Why is there so much hype over ethanol?

Question

I have been hearing more and more about this whole deal with ethanol. I just don't understand all the hype. Earlier this year I heard from a Science teacher at my school (He is a former college professor that has retired and came back to teach high school) that even if The United States made a serious commitment to ethanol, it still wouldn't be a good idea. He said that if we grew ethanol producing crops on every square inch of land in The U.S., we still wouldn't produce enough ethanol to fuel the entire country. Surely the government realizes that? Why can't we just use Hydrogen? It seems so much more practical because it is more combustable than gasoline and it only produces water as a by-product. Hydrogen also seems to be better than ethanol. As far as I can tell, the only downside to Hydrogen fuel is building stong enough fuel tanks; but that seems an easy enough task. What can I possibly be missing?

i know Brazil is using sugar cane ethanol which is alot leaner.. but their country doesn't have as many commuters as we do AND our soil is different that Brazil's, we can't grow good enough sugar cane. What I want to know is, if they can put all this money into developing ethanol. why dont they put it into building strong enough fuel tanks for hydrogen.. its not like we dont have our own aquifers and water sources, plus the atmosphere to get the hydrogen.. and i would rather depend on help from canada and iceland than the middle eastern countries. who wouldnt?

Answer 1

Ethanol is one part of the energy independence solution for the U.S. No one is suggesting that ethanol will be the only alternative to gasoline.

Ethanol has a positive energy balance, meaning it contains more energy than is required to produce it. Ethanol contains 67% more energy than is expended to create it.

Ethanol is renewable. This year American farmers will "grow" seven billion gallons of ethanol in just one short growing season. This is all done on farm fields that are already being cultivated. It's not like people are chopping down forests to grow more corn!

Hydrogen may also be a part of the energy solution but needs a little more research. Right now, hydrogen cars would probably cost about $100,000 each though, so the technology needs to come down in price before it's practical. Hydrogen production has its own challenges.

Hybrid technology is already proven, so manufacturers are making new cars that are both hybrid (battery powered) and flex fuel. If you could drive an E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gas) hybrid, you'd be saving a bunch of foreign fuel from coming in to this country.

Ethanol from sugar cane and ethanol from corn are exactly the same. Brazil has had much success with energy independence because they use about 4% of the energy that the U.S. does. Corn ethanol is produced very efficiently and the techology is improving every day. Corn ethanol production also produces a by-product called distiller's grain that cattle love to eat.

Newer ethanol plants are very energy efficient and some are zero emissions. They also recycle water within the plant.

Answer 2

The basic answer is: the U.S. corn industry. Already to replace MTBE Congress has mandated that oil companies use gasoline with the maximum allowable 10% ethanol in its place (this is to reduce smog during warm weather months in major cities). With ethanol we can now use corn in everything from sweeteners in soda and juice, and now to fuel our car as well. The corn farmers aren't complaining, that's for sure.

As for hydrogen, that's great, and it's on the horizon, but right now it's only made from other fossil fuels (this is not to say it's any worse than corn ethanol, which also requires great resources to extract and produce). The only other abundant source of hydrogen being eyed for the future – water – benefits countries like Canada and Iceland with vast natural springs and geysers. Water is already one of Canada's chief exports. Do you think Americans would be happy going from reliance on the Middle East to these countries for our energy needs?

Personally, I'm against ethanol. I don't think it's worth the effort to make the switch, it's less efficient than sugar-based ethanol such as is used in Brazil, and it lowers cars' gas mileage. But some people, along with the corn industry, think this is an acceptable price to be not as dependent on foreign oil. Even if it's not a complete solution.

Edit: In response to the further clarified portion of your question, the short answer is that ethanol can run in more cars that are already on the road. Hydrogen-based cars are still in prototypes and are years away from production. And the first part of my answer about the U.S. corn industry still stands. :)

Answer 3

Well, corn ethanol is bad. Like you said, to produce enough, it would take too much soil and water. Ethanol made from sugar cane is actually very good. Brazil uses ONLY sugar cane ethanol and have no problems with it. The reason the government is endorsing corn ethanol, is because we have so many farmers and corn producers here who are lobbying for it.

Answer 4

I used to wonder the same thing but see the thing is 1: Ethanol can be mixed with gasoline wich makes it cheaper and cleaner thats all the hype but your hydrogen question they are trying to make hydrogen into a powder because say two hydrogen cars crash into eachother and some how the gas tank explodes it could demolish everything in a half mile

well i hope thats answers your question

Answer 5

All the hype regarding ethanol is just that - hype. If the plant being used for ethanol production involves any cultivation, i.e. planting fertilizing and harvesting, it will still involve the use of petroleum products. Plus ethanol cannot be piped like gasoline because it is hydrophilic - it collects water.

Answer 6

hello???

So we don't have to be dependent of foreign oil.