"In the end, even the most generous analysts estimate that it takes the energy equivalent of three gallons of ethanol to make four gallons of the stuff."
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070311/ethanol_q_a.html?.v=3
2007-03-11 08:54:08 · 13 answers · asked by duck 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just to clarify, the process of making ethanol involves using a lot of gasoline (to run the tractors to harvest the corn, the planes to dust the crops with pesticides, to run the trucks to take it from the farm to the distillery, to run the grinders and the sifters and the distilling equipment.
Ethanol or other biofuels will never be a panacea for our energy problems. If we turned every inch of arable soil in American into a cornfield or sawgrass field we could maybe fulfill 30% of our oil needs if demand does not increase. The only way forward is a combination of nuclear, solar, wind and water power, more public transportation, more fuel efficient cars and more people taking to cycling and walking.
2007-03-11 09:10:02 · answer #1 · answered by lesroys 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm conservative. What do you have against ethanol?
I imagine it took 3 gallons of oil to produce 4 gallons of oil when the technology was first developing. Do you enjoy paying our farmers to keep their ground dormant? Did you know that the libs pay farmers with our taxes not to grow crops to keep the prices inflated? If we could use extra crops to do something else we could stop paying farmers to leave the ground dormant. This could increase the demand for corn and thus keep the price inflated naturally.
I also like bio-diesel. From soybean oil or sunflower seed oil.
I know it isn't a 3 to 4 ration because farmers in kansas are planting a certain amount of their farms to raise their own bio-diesel for farm use.
2007-03-11 09:04:30 · answer #2 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Um, that article refers to Corn-based ethanol. That article also says that cellulosic ethanol would be significantly more efficient an require less fossil fuel to make. Well, what-do-you-know, Hillary Clinton, the democratic front-runner, introduced legilation for a "Strategic Energy Fund" which would, among other things, increase production of cellulosic ethanol.
2007-03-11 09:31:49 · answer #3 · answered by John S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The diesel engine grew to become into designed with vegetable oil gasoline in recommendations. the frenzy in direction of ethanol grew to become right into a gimme to Archer Daniels Midland and something of the huge agribusiness foyer. Oil may be pressed making use of alternative power components than petrodiesel. we've wind turbines, biomass, photovoltaic, and hydrogen gasoline cells that would artwork as properly. i understand a number of people who make their very own biodiesel from used eating place fryer grease for a pair of greenback a gallon. think of there is no longer sufficient acreage to boost all of those vegetation? Why no longer plant gardens on all of those multi-acre production unit roofs? we don't have an power disaster lots as we've a disaster of resourceful and prescient........or lack thereof, because it have been.
2016-10-18 03:11:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok. So, do the math. It takes 3 gallons to make 4.
So, that means there is a net increase (gain) of 1 gallon's worth for every three spent. Which means, as a system, it produces more energy than it requires.
Compare that to many other forms of power, which take more energy to produce than they output. Comprare that to gasoline and see whether gasoline is more efficient. And then factor in the fact the enthanol is renewable and home-grown, while gasoline is not.
So, unless gasoline were massively more efficient (which it is not), we still get more energy out then we put in, and it's renewable. So, your objection is what?
2007-03-11 09:00:08 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wrong....actually it takes 5 gallons of gasoline, 2 gallons of diesel fuel, and 200,000 gallons of water...to make 3 gallons of Ethanol.
2007-03-11 09:00:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Don't forget how much land will have to be cleared to grow anywhere near the amount of grain needed to fuel our vehicles. What do the environmentalists think about that?
2007-03-11 09:33:01 · answer #7 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Making it from sugar is much more economical, but we have millions of acres of corn growing in this country (mostly in red states) and not sugar cane.
2007-03-11 09:24:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is probably why Bush went down to Brazil to get it to increase its Ethanol production!!!!
ROFLMAO!
2007-03-11 08:59:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Better then stripping out earth of needed oils.
How would you feel if you were stripped of all your oils?
But electric and solar energy is a much more viable way to go.
2007-03-11 08:57:36 · answer #10 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