Ethanol part of the solution to excessive climate change or not?

Question

I have heard that ethanol may required more energy put in in its production than then energy in the fuel itself. But then power staions typically produce only 40% of the energy in terms of electricity, put in in the fuel. Another criticism is that all the corn produced in America would not result in anywhere near enough fuel for all vehicles. But surely making some contribution is a good thing and in the future perhaps the technology can be developed for cellulose material such as stalks and plants grown on land unsuitable for food production?

Answer 1

Corn-based ethanol is not very efficient, when considering input of energy to create it versus output (4 units of output for 3 of input is the figure I remember). It's better, but it also takes away space that can be used for food. So it's not a solution.

Brazil uses sugarcane for ethanol, where the ratio is much better (about 5 to 7 times the input energy as output).

Cellulosic ethanol is also very promising, but it's a lot of work right now, although a few industrial-sized plants are being built.

In conclusion, corn-based ethanol is a bad idea, but ethanol overall is a good one (eventually). But in the meantime, diesel can be good, hybrid technology can be useful and there are other alternatives (cooking grease, more efficient gasoline engines).

Answer 2

I believe Ethanol will help us replace some foreign oil imports more than it will help overall global warming.

I believe the only proven alternatives with a possibility of producing enough to effect global warming is a combination of Nuclear Power for electricity, and conservation of energy by many smaller methods like small cars, small homes, Wind and solar use where possible, etc.

Answer 3

The latest study from the U.S. Dept of Energy from 2006 proves that ethanol yields 77% more energy than it takes to produce.  In addition several ethanol plants in the midwest are now being run on wind power and they are burning cow manure to generate the electricity for the plant.  CornPlus in Winnebago, MN is 1 such plant.  45% of the electricty to the plant comes from wind, which both increases the net energy yield of ethanol and also adds black ink to their bottom line.  They saved $500,000 last year alone in reduced natural gas expenses.  They are also less vulnerable to spikes in natural gas prices.  More ethanol plants are likely to going to follow suit for no other reason than saving money.  In addition, Panda Ethanol and E3 systems in NE are two additional plants which burn biomass and cow manure to accomodate their plants power needs.  Zero fossil fuels are used at these plants to produce ethanol.  So not only is the energy yield hugely positive but there is no pollution or emissions to produce the ethanol.  See my link below.  Many ethanol plants are going to wind energy, eliminating fossil fuel usage in production and lowering the price of ethanol. Right now ethanol only displaces only about 4% of our fuel supply.  But plants are being constructed all over and by 2020 ethanol plants should be able to displace about 25% of our fuel supply.  Consumers drive the demand.  If people use ethanol they create demand for it and more plants and fueling stations will pop-up.  It's up to us to choose clean burning, renewable, American-made ethanol over foreign oil in our cars.

Answer 4

That's impossible. Then it would cost more to produce than it can be sold for. Since people are able to sell ethanol for a profit, then it does not take more energy to produce than it makes. This is a lie perpetrated by someone in the petrochem industry. I'm in that industry and I can tell you oil is not "perfect" either. You have to find the oil, drill for the oil, pump it out of the ground, extract the sulfur out of the oil, pump it to a ship, drive the ship across the planet, then it has to be heated and separated out into the various hydrocarbons, put into a truck to be delivered to the gas station, and then you can put the gasoline into your tank. All these steps requires that oil is consumed to make these things happen. What you pay at the pump, pays for all of this as well as make a profit for the companies involved and generate taxes revenue to build our roads.

Ethanol is no miracle cure, but it does help.

Answer 5

The answer is a no and yes. No - not part of solution to excessive climate change if global warming is caused by CO2 emissions because burning ethanol produces CO2 just like any other hydrocarbon fuel. The 'solution' is to reduce or stop "burning" fuel.

      The "yes" part comes from being part of the "energy independence", that is, independence from Middle East oil. But that is not entirely true either unless the country can be 100% free of any oil imports from the Middle East. If less than 5% of our country's energy comes from the Middle East then we may be close to independence from the Middle East but that is unlikely. People talk about coal reserves in this country, but when you burn coal, the air pollution is terrible and the CO emissions contribute to global warming.

   So don't burn anything if you want to reduce global warming.

Answer 6

when you burn ethanol it releases more green house gases than regular unleaded gas that we currently use, using it is a bad idea we need to use water, hydrogen look up Stanley Meyer

Answer 7

Your right about the energy input in both cases.  This is a physical law.  In essence anytime you change energy forms like from electrical to mechanical, you lose some.  Biofuel should help with the escalating green house gases since you would be putting the CO2 into a capture and release cycle as opposed to the constant release cycle we now have.  I really think we need to look harder at nuclear to help address the green house gas issue.  France is way ahead of us on this and could probably give us alot of support if the Bush asministration has not totally destroyed our relationship with them.

Answer 8

btu's are how we measure work in a fuel.

e85 contains less btu's per gallon than gasoline, gallon for gallon.

so you have to burn MORE e85 than gas to equal the SAME work.

that means more pollution, and you pay more because of lost mpg.