Ethanol may not be very cost effective or efficient to produce YET, but I have a feeling it will be. Gasoline wasn't very efficient at one point either, and look how that turned around. Now it's time for another revolution. But every miracle takes time. This isn't going to be an instant gratification cure-all.
I strongly believe that when the government stops paying farmers NOT to plant fields and those fields start producing more than fallow ground, then we'll have a better supply for ethanol, and not just corn...sugar beets and cane have higher concentrations of sugars than corn. And there are organic ways to farm. Not every farmer dumps chemicals on the soil and lets it wash into the streams. Crops feed cows, cows make manure, manure feeds crops. And I think we can get more crops than the cows can eat. We just have to go back to the old ways of farming...using crop rotation, natural fertilizers, and our brains.
2007-05-10 09:05:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Moon Maiden 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Lots of information out there regarding ethanol and other fuel products. It appears that it takes more BTU's and government subsidies ($) to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline. I don't think there's an economic breakeven point at which ehonal is cheaper. Part of problem are food products (corn/soy beans) are also feed for cattle and hogs and for us humans too and even some chickens and some cows that provide dairy products. I hate to suggest it but atomic power might be an answer to reduce our oil dependence. This may not be a popular topic on the left coast. Good luck
2007-05-14 02:57:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Angie 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Lots of information out there regarding ethanol and other fuel products. It appears that it takes more BTU's and government subsidies ($) to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline. I don't think there's an economic breakeven point at which ehonal is cheaper. Part of problem are food products (corn/soy beans) are also feed for cattle and hogs and for us humans too and even some chickens and some cows that provide dairy products. I hate to suggest it but atomic power might be an answer to reduce our oil dependence. This may not be a popular topic on the left coast. Good luck
2007-05-10 06:16:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by cwag 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
In addition to raising the cost of food for poor people (because the corn is being used to make ethanol), it does not produce the energy of petroleum, so it is very inefficient. As was mentioned above, Nuclear Energy is the real, safe, effecient answer to energy production. It has been used safely for over 45 years with only minor problems and those where with the antiquated design of the facilities. Ethanol will probably never be a viable fuel since there are over 500 years of petroleum reserves just in North America alone.
2007-05-15 09:32:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Wiz 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I honestly don't think ethanol is the way to go...I'm a biodiesel person myself:) I see most of the posters have listed many of the downsides of ethanol...well with the exception of specifics on how all food prices will skyrocket since corn products (sweetners, oil, etc) are used in their preparation. Tortilla riots in Mexico are just the tip of the iceberg.
Still if you want a speaker, why not try the people at Ethanol Producer's Magazine and ask them to put you into contact with someone with expertise.
The link is: www.ethanolproducer.com
2007-05-16 12:09:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by fenhongjiatu1 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
When I drink too much ethanol, I start indeed to talk a lot
And generally, the next day, I don´t want to talk about how much ethanol I had the previous day.
I share ethanol with friends.
I would somehow state that I nevertheless consume less gallons of ethanol than my car. Well anyway, I do not mix ethanol and car driving for my own safety and I generally prefear walking home when I had ethanol.
2007-05-10 07:03:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by NLBNLB 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ethanol is a common "political" product. It would not paintings as planned and expenses way better than became into concept. It additionally Pollutes plenty, the two in the time of production and use. It will strengthen nutrients expenditures for each guy or woman whilst a extensive share of corn is used to make it, corn that used to choose for nutrients for human beings and livestock feed. Farmers have switched from turning out to be different flowers to turning out to be corn, inflicting shortages and better expenditures. it is an all around undesirable thought, so of direction the Gov. plans to extend the Ethanol content in gas from 10% to twenty%.
2016-11-27 00:24:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, ethanol, yes. I have a lot of it at home. Vodka is best because people cannot smell it out of your mouth.
The more I drink the more I talk. A booth at a Green Fair would take me about 16 ounces of the regular 80-proof....
2007-05-15 07:55:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Ethanol at this stage of technology for the usa is a dead subject, it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it. It is doing more to hurt the environment by sucking up money that might go to other renewable rescources
2007-05-14 14:27:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by Swen R 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
How can you say it's boring if you are on a page about making australia a more enviromentally friendly place, ethanol is made from sugar cane this is a plant this is a healthy and natural resourse. It's a cleaner burning fuel compared to regular fuels because it burns cleaner and is cleaner to refine and it's a renewable source. It would also make running your car cheaper to run. I dont live in california i live in australia though.
2007-05-17 19:30:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 1
·
0⤊
0⤋