Ethanol, the biggest myth ever?

Question

Let's face it, ethanol isn't that much cleaner then gasoline, it is driving up our food prices, and instead of focusing on fuels that are actually useful, we are wasting research dollars and time to developing this. Instead we could be focusing on making more fuel efficient vehicles. George Bush seems to approve because it lessens the US's "addiction to foreign oil". While I agree it is a step forward, it is certainly not all that it is cracked up to be. Your arguments or thoughts?

Answer 1

I live in Nevada.  I have a lot of customers ( I work at a grocery store ) and noticed a usual customer have a ethanol running vehicle.  I asked them if they like it and they replied "it's okay".  They told me it ended up being more than gas, less power, and less gas mileage.  On top of that they have to go across town just to fuel up.

Even if they where wrong, you would have to build a lot of ethanol stations (In The U.S, at least) to fuel up.  As many as we have gas stations, which does not look like it's going to happen.  

On top of the Hydrogen Cars, you cannot run a car on PURE water, it's just not possible.  Water would not be the only waste product, should look into it in more detail.

Answer 2

Just a few thoughts to consider.

The Government has been subsidizing farmers for years.

They have been paying farmers, not to grow Cotton, Corn and other grains.

most cars since 1992 have been set to run on Ethanol.

you can legally make Ethanol at home, with a home make still.

people have been refining drinking water using Solar energy for years.

Ethanol is less fuel efficient, but not 30% less.

Ethanol is more corrosive than Gasoline.

personally I would like to see more advances into the Electric cars.

the biggest problem that I can see with the Electric cars is, that they are so quiet, you have more trouble tuning out the back seat driver.

Answer 3

Ethanol does not have a prospect of providing enough fuel at 100% ethanol to power even half of our fleet. Somewhere around 25% of our fleet, or a different fleet that can run on 25%  of the amount of ethanol might  be done.

Now running on gasoline I have cut our consumption by 75% since 1990, so yes we really can make a 75% cut in fuel demand still with gasoline.

We might need to include whole stalk from corn, but please, the rest of the stalk is not waste. When it is returened to the soil it is urgently needed by the following crops. Instead of corn go harvest vegetation from the oceans dead zones.

Answer 4

Obviously someone doesn't understand how the free market works. You have or can deliver a product...that product will naturally seek a place if it is needed, priced right and available. OIL is used in todays world....whether you want to face that or not. So if you were to build a car that ran on dilythium crystals tomorrow, and could supply or had a chain of other merchants to supply the crystals.....Oil, would then have a competitor in the marketplace.

Ethanol is way more heavily subsidized, it is 30% less powerful and inefficient, and is effecting the food market adversely. Meanwhile, congress just wasted $310 billion on a Farm Bill , most of it a 'give away' at a time when commodity prices are going through the roof. What the heck do farmers need with a give away when they are making money hands over fists ? Meanwhile, the few benefit, while the taxpayer gets screwed by the same representatives they elected to do the job of the people , but have instead wasted more of the taxpayers money. That seems to be all the Congress has been able to accomplish for 8 years now...while trying to push their inept and lame performance on the president.

If you want to get away from foreign oil, then you need to drill for our own. If you want to get away from the use of oil in general, then tell me where this supposed alternative energy is that will do it. Many have their downfalls, They've been experiementing with wind and solar for decades...where's the BIG pay off ? There isn't one...just small amounts of savings here and there. Not knocking the inititive since it does seem to work, but one must also keep track of the downfalls as well. Like the Real Estate that will have to be dedicated, the maintenance costs, the transmission losses, etc. They are trying to experiement with wave generators...except for where Ted Kennedy lives cuz he doesn't want to see them. I guess its always on the back of the poor that we supposedly build our future and better society huh ?

Fact is there is no alternative that can replace oil, and even at present after all these years, all they can manage is a small reduction of oil based energy....no gigantic savings.

I'd like to see them develope bio-reactors myself and for someone to come to their senses and kick the enviro-whacko's to the curb on the Nuclear power issue, since that is about the only acceptable, long term and with current technologies source that can reduce fossil fuel use.

Answer 5

Ethanol requires almost as much energy input as its net output.  It is definitely part of the food inflation problem.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is plain ignorant.  33% of our corn crop is going to ethanol.  If the food supply shrinks by 33% there will obviously be a price increase.  

On the other hand, Brazil has had a very successful ethanol program by using sugar cane instead of corn.  This has caused an increase in the price of sugar, but sugar is not a neccesary component of our food supply like corn.

Answer 6

You're right.

Answer 7

Ethanol is only a step, it's not the answer. Part of the reason its somewhat of a favored "solution" is that its based on corn in the US. It's a boost to corn growers and obviously the powers that be (lobby).

