Is ethanol really the best alterantive fuel?

Question

is it efficient

Answer 1

No. Hydrogen.

Answer 2

No,Methane is more to the future.We all produce it.It`s just a matter of time before we start to harness it.Right now we are letting lot`s of it escaping into the atmosphere and is hurting the environment.We know it is better to burn it then release it so let`s start using it.The city were i live uses the methane produced in are landfill to generate electricity.Cattle,sheep,pig`s and humans all produce methane in there waste.Sewage treatment plants can be converted to produce methane and so can farms.We have always produced methane we are only now starting to use it.

Answer 3

No.  It is environmentally destructive to produce for its own sake.  It is thrown off as a byproduct now and then and, of course, that can be utilized.

Dana's answer is quite funny though.  He seems to think electricity is a fuel.  He is a poster child for the lack of understanding of basic science by those who think people are responsible for global warming.

Answer 4

no.  This idea will be abandoned.  It is less efficient and more costly.  It is also damaging to the seals on an engine

Answer 5

read this about ethanol production

Only transient Aliens could have aproved that.

They are intending to replace most of the indigenous Forrest's in the world ,with mono cultures for the production of Ethanol,

Non sustainable, chemically grown ,heavily irrigated (with water needed for communities)one specie Forrest's,that have only plagues of insects as fauna which are controlled with pesticides.

Killing all bio diversity,in both flora and fauna ,adding to the destruction and extinction of species ,like nothing we have ever seen before.

All in the quest for alternative energy and to save the Environment ,

The irony here is that the growing eagerness to slow climate change by using biofuels and planting millions of trees for carbon credits has resulted in new major causes of deforestation, say activists. And that is making climate change worse because deforestation puts far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined.

"Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil," said Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay. "We call it 'deforestation diesel'," Lovera told IPS.

Oil from African palm trees is considered to be one of the best and cheapest sources of biodiesel and energy companies are investing billions into acquiring or developing oil-palm plantations in developing countries. Vast tracts of forest in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and many other countries have been cleared to grow oil palms. Oil palm has become the world's number one fruit crop, well ahead of bananas.

Biodiesel offers many environmental benefits over diesel from petroleum, including reductions in air pollutants, but the enormous global thirst means millions more hectares could be converted into monocultures of oil palm. Getting accurate numbers on how much forest is being lost is very difficult.

The FAO's State of the World's Forests 2007 released last week reports that globally, net forest loss is 20,000 hectares per day -- equivalent to an area twice the size of Paris. However, that number includes plantation forests, which masks the actual extent of tropical deforestation, about 40,000 hectares (ha) per day, says Matti Palo, a forest economics expert who is affiliated with the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in Costa Rica.

"The half a million ha per year deforestation of Mexico is covered by the increase of forests in the U.S., for example," Palo told IPS.

National governments provide all the statistics, and countries like Canada do not produce anything reliable, he said. Canada has claimed no net change in its forests for 15 years despite being the largest producer of pulp and paper. "Canada has a moral responsibility to tell the rest of the world what kind of changes have taken place there," he said.

Plantation forests are nothing like natural or native forests. More akin to a field of maize, plantation forests are hostile environments to nearly every animal, bird and even insects. Such forests have been shown to have a negative impact on the water cycle because non-native, fast-growing trees use high volumes of water. Pesticides are also commonly used to suppress competing growth from other plants and to prevent disease outbreaks, also impacting water quality.

Plantation forests also offer very few employment opportunities, resulting in a net loss of jobs. "Plantation forests are a tremendous disaster for biodiversity and local people," Lovera said. Even if farmland or savanna are only used for oil palm or other plantations, it often forces the local people off the land and into nearby forests, including national parks, which they clear to grow crops, pasture animals and collect firewood. That has been the pattern with pulp and timber plantation forests in much of the world, says Lovera.

Ethanol is other major biofuel, which is made from maize, sugar cane or other crops. As prices for biofuels climb, more land is cleared to grow the crops. U.S. farmers are switching from soy to maize to meet the ethanol demand. That is having a knock on effect of pushing up soy prices, which is driving the conversion of the Amazon rainforest into soy, she says. Meanwhile rich countries are starting to plant trees to offset their emissions of carbon dioxide, called carbon sequestration. Most of this planting is taking place in the South in the form of plantations, which are just the latest threat to existing forests. "Europe's carbon credit market could be disastrous," Lovera said.

The multi-billion-euro European carbon market does not permit the use of reforestation projects for carbon credits. But there has been a tremendous surge in private companies offering such credits for tree planting projects. Very little of this money goes to small land holders, she says. Plantation forests also contain much less carbon, notes Palo, citing a recent study that showed carbon content of plantation forests in some Asian tropical countries was only 45 percent of that in the respective natural forests. Nor has the world community been able to properly account for the value of the enormous volumes of carbon stored in existing forests.

One recent estimate found that the northern Boreal forest provided 250 billion dollars a year in ecosystem services such as absorbing carbon emissions from the atmosphere and cleaning water. The good news is that deforestation, even in remote areas, is easily stopped. All it takes is access to some low-cost satellite imagery and governments that actually want to slow or halt deforestation. Costa Rica has nearly eliminated deforestation by making it illegal to convert forest into farmland, says Lovera.

