On Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:05 AM, Keith Addison wrote: >Commentary: >Ethanol Crossroads: Decision at Chambersburg > ... > >Of course, the ethanolers aren't mentioning the downsides of the >project - such as toxic emissions, odors, huge water treatment and >waste disposal issues, rail and traffic congestion, declining >property values, volatility of chemical compounds and dangerous >storage --- and the larger questions pertaining to the viability of >the entire corn-based ethanol industry.
This is interesting. I'm not sure of what consitutes toxic, but the CO2 output is no more toxic than what a brewery will put out. Note* yes, I know that beer brewers put their CO2 back in, but things like wine and hard liquor don't. Further, the ethanol plant I have visited used no volatile compounds and the storage is no more dangerous than their local corner gas station. > >The fact that ethanol is highly concentrated --- with one company, >ADM, dominating the financing, production, transport and marketing of >the product--as well as associations and magazines purportedly >"speaking for" the industry --- also goes under the radar. As we all probably know, highly concentrated ethanol is no more dangerous than straight unleaded gas. Plus, that sentence (yes, one big sentence) is poorly written. ... I would gather that it is important to see exactaly what the impacts of the waste water will be. Plus, the backers do need to be forth comming in who they are and what their plan is. But the making ethanol out to be this highly-toxic enterprise seems a bit over blown. Regards, -dave _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
