Is corn-based ethanol fuel a good idea?

Question

Consider this:

If we turn every bushel of grain in this nation into ethanol, it would only displace 16% of gasoline use. The amount of grain it takes to fill your tank with ethanol would feed an adult human for one year. It takes 1000 tons of water, likely subsidized by taxpayers, to produce a ton of ethanol. In addition, rural energy coops have begun a push for more coal plants to provide additional power to ethanol producers. This push is being made under the auspices of the USDA's Rural Electrification Program, which dates back to 1936 and FDR's New Deal. We can't fight global warming with our right hand while we build dirty coal plants with our left, or we just might punch ourselves in the face. In other words, in order to fight global warming we need 21st century solutions. The irony of a dirty coal plant providing electricity to ethanol distilleries who then sell E-85 to American consumers who think they are using a clean, renewable fuel is enormous and not very amusing

Answer 1

Do you know that the USA pays farmers to plow down their crops to support demand. Corn ethonol is a renewable form of fuel why not use it! Of course that can't take over gasoline. We should go hydrogen powered cars route there.

Answer 2

There are positives and negatives to the whole ethanol idea. The largest negative is the inefficiency in the system, however, there are enormous benefits in the form of reducing our dependence upon foreign oil, which is definitely a good thing -- especially considering that the largest reserves of oil left in the world are in places filled with people who don't care for the United States.

Really all ethanol should be considered is a stepping stone away from fossil fuels. Critics cite that ethanol releases carbon into the atmosphere, but they forget that the carbon in question came FROM the atmosphere when the corn plant absorbed it. It wasn't released from a source that was previously buried far underground the way fossilized fuels do. So there's another point in ethanol's favor.

We can't lose sight of the big picture. If we required pick-up trucks and SUVs to comply with the existing CAFE standards, we'd be energy-independent overnight, only needing oil from our own resources. Global warming is a danger, yes, but the larger danger right now is our economic reliance upon a fuel source that cannot be replaced in our lifetimes. That's just plain crazy. Until we can find a clean renewable fuel, the very least we can do is switch to a dirty renewable fuel and keeping working the problem. At least we can balance out the amount of carbon emissions with the extra carbon absorption.

Also, keep in mind that clean coal technologies are helping with the pollution aspects of those power plants. Let's say we switched most Americans to electic vehicles. If the power comes from power plants, that means we simply have to capture and control the emissions for a handful of power plants, rather than milions of cars. That's much more feasible than what we're trying to do now.

The real answer is that we don't have the "silver bullet" yet. But that's no reason to sit on our hands. The very least we can do for ourselves, not to mention our troops, is to get out of volitile regions of the Earth juts because they produce oil. Then let's take the next step and tackle the emissions. First things first.

Answer 3

IT IS A GOOD IDEA!  It is like this, almost all of the info you submitted (without listing your source) is false.  The amount of energy it takes to make ethanol is less than it takes to make gasoline unless you count the sun (photosynthesis).  Secondly we currently produce enough ethanol, 10% blend or otherwise, to replace all oil from Iraq!  Anything bad about that?  Furthermore, record ethanol production is being surpassed by record crop growing saving subsidized money for not working (growing the crops) and replacing the subsidies for those who do work (converting ethanol).  16% for every bushel is an ignorant statement because the corn produced changes every single year, you clearly do not live in the midwest or folllow the news or you would know this already.  Coal has already been addressed in previous answers.  Ethanol can not and will not replace gas, however and does, and can significantly moreso reduce the amount of gasoline we use.  The other fossil fuels used in production of gasoline nearly double that which goes into producing ethanol.  Technology is increasing as rapidly as production is and ethanol is currently being produced from grass (not commercially, but neither was corn for decades) which would help out even more, cellulose ethanol is going to be another huge chunk of independence of gasoline.

Answer 4

NO

It would take 95% of the land mass of the us just to get close to the amount we would need. Not to say any thing about about 20% of the land in the US could not grow a weed.

At best you can only get less than 30 gals per acre any way.

Answer 5

No. There are other sources, like sugar cane - we consume too much sugar anyway. Kill two birds with one stone. Give subsidies for people to grow sugar cane instead of grass.

Import sugar cane from Mecico and keep people in Tamazula - another two-bird idea. a 16% oil replacemt factor isn't bad using sugar cane. Brazil has done the research; let's go with it.

Answer 6

The oil companies will always make money but the governments are the ones cashing in on the recent fuel hike. Mainly the foreign governments which subsidize their gas consumption instead of taxing it all to h**l like our government likes to do. If you want to scream bloody murder yell at your congressmen and the people who want MORE taxes and MORE regulations on the gas you get at the pump. That is who is making a killing on petro these days.

Answer 7

Only for corn farmers.  It isn't better for the world's food resources and as far as a fuel, it is much easier and less expensive to make fuel alternatives from switch grass or even sugar cane.  Corn based ethanol is not as clean as we are being led to believe.  I say follow the money - always follow the money.

Answer 8

There are only two choices that provide clean energy for transportation. ethanol and electrical power that is generated by clean none polluting nuclear energy and recycling the wast.

