Print 84 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Dec 2 at 11:19 AM

The EPA will hold a public hearing and take comments for 60 days before the 2014 requirements are finalized

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is challenging a 2007 energy law in regards to the amount of ethanol that should be blended with gasoline next year. 
According to a report from The Detroit News, the EPA wants to lower the amount of corn-based ethanol -- as well as other biofuels -- required to be blended with gasoline from 18.15 billion gallons to 15.21 billion gallons next year. 
The 2007 energy law passed by Congress aimed for 18.15 billion gallons of ethanol to be blended with gasoline in 2014. But this number was based on the expectation that the consumption of gasoline in the U.S. would continue rising over the years, and instead, it's remained pretty "flat," mainly due to a weak economy, hefty gas prices and fuel-efficient vehicles.
It's important to note that the Renewable Fuels Standard sets requirements for how much of an increase in ethanol and other biofuels can be blended into gasoline by total gallons, not as a percentage of the fuel each year. 
The EPA will hold a public hearing and take comments for 60 days before the 2014 requirements are finalized.

Automakers and drivers have worried that fuel with higher ethanol blends (such as E15, which consists of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline) could permeate and degrade rubber, plastic, metal and other materials in older vehicles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the use of E15 for 2001 model year vehicles and newer, and automakers like Volkswagen AG, General Motors and Ford have even approved it for some of their latest models. But those with older models could see some real problems with E15.
E10 (10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline) is currently the standard at most gas stations in the U.S., but some -- like the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which consists of Detroit’s Big Three, Volkswagen AG, Toyota Motor Corp. and others -- feel that increasing the amount of ethanol to E15 could be problematic without proper testing. In fact, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said just last week that the EPA was pushing E15 onto the market much too quickly. 
AAA also called on the EPA to put a stop to E15 because of its potential danger to older vehicles back in December 2012. AAA celebrated the EPA's latest decision. 
“The EPA’s proposal to decrease ethanol requirements will help drivers by preventing a surge in gas prices or the premature expansion of E15 gasoline sales. While we would like to increase the use of alternative fuels, it is a plain fact that the Renewable Fuels Standard’s original targets are unreachable without putting motorists and their vehicles at risk,” said Bob Darbelnet, AAA president and CEO.
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) has tried to defend the use of ethanol, and even released a report back in September that said American consumers are paying between 50 cents and $1.50 per gallon less for gasoline due to the addition of ethanol blends. The report also said that consumers are saving from $700 billion to about $2.6 trillion annually on gas because of ethanol, and that oil prices would be $15 to $40 a barrel higher than they are today without the added ethanol. 

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/18/2013 12:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
Um, no. There's not much difference in the process to get butanol instead of ethanol. Which is to say, you're still using foodstocks and/or cultivating a crop for fuel.

Still just as stupid as ethanol.

RE: Butanol
By ipay on 11/18/2013 1:29:04 PM , Rating: 1
Um no. Four-carbon alcohol, higher yield (for corn vs ethanol), greater energy density (translate to high power and greater MPG), better cold weather starting, can be transported in existing pipelines, etc. So less stupid than ethanol.

Oh... and guess what? Doesn't have to be produced from food crops, and cultivating a crop (algae, etc) isn't necessarily bad. Surely not ideal, granted.

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/18/2013 2:59:49 PM , Rating: 3
Energy density and other properties may be better, but the production of it tends to be the same type of process used to make ethanol - like from corn, sugarcane, etc.

If you can find a way to scale it up in a fiscally-sound manner with a process that doesn't impact the food cycle at all, and which provides a net-positive energy output, then I'm all for it.

Haven't see that yet though. With butanol or ethanol.

RE: Butanol
By Mint on 11/19/2013 11:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know if being energy positive matters.

As an example, consider recent gas-to-liquid technology, which creates gasoline/diesel synthetically from natural gas. Due to process losses, you will always use more energy in natural gas than you get out in gasoline.

