gasoline actually has a lower EROEI than ethanol, why castigate ethanol? If you want to hate low EROEI, then hate gasoline, which is also responsible for creating health hazards, environmental disasters, and wars.
One more thing: every...EVERY... useable energy/fuel requires enormous energy and fuels to transform the raw energy into usable energy. There is no free ride, and there is no cheap or easy way to create the energy we need to power our machines and electric devices. The closest may be nuclear, which I'm okay with, but many people are not.
Carl - Mr. St. Angelo decided to venture into territory that he knows nothing about. He wrote a fairly long article that proves he knows nothing about the issue. He used terminology that he doesn't know the meaning of, and he referred to ethanol advocates as having brain defects.
I corrected him and his incorrect information. If doing so seems to you to be an unreasonable personal attack on him, that's your impression, not my intention. I was actually quite polite; asking about his summer and hoping that he has had a good one. I also wrote that I looked forward to his reply. In making a reply to me he didn't say he felt that I attacked him personally, and he said he was grateful that I reached out to him. It is interesting that he wrote to me that he disagreed with many of the points I made in my rebuttal to him, but he failed to mention what those points were, and what information he might have that leads him to disagree with me.
But allow me to clear the air if there is any misconception: I take issue with stupidity. In a time when we have virtually instant access to incredible amounts of information there is no excuse for circulating lies, other than the intention to circulate lies. Mr. St. Angelo claims to be a researcher. He now claims to be agnostic on the issue of ethanol as a fuel. If he is a researcher, and an objective observer then he should have responded in a better manner.
William - I suggest you look up the term "Devil's Advocate." If there is a "Devil's Advocate" related to this issue, it was Steve St. Angelo.
Mr. St. Angelo wrote an spurious article about ethanol. I corrected those inaccuracies. That doesn't make me the Devil's Advocate. I used several sources of information to support my statements; the use of those sources is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I didn't take his words out of context, his entire article was "out of context" with facts. I didn't call ethanol a "low quality fuel," he did. Ethanol is not a low quality fuel, not by any standards.
Scientists do not debate whether corn ethanol is negative or positive EROEI, but some scientists have been paid by the oil industry to say that ethanol is negative EROEI. If you want to see a forum where scientists challenge the two worst offenders' negative assertions about ethanol then you should watch this hour-long video: www.c-span.org/.../ethanol-energy-policy.
Steve - This is more disingenuous information from you. Are you saying that corn farmers are not part of the ethanol industry? If you make the case that 40% of corn is used for ethanol, and then say that corn farmers received subsidies, then you are implying that ethanol was (singularly) subsidized. But this is not the case.
And as I pointed out in my original reply to you, if you have a problem with Federal subsidies then you should have a real problem with all the subsidies received by the oil industry.
Bill, what about the article that Steve St. Angelo linked to? Did you read it? It refers to subsidies that ended a few years ago. If you read my reply to Mr. St. Angelo you'll note that I said the chart was based on old, wrong information. The National Review story was a hit piece with inaccurate, out dated info.
You should take a look at the link provided by Bobby Likis.
Latest Comments
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
No, it was a bad response. All internal combustion engine farm equipment can run on ethanol or bio-diesel made from ethanol. And since ethanol is cheaper than gasoline and petroleum diesel fuel it's actually a better way to go.
However, all ocean and land oil shipping vessels/vehicles require massive amounts of expensive petroleum fuels.
And did you know that it has been 15,862 consecutive days since the 1973 Oil Crisis in which an American serviceman has not been killed defending ethanol?
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
I like harsh.
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
Steve, what is it that you think "vice presidents" of a company do? In your original article you showed that you have very little business acumen, are you now compounding it to show that you have zero business acumen?
You say that what comes out of my mouth resembles what a politician says. But that can't be true since I've only 'spoken' the truth to you.
You built this little fantasy where you attack ethanol and corn grown for ethanol. You spout words that you know nothing about.
There are farm subsidies, but there are no corn ethanol subsidies. If you have a problem with Federal subsidies, as many people do, then you should have the same problem regardless of whether the farmer is growing corn or wheat or beans or peas or oranges or apples or potatoes or peanuts. But you didn't write a dopey story attacking peanut butter, you wrote a story attacking ethanol.
And as I wrote previously to you, if you hate federal subsidies then your first target should be the petroleum oil industry.
You made a few great miscalculations in how you handled this entire issue. First is that you repeatedly stated that 40% of all corn is used for ethanol. As I wrote in my initial rebuttal, you have done this in order to imply that the use of the corn for ethanol is creating a food shortage and/or causing general food prices to rise. This is the line of attack that all ignorant oil industry shills take. Corn ethanol production is not responsible for either of these things, and I provided ample source information to support me. You provided nothing to support your implication.
Second, if 40% of all corn is used for ethanol, then it still leaves 60% for all the other uses, such as popcorn, fattening candies, fattening soft drinks, baby powder, corn on the cob, canned corn, etc. If the purpose of your article was to decry corn subsidies, then why not attack the larger portion of where corn is used? Do you seriously think that we must have popcorn in movie theaters? Aren't there better ways to sweeten soft drinks then with corn fructose? Don't you know that America is battling obesity? If you're just an honest concerned guy, why not attack these uses of corn?
Third, most corn used for ethanol is not fit for human consumption, so we shouldn't even be considering it as corn. Therefore, the proper way to evaluate the situation is to say that nearly 100% of all corn grown is for human consumption or bodily applications (baby powder). And then we can say that nearly 100% of this other stuff that resembles corn is what is used for ethanol, which works out good because it's not it for human consumption.
And here's the best part, virtually all corn that is used for ethanol (regardless of whether it was fit for human consumption or not) can be used as a high quality animal feed after the distillation process. And by using the remnants, which are called distillers grains, the animals that are used for human food grow bigger and provide more meat.
In essence, Steve, you created a labyrinth of deceit that you can't escape from except by imagining that company vice presidents should have something better to do then post rebuttals to stupid stories and comments.
You've ignored one other thing: I'm not just any vice president of The Auto Channel, I'm the executive vice president of The Auto Channel. This gives me special powers to combat knuckleheads. :)
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
William, very good. I'm glad to see you know how to look up the definition of a word or term.
Now let's put what you learned into practical application: Mr. St. Angelo expressed the contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments (and he did so with lies and misleading information).
I gladly supplied the correct information that tested, and bested, the strength of his arguments. His arguments had no strength, and I remain standing while he slunk away.
Now you try to interpret what Mr. St Angelo's misinformation was meant to say. If he didn't know what he meant to say, and you come along with equal or perhaps even less knowledge of the entire issue, how can you correctly interpret what he meant?
If you say that you are a respected voice in this arena then I will listen to what you have to say, and then respond accordingly.
In any event, you are incorrect. Mr. St. Angelo backed up his contention that ethanol was "low quality" with an argument about energy content. But as I explained in my published rebuttal that energy content is irrelevant in internal combustion engines.
Additionally, as I explained to him, since gasoline actually has a lower EROEI than ethanol, why castigate ethanol? If you want to hate low EROEI, then hate gasoline, which is also responsible for creating health hazards, environmental disasters, and wars.
One more thing: every...EVERY... useable energy/fuel requires enormous energy and fuels to transform the raw energy into usable energy. There is no free ride, and there is no cheap or easy way to create the energy we need to power our machines and electric devices. The closest may be nuclear, which I'm okay with, but many people are not.
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
Carl - Mr. St. Angelo decided to venture into territory that he knows nothing about. He wrote a fairly long article that proves he knows nothing about the issue. He used terminology that he doesn't know the meaning of, and he referred to ethanol advocates as having brain defects.
I corrected him and his incorrect information. If doing so seems to you to be an unreasonable personal attack on him, that's your impression, not my intention. I was actually quite polite; asking about his summer and hoping that he has had a good one. I also wrote that I looked forward to his reply. In making a reply to me he didn't say he felt that I attacked him personally, and he said he was grateful that I reached out to him. It is interesting that he wrote to me that he disagreed with many of the points I made in my rebuttal to him, but he failed to mention what those points were, and what information he might have that leads him to disagree with me.
But allow me to clear the air if there is any misconception: I take issue with stupidity. In a time when we have virtually instant access to incredible amounts of information there is no excuse for circulating lies, other than the intention to circulate lies. Mr. St. Angelo claims to be a researcher. He now claims to be agnostic on the issue of ethanol as a fuel. If he is a researcher, and an objective observer then he should have responded in a better manner.
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
William - I suggest you look up the term "Devil's Advocate." If there is a "Devil's Advocate" related to this issue, it was Steve St. Angelo.
Mr. St. Angelo wrote an spurious article about ethanol. I corrected those inaccuracies. That doesn't make me the Devil's Advocate. I used several sources of information to support my statements; the use of those sources is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I didn't take his words out of context, his entire article was "out of context" with facts. I didn't call ethanol a "low quality fuel," he did. Ethanol is not a low quality fuel, not by any standards.
Scientists do not debate whether corn ethanol is negative or positive EROEI, but some scientists have been paid by the oil industry to say that ethanol is negative EROEI. If you want to see a forum where scientists challenge the two worst offenders' negative assertions about ethanol then you should watch this hour-long video: www.c-span.org/.../ethanol-energy-policy.
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
Steve - This is more disingenuous information from you. Are you saying that corn farmers are not part of the ethanol industry? If you make the case that 40% of corn is used for ethanol, and then say that corn farmers received subsidies, then you are implying that ethanol was (singularly) subsidized. But this is not the case.
And as I pointed out in my original reply to you, if you have a problem with Federal subsidies then you should have a real problem with all the subsidies received by the oil industry.
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
I did? Where did I do that? I'm seeing all my comments.
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
Two reasons: First, not all blogs allow posting of long reply comments, so I though a link would be easier.
Second, if given a choice I'd rather have people visit my website to read one of my editorials than to read it elsewhere.
U.S. Smashes Record: Highest Production Of Lowest Quality Fuel In The World
Bill, what about the article that Steve St. Angelo linked to? Did you read it? It refers to subsidies that ended a few years ago. If you read my reply to Mr. St. Angelo you'll note that I said the chart was based on old, wrong information. The National Review story was a hit piece with inaccurate, out dated info.
You should take a look at the link provided by Bobby Likis.