Will you be boycotting Ethanol?

Question

Since ethanol is so environmentally destructive compared to gasoline, will you be boycotting it?

To produce ethanol we must clear grassland or forests, plow the land, divert water to irrigate it, spray it with herbacides and insecticides and process the harvest. Is it worth that much environmental destruction when we can simply drill for oil or mine coal?

You don't suppose, Lotsaroos, that an increase in demand for row crops that ethanol production would render would encourage currently fallow land to be plowed? Or, equivalently, if currently farmed land has its harvest diverted to ethanol production won't that harvest need to be replaced somehow?

Answer 1

Ethanol is a dead end used to divert attention away from real alternatives (such as electric or biodiesel), so yes I will.

Answer 2

Well, to those of you that would like to boycott Ethanol....most, if not all fuel stations, are now using a 10% Ethanol blend, which does not have to be posted on the gas pump. The Michigan government has passed a law that limits the blend to 10% without having to post it on the pump. The only fuel that does not and cannot have any ethanol additives whatsoever is those pumps that are fueling airplanes and that is because when water enters the tank which has any amount of ethanol in it, the water does not float to the top of the tank, it turns to tiny bubbles and mixes with the fuel (not what you want while in the air). As much as I hate the idea of using Ethanol additives, we are all using it every time we fill up....

Answer 3

Ethanol will never happen. If we used our entire corn crop to produce ethanor we would only take care of 12% of our energy needs. That would mean creating more crops. Which would in turn mean using more fertalizer. Fertalizer is produced using fossil fuels mainly natural gas. We would need to use more oil in order to create an alternative for oil. Not to mention the amound of land and trees we would have to clear to get started. The push for Ethanol right now is simply the presidential candidates attempt to win the Iowa Primary and become the next president. No one who has truly studied this believes that ethanol is a viable alternative.

Answer 4

Ethanol is not the answer.
I live in a corn state, and grew up a farm kid. In a local market E85 would be a viable solution, ie buy fuel at the plant. But that is the end of it's viability. I don't believe it should be subsidized, and I don't believe we should be removing food stuffs out of the chain to fill the bill on our transportation costs.

It becomes a major circle problem. You pay more for corn. The cost of producing livestock and other grain products increase as the result of removing the commodity out of the market for transportation fuel production.


That said, the logistics of ethanol is problematic.

Ethanol degrades, it requires trucks to transport from "distilling plants"

Ethanol reduces MPG by about 10-15%, so the amount "saved" in price is not enough to justify the difference.

In my view we do need to do somethings,

1st - Build refineries - Our number one issue is refining capacity - eliminate hurdles to building them cost effectively
2nd - Eliminate the blend changes from summer to winter
3rd - Drill offshore location such as Gulf Coast from FL to TX expanding those areas and mandate it in the nations interest.
4th -- Implement CTL/GTL utilize the 1000-2000 years of available coal and begin diverting a large portion into the conversion from CTL to liquid feedstock for refining.
5th -- Tell the environmentalists to get the hell out of DC.
6th - Close our borders and protect our country.

Answer 5

From what little I know....I think any ethanol we use should be produced in our country. I don't want to be increasingly more responsible for poor countries plowing under for our convenience. Also, moving any products great distances just wastes fuel. Aren't there US farmers who are paid by the gov't not to grow crops, or certain crops? Could they grow corn or whatever for ethanol? (And why is corn, wheat and soy subsidized by the gov't?) As long as people have enough water for basic use, for farming food, I could buy verifiable US produced ethanol. I know it can only be a small part of our transition off of oil--along with conservation and new technology.

Answer 6

Hmmm, this is a very interesting question/debate. However, as apparently I've had my head in the smog (so-to-speak) I don't know enough about the issue. I would be interested in learning where I can link to find out more about BOTH sides of the issue. I was under the impression that mining for coal was devastating beyond belief to the environment not to mention the many hazards faced by the people doing the job. As for drilling for more oil, I thought that we were already about to tap into our emergency reserves as it is. So what I'm wondering is do we have a choice not to pursue this other option? I'm not saying what I think should be done either way, only that I need to know more about it. I don't want to destroy the environment or bring harm to a person or to an animal and I also don't want to deplete what resources we have left. More information would be helpful. And by the way, thanks for giving me something important to devote my thought to! Any information concerning links would be appreciated.

Answer 7

I guess I'm a litle confused on what you mean by environmentally destructive...we already have farm land where the corn can be produced, so how do you figure that MORE land will need to be cleared to produce it?

The majority of the farms out there currently use pesticides and herbicides on food that is consumed by people, so what would the big deal be for corn produced for ethonal?

Sometimes, you really need to look at the fights that you pick and decide fit's worth the whole battle or not.

Oil and coal have way more harmful side effects to the earth and people than ethonal does. Ethonal IS a renewable source of energy, coal and oil are not.

Answer 8

No.

Why the focus on crops? You can make ethanol from algae. Also. Have you flown in a plane? There is plenty of open land out there with no need for deforestation. I've flown to Australia, Europe, China and South Africa. Plenty of land. Pesticides? GM crops can be pesticide free and use less water as well.

The fact is fossil fuel is not an unlimited supply.

Answer 9

Very few people are aware of how much animal and people feed remains after the production of ethanol....have some corn flakes, for example, which are such a side product.

If coal produces a side product we can ship to places with no food, I say more coal!

Answer 10

I will in fact be boycotting ethanol because of the environmental destruction you mentioned. But, oil and coal will pollute the environment, and we will eventually use up our supply. So ethanol, although proclaimed to be the answer to our problem, is not.