I saw on TV where Brazil uses only sugar cane for its fuel . . . .?

Question

Why can't we pay a country (Say. .. Mexico for example)

to grow and process sugarcane for us. Then we could give them their own way to make money and jobs and we coould lessen our dependance of foreign oil. ?

On the program, they said that compared to Corn, it would be a cleaner burning fuel, cheaper to grow and process. . ..

Any Thoughts?

Answer 1

Go figure why all this corn got planted huh. Even still I don't know if you could realistically supply this country with ethanol(from cane) to replace fossil. Alot of people walk in Brazil for transport,

Cane is grown in LA.

Answer 2

What Nickel Johann and Dave said.

Ethanol is NOT the answer.  In Brazil, there are WAY fewer cars than in the U.S., only about 1/2 are ethanol.

Answer 3

It all has to do with government backing to oil companies.You hear politicians talking about doing something to reduce our need for oil but at the same time the oil companies are giving them donations.It's a two sided coin.We know we should do something and our leaders talk about change but behind closed doors the government and big oil companies have other ideas.Now look at the auto industry they are big buddies with the oil companies.It's almost a no win situation.

Answer 4

Good suggestion, but I think that the whole idea behind winning ourselves of oil is to also win ourselves of of foreign dependence for energy.

Answer 5

I think Japan will lead the way to alternative fuel vehicles .

because unlike some car makers they are not in the pockets of the oil companies.

Japan does not have any oil reserves in the country.

So given 10 years or so other car firms are going to find themselves so technologically challenged in this market that they will have to fold and lock the gates for the last time.

Then they can join the oil companies in the bankruptcy courts

Ahhhhh..... What a shame. (NOT)

Answer 6

It comes with a high price tag

Answer 7

Brazil uses both gasoline and ethanol as vehicle fuel, but actually less than 50% of their fuel consumption is ethanol.

Ethanol makes economic sense in Brazil, because Brazil enjoys the unique combination of conditions -- tropical weather, lots of water, and lots of available land -- needed to make it work.  Few other countries meet these criteria.  Mexico is too dry.  Most wet tropical places, like India or Southeast Asia, are too crowded to be able to devote sufficient land to ethanol production.  Importing ethanol is unlikely to ever be a solution to the US energy problems.  

Producing ethanol domestically from corn is even less an answer, as corn based ethanol is far less economically viable than sugar derived ethanol.  Even the Brazilians - who enjoy all the advantages - are not able to produce enough ethanol to supply even 50% of their fuel consumption - and that at a greater environmental cost than would ever be tolerated in the US.  The present enthusiasm for ethanol in the US is due largely due to the 51 cents per gallon subsidy the government pays producers.  Without the subsidies, corn based ethanol isn't economically viable.

There is some encouraging research regarding ethanol produced from various grasses - fewer fertilizers and less water is required, and the net energy gain of the process is expected to be better than than of corn based ethanol (though still less favorable than sugar derived variety).  Even so, technological hurdles remain, and there is not sufficient land available to produce enough ethanol to offset more than a  modest fraction of our fuel consumption.

As to alcohol being a cleaner fuel, this is only marginally true.  Burning ethanol produces fewer unburned hydrocarbons and slightly less CO2 than burning gasoline, but more NOx - the precursor of smog.  But if you factor in the environmental damage (water pollution, chemical fertilizers, etc) done by the production of ethanol, it isn't clear that burning ethanol is any more environmentally friendly than burning gasoline.

Ethanol may ultimately become an important niche fuel in the US, but the economics just aren't there for it to satisfy a major portion of our energy needs, like in Brazil.

Answer 8

Biofuels "made in Brazil" are a MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO RAINFOREST DEFORESTATION !!!

As your source of fuel is not produced in a sustainable way, it has negative consequences and doesn´t secure the future.

AND WHY OH WHY ALWAYS THIS SOVIETIC PRODUCTIVIST VIEW ??? Cutting fuel consumption by 1/3 is just as good (even better) than producing 1/3 of green fuel (I am an Energy Engineer).

Sweden produces around 4X the US GDP/unit of fossil fuel.

Answer 9

yap maybe they could used that as a substitute but MAYBE its not ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY.....it might cause global warming...

Answer 10

I know!!!  What's up with that?!?!?!