Talk:Ethanol fuel

Impact on commodity prices. (fuel vs food)

The congressional budget office says:

The increase in the amount of corn used to produce etha­nol has exerted upward pressure on corn prices, boosted the demand for cropland, and raised the price of animal feed. Those effects, in turn, have lifted the prices of many farm commodities (for example, soybeans, meat, poultry, and dairy products) and, consequently, the retail price of food. The rise in food prices has affected not only the costs to individual consumers but also spending for the federal government’s food assistance programs.

-http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/MainText.4.1.shtml

The Food vs. fuel article says :A World Bank policy research working paper released in July 2008[21] concluded that "...large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices"

As ethanol production skyrocketed, so did commodity crop prices, as seen here: [1] (However, the worldwide depression has brought those prices back down temporarily.) Surely this should be discussed.

This issue is relegated to a small 'Controversies' section. Doesn't seem appropriate. Terming the issue merely a 'risk' is misleading; we know there's an impact, and Food vs. fuel, while displaying a spectrum of views, makes this clear.

(FYI, I've reviewed the last couple talk page archives.) I'm going to make a couple small edits, accordingly.--Elvey (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FUEL IS FOOD

This debate of fuel vs food is redundant because Fuel is Food. Each process in growing crops, from production of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, to sowing, watering, harvesting, packaging and distribution, requires machinery and Energy i.e. gasoline. What we have observed since 2008 is a steep rise in Oil, with the corresponding rise in food prices and threat of famine in the poorest areas. There are 7,6billion people alive today because we have the energy that grows the food and keeps them warm in winter.

So, I urge wikipedians to see through the FOG OF WAR and understand that ultimately we depend on energy and that what is driving up prices worldwide is oil which is a finite resource and we are a virus that will keep growing and expanding until stoped.

If we choose to keep going to work by car as prices continue to rise them we will pay much higher prices for the gasoline to go to work, prices that some farmer in Asia cannot afford.

So please disregard the headline hunting politicians. Biofuels will never be more responsible for the rise in food prices than your decision to put air conditioning, solar heating or buying a smaller more economical car. 80.34.137.194 (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Article obviously Pro-Ethanol

On the whole, this article is (almost cheerily) pro-Ethanol. If Ethanol didn't have all the problems it has (pretty much pushed to the bottom here) then US Energy Secretary Chu wouldn't have said, as he did on Nov. 29, 2010, "Ethanol is not an ideal transportation fuel. The future of transportation fuels shouldn't involve ethanol." However the facts stack up on this issue, they are underrepresented in this article, which makes it manifestly non-NPOV.

Because it is a seriously and timely question, the article of necessity needs to incorporate the resuts of scientific studies of the short- and long-term effects of ethanol fuel on people, the environment, car engines, etc. which have obviously prompted Secretary Chu to this conclusion. These questions cannot be addressed adequately by a small pooh-poohing section pushed to the bottom. Twang (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment and you are blatantly advocating a POV, which is not allowed in Wikpedia. The lead summarizes the main concerns regarding ethanol fuel production, and the sections regarding the social and environmental impacts are located where they are because from a NPOV that is the logical arrangement of the article. Furthermore, all sections in this part of the article branch through the "See also" tags to the the main articles that discuss in detail the main environmental concerns such ILUC, Food vs. fuel (I just added it), Low-carbon fuel standard, Issues relating to biofuels, etc. I agree that the content/summaries in several sections are incomplete and poorly written, but an editor must volunteer to devote some time to improve them. Are you willing to undertake this task?--Mariordo (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

The article says that E85 has ~104 octane. This is not correct, it is closer to 94-96. This is because the "blending" value used to calculate low % mixing with gasoline is different than the actual octane rating of pure ethanol. I went ahead and edited it, but someone might want to go through and check all the other numbers also. That is a pretty big one to have ~10% off. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory and Redundant Paragraphs

The paragraphs "Air Pollution" and "Carbon Dioxide" are contradictory to each other and also address the same subject. (Carbon Dioxide) 136.182.2.26 (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed - Cite Another Wiki Page?

If the statement that ethanol combustion in air requires citation here, then it also does where the same was said for ALL combustion in air in the article on "combustion" Eddietoran (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)