Reply to comment
why not support a solution that works today?
April 20, 2007 by Anonymous (not verified), 2 years 28 weeks ago
Comment id: 21735
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Your story poses the question: Why continue to promote ethanol? Because it has the following advantages to the current product being used, gasoline:
1) It recycles its carbon dioxide and water emissions via the corn or sugar's carbon dioxide and water consumption
2) It is cost-competitive at current and recent gasoline prices
3) It is produced domestically, improving the United States' trade balance and employment
4) A large portion of the current product, gasoline, comes from countries that are not supportive of democracy and capitalism, two systems Americans feel make sense for the future of mankind
When and if battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, hydrogen-fuel cell or other alternative vehicles can become cost-competitive and widely disseminated, they may displace both gasoline and biofuel. If they truly are a comparable product (mileage, speed, distance) and can be cost competitive with a subsidy similar in dollar amount to the current ethanol subsidy, then you should publish research proving that.
In the mean time, why not support a solution that works today?
I think an interesting follow-up study to properly analyze the "health risks" to humans would be to offset these risks against potential benefits (e.g. from less carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from hydrocarbons currently trapped in the earth's crust, environmental impacts from oil spills, less dollars going to entities that likely fund terrorism from oil proceeds, etc)