But economically, it's viable. Natural gas costs less than $4 per GJ, while gasoline costs over $20 per GJ. The reason is that gas is much easier to use as a transportation fuel than natural gas.

So would you be against using GTL to produce cheaper gasoline simply because it's energy negative?

RE: Butanol
By soccerballtux on 11/19/2013 5:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
the ethanol return from sugar cain is 7x what it is from corn.
I'm rather in favor of having domestic production of our fuel, if we can just find some better solutions than corn.

At least we're not directly subsidizing corn farmers anymore.

RE: Butanol
By soccerballtux on 11/19/2013 5:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
per acre of crop or something

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/18/2013 1:45:04 PM , Rating: 1
You're pretty good at crapping on others ideas for alternative fuels but we are not seeing you putting any of yours out there to be kicked around.

So tell us smart guy, what is your alternative to using dead dino fuels?

RE: Butanol
By Reclaimer77 on 11/18/2013 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 1
Why bother?

Oil reserves are going to last over 100 years give or take. By then we'll be at a higher technological level and can easily develop alternatives, if they haven't already.

I know you've been told we're facing impending doom and MUST do something. But its all BS.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/18/2013 3:10:31 PM , Rating: 1
It is that "why bother" that is part of the problem - particularly in the U.S. which is the 2nd largest fossil fuel consumer in the world (China is at the top but then they are also the world's largest producer of manufactured goods in the world too). The U.S. goes through oil at a rate of 6-7 billion barrels of oil per year. The current proven U.S. reserves are at 26 billion barrels. That my friend is good for about 5 years unless you find ways to stretch it (ethanol? ;) ).

The 100 years you are thinking of comes from successfully implementing fracking technology to extract the oil locked in the shale beds. There is a LOT of oil locked in shale and most countries are currently fighting over the horizontal drilling required for fracking (especially when it crossed country borders). Reserves from fracking is NOT proven - it is today only estimates.

Sure new tech will come along to make the dependence on fossil fuels go away - but only with we look at them with an open mind and ideas of our own.

RE: Butanol
By Murloc on 11/18/2013 3:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
the US consumption of fossil fuels is due to disproportionally power-hungry consumers and thermoelectric plants.
Build more hydroelectric plants and increase the cost of energy.

RE: Butanol
By Sivar on 11/18/2013 5:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
This seems am obvious win. It did to me, too, until I spoke with some engineers specializing in the matter at the INL.

There are no practical locations left in North America to build hydro plants. :/
Even many of the current ones have problems with water supply.

RE: Butanol
By Reclaimer77 on 11/18/13, Rating: 0
RE: Butanol
By Spuke on 11/18/2013 5:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
We're also a net exporter of oil. Remember that?
I find this knee slappingly funny! Awesome that we achieved this sooner rather than later (5-10 years later was the prediction). Although the real laughter would occur if we lived on our own oil supply. Then when the ME's oil supply starts circling the bowl and the smug starts shutting off in Europe, we can raise prices 600%. Then we vote that the gov to take over the oil companies and cut everyone in the US a Rolls Royce Ghost from the profits. What's the color of tears again?

RE: Butanol
By Mint on 11/19/2013 11:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
Except it's not true.

The US is an oil-PRODUCT net-exporter. It exports more gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc than it imports. But that's because it has a large refining capacity, and very few markets need to import refined products.

The oil it uses to make those products is still net-imported to the tune of 8 million barrels per day:

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/19/2013 1:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure that when fracking is in full production in another couple of years the U.S. will have a lovely surplus of crude to export. Would most certainly be a welcome change considering the monster debt it has to pay.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/18/2013 7:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
lol with the Anti-American liberalism.

Just pointing out some simple facts. I'm in Canada and we use just about as much oil relatively speaking (U.S. has 10 times our population).

We are right there beside the U.S. in emissions and fuel economy standards.

