Ethanol, as a fuel itself or more commonly as an additive to conventional gasoline, is often touted as a source of “green energy” (including reduction of net greenhouse gas emissions) and also as a means of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. In the United States, the most common source of ethanol is from corn. Although corn-based ethanol sounds appealing, it has beencriticized on a variety of grounds, including that diversion of corn from food production to fuel production will result in higher food prices, hitting the world’s poorest consumers disproportionately hard, and that the net effect of corn ethanol production could even result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional petroleum-based fuels.
America has no moral, or otherwise, obligation to feed any other country. The price of food on the world market is none of the USA’s concern. If any nation finds itself unable to feed itself, it ought to increase its own production or reduce its population. However using corn and other foodstuffs towards the production of ethanol is supposedly only a temporary measure, while we’re waiting for the third generation biofuels, which can be produced from organic waste products. In any case, plants do seem a rather roundabout and efficient way of harvesting energy from the sun. It must be more efficient to bypass the organic step and tap the sun’s energy directly with solar panels.
How do you run a car off solar energy though? These things look pretty cool (and in some respects their performance suprised me when I just now looked them up), but I’m not sure these hyper-experimental vehicles can be easily scaled up to something you could use to drive to work every day, haul groceries home, drop the kids off at soccer practice, etc.
Say what? “Reduce its population”? Are you seriously suggesting that they round up a significant portion of their population and kill them? Because they aren’t going to be able to reduce their population fast enough to deal with a price spike any other way.
Hs it ever been demonstrated that bio fuel is any way efficient? By that, I am asking if you get enough end fuel out of a field of corn when you factor in the fuel used in planting and harvesting and the fertilizer required.
Oil isn’t efficient either. You have to pump it out of the ground, and process it, then move that processed material overland (or sea) to the place where you finally put it in your car.
It’s just that the energy transfer makes it relatively cheap to do, compared to ethanol, or biofuel.
Eventually, as the sources of oil slowly dwindle away, it will become more cost effective to plant our fuel then to pump it out of the ground. And even that will probably fade away, hopefully, as folks get over their irrational fear of Nuclear power and electric vehicles become the standard.
I need to do more research on Brazil, as I understand they have converted a lot of fuel infrastructure to ethanol.
Since you already singed up to do the research, I’ll ask you to confirm this.
IIRC, Brazil uses cane sugar as their source of ethanol, not corn. The latter is more efficiently converted to petroleum than is corn. And we artificially inflate the price of cane sugar in the US to help protect, you guessed it, corn farmers. Hight fructose corn syrup, anyone?
Its all part of a plot by the corn species for world domination. Oh, so you think the whole “corn” theme of this Board today is a coincidence? Wake up, America!
And no, the inflated prices are to protect the few remaining sugar cane growers in places like Florida, Louisiana and South Texas- they’d be wiped out if they had to actually compete on the world market with places like say… tropical nations like Brazil. HFCS came about as a substitute for sugar after the tariffs were put in place and the sugar prices shot through the ceiling, and corn subsidies made HFCS cheaper.
The real issue with ethanol is whether or not you end up with a net gain of energy once the ethanol’s been distilled, or if it takes more energy to grow and distill the ethanol than the ethanol provides. This is primarily because you can’t sustain a negative situation like that- think of it this way, if you start out with 1000 acres of corn, and distill it out, and you only end up with enough ethanol energy to grow, harvest and distill 990, you came out behind, and you’ll always come out behind. However, if you grow 1000 and come out with 1010, you came out ahead.
This is tricky to determine- last I read, the ratio was positive in the US, but not by much.
This suggests that for 1 unit of energy into the corn-ethanol production chain you pull out 1.3 units of energy. So a 1:1.3 ratio.
Sugarcane is 1:8, a far better result.
Biodiesel is 1:2.5, so significantly better than ethanol.
Cellulose derived ethanol ranges from 1:2 to 1:26 ratios, and from that same interactive chart it says algae can theoretically produce 5,000 gallons of biodiesel an acre. If true that’s pretty solid since if you average 30,000 miles of driving a year in a 30 mpg car one acre of algae produces enough fuel for 5 people like you.
Corn ethanol is just a fancy way to convert non-petroleum/gasoline fossil fuels into a gasoline substitute; a lot of the energy involved is natural gas; thus as far as being renewable it isn’t, nor does it really reduce greenhouse gas emissions (and may emit more of other pollutants, such as ozone). Not to mention the diversion of crops from food production (at least the fermented waste can be used as animal feed, but the incentive to grow more corn takes away from other crops).
Eventually, of course, we will have to produce fuel with methods that use no fossil fuels - or mined fertilizers (which face the same eventual depletion problems, like phosphorus); I expect by then we won’t be using any fuels that can’t be derived from electricity (solar, wind, hydropower, etc), unless we get a breakthrough in oil from algae or the like (cellulosic ethanol still needs to be distilled; I guess if we can make enough electricity it wouldn’t be such a problem losing energy this way if batteries can’t advance enough).
In the meantime, corn ethanol can be compared to CFLs replacing incandescents; they will eventually be replaced by better technology (LEDs, which might eventually be replaced by some as yet undiscovered technology, etc).
That would make sense if America was an island completely unaffected by events overseas.
But it is, of course, no such thing. Starving people aren’t good for us-- they make terrible trading partners, they tend to join revolutions and movements that aren’t very friendly to us, they end up starting wars that disrupt the flow of resources that our economy relies on, and otherwise make all kinds of problems we’d rather avoid. A prosperous, value-producing world is beneficial to America.
Boondoggle. I think the biggest problem is that many think we will find a magical substitute for oil that will let us keep things going exactly the way they are. This is the wrong headed and will lead to nothing but problems in the future if not addressed. Sticking our collective head in the ground like an ostrich and hoping is not going to help, but so far the collective will just is not there.
The ethanol program is the Federal Government at its worst. Its effects are:
-higher oil imports (need diesel fuel to process the corn)
-higher food prices (corn grown for ethanol
-more pollution, more fuel burned (ethanol has only 67% the energy of gasoline)
-higher taxes, higher Federal deficit
-big subsidies to corn farmers
What’s not to like? American stupidity at its finest!
This USDA report (warning PDF) is an excellent analysis of the ethanol industry in Brazil, including discussion on the infrastructure. IT appears that the pure ethanol vehicle base dried up in the late 90’s, but the ethanol fuel demand has been growing considerably since the introduction of flex fuel vehicles.
It is interesting to note that all gasoline sold in Brazil is already between 15 and 25% ethanol already.
And as stated elsewhere upthread, the sugar industry in the US is protected not to benefit corn growers, but to benefit sugar growers in Florida, Hawaii, and other locations. It would be interesting to see just how many places can grow sugar cane. It does seem that cane sugar is the most energy efficient of the ethanol progenitors. Corn, not so much.
