Green Energy, is it all it's cracked up to be?

Question

I have been seeing the commerical "Think green, go yellow". About using corn oil or something like that. I understand that it will save us from burning oil, till we are out. Is it actually a reasonable solution? And how about it's affects on the enviroment?

I didn't ask if you cared, I asked about it. Don't answer if you don't have an answer.

leviter_atingere and injanier you have both giving me great answers. thank you.

Answer 1

No, it isn’t in any way reasonable.

First off ethanol, corn oil and so forth don’t save any oil at all, in fact they require us to use even more oil than we normally would. We need to use oil to power the tractors and irrigation pumps and to make the fertilisers to grow the corn. The amount of fuel we then get back form the corn is much less than the amount we used in the first place.

Such initiatives using corn are simply an economic bribe to corn growing regions. They are not based upon science or any concern for oil consumption.

Secondly far from being "green" such energy use is environmentally extremely damaging since it replaces productive cropland with what are essentially sprawling oil factories. That outs pressure on people to clear more forest and othr wilderness areas to replace the lost farmland. Biofuels are an ecological catastrophe in the making.

I've provided a couple of links if you're interested in reading further, but the fact is that biological fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are far less environmentally sustainable than the use of coal or nuclear energy.

Answer 2

We should use whatever is economically most viable. Brazil is converting to ethanol because it's cheaper. Any environmental effects are nice talking points, but they are just a side-effect. The fact is that Brazil has a huge abundance of cheap SUGAR CANE (not corn), which is perfect for ethanol production. The situation in the US is different. It is very expensive to produce ethanol from corn, compared to importing petroleum.

If gasoline remains on this trend of getting more expensive, then you will find all sorts of alternatives becoming available. In the '70s, gas was produced from coal (we have a LOT of coal), but it costs the equivalent of oil being at $35/barrel. For decades, it was $10-30/barrel, and that technique was just too expensive. Now it would be profitable again, but there is the risk that other countries will flood the market again and let the price drop, pushing the industry out again.

It's unfortunate that it should work this way. It would be much better to see gas/oil prices remaining stable, with alternatives getting cheaper until they overtake it. That's what fuels economic growth. By raising gasoline's price until alternatives are viable, we still harm the economy - just not as much as if the price of gas went up and there were no alternatives.

As for the "green" effects, ignore it. Environmental "damage" can always be fixed, and this is much easier to do in a strong economy. Build a strong economy and you have the resources to keep the water, air, and earth clean.

I would much rather drink the water in any industrialized nation than a third-world country.

Answer 3

I really dont think that it is a reasonable solution. I mean, think about it this way: what do people use to grow the corn in the first place? Oil is used to make the fertilizer to grow it so it defeats the purpose. In addition, think of all the starving people in the world, and all the countries who can't even grow enough food to feed their own people. This solution simply doesnt make sense! A much better solution is Biodiesel, and the usage of other renewables, such as Water, wind, sun, and thermal, but most definately NOT nuclear, as many think as the right answer (this just exacerbates the ever growing problem).

Answer 4

Sure, a lot of green energy IS all that it's cracked up to be. Solar power and wind power, for example, can be very beneficial to society. However, ethanol, as noted by previous people, is not as green as it seems. There is actually a term called "green washing" that best describes industry's attempt to make ethanol seem like a green (and thus ecologically responsible) fuel. It's the same type of thing that happens when Exxon plants a couple of trees and suddenly they're a 'green' company. Green Energy exists- don't be tricked into thinking ethanol is part of it.

Answer 5

Many "green energy" solutions have hidden environmental costs. Corn farming, for example, is very energy intensive. Between fuel for the farm machinery, petrochemicals used for fertilizer, and the energy needed to process, I'm not sure what the net energy gain, if any, is in using corn-based fuels. (That's not a rhetorical "I'm not sure"; I haven't seen the numbers.) Another factor to consider in evaluating the economics of corn-based fuel is that corn production in the US is heavily subsidized, thus obscuring the actual cost. You'd also have to consider the impacts on land use and food markets if we decided to grow all our oil.

Unfortunately, many green energy solutions use considerable amounts of land, leading to environmental and land-use concerns. Windfarms often run into opposition because they intrude on scenic views, they're noisy, and they kill birds.

That said, being able to grow fuel seems attractive. I think Brazil is making a good deal of fuel oil from sugar cane.

Answer 6

It will not solve all of our energy needs, no. It is, however, one viable fuel source. Our future energy needs will not likely be solved by one single energy source. For one thing man is too hungry for fuel, and there is not enough land to grow enough corn to satisfy us. We will eventually need to become more energy conservative.

The energy balance for ethanol is around 1 to 1.7 which is a positive energy balance. That means it would be possible to convert corn to ethanol with no use of fossil fuels. This is contrary to what some in the oil industry would like you to believe.

Now it takes the energy of 1.5 gallons of oil to make a gallon of gasoline using sweet crude. Once we start needing to convert less friendly oils to gasoline it will be even worse. Cracking oils is very energy intensive especially with longer hydrocarbon chains.

The argument that the energy needed to manufacture ethanol is too great to make it a viable fuel is seriously flawed.

Well judging by the additional comments you already had your mind made up. Check it out for yourself, and do your own math. There are a lot of people who are just parrots. The problem with just reading an article to get make up your mind on an issue is you don't know if that person has an agenda. If you conduct your own research, and do your own math then you can be relatively confident that your opinion is justified.

Now If you are hoping for a perfect green technology there are none. Biofuels are a type of solar energy because its energy comes from photosynthesis. From that same logic oil is a form of solar energy as well. One should not think of oil as inherently bad, but rather our current overuse of it as very dangerous. In my opinion we need to become self sustainable, and ethanol is part of that solution.

There have been many people who have given the answer that it cost more energy to make ethanol than you get out of it, and that is simply not true. Not unless you are growing the corn indoors using electric lights. Even aftertaking into account all of the cost to till and fertalize the field, irrigate the field, plant and harvest the corn, haul the corn to the still, turn the corn into mash, heat the mash to 90 degrees, make the beer, distill the beer, and haul the ethanol to the to the mixing stations and to the gas stations the energy balance is still positive. In current use of ethanol it is about twice as green as gasoline from a Carbon dioxide stand point. Much greener yet when all of the side benefits are considered.

Now I am also a big believer in solar energy, but it is not 100% green today either, look up the energy cost to make polysilicone. There are no perfect energy sources, but there are some that are definately greener than others.

My biggest issue with ethanol as I mentiond before is that there is not enough land on Earth to grow enough plants to keep up with human demand. Try to come to grips with the fact that we use 81 million barrels of oil a day. That is 3.4 billion gallons of oil which if all of it is burned it would release approximately 67 billion pounds of carbon dioxide a day. Don't even get me started on coal. This is an example of doing your own math. Do you believe my numbers?? I do, but do you?? The conversion from 3.4 billion gallons to 67 billion pounds of carbon dioxide is through the use of stoichiometry. Note: I averaged the hydrocarbon length at 10. I should look up what the average lenght is, but to determine how to divide those two end hydrogens it doesn't seem worth my time.

Answer 7

Well, we need to be focusing on alternatives that allow nature to do its job, such as solar- and wind-power, (& water mills worked great)...Oil isn't going to hold out forever and we need to plan ahead, you know? I'm getting back to the land and am going to grow my own veggies soon. Some of the old methods will be needed again.