Seeing as how we are facing food shortages do you think it would be smart to abandon ethanol as a fuel source?

Question

Also, has anyone else noticed that your gas burns up faster since they started adding it to the gasoline? It seems to me that it's counter-productive to put it in the fuel if all it's going to do is cause food prices to soar, and burn up more gas faster.

Answer 1

I always believe in free market.  I support high food prices.  Couple of reasons:

1)  People eat less

2) When people eat less, this will help lower medical cost.

The bottom line is, we don't need to order super size McDonald value meals

In the long run, consumers and government programs such as medicaid/medicare will save money.

Answer 2

ethanol looks like it was a trick by the oil and ethanol companies to sell more fuel

why make ethanol when you can make synthetic gasoline from just about any organic waste wood. low grade coal, trash, sewage, AG waste, grass cuttings,  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_f...

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cp...

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cp...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/...

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8pg...

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7157501...

http://www.freshpatents.com/Production-o...

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg...

http://www.highbeam.com/search.aspx?q=Fi...

plus by adding oxygen to the synthic gas you would not need ethanol as a oxygenater.

with this process a city could take all there trash and sewage and turn it into fuel.

no more landfills no more trying to find a place to dispose of sewage solids

the ultimate recycling program.

the only thing left would be metals and glass and other non organics

the metals can be reused and the little bit of non organics can be ground up and used to pave the streets

the funny thing about ethanol is you can mix it with gas and you will get less MPG.

but if you mix it with water and inject it into the intake manifold you get more MPG

http://www.alcoholinjectionsystems.com/a...

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/25/...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/...

it would even work on diesel engines

http://www.mpgresearch.com/forum/viewtop...

Answer 3

There are better alternatives of converting Ethanol than just Corn etc. As used by many countries outside the U.S.

The recent - increases in food prices ( and hoarding by some countries like China, Vietnam, Indonesia of - Rice ) havn't helped. But also could be helped if governments increased - Tax's on Oil and Gas - Speculators, investors etc.

( "experts" suggest - speculation, adds approx 30% on oil prices  

http://www.energysavenow.com

Answer 4

Yes, the food into fuel scheme should be halted immediately. There are other crops that don't necessarily grow in the midwest United States which produce far more ethanol per bushel than corn. Until the next generation bio fuels are perfected, our government should continue slowly setting up the infrastructure to sell bio fuels with some of that 45 cents a gallon we pay in federal fuel tax..

Apparently it takes enough corn to feed several people for a full year just to make enough ethanol to fill the tank of one large SUV just one time. There is something wrong with this equation from a food production standpoint.

Not only are WE suffering from rising fuel costs coupled with higher food costs as well as a devaluating dollar, the needy worldwide that the US sends food aid is also suffering since it costs more in fuel to send less food per dollar of aid money spent.

I recently learned that it costs about 14 dollars per barrel to convert coal into oil. Hello....why are we paying over $100/barrel while perfecting new technologies?  The US military (the largest fuel purchaser worldwide) already uses coal-based oil and fuel products.

Why are we not drilling on our own land to tap into huge oil reserves in Alaska? Had Clinton signed the ANWAR drilling legislation when it crossed his desk, that oil would be flowinf into our country today.Not that that one action would have solved all of today's economy problems but it would have lessened the current situation making the overall situation easier to weather.

Thanks Bill.

OPEC is not the ones who are breaking our economy, it is our lawmakers doing it for them. Whenever new technologies come online, OPEC drops the price of their goo so we stop trying to find alternatives.  I say we should offer them 14 bucks a barrel and if they say no, bump them. Yes, we will suffer more in the short-term but we will prosper in the long-term.

Answer 5

Use switch grass for biofuels, no one eats that, it's high yield, can be harvested multiple times per year, and can occupy less space.

Answer 6

Yes, it definitely would be smart. Cut off ALL subsidies to the inefficient, less effective, more costly ethanol. But we're talking about the government making an intelligent decision here.  How often do they really do something like that?

