Ethenol? Why bother if it uses just as much oil to make it? Where's the trade off?

Question

I heard on the news tonight that the USA used 1/3 of its CORN crop for ETHENOL.

To fuel an SUV full would be the equivalent of a year's supply of consumption of corn by one person. Which is more important? It's ridiculous to spend money biofuels created by food.

Why aren't they looking into producing cars like FRANCE is which run on air? Is it too simple?

The reason our OIL is escalating is thanks to countries like CHINA and INDIA who want our living standards and are producing vehicles which cost $2000-$3000 so that people can thus AFFORD them and oil is in such HUGE demand as a result.

Now I can't fault people for wanting better living standards but LOOK AT THE COUNTRIES we're talking about here? We've empowered them to do so and now who is paying for it all?

Within 10 years the 700 million vehicles on this planet will have DOUBLED. And we're talking about REDUCING POLLUTION??? Does anyone see the problem here???

Gas is at $6.00 a gallon in two years $10.00...

Answer 1

One of the things I would like to let you know about the process of converting corn PLANTS to ethanol, is that factories can use much of the corn plant that is not eaten as food to produce biofuel.  That DOES make sense.  And that is what is going on.

Another thing I would like you to appreciate is that the prices of foods and fuels have always been  more alike that you probably appreciate.  (A very simplified comparison you could use would be to compare the price of a gallon of milk with that of a gallon of gasoline.)  Moreover, you aren't considering how much FUEL goes into the production of FOOD.   It takes fuel to plant, maintain and harvest most (meaning pretty much "all") commercially available foods.  Then it takes fuel to transport it and refrigerate it until you can drive your fuel powered vehicle to the grocery store.  The issue of using parts of potential foodstocks to produce fuel is much too complex to be dismissed as "ridiculous."

Ethanol is available NOW on a large scale.  The other alternatives available are simply not even close to being well-developed enough to put into place in the near future.  

Moreover, there are other mass produced crops that are much more readily converted to ethanol than corn  (cane and beets are two examples.)

I don't know where you got the idea that the French have the knowledge to produce cars that run on air, but as a physical chemist, I can tell you the chemical technology to perform such a feat is neither available or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.  (For the simple reason that the only really reactive substance in air is oxygen, and you need a fuel to react that with in order to produce combustion.)

I don't disagree with you that other countries need to be held responsible for pollution standards, nor do I agree that people living in underdeveloped nations striving to live as well as we do are PARTLY to blame for increasing oil prices, (can you really blame them?) but when it comes to first world nations, the United States has been far and away the most lax in regulating pollution standards.  

(I personally like to think that the US's unwillingness to agree to pollution reductions the rest of the civilized world are agreeing to implement stems from the fact that  George "Dubya" and his cronies are consummately evil, but that's probably just a personal delusion on my part. It likely has much more to do with the fact that the current administration is fully pro-"big industry."  Big industry is about making piles of money TODAY... which leads us back to ethanol.)

You are correct in your implicit assumption that ethanol is not and will not be a permanent solution, but hopefully it will allow us enough time to develop even better fuel sources, sources that will be more renewable and far less harmless to the environment.  At least, as Americans, we can produce large quantities of ethanol here in the US, which not only means we can avoid buying oil from other countries, but to a large degree, we can set our own prices when selling ethanol to other countries (like China and India) for example.

On a personal note, I would like to say that whoever has helped you develop your questions on this issue is doing you a huge disservice, because, while your questions are both important and inflammatory, they are hugely biased in such a way that shows you to be grossly ignorant on the real details of the issues at hand.  I apologize if I sound insulting, my intention was to be informing.  And I encourage you to look into these issues further, I guarantee you will find that what I am trying to relate to you here is much more accurate than the preconcieved ideas you had before you posted this question.

Answer 2

Listen, why don't you walk to work?  Then you won't use any fuel.

Answer 3

Ethanol is being promoted to our government by lobbyists from states that grow alot of corn, and from huge corporations that grow corn. They pay money, to convince the federal government to endorse and subsidize the agricultural industry under the guise of environmentalism and national security. The thought being, tis better to pay for fuel and have that money go to American farmers than to oil producing middle eastern nations. But the quaint idea of an American farmer is all but dead. What we have now are huge corporate groups that grow corn in a highly industrialized system that is just as corporate as big oil, and still damaging to the environment.

The cars she is talking about are powered by compressed air and they currently exist in several countries notably India. They won't pass American safety standards because they are too light.

Answer 4

Eve,

You raise a lot of excellent points, Eve.  Time Magazine did an eye-opening article on corn ethanol about 3 months ago--how corn ethanol as a viable fuel is just a myth perpetuated by politicians to gain votes in corn states; how its raising the cost of food word-wide as corn displaces more efficient crops and cattle pastures; how food now has to be trucked further (because crops and livestock have been displaced)--thus, ironically, consuming more fuel and raisiing food prices dramatically in our grocery stores in recent months--how it is acceleratiing the destruction of the RAIN FORESTS as room is being made for corn growth for fuel; how corn, lending to soil erosion, is allowing good topsoil to be eroded away forever--and on and on it goes, this growth of inefficient corn as a crop thus accelerating GLOBAL WARMING (who would have thought that?)

All for politics.  Bad politics.  

The comparison of the cost of a gallon of gasoline to a cost of a gallon of milk, made in one comment here, is senseless.  For that matter, gasoline is as cheap as water (bottled water) in the US.  How sensible is that!  

There are other ethanol-producing plants, like 'switch grass,' I believe it's called (which the Canadians are researching) which seem to hold out more hope.  But corn is not the way to go.

Answer 5

Votes from the corn producing states.