Is the expectations of ethanol production by Bush realistic?

Question

According to my calculations it would take 25% of half of Americas farmland to grow the crops just for ethonal production. This is based on expected production by 2017. A total of 35b gallons.Anyone else have an opinion?

Answer 1

I really cannot answer you about those statistics. On the other hand, as a brazilian consumer, I can explain how it works in Brazil.

First of all, let me start explaining that we have been using ethanol for almost 30 years as fuel; in the beginning (long, long time ago) we had problemas with rust; but now, nobody even thinks about it. Of course our engines had to be changed and receive adequate protection.

In the last 5 years, the big hit in our country is using bi-fuel (ethanol and gas in any given combination - the engine automatically adapts to the mix); therefore, it doesn´t matter wheather the price of ethanol is high or low, since the consumer adapt its consumption to its own necessities. Our gas receives around 20% of alcohol.

My point is: why America doesn´t start using more ethanol?

1. Eventhough its corn production is not so efficient as cana de acucar, it is a possibility.
2. It helps under developped countries such as Brazil.
3. It may help friendly governments, not fueling terrorists with america´s money.
4. It is much more environmentally safe than oil.
5. It creates more jobs and will not end.
6. It is a transitional solution, until better technologies are avaiable. such as hydrogene.

Some people say that it is strategically wrong, because US would then depend on Brazil. In very short time, a lot of countries may produce ethanol, including in Africa. Isn´t it much better than depending on arabs or Venezuela, or Sudan or any other unfriendly government?

That is the message I would like to pass on.

Answer 2

It is not realistic in any way for starters ethanol is about 50% oxygen so rusting is a problem. Ethanol is a good fuel for racing cars but the rust problem is a long term issue. Ethanol is made from products that are used for food and there is not enough for feeding everyone let alone use as fuel. As for using other crops it would be far better to trarnsform them into oil rather than ethanol from any perspective. Natural processes transform plant life into oil and not ethanol so we should follow nature rather than Bush or any of the others who are making money from promoting ethanol over oil. Nature has been making oil from plant material for about a billion years and never made much ethanol so you must conclude something from that simple fact don't you think?

Answer 3

Yes, but not with todays' technology and corn.

Switchgrass can grow places that other crops can't. And improved technology could cut the energy needed to turn switchgrass or other cheap feedstocks into ethanol, possibly making it cheaper than gasoline is now, increasing the incentives to build really good ethanol manufacturing plants.

This is exactly the kind of challenge Americans are really good at. An analogy is car emission standards. When they were first introduced manufacturers struggled to meet them. Now, it's a piece of cake.