Also, converting to switch grass would be an enormous undertaking and would cost billions upon billions. Our country's entire infrastructure would have to be rebuilt.  It's not feasible.

Answer 7

Sure it burns up faster - There less energy in Ethanol than gas.

You just forget one thing.  Iowa grows corn, and it has the first primaries.  Politicians will always funnel money into this state to provide support for their political party.

It's about buying votes, not what's the right thing to do.

Answer 8

I have been telling people this same thing for two years or more it is to the point where my friends and family think ethanol is a taboo subject in my house, I actually like to debate it but I may get a little carried away in my arguments because I could have identified the problems we are experiencing now when ethanol was first proposed.

I used to think that with all the intelligent people working on these issues they could have foreseen the consequences.

Just goes to show you that when a political agenda is involved in the decision making process common sense and rational thinking go out the window.

Answer 9

We should be prepared to admit that the technology isn't perfected right now and using the kernels of corn not ideal in this respect.

However, scientist are working on ways to make using the biomass - the waste material like the stalks and the outer leaves a viable option.  In Oregon, we've endorsed the biofuels with the notion that we're simply at Stage 1 - we need to build the infrastructure and promote the research to get to the next level using the biomass waste... and it's not limited to corn - it could use "renderings" like cow carcasses!  Ew, but ok better than putting that in the landfill, though the cost of Elmer's glue might go up.

The important thing I think for folks to realize is that we're in a painful transition period and it ain't going to be easy, but let's have some faith in the market system and our science geeks, shall we?

Another point - the claims of food shortage may be overblown... this is straight from the Oregon Economic and Community Development Dept's briefing to Governor Kulongoski:

Ethanol from corn is not the largest factor in food availability or price increases

•There is less corn acreage in production today than there was 100 years ago. However, corn output per acre has increased over 500% over this time due to increased productivity in agriculture. Technology and productivity increases will continue to contribute to grower’s ability to meet demand for various needs of corn production in the US and around the world.

•Price increases for food has less to do with ethanol or biodiesel production, than it does with the five fold increase in petroleum price over the past five years.  Recent studies show that price increases in gasoline and diesel have affected food prices three times as much as corn or ethanol.

Biofuels unfairly singled out on land use change impacts.

Recent reports have attempted to estimate the environmental consequences of land use changes around the world. Some studies single out biofuels as a contributor to a “carbon debt.”  These analyses ignore:

•Agricultural land use shifts to non-farm use from other pressures, such as urbanization;

•Ongoing improvements in agricultural yields and efficiency advancements in biofuel production;

•Increasing environmental impacts and cost of oil extraction, and

•Life cycle requirements in federal and state biofuels laws and policies.

The current first-generation biofuels (corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel) are not perfect and alone will not solve all our problems. The current and future use of renewable fuels reduces harmful greenhouse gases compared to petroleum fuels. The environmental performance of biofuels continues to improve and the next generation of biofuels will provide even further greenhouse gas reductions.  Neither fuel beats conservation or vehicle efficiency improvements for its economic and environmental benefits.

Haha! I love those blanket bash the government statements!  You should do what I do for a living then you'd know the problem isn't your government - at least in terms of the people trying to do their jobs - politicians aside... the problem is US!!!

Answer 10

We should have never started using Ethanol in the first place.  I read an article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram's Automotive section about nine to ten years ago that talked about how California had made adding ethanol to gasoline mandatory, because it was supposed to help reduce pollution, but it ended up making it worse.

When all of the politicians started talking about how Ethanol is the answer to our prayers, I was worried.  I remembered the article that I mentioned above, and was wondering what in the world they were thinking.  I read somewhere that cellulosic ethanol is supposed to burn cleaner than regular ethanol.   I think that it was on Eco geek, but I can not find the article.

Personally, even thought I have no idea exactly how to make it work, as I am not really a mechanical person.  I think that anything solar would be the way to go.