Answer 9

Yes, if you provide the people who cultivate it the necessary equipment to efficiently grow and harvest the amount needed to effectively supplement the gasoline supply. Folks, we are not going to end our dependence on fossil fuels overnight. It is a gradual weaning process. But we have to start somewhere and we have to start now!!!

Answer 10

Yes it is a good idea.  I don't know where you got your information about trying to add more coal plants, but it's false, at least for the mid-west.  Many times the corn used to make ethanol is the grade of corn that is deemed unfit for human consumption.  Ethanol fuel research paved the way for bio-diesel research.  Bio-diesel is made from soybeans.  It's an excellent alternative for marine engines since a spill would be harmless to wildlife.

Answer 11

yes

Answer 12

I guess you don't recognize "The Shell Game" when you see it.  

They went from electric cars being the answer, (which worked), to hydrogen cars, (which they don't even make), to ethanol, (which they combine with gas).

So who is still making money, the oil companies, that's who.

Answer 13

No. Read the article in the 05/21 edition of the Christian Science Monitor for more information.

~

Answer 14

I like it

Answer 15

Corn based ethanol will never be more than a temporary niche fuel because of its cost relative to petroleum and other alternative fuels. It's only real advantage over petroleum is that it is home grown. Don't assume all coal plants of the future will be dirty plants. DOE and others are working on technology to clean the emissions and even sequester the carbon to address the global warming issue.  Ethanol is a way to help prop up corn prices, and competition will dictate the mix between fuel and food.  Over the long run, corn based ethanol will be far too expensive as other nonfood plant stocks can be made more efficiently and cheaply.

Answer 16

Ethanol is not the answer. The minerals in the ground that are needed to grow the grain are not replaceable. When they are gone , we are dead!!

Answer 17

I agree completely!

Right now the main reason I support ethanol production is because of energy security.  If terrorists succeed in blowing up the oil refineries in Nigeria and the Middle East we need to have as much domestic production of fuel supplies as we can.

This clip from the Colbert Report on Comedy Central with James Woolsey is not only extremely funny but answers what you mentioned.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_c...

Hopefully we can continue to get the production less CO2 intensive.

Answer 18

I think someone has a corncob stuck in the wrong place.  Using 3/4 gallon of energy to produce one gallon of corn ethanol is a joke.  And just think about how high food prices will rise.  What a horrible idea.

Answer 19

Defiantly not, this administration is full of cronyism. It is not  trying to work on a problem  -  it is just trying to eliminate it from the radar for the short term. ( I  suspect knowingly)  

Screaming left and right that  we look at Brazil does not cut it. sugar cane ethanol is effective, producing much bigger energy output compared to  corn.  All we are doing is subsidizing Argo business -  big corporations.  There are much better alternatives!

Answer 20

I Think Ethanol Is A Great Idea. First of all, The corn used to make ethanol is not the kind of corn that is fed to humans, it is feedstock corn, and when the starch is extracted from the corn, then they just feed the leftover corn particles to livestock. Second of all, the water used to make ethanol can be filtered after use and made into drinking water because it is only needed for the first stage of ethanol production. Third of all, most ethanol production plants are located somewhere near a river or a windy area so as to generate their own electricity to be converted to heat needed for the distillation process. Also, ethanol can be produced from potatoes, which restore nutrients to soil that they are grown in and make more places to grow corn for ethanol. I am sorry to burst your bubble but most of your information is wrong, Ethanol is a great idea.

Answer 21

I agree with many answerers that Ethanol is a less than ideal fuel for our needs, and yes, I do wonder who was involved in beginning the political push for it in the Bush Admin, because it really does very little to replace traditional fossil fuels.

I much prefer biodiesel as a liquid carbon-friendly fossil suel substitute.  The problem with biodiesel at this time is that the vegetable oil production capacity of the world is growing at the expense of tropical forests.  We need to get serious about the issue, and its drawbacks, and come up with some real sustainable solutions.

One solution that I favor is the use of algae to produce vegetable oil.  From this source, oil can be produced in huge tanks located in desert areas, using saltwater instead of fresh water.  

Right now fuel supplies are so tight that the smallest supply disruption will cause significant additional price increases.  Whether "big oil" likes it or not, I think that the revolution away from their product is right around the corner, and it will be driven by chaos on the international scene as much or more so than Global Warming.

Don Pickard

http://www.AmericanSolarEconomy.com

Answer 22

Yes, because it comes from corn and it creates less pollution.

Answer 23

Not so much.

You're correct in that the energy-efficiency of ethanol is dismal.   Mainly the problem is that distillation of alcohol is extremely energy-intensive!  The lion's share of the energy cost of making ethanol is not growing the fuel, but distillation.  Contrast to biodiesel, which requires very little energy input.

The problem is the difficulty of converting grain starch into something suitable for today's cars.  You don't need distillation to turn grain starch into fuel; grain starch already IS fuel.  Just not one suitable for today's cars.  

That ought to change.

Answer 24

Not really. That's why it's so important to push METHANOL fuel, which doesn't USE aerobic, sugar-using yeasts to create alcohols. You can then get more fuel from simple plants like prarie grass. THAT's the way we should be going!

Answer 25

Betchadidntknow~it takes 2~1/2-3 gallons of ethanol to go the same distance as 1 gal. of gasoline!