The point is that you were touting a 100 year reserve. At the present the 100 year reserve is hinging on the U.S. being able to bring fracking into full-scale production. It is not there yet. Instead the U.S. has at the most 5 years of reserve unless a means of stretching that oil is in place NOW. At the present that is ethanol, like it or not. In the future it may well be something else, but that is not available in the real world yet.

Oh, did you know CANADA (not Saudi Arabia) is the largest supplier of crude oil to the U.S.? Go figure that the U.S. gets its gas cheaper than we do :/

We all know alternatives will present themselves. I also know that no matter what alternatives are presented there will be the same crowd right here on DT that will crap all over them. Nothing will please everyone, but there are some that will hate everything just because it is different.

But yeah I agree with you on this: I'm liberal (actually more of a socialist).


RE: Butanol
By Spuke on 11/18/2013 7:27:40 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt you're Canadian. Sorry but you sound like an American liberal to me. I know many Canadians personally and none of them sound like dipshit American liberals although they're mostly more left leaning.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/18/2013 7:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Emigrated from the U.S. to Canada in 1969. Cool eh?

RE: Butanol
By 91TTZ on 11/19/2013 4:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
Draft dodger?

RE: Butanol
By Spuke on 11/19/2013 5:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Draft dodger?

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/19/2013 6:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
How'd ya guess?

RE: Butanol
By Reclaimer77 on 11/18/2013 8:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm liberal (actually more of a socialist)

No kidding?? What a shocker...

The point is that you were touting a 100 year reserve.

Wtf man!? I didn't make that number up. People who predict this stuff for a living did!!! Go troll them.

It is not there yet.


Fracking is responsible for the biggest oil boom we've had in like a century! How in the hell is it "not there yet"?

Instead the U.S. has at the most 5 years of reserve

Socialists like you were saying that 30 years ago! Hell 30 years ago the entire world was supposed to be out of oil years ago...

At the present that is ethanol, like it or not.

I don't think you understand what a failure the ethanol program is. It's caused a massive INCREASE in gasoline consumption. How is that helping to stretch our reserves?

It's also responsible for a world-wide increase in food prices. Yes, people are literally starving to DEATH in third world nations because of this goddamn boondoggle.

Nothing will please everyone, but there are some that will hate everything just because it is different.

No. There are legitimate reasons to be against ethanol blends. If you can't see that, I'm sorry.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/19/2013 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 2
Ooooo, such hate bro :(


Fracking is still ramping up all around the world - not just in the U.S. It won't peak in North Dakota for another couple years and longevity has still not been firmly established. Other shale deposits (Oklahoma, Texas) will peak a few years later.

The problem with simply tapping more oil is that it makes us complacent. After all with no urgency in finding alternatives, why dump money funding alternative fuels. Investors demand short term payback on their investments. With no immediate pressure driving the R&D investment dollars, the investments will be spent elsewhere that provides that immediate payback.

Right now the lion's share of investment dollars is going into fracking - not alternative fuels.

RE: Butanol
By Reclaimer77 on 11/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: Butanol
By Spuke on 11/19/2013 6:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody driving vehicles, no more freedom to travel, no more pollution. You should be CHEERING for us to keep using oil
That's the day I move to a 10,000 acre ranch in Wyoming and setup my 50 caliber, heat sensing turrets on the properties perimeter.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/19/2013 7:23:47 PM , Rating: 1
You wrote this when I asked for people hating on ethanol to provide alternatives:

Why bother? Oil reserves are going to last over 100 years give or take. By then we'll be at a higher technological level and can easily develop alternatives, if they haven't already. I know you've been told we're facing impending doom and MUST do something. But its all BS.

Why Bother... It is the "WHY BOTHER" attitude that is a part of the problem. Not you specifically unless you really believe there is no problem. Not just Americans either, but us Canadians and Chinese as well and any other country that is more worried about finding more oil rather than curbing their appetite of the oil they have. At least in North America we are making the effort to stretch our oil reserves by supplementing it with ethanol. Are the Chinese doing the same?

