Timeline for Does using ethanol fuel save money, and is it better for the environment?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2012 at 15:18 | history | edited | Larian LeQuella |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 22, 2011 at 6:02 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | @Dunk, if you are going to share conspiracy theories here amongst skeptics, please cite some evidence. And there are some far more straight-forward ones around: that cane and corn-producers fund politicians directly in return for more subsidies | |
| Jul 21, 2011 at 21:23 | comment | added | Dunk | @vartec: I never thought about it before, but it appears that you may have hit upon the reason that governments are pushing ethanol even though it is far less efficient for everyone. If they use filler in the gasoline (ie. ethanol) then people will need to fill up more frequently, thereby increasing the amount of taxes collected. No wonder governments won't end the ethanol subsidies. It always gets back to money or power. In this case, using ethanol puts more money in the pockets of the politicians in order to allow them to buy more votes. | |
| S Jul 20, 2011 at 6:24 | history | suggested | Flimzy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improve grammar in title
|
| Jul 20, 2011 at 6:21 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 20, 2011 at 6:24 | |||||
| Jul 19, 2011 at 9:21 | comment | added | vartec | Given that fuel price is about 90% taxes, question "is it cheaper" cannot be really answered, as it depends on local taxation rules. | |
| Jul 19, 2011 at 9:07 | answer | added | Flimzy | timeline score: 12 | |
| May 22, 2011 at 12:28 | comment | added | Samuelson | @rodrigo : i think in Australia, it's 10% ethanol, but it's like 4 cents cheaper (which is about 2-3% cheaper given that petrol prices are about $1.40. Not sure how much more or less efficient it is though. | |
| May 22, 2011 at 6:57 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | I seriously doubt that ethanol would be cheaper if you disregard government subsidies, though. And it has the drawback of effectively using up food to make fuel. But now we are getting off-topic. :-) | |
| May 22, 2011 at 1:19 | comment | added | hooray | @Samuelson at my country we drive cars that can run with only ethanol or only petrol. Here, ethanol is 30% less eficient than petrol, but it is more than 30% cheaper, so the cost-benefit of ethanol is better than petrol. | |
| May 22, 2011 at 1:04 | comment | added | Jonas | @Samuelson: Yes, you create CO2 when you burn it. However, this is CO2 the plants just pulled out of the atmosphere, thus, you aren't adding to the CO2 overall (except for fossil fuels the machines burned that were used for cultivating the plants). | |
| May 21, 2011 at 23:15 | comment | added | Samuelson | @Rodrigo : It's Australia. But what I'm trying to say is if ethanol laced fuel is less efficient by the actual % of ethanol it contains, wouldn't than it be better to just buy less normal fuel instead of lacing it with ethanol? From both a economic and environmental point of view. | |
| May 21, 2011 at 23:12 | comment | added | Samuelson | @Lennart : Regardless of whether it's a fossil fuel, aren't you still burning it hence creating CO2 when you drive? | |
| May 21, 2011 at 19:23 | comment | added | hooray | It would be nice to specify your country. In my country we produce ethanol in large-scale, and the ethanol cost-benefit is better, but this may vary, from country to country. | |
| May 21, 2011 at 13:58 | history | asked | Samuelson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |