Is creating corn fuel a waste of time?

Question

I personally think that Glenn Beck is right. It takes more energy to create ethanol from corn than what it can produce and it take more of it to create energy than gasoline. What do you think?

Answer 1

Yes. We should be making hydrogen and using it as fuel in normal engines, none of this electric nonsense! We have been using propane and natural gas in buses and cars for years with no problems.Hydrogen has an unfortunate scare associated with it. Remember those pictures of the Hindenberg? People can't seem to understand that there is a difference between a bag of gas and a steel cylinder of gas.

Answer 2

Depends on who you are.   If your a corn farmer who suddenly gets 4x the usual pay per bushel of corn plus government subsidies, its a very good idea.     For the rest of us, its a waste of tax money.

Answer 3

h**l no ethanol is a way to save our enviorment.

Answer 4

I think so too, what about all the land they need to grow all this corn.

Answer 5

Time is not an important consideration. Using up land to produce  ethanol while consuming oil or propane that has almost the same energy value has one effect... it raises the income of farmers while introducing world wide starvation.

Answer 6

Absolutely. I am a huge environmentalist, and I can tell you that ethanol fuel is a BAD idea. It still releases CO2, contributing to global warming, and farming and processing the corn itself consumes gasoline. It is a HIGHLY inefficient process that will also raise the price of food.

The only choice is to transition to electric motor driven vehicles. We should take our money out of ethanol production and invest it in researching new battery technologies. With better batteries, electric cars could be cleaner, more reliable, and faster than gasoline cars.

Answer 7

YES, the only way that ethonal and bio diesel would be worthwhile would be if we could use algae or some kind of grass

Answer 8

corn based fuel is not a waste of time, but it IS a waste of resources. to make this country energy independent however is going to require multiple fuel types. everything from the current gasoline and diesel, to ethanol, propane, methane, compressed natural gas, electric, liquefied coal, hydrogen, solar, etc. we are going to have to pull out all the stops and develop many sources of fuel.

dont forget that ethanol can be made from a large variety of sources, not just corn or grain, but sugar cane, wood, etc.

Answer 9

Bio-fuels are carbon neutral. The plant material is "manufactured" out of carbon the plant absorbs from the air. So the CO2 from burning bio-fuel is a net exchange of zero. It doesn't reduce CO2 OR add to it.

Fossil fuels (pre-historic plants and animals, remember) represent CO2 that was "captured" by these organisms from the air and sequestered in the ground. Burning them releases CO2 that hasn't been in the environment for millions of years.

If every corn-field in Nebraska, Iowa and Illinois (that's a lot of corn) were turned into ethanol it wouldn't make a dent in our dependence on energy. Meanwhile, in developing countries, they are deforesting to create arable land for ethanol production.

Cellulotic ethanol could work (once a solid production technique is worked out). You could run your car on grass clippings and autumn leaves. We already grow and cut a great deal of cellulose bearing waste.

Answer 10

I will side with Ed on the hydrogen. Ethanol uses up more energy and other resources (mainly water)then its worth. It was a nice idea, but not cost effective, and not really any better for the environment, or our food supply.

Answer 11

Na its better than gasoline cause of the environment but i do agree it takes longer and more energy to make. But most cars are going green anyways and have slowed their use if gasoline. So its no waste of time but of money YEAH ethanol cars are pretty pricey.