Actually found this on a google ad

[Wayne SW/MO]

E85 here in St. Charles is actually higher by 4 cents a gallon than regular unleaded. How could that be?

This is something that I'm troubled over also, my concern is that when Ethanol was added to gas it was to get rid of an excess of Corn. The whole process, I believe, was fueled, no pun intended, by farmers, hence the long association with Casey's which is another farmers venture and it was sold at a cheaper price. I'm sure the price was kept down to build a market, but the question now is, why has it risen? If its higher because the price of Corn is up, then alternatives should be used and we need to forgo the "Corn/Ethanol" mentality.

Snagged I agree that subsidy control is one area that the government could well help, but getting them to do it properly  is another thing. Maybe no subsidies would be better.

[Phil Lilley]

Misread your quote. Sorry.

[gonefishin]

The energy gain for refining gasoline is .805% where the energy gain for producing ethanol is 1.34% Ethanol is substancially cheaper to produce than it is to refine oil.

Ethanol only has 82,000 btu per gallon vs gasoline at 114,000 so your car is going to take about 25% more to drive your car the same distance so more fuel will have to be delivered to the pumping stations and it will take more electricity to pump that fuel both of which eat into the energy gains in production. However these costs do not entirely wipeout the gains.

[strangercreek]

I disagree about the free enterprise thing. I don't believe the oil industry resembles free enterprise at all...

[Al Agnew]

You know, I've been following this whole global warming thing avidly ever since it first came onto the radar screen. It really didn't take too long for the majority of scientists in the relevant fields to get on board with the basic theory, and agree that human induced global warming was likely. As evidence for actual warming mounted, the vast majority of scientists agreed that anthropogenic (human caused) global warming was the best explanation for observed warming trends, based upon the ever-increasing amount of greenhouse gases being thrown into the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, the anti-AGW people started out saying global warming wasn't happening and wasn't going to happen. When the evidence began to show that to be wrong, they then said that there was no way we insignificant humans could in any way cause any of it. Now, some of them are to the point where they are saying that, well, maybe we might be contributing to it, but there isn't anything we can really do about it without wrecking our economy, and besides, it may be a GOOD thing.

Fact...the earth does have climate cycles. The causes of these cycles are not completely understood, but the evidence is that many climate changes happen on the order of hundreds or thousands of years. The present climate change, if even the middle of the road computer models are right, will be as significant as any in the past, and take place in less than 200 years, considerably faster than past changes likely took place.

Fact...due entirely to human activity, the amount of various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is up something like 30% over pre-incustrial levels, and climbing.

Fact...global temperatures HAVE risen a little over a degree F in the last 100 years or so. Doesn't sound like much, but a DROP of 4-5 degrees would put us in a full-blown ice age. And the last 10 years or so have mostly been hotter than anything previously recorded, so the trend doesn't look good.

Now, we can't PROVE that the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity is CAUSING the present global warming, because we don't KNOW all the complexities of the atmosphere. But the circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling. We also can't really predict the final outcome. That stupid movie about the sudden freezing of New York due to global climate change, forgot the name of it, had a grain of truth in that one theory is when enough glacial ice melts in Iceland and Greenland, it will cool off and stop the Gulf Stream, resulting in excessive COLD climate in northeastern North America and Europe. That's just one example of possible results from global warming.

As for whether it would be a good thing...yes, it might expand the growing season and growing climate for some crops. It might make some crops do better with increased CO2. Balance that with the fact that it would also disrupt whole economies based upon agriculture, as the people had to change to adapt to changed growing conditions. And the fact that natural systems, especially wild plant species and the animals that depend upon them, can't just pick up and move a few hundred miles north if their climate changes too fast on them.

Bottom line is, we are perpetrating a grand, uncontrolled experiment on our atmosphere, the results of which we have no certainty. And, we have ample other reasons to stop this experiment as soon as possible. We KNOW that dependence upon fossil fuels is not good for the environment, our health, or our economy. Yep, we might damage our economy by draconian measures to limit greenhouse gases. But right now, not only the US but the world's economy is totally dependent upon a bunch of countries run by despots and medieval religious fanatics and really shaky regimes and self-avowed enemies of Western society that just happen by geologic accident to have most of the world's supply of oil underneath them. How much more reason do we NEED to wean ourselves off fossil fuel use?

[Al Agnew]

About whether this is a government problem or we the people's problem...it's both. As long as the government does everything it can to subsidize and support fossil fuel use instead of letting the market decide, we the people are going to go with what we got. If the price of oil gets too high and we can't afford to drive big SUVs, we'll demand more fuel efficiency. But it takes a while for the market to respond, when the pressures are all still going to be to preserve and defend our fossil fuel based economy. We need real leadership and we need a lot less obstructionism, we need the government to be saying by word and deed and speaking with one voice that this is a big problem and something really serious should be done about it. As long as the government is pretty much in the pockets of big oil and big coal and the other big fossil fuel corporations, the government will defend the status quo.

[gonefishin]

Anybody remember the Acid Rain scare of the 70's?

[jeff]

I don't profess to be an expert in global warming, but working at a university, I do have access to those that are and they all agree that global warming is real. Whether or not global warming is totally due to man's activities is still debatable, but there is very little debate as to the fact that man has had an impact on climate. Do you really think that all the power plants, cars, planes, and buildings on the planet have no impact at all? The earth has had periods of high carbon dioxide due to natural processes (fires, vegetation changes...), and warmer temperatures in the past, but the planet can take thousands of years to regulate this. The problem with global warming is that it has become a political football. Many people have made up their minds about global warming before they even look at the facts. Liberals will blindly believe any doom and gloom predictions because they distrust business. Conservatives won't even consider the possibility of global warming because they distrust science. All I know is that I have a 7 month old son, and I don't want him to inherit a planet with rising temperatures, rising ocean levels, and all the economic and social upheaval that could go with it, and all I can say is sorry, but we didn't want to change until it was absolutely certain, and by then it was too late.

[Kayser]

Thanks jeff, you hit the nail on the head, that and saved me from ranting on this topic.

The facts: Earth is warming. It has before. We need to find out more about what is causing it. We need to stop it if we can.

Rob

[Al Agnew]

Anybody remember the Acid Rain scare of the 70's?

The acid rain thing was and is real. As it turns out, there are natural buffering processes that have slowed the effects, and pollution controls under the Clean Air Act really did work to limit the damage, but some forests in the northeast have died and fish populations in some lakes have plummeted. There are other, more subtle effects that are continuing, as well, and may be bigger problems than we realize.

Both acid rain and declining ozone layer are often cited by "anti-environmentalists" as scares that didn't materialize. But they conveniently ignore the fact that a big reason why they aren't the problems we were warned about was because we actually DID something about them.