Why is burning bi-ethanol fuel better for the environment?

Question

Why is burning bi-ethanol fuel better for the environment?

Answer 1

Except when reclaiming waste oil, etc. that would otherwise be disposed of, it is not better.  

Why is clearing woods or grassland to plant row crops somehow good for the environment?

Answer 2

That is a debatable point, Bi-ethanol gives of less pollutants when burnt but the environmental costs of producing it are enormous, typically it is big business that is pushing this fuel because they can see big profits

Answer 3

It's really not. It's costing more to produce it since the demand on corn and other fermentable bio-mass has increased. The main reason it was touted was to replace some of the imported oil that went for auto fuel. The fact that the mileage is less is not important. With the subsidies from the government for manufacture, and farming, and the transportation costs involved (it can't be shipped by pipeline) and the drop in efficiency, the real cost is more than the cost of premium.

Answer 4

It may be it may not be.

It takes 3 gallons of gas to produce 5 gallons of ethanol.  Some put it as 4 or even 5 some lower than 3, for argument will will put it at 3.  

It is then burned by your car.  Ethanol is slightly cleaner, however when you compair an engines on horsepower to horsepower bases, just minor differences.

Tim C,

We would have to cultivate new ground for this to supply enough power.

Do you not need to count the carbon subquestered by the ground with natural vegitation?

What if a farmer takes area for cotton to grow corn?  Do you count the CO2 for the cotton?

Kyoto counts the soil as a carbon sink.  See the article below.  Not 100% of the plant rotts.  Your method works if you are using existing corn acreage, however more will be required if you fuel, and feed us.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_sink#St...

Answer 5

I presume you mean BIO-ethanol?

The reason is that bio-ethonol is produced from renewable sources; sugars from crops e.g. sugar cane or sugar beet.  When growing, these crops absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.  The carbon is absorbed into the crop and the Oxygen is released.  The crop is harvested and the sugars extracted which are distilled into bio-ethanol.  When burned, this fuel releases CO2 back into the atmosphere, but it is no more than was absorbed by the growing crop, so the net increase in CO2 is zero.

Burning ethanol made from mineral sources adds to the CO2 already in the atmosphere as it is extracted from the ground.  There is less environmental impact in producing bio-fuels compared to producing mineral fuels.. both require processing plants and energy.  Small-scale bio-fuel producers tend to use renewable sources to power their processes though.

Stephen M: No, you don't need to count it.. When uncultivated vegetation rots, it releases CO2 back into the atmospher; extracting the sugars to make bio-ethanol, accellerates the process.

You are assuming that there is no uncultivated land available for biomass.  But I take your point regarding soil sink.  I would argue that crops for biomass is inefficient and growing pond algae for oil to produce biodiesel is much more efficient.

Mt_Zion:  I am completely against clearing forests to grow biomass.  I am also completely against growing biomass in place of necessary food production, but it is a fact that, in Western Europe, farmers are paid by the EU to NOT grow crops and leave their land fallow.  There is a huge amount of uncultivated land that could be used to grow biomass