There's plenty of oil for the next 100 years, so Why Bother , right? Why bother looking for alternatives. Who cares that burning this shit is fucking up the atmosphere that we all have to breathe. Who cares that while there is plenty of oil for the next 100 years there is absolutely no incentive for investors to spend megabucks developing alternatives, right? I'm an investor too. I won't spend money on research that will not pay off for another 50 years. Why should I, because there's more than enough oil and I can invest that money in fracking instead. So, Why Bother even looking for alternatives? That's expensive and will take longer than I have to live to actually be put to use.

So yeah, let's all keep on sucking up that oil for as long as it lasts. F*** our kids and grandkids - it will be their problem to fix. They can worry about coming up with alternative renewable energy. Why Bother.

I've got nothing against you personally or anyone else here. It is simply attitudes like that that really troll me. So sue me.

RE: Butanol
By Mint on 11/19/2013 12:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ethanol is an example of pushing something on the market by creating an artificial demand. Pure free market forces would NEVER have allowed this farce to continue.

Then why were ethanol credits (D6 RINs) so cheap during the rise of E10? If the free market didn't want it, then it would rather pay up for credits rather than buy E10.

Instead, credits were almost free because nobody needed them.

RE: Butanol
By Kiffberet on 11/19/2013 9:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
Why bother?

Oil reserves are going to last over 100 years give or take. By then we'll be at a higher technological level and can easily develop alternatives, if they haven't already.

So who is going to 'easily develop alternatives', if nobody bothers .

Might want to think, next time you log on.

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/18/2013 2:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
I've stated before *many* times that I'm all for pretty much any kind of biofuel that:

1. Doesn't interfere with the food supply in anyway, which isn't just limited to using actual food crops.

2. Produces a fuel in a financially-sound manner

3. Produces a fuel that is net-positive in the energy it provides...which is to say, you didn't have to put as much (or more) energy into it's production as you get back out of it.

Algae systems might do that. I've seen trials of plants that use refuse from poultry plants that might do that. And probably other things.

...but I'm repeating myself. Again. Because I've actually said these things a very large number of times.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/18/2013 3:36:28 PM , Rating: 1
Good possibilities there if it is something that can be implemented cheaply and on a very large scale in a short amount of time. Algae has a lot of promise, but actual large scale production is a long way off - at least 25 years. Algae farms and processing plants will be pretty expensive to set up. But once they are it will hold a lot of promise.

Ethanol isn't perfect - we all know it. Nor is anybody looking at it as a permanent solution - not even our beloved gooberments. Thing is we need something out there now. As you are already pointing out there are other alternatives in the pipe. it just comes down to what can be made available, when and how much will it cost to set up the infrastructure for it.

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/18/2013 7:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Thing is we need something out there now

No we don't. We're not even close to needing something now. At a bare minimum we are *decades* away from needing something.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/18/2013 7:31:02 PM , Rating: 1
Really? What makes you think that?

Do you honestly believe you can keep consuming oil, with no measures at all to reduce that consumption, for decades still?

This is exactly the attitude that tells the rest of us that we need these viable alternatives, and interim measures in place immediately.

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/18/2013 8:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, pretty much.

Don't get me wrong...we're running out. But we're not running out *now* - and we won't be running out in 10 years, or 20 years, or probably even slow down much in our lifetimes.

There's not any need to panic and force the market to swallow piss-poor alternatives like what the EPA has been doing with ethanol. We're proceeding well, doing R&D, and I have no doubt we'll have an appropriate replacement ready to go by the time we need it.

Which is no time soon.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/19/2013 9:04:51 AM , Rating: 2

The fracking work going on in the North America & other parts of the world over the last couple years is relieving that pressure (sit on THAT and rotate Saudis!).

