There is not enough corn for one thing and for another it takes about 8 gallons of gas to make ten gallons of ethanol.
Also the cost of popcorn would sky rocket.
2006-07-01 14:19:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Engineer 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Using corn instead of fossil fuels may be cleaner to our environment but it is not a perfect solution. The short to midterm problem with any combustible fuel is the addition of chemical output into the atmosphere. The real problem is that either way, we are taking a finite resource from the earth and mechanically or chemically changing it into something else. Once that resource has mutated, it can never again be properly replaced into the environment.
Perhaps the toxic emmissions from combustible fuels is not the greatest concern. As we remove the oil from the planet, what are we putting in it's place and how does that interact with the other materials in the planet. Perhaps Global warming is more severely impacted by the void we have left causing a change in the gravitational constant of our planet, within our universe.
Take an egg for example placing it's pointy end on a flat surface and spin it like a top and record it's motion. Spin it several times to reach an average because every spin will be different.
Now, insert a syringe and extract a small amount (even 3%) of what is inside and spin again. Are the result consistent to the pattern developed with the undenatured egg or is there a noticeable change in expected behaviour?
I suggest it does not really matter whether we use Oil, Corn, Hydrogen, or any other source of fuel. Alternate choices may be a tiny bit cleaner and have a lesser effect healthwise over the short term, but we need to seriously look and finding a way to stop changing our environment.
At the very least our planet has existed at least 5,000 years. If it has indeed evolved over several billion years as according to some theories, then the result of our relatively short time here is even more pronounced.
We have caused more pronounced change to our weather patterns and environment in general over the last 100 years than has ever been recorded in any historical account.
Cleaner may be a step in the right direction but it is much like using a single dixie cup to bale water from the Titanic with any hope of saving even a single life. You may prolong the finale, but only for a brief instant.
2006-07-01 18:42:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by therealmillimetre 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
E85 is the easiest way to reduce dependancy on foreign oil. The biggest benifit is that ANY gas-powered car on the road today can be converted to E85 for about $300 (as opposed to hybrids), and he currant processes of production makes Ethinol dirt cheap [a more expensive (for now) process is being developed using the wast (stalks, leaves) parts of the plant]. Flex fuel vehicals don't cost any more from the dealer. It does produce 20% less power than straight gas, but Hot Rodders have used it for years because you can stuff twice as much in the cylinder. Also, this would alow the government to stop paying farmers to NOT grow corn (see price fixing).
2006-07-02 17:01:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by silversax42 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
While it would help the environment, which is a good thing, there are somethings we need to consider about the use of ethanol in our fuels. For one thing, the verdict is still out as to what effect, negative or positive, ethanol will have on fuel injection systems. While there are vehicles being produced now with the "flex fuel" option, not everyone is in a financial position to buy one. So, that leaves the question of fouled injection systems on the forefront. Secondly, it is a known fact that ethanol robs anywhere from 20% to as much as 40% of fuel efficiency expected in vehicles today. That equates to more visits to the gas station for fillups. It is good for the environment, and it is a step in the right direction, but it needed more research to determine how this would effect not just the environment, but the wallets of all drivers that are using ethanol in their fuels. And people, that is everyone!
2006-07-01 14:49:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Susan W 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are looking at this all wrong. All of the corn is already being used in one form or another. However a majority of the corn stalks are left on the ground after harvest to rot away.
To the other answerers, it isn't ethanol we need to make from the corn. It is butanol. Butanol can be used in any existing engine without being blended into gasoline like ethanol is and it has almost as much performance as normal gasoline blends. This is the best bet for a future fuel.
2006-07-06 14:07:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you aware of the cost of producing fuel by using corn as an alternative to oil? Most environmentalists have no idea (and do not care one hoot) about this. They assume oil companies do not want to consider other forms of generating energy. This is simply not true. What company would not consider ways to generate energy that would cost less than what they are now doing? The fact remains that no other way is, at present, more cost-wise efficient than using oil. The only alternative, at this moment, is nuclear energy, but environmentalists are dead set against it. France, for years now, has been producing more than 75% or their energy needs from nuclear power, with no problems! Are french engineers better than ours?
Pavi
2006-07-01 14:30:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Pavi 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Even at the highest estimates for production of ethanol, we cannot produce enough of it to significantly reduce the price of gasoline. The price of gas is driven more by high global demand in developing countries like China. Our federal government needs to come up with a serious energy policy which drives the implementation and growth of a variety of alternative energy sources, on a very broad and massive scale. There's no way of getting around this fact.
2006-07-15 09:48:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by James H 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Oil is a commodity subject to market forces to determine price. Let say the USA stops using oil for gasoline. We will still need oil for industrial uses and non-gasoline fuel production. Worldwide demand will decrease, but supply will also decline in order to keep prices up. The price of oil will match what the market will bear regardless of supply or demand.
2006-07-01 18:21:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Richard B 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The thing about E85 that I'm not sold on is that gasoline is part of the mix. We have the technology for excellent electric and hydrogen-fueled cars, so why the heck aren't we driving them? They're totally clean, I'm talking zero emissions!
And what about the power we use at home - tons of places still use coal burning facilities to power cities when we have newer developments in solar, wind and hydro power... sorry, I'm prone to ranting. Geez, what the heck's going on?
I will say that I think E85 IS a step in the right direction, but it's not a big enough step for me.
2006-07-01 15:54:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Katy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The automotive industry nor the government has put little effort into creating vehicles that use alternative sources for fuel until only recently now that it is official that we are experiencing global warming. Answer to the question is it would be a giant step till we come up with transportation for our ever increasing population.
2006-07-01 14:44:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by TheTribb 1
·
0⤊
0⤋