Paraguay enacted similar laws in 2004, and then regularly checked satellite images of its forests, sending forestry officials and police to enforce the law where it was being violated. "Deforestation has been reduced by 85 percent in less than two years in the eastern part of the country," Lovera noted. The other part of the solution is to give control over forests to the local people. This community or model forest concept has proved to be sustainable in many parts of the world. India recently passed a bill returning the bulk of its forests back to local communities for management, she said.

However, economic interests pushing deforestation in countries like Brazil and Indonesia are so powerful, there may eventually be little natural forest left. "Governments are beginning to realize that their natural forests have enormous value left standing," Lovera said. "A moratorium or ban on deforestation is the only way to stop this."

This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS and IFEJ - International Federation of Environmental Journalists.

© 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service

Answer 6

Sure, if we're up for burning the cornerstone of our food supply!

Answer 7

No ethanol is not efficient.  Corn-based ethanol in particular only contains about 70% the energy density of gasoline, so you don't go as far on a tank of gas if it contains ethanol.

Plus there's the problem of using agricultural land for transportation fuel.  The more biofuels we grow, the less land there is for food crops, and the higher the cost of food.

The best alternative fuel is electricity.  Electric engines are extremely efficient, low-maintenance, and the infrastructure is already in place (the power grid).

Answer 8

No, we should be eating the crops, not using it to power vehicles. Ethanol is expensive, the government has to subsidize the production of it to make it competitive. It requires special containers to ship. And, it has less energy output than gasoline.

For the most part, politicians are pandering to the farming sector to gain votes.

In the end, the US uses so much fuel, that if you converted all the crops possible (without disrupting the markets) in the country, it would only provide about 10% of the projected fuel demand.

Answer 9

no, helium 3 or antimatter!

Answer 10

Ethanol is the fuel of the future. We'll never run out of it and it can be made entirely from renewable resources. It reduces our dependence on foreign oil, keeps money out of terrorist's hands, reduces the trade deficit, fights global warming, and creates high-paying American jobs.

In addition it is cheaper than gasoline, gives you more horsepower, is made in America, is renewable(made from corn and other plants), and burns cleaner than gasoline.

Now we wouldn't want to do any of those things now would we.

Answer 11

Bio Diesel!  Recycled cooking oil and corn oil!  CO is producing....

Answer 12

No, honestly, its the worst possible choice. Our country was retarded and too narrow minded and chose this. Its highly ineffecient, destroys crops, cant be transported easily, and has horrible power output. There are really no acctual pros to it. Hydrogen is the best choice. If you research enough, you'll find that, thanks to Norway, Hydrogen as a fuel source has come a very, very long way. So far that theyve made a electrolosys machine the size of a fridge that can fill a fuel cell in about 3 mins. So its about the size of a large pump. How they do it tho is filling fuel cells underground for storage at stations, like they do fuel nowdays. Then it pumps from there. Hydrogen is now cost effective, as powerful as gas, and much safer. So yea, down with Ethanol, lol.

Ah, jomoj, your talking about Hydrogen too, but most of your info is false. Do some more research. Your on the right track, but just read false information. Dont rely on one site or even Wiki. Wiki is user submitted info, so if they have it wrong, so does everyone reading it, but it is a good starting point.

Dana, research about electric cars before you advocate it. You know almost nothing.

Uhh...... M S idiot below me, do you really understand what you just said. About 90 percent of it was wrong. It is less costly, but has much lower power output. Ethanol made from sugar cane has about 80% the power output of Gasoline and Ethanol from corn is even worse. You really haven't done any research. You most likely fell into the advertizment ploy of GM's Live Green, Go Yellow. You do realize that was just a commercial to sell their Flex-Fuel cars, lol. I'll admit, that was a great advertisment idea, and I applaude them for that, but I hate it because it closed peoples minds to new ideas and made people thenk that Ethanol was the future, even though GM themselves says its a good, temporary fuel source. So stop being dumb and read.

Answer 13

not when corn is diverted.  too much chemical and water. gallons /acre can be beat by many crops.

Answer 14

Whatever fuel can be made in the largest quantities for the lowest cost is the best. That is probably ethanol right now. If new methods are found to make some other fuel more easily, like methane or hydrogen or methanol, then it will change. But right now it is probably ethanol.

Answer 15

No, Ethanol is not the best alternative fuel, because continuous utilization of it would negatively affect other sectors of the society, like the sectors in need of the same, say por ejemplo, anticeptic, disinfectant and other things. The common source of Ethanol is Sugar, the Sugar industry cannot withstand the demand for the production of Ethanol. Time will come that we will have no Suagr for our Coffee or Chocolate, all went to Ethanol. The situation is, we have a cheap fuel made of Ethanol yet we have the most expensive Sugar that only the very rich can afford up to the point that there is no Sugar at all since all went to the production of Ethanol. The best alternative fuel is Water, plain Water. There is a Technology in the Philippines that makes the Water a fuel for vehicles. There is a gadget known as a Separator that is simply attached in your vehicle machine, now this Separator separates the two components of Water, the Hydrogen and Oxygen. It is the Hydrogen that is utilize as fuel. Numerous demonstrations to the vehicles fed by this Water - Fuel reveal that the vehicles emit no smoke or other pollutants that harm and subsequently destroy our fragile and precious Environment. It is actually hitting two birds at a single stone.