But that will run out as well before long. Maybe not in what's left of my lifetime but certainly in our kids & grandkids lifetimes. We will be needing the fruits of that R&D by then for sure. We don't want to sit back on our laurels & cut funding to these projects simply because we have more oil to use up.

In the meantime, ethanol in my gas is not hurting my cars and there is more than enough food available to buy. I will still use premium gas in my power equipment since I really hate replacing carburetors that are completely clogged with that green ethanol crap from settled blended gas.

RE: Butanol
By Mint on 11/19/2013 12:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is not running out. EVs will replace oil before we run out.

The issue is that banning corn ethanol will add enormously to the trade deficit.

It's also very anti-capitalist, which I'm surprised to hear from you. You won't get rid of corn ethanol simply by getting rid of the mandate. It's too much cheaper than gas, now that the technology is developed.

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/19/2013 10:17:50 PM , Rating: 2

You're a moron.

Please stop talking.

RE: Butanol
By Reclaimer77 on 11/18/2013 8:51:57 PM , Rating: 1
Look I don't think you understand. The entire politically stated purpose of the ethanol program, that it was to reduce fuel consumption and increase our reserves, NEVER materialized. It didn't happen, and will NEVER happen! Do you understand that?

Virtually every independent assessment of ethanol has shown that it's unjustified by either science or economics. The official effort to push ethanol has failed to live up to any of its stated goals.

Anyone touting it as any 'solution', even a stop-gap, is ignorant. Do you like being ignorant?

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/19/2013 7:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
So, you don't like the solutions that are on the table now. I get that. So I will ask yet again, what is *your* solution?

I haven't seen it yet.

Do you have something that will reduce our need for fossil fuels beyond mining even more fossil fuels?

All I know is this: for every 10 liters of gas I put in my car I will actually burn 9 liters of petroleum. If we had E85 up here and I ran that, I would be burning 1.5 liters of petroleum for every 10 that I put in my car.

Unless you are going to try and tell me that one liter of petroleum was used to cultivate, harvest and distill that single liter of ethanol, I would call BS on any claim that I am NOT reducing my use of petroleum.

Don't get me started about droughts caused food shortages. There is enough water being used to frack that oil in North Dakota to irrigate those corn fields!

RE: Butanol
By Argon18 on 11/18/13, Rating: 0
RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/18/2013 3:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
That is horrifically ignorant of you to say.

The fact that you're growing a dedicate crop of *anything* on land that could be otherwise used for food is a catastrophe. For the simple fact that it drives up the cost of food everywhere, and on the flipside decreases the supply of food everywhere.

It doesn't matter what crop you're using. The effect on the food cycle is negative in every example. The only way you can justify growing a crop for fuel is if you're doing it in such a way that the food cycle isn't impacted. And that precludes using arable soil that could otherwise grow food.

RE: Butanol
By syslog2000 on 11/18/2013 3:49:25 PM , Rating: 1
It doesn't have to be a food crop at all. Look up switchgrass. Its very energy dense (many times more than corn), grows rapidly, is drought resistant and requires little if any fertilizer. What would be wrong with using that as a fuel source?

Good write up at

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/18/2013 7:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is where do you grow it, and how do you harvest it?

If you plant it on land that could otherwise be used to grow food, you're negatively impacting the food cycle. If you plant it on land that, for whatever reason *can't* be used to grow food...well, there's something wrong with that land, now isn't there? Like, it's too rocky to cultivate...or too swampy to harvest from.

No free lunch here.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/18/2013 7:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you get hard up and eat the corn you were growing for ethanol ;)

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/18/2013 7:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
You are hypothesizing that the land *would* be used to grow food. Who says land should only be used for food or that a farmer must only grow food?

That's not a given. A farmer won't grow more food than he can sell. Farming is still a business and has to make money whether than is from food crops, fuel crops or both. If the crops he is growing can be used for either purpose, then it is a bonus for him because what he can't sell as food can be sold as fuel.

