Brazil has had incredible success getting off foreign oil because of their sugar cane/ethanol production. I would definitely support it being done here too, as corn is rather inefficient. I am hoping celluose ethanol is around the corner, allowing natural grasses to be used that require no pesticides, no fertilizer, no irrigation, and best of all...no planting!
Biofuels are important because electric cars are many years away still from having the range, cost and recharging time necessary to make them competitive. As the energy density of batteries starts to approach that of hydrocarbon fuel, you will see a switch. But until then we need ethanol.
As diesel particulate emissions and smog pollution from diesels get better, I think you will see more people use biodiesel. However we have a long way to go. Mercedes couldn't sell diesels in the US from 2000-2005 because of cancer causing particulate, and for the last 2 years you can't buy a new Volkswagen diesel either for the same reason.
So until electric cars and diesels become better...plant that coastal sugarcane!
2007-05-19 01:42:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Milezpergallon 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
if the sugar cane is a better hurricane deterrerant then regular coastal wetlands then go for it. ethanol is not the answer anyway, bush is just delaying the cause. electric cars are the answer and renewable energy sources for electricity. i think south or north dakota's wind can power the whole us with all the wind there. this country really wants anarchy i believe. the government think the people are stupid. just like they want us to believe bush is stupid. hes not, he is getting paid very well, stocks, donations, payoffs, etc. bush is probably the smartest guy in the room. thats a funny statement, bush is the smartest. far fetched but he is gettin paid. he is definitely not the most moral or ethical person by far. anarchy. remember, remember the 5th of november. i think the fourth of july should have extremely red alert. the way these terrorist work, 9/11, the way we dial 911 in emergency. on 747 there may 747's landing some places. these psychos think this way. they live in caves with no p u ssy,(must be fags) you may think im a psycho for thinking this, but we gotta be a step ahead. btw, i am way off topic but i get to let my mind go on here. one life one love.
2007-05-18 16:42:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by Reganomics 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
you does not could desire to make ethanol. it is totally, very inefficient as a results of fact distillation takes extremely some warmth power. 4 pounds of coal is going into making six pounds of ethanol. (besides the shown fact that it is American coal, and the farm foyer loves the corn subsidies, that's why the government helps it. it is not for our environment, they only say that to sound professional-environment.) in case you have been going to run a power plant, you may purely burn sugarcane at present. Boilers can run on it, and so can diesels. (particularly! Ingersoll Rand outfitted em, for sugar plantations the place that they had extremely some the stuff.) besides the shown fact that the smart play could be to enhance tropical oil vegetation and squeeze oil out of em, and use it straight away or make biodiesel. (that's lots easier than the different fellow reported, and takes little or no power.) Ships can run on vegetable oil as-is, and locomotives could desire to with a splash replace. Be solid for their engines too. automobiles, make biodiesel.
2016-12-11 13:42:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, because ethanol has issues. Biodiesel has about 3x more yield from the same land and energy inputs...
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/balance.htm
... and that's just using corn and soy, which are actually terrible crops for making biodiesel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Yields_of_common_crops
2007-05-18 17:26:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Wolf Harper 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
ethonal isnt all its hyped up 2 b...
2007-05-18 16:39:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Scarlette 3
·
0⤊
1⤋