Why do so many people think bio-diesel and E85 are the answers to our fuel problems?

Question

The cost (monetary and energy expenditure) of bio-diesel and E85 is about 25% above that of petroleum based fuel sources. We're already seeing a rise in cost for corn, soy, and sunflower containing products. Do you really think that these bio fuels are the answer, or is it possible to come up with a more realistic energy source (like hydrogen) that isn't so costly in terms of energy use and destruction of biomass?

Answer 1

The term "bio fuels" sounds deceptively eco-friendly and smiley faced.  Sort of like saying "organically grown gasoline"  The hard truth is that ethanol and veggie oil diesel requires more forest and natural grassland to be converted to agricultural use.

Answer 2

ignorence is bliss for a lot of people ,they dont want to see the truth

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 3

E85 and bio-diesel are hopefully one answer. Corn prices went up, but with an increase in demand will come an increase in supply.

I personally know farmers that got out of the business because they couldn't sell corn.

I don't think E85 or bio is the ultimate answer. Even if we covered the country it takes a lot of land to produce enough to even come close to offsetting oil.

Hydrogen, is almost as certainly NOT the answer. The very best Hydrogen produced from electrolysis contains less energy than it costs to produce.

Hydrogen isn't found on Earth by itself. It's always tied up already bonded.

What I think many people are looking for is a short term bridge solution to get us to a better solution.

Ethanol and bio-diesel are possible bridging technologies.

The cost only matters if you assume that gas prices won't go up by 25%, and I think that's a bad assumption.

Answer 4

I think biofuels are a viable answer short-term. By which I mean biodiesel, because ethanol sucks, as does any distilled alcohol fuel which has to be distilled, at exteremely high energy cost.  

They are NOT 25% more than petroleum by nature, that just happens to be prices today.  Tomorrow they could be half the cost of fossil.  Except that OPEC deliberately manipulates oil prices to undercut alternatives.  The all-time low of oil prices happened after the 1990s electric-car movement, and now it's an all-time high.

Longer-term, I expect us to use electricity for just about everything, or a surrogate of electricity such as hydrogen.   Hydrogen fuel cell is, after all, just another way of storing electricity on the vehicle.  Hydrogen will be electrolyzed from water, carried in high pressure tanks, then used in a fuel cell to make electricity.  Far less efficient than batteries, so batteries may still win.  

What about the rise in food prices?  Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and you'll see why maybe it's no big loss.  Corn and soy are not good for you, nor are the starchy, fried products made from them.

Answer 5

Your statistics are based on the idea that we'll be using corn and soy almost exclusively. This is not necessarily true. Ethanol from switchgrass can be made for approximately $1.65 per gallon, while biodiesel from chicken fryers costs all of $0.55 per gallon. Yes, we'll have to return to farming 1/3 of our crops for energy purposes, just as it was when America ran on horse power, but it is necessary if we are to make full use of this secondary solar energy system to replace fossil fuels, which inject previously sequestered carbon into our atmosphere. If we can come up with an efficient means of making and storing hydrogen, it can be added to the mix. But  we are not currently set up for a hydrogen economy. Ethanol and biodiesel make use of systems which are for the most part already in place.

Answer 6

There making cars that run on water, that is the answer.

Answer 7

The future is helium-3, mined from the moon.  Supposedly, once the process is perfect ( which is at least a few decades off ) 3-5 shuttle loads will power the earth for a year.

Answer 8

There is no silver bullet. E85 is expensive to produce and not as energy efficient as gasoline. You are also correct in that it will, and already is driving up food prices. Even hydrogen requires energy to produce - where will that come from? All forms of energy have pros & cons - there is no viable environemtally neutral energy source at this time and probably never will be.

We need to focus on being energy independent. This means drilling for more oil & natural gas, using E85 when it makes economic sense, and build more nuclear plants. (About 70% of France's energy needs are provided by nuclear power plants.)

The problem we face is more of a political one than energy-based. We have plenty of options, but the left-wing Environmental Movement wants to eliminate most of the viable energy alternatives. I think they want us to live in huts again.

Answer 9

Why do people believe it? Because they will believe whatever they are told. If we are told that we can run our cars on dog droppings we believe it and wonder why we never thought of it before rather than research it and find out for ourselves. BTW we could run cars on dog droppings but it would be very expensive. So is Hydrogen, Ethanol and Bio-Diesel.

Natural Gas is not too bad but Electricity is the best possibility. It is the most direct line to the motor. Photovoltaic panels make the Electricity, send it to the batteries then to the electric motor.  No drilling wells, pumping crude oil, refining the oil, shipping the fuel, storing and then selling the fuel. No growing crops, distilling the sugar into ethanol, shipping, storing and selling the ethanol.

E85 is a loophole for GM to get energy credits. Brazil uses a lot of ethanol for their autos, they are also cutting back the Amazon Jungle and all the oxygen producing trees, medicinal plants and bugs plus the indigenous life forms that rely on the jungle and it's canopy.

There is not enough acreage to grow the amount of corn needed for the vast quantities of ethanol  to fuel our fleet of cars at current levels much less later.