Growing fuel crops that can't alternately be used as food would not make a lot of sense to a farmer. Likewise growing too much of a food crop and being able to sell surplus as fuel is also a big win.

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/18/2013 8:33:06 PM , Rating: 1
This is very simple. So I'm going to type it out very slowly to help you understand.

If you grow a crop on arable land that isn't for food, you decreased the food supply. Because you *could* have grown food. Even if you farm on land that's never been farmed *could* have grown food. You could have improved the supply and lowered the cost.

But you didn't. You grew fuel. Which, by that very fact, negatively impacted the food cycle.

Using arable land to *not* grow food is always...ALWAYS...a stupid idea. That is irrefutable and there's no way around it.

I'm all for biofuels. Just do it without using land that could grow food.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/19/2013 10:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
*Could be used* and *is being used* are two very, very different things.

You forget what is being grown on that otherwise unused arable land. CORN
And what do we use corn for?

Human and animal food (duh!).
Cooking oil
Fertilizer (omg. fertilizing corn fields with ... corn? O.o )
Paper products
Paint and Varnish
Porcelain (electrical insulators msotly)

oh and .... Fuel.

Why aren't you upset over everything else corn is used to make that is not food? After all is it such a crime that the house/apartment you are living is was grown from what should have been food? How about that beer or the spark plugs in your car? Did you remember to bush your teeth with your corn this morning?

Do you have such an issue with soybeans being used to make biodiesel? They are food too. And yes there are several non-food products out there made out of soybeans.

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/19/2013 11:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
Food includes beer and cooking oil. I'm not sure whether or not drugs are made directly from corn or from a byproduct after the corn was used to make other stuff, but that's what the case is with pretty much everythinig else on your list.

Growing a crop of corn to make ethanol for fuel though removes it entirely from that cycle. This isn't hard to're purposefully being hard-headed about it.

It is an irrefutable fact that the usage of corn for fuel has already driven up the cost of foods across the board, especially beef and other livestock. This *has* happened and you can't claim that it hasn't. Taking cropland out of the foodcycle to make fuel - especially that there's not any good reason to do so - is an act of insanity. Pure and simple.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/19/2013 11:28:59 AM , Rating: 2
Can you feed a kid on beer or cooking oil? Well, you probably could, but the kid won't get much nutritional value from it.

Most uses of corn comes from cornstarch. Once you have extracted the starch from corn, there is no food value in what is left behind - not even for animal feed. In fact is that same cornstarch is what is needed to make ethanol. If you use corn for its starch it stops being food unless you eat that starch directly. It is removed from the food chain every bit as completely whether you make drywall or ethanol from it.

RE: Butanol
By iowafarmer on 11/19/2013 1:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
Distillers grains are one of the byproducts of ethanol production.

nutritional value of maize (corn).

nutritional value of distillers grains

There seems to be most of the nutritional value of a raw bushel of corn left in distillers grains after ethanol production.

RE: Butanol
By Motoman on 11/19/2013 10:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a shocker: I'm not an expert on drywall. Or most of the other things you mentioned.

If they're truly removing a corn crop from the food cycle, then no rational person can support them either.

It doesn't matter what you do with a food crop, or cropland that could be used to grow food, in a non-food manner...whatever it is, you're decreasing the food supply and increasing food cost.

And that injures EVERYONE.

RE: Butanol
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/20/2013 2:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a shocker for you.

Look at iowafarmer's post just above yours - some very interesting info there that is kinda blowing your entire argument away. We have both assumed that the byproducts from corn used for ethanol distillation is useless & has no food value. Looks like we are both wrong about that.

Corn used to create ethanol apparent can, and is still be used for food afterward *gasp!* in the form of distiller's grain.

RE: Butanol
By Scannall on 11/19/2013 11:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
Sawgrass can be grown in places that food crops cannot be. You don't get as many tons per acre, but if you aren't spending water, fertilizer or valuable food crop acreage then it's fine.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki