if it had to supply the world's current requirement for fuel? is it a practical solution? would this mean that food crops would be displaced? would 3rd world peasants be ejected from their land by big corporations, ( as the oil companies did in nigeria and columbia) and corrupt governments?
2006-09-30 23:37:52 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. An average Us car uses 11 acres of land, which would feed 7 people. 97% of US land would have to be corn crops to meet it's own needs.
It is more a very expensive joke than practical. How much land? Well, as studies say it takes 29% to 70% more fuel burned than produced to make the stuff, that mean ALL the land of the world would be currently useless.
Profitable for big corporations? Yes, as long as they can scam governments to subsidize it. $4 Billion a year in the US in production subsidies, on top of R&D. If the stuff was profitable, why so much subsidies?
Growing food and turning it into gas is just dumb. If you make it out of waste products or wild vegetation it would make a lot more sense. e.g. Wood waste from lumber.
2006-10-01 00:22:37 · answer #1 · answered by JuanB 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
properly, properly the Biofuel foyer must be worried by skill of the sum of all understanding in this communicate board. Biodiesel ethically grown is an exceedingly good option and till you come back up with some thing better suited (that elementary human beings can arise with the money for) then supply up! the risky drivel and help with the answer. till the tremendous businesses are stopped from figuring out to purchase up the biofeed inventory plantations and starting to be a situation the position the morally corrupt, rape and pillage rain woodland for income then biodiesel will change into as environmentally distastefull as fossil fuels. So help ethically grown biofeed inventory and winge once you hear yet another plantation offered by skill of Shell or BP (Or D1 as they opt for to be conventional by skill of the environmental foyer) attempt look previous the "negative one liners" as ninety% of the authors are instantly or circuitously "fossil oil spokes persons". analyze do not Rant!
2016-11-25 20:12:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
do you mean the same as the US did the Native Alaskans in Alaska.
2006-10-01 00:52:32 · answer #3 · answered by DM 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