Even "fuel-efficient" vehicles are just steps - interim so to speak. The ultimate goal is clean alternative energy sources.

Hydrogen is a possibility with models already available from BMW and Honda. Remains to be seen, but the obvious challenge is infrastructure (where to "hydro up") at least here in the US. First appearance in some numbers will be in Southern CA sometime this year. With water as its only "waste" seems really promising....

Yes, I'm a greenie but  there is one part of power that I actually think deserves a serious look. Its not in some "trials"...its been here for quite some time. Nuclear energy.

See, even plug-in vehicles need to, um "plug in" so its drawing power from somewhere. Therefore power must be generated from something.

Seems to me that the only answer that satisfies both scale and the "now factor" is Nuclear energy. Whatever time it will take to build these plants will arguably be less than the R&D time for other promising power sources (i.e. solar, water)....and deployment to a scale that actually would make a difference.

The big question for Nuclear is where to put them - to mitigate the "fear factor" both real and preceived....

Drilling for oil, is just as speculative as R&D, I'm sorry (to the previous post). Its really a backward step that addresses short term issues. It makes people think things are ok, and worse, basically stalls/delays the real work ahead of everyone, not just the US, globally.

The truth of the matter is that oil is finite. Even if we somehow magically found a sea of oil in the US, the global supply is dwindling, the supposed "supply and demand" market gets a little bit more serious than money.

Wars are started that way. Because at the end of the day, its not just the US that is "oil hungry". You have an entire planet with an infrastructure that is largely powered by oil. Don't be naive to think that the US is the only country that has survival instincts.

We really have to seriously look beyond oil, and really look at things from a global perspective. No, its not one of those "worldly views", its reality. As time passes, more countries become more industrialized. If that future infrastructure is still largely oil based, well, don't kid yourself that it'll just be fine...

Answer 8

well if pot was legal we could make a cleaner more abodet and cheaper fuel but u know that would be bad for big business

Answer 9

Actually ethanol emits much less CO2 than gasoline, up to 29% less according to http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts... It also reduces carbon monoxide emissions by up to 30%, and fine particulate matter (PM) emissions by 50% (which adds to air pollution). Carbon monoxide also forms ozone, which in the lower atmosphere can create smog. The problem is worse with lower blends of ethanol, such as 85/25 gas/ethanol. Higher mixtures create less nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

If we converted our cars to run on straight ethanol, most of those problems would be solved. We also need to stop using prime farmland to produce yellow corn, the kind most commonly used to produce ethanol today. People don't like that kind of corn, but it is good livestock feed that is instead used to make fuel. Much better alternatives exist, sugar cane is what Brazil uses, but it's not that great either, about 2.4 times as efficient as corn. There is a strain of algae that is far better, it yields about 6,000 gallons of ethanol per acre, versus 370 for corn and 890 for sugar cane. And it requires no processing, it emits gaseous ethanol that is simply condensed for use. Switchgrass is also very good, it yields 540% of the energy used to produce it, versus at most 25% for corn. It also has a permanent root structure that keeps most of the CO2 released in growing, processing and using the ethanol sequestered underground. And it can be grown on marginal farmland that the USDA currently pays farmers not to grow anything on.

Ultimately we'll probably move to all-electric cars but the technology for that is still too new. Batteries need to be improved and we'd still need to generate that electricity somehow. Solar and wind power, maybe with some nuclear stations for reserve and peak usage, along with electric cars will mean the cars will be quieter and non-polluting and only cost pennies per trip for 'fuel'. Ethanol is a good choice for an immediate alternative to gasoline.

Answer 10

Ethanol is agood, cheap fuel source....right now they are using corn, but ethanol should be made from corn stalks and grass clippings, then it would be from a byproduct that is thrown away....

As for the rise in food cost because of ethanol....that is a lie put out by the oil company lobbiests, trying to protect obscene profits...

The rise in food prices is solely due to rise in transport cost..due to high gasoline prices....

Answer 11

It is renewable.

We have the technology and ability to make much better things happen, but the automobile and oil industries (who have the gov't in their pocket) will not let these things come to light.

Answer 12

Ethanol is not a myth; a waste of taxpayer money yes, but not a myth because 10% of my tank is ethanol now.   Other than that I agree pretty much.

Answer 13

Nope the HHO generators take first ethanol takes second.

Answer 14

ethanol is not the final answerit is one partof the answer. however the solutions will not and should not come from the the goverment. we need sopme risk taking young people with theguts to build the engines and the fuel stations to run them

Answer 15

ethanol is horrible. it takes 100 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol and it's wasting corn. this leads to food and water shortages. ethanol maybe a solution for another thing but will cause other problems, so its not worth it. we need to use the technology and money into finding an engine that can run on hydrogen or a fuel cell car. those are probably the best options unless they invent something better.