Did you know: corn based ethanol consumes more energy and creates more CO2 than gasoline?

Question

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec07/ethanol_10-09.html

Also, it takes a lot of water to grow corn.

Answer 1

Does anyone realize the impact of growing enough crop to meet energy demands and the impact it would have on the land?

More research should be done about the consquences of growing enough corn to begin decreasing the amount of gasoline used. Think of all the fresh water that would be used, or how much fertilizer needed to support the crop growth.

So what happens when there's a bad harvest or drought?
There's lots of questions that need to be answered before start accepting alternative sources of fuel.

Answer 2

Yes. It is just like having a campfire... All that smoke, what kind of elements do you think make up that smoke? What do you think oil and fossil fuels are make up of? Really, if you look at it, coal or gasoline or other fossil fuels are ethanol. The only way this corn based ethanol is effective is that a farmer can take 1/3 of him corn product and run his whole house and car. The corn based ethanol only helps us stop taking natural gases and goal from the ground. It was not introduced to prevent CO2 build up, but to limit the amount of fossil fuels we use...

Answer 3

Yes that is a very well known but rarely stated fact.

What's more, as was previously mentioned, it drives the cost of almost every other dairy and grain product up tremendously.

The better solution would be to have more nuclear power plants that would provide electricity to all our home and businesses and use petroleum based products for travel. That is until we find a way to use the solar energy or some other fuel source for travel.

Oh and just think of the horror of giving cattle a lesser grade of food. Can you imagine the amount of CO2 that will produce!! Not to mention the odorous cloud that will circle the earth!! Oh God! What are we to do!!!

Answer 4

Burning ethanol does create more CO2 but only because it is less efficient at this time. It's better to make it from sugar cane and add a fraction of gas in it for octane.

And before you get into a cost issue...if big business would stop using half the corn stock for cheap high fructose syrup there would not be any issue. The candy and sodas would be more expensive like they should be.

The ethanol is not an environmentalist thing. It's an attempt to make us less dependent on foreign oil.

Answer 5

Because huge agri-corporations have ALOT of pull in congress. And all of the senators and reps from the Midwestern corn states get alot of money for their state in subsidies. Most environmentalist where never for corn ethanol, but Bush pushed it through anyway... One of those "look at me I care.. but not really" acts. The only ethanol that really makes sense are those that are produced using algae, sugar cane and waste products, not food crop.

Answer 6

Yes and it puts up the price of food globally as it restricts corn supply, thus increasing poverty in the third world.

It's not only the corn oil, but the palm oil plantations in Borneo are causing the destruction of vast areas of ancient rain forest and the natural habitat of thousands of unique species, including the Bornean Orangutan. This is pushing this intelligent ape to the brink of extinction. The native forest tribes are dying out also. This is the direct effect of fashionably ignorant, knee-jerk "green" policies implemented by greedy corporations and their political puppets, and the well intentioned idiots that vote for them.

So-called "green" and carbon friendly policies so very rarely are. They are merely a false banner that is used to happily manipulate the ignorant and gullible, but well intentioned masses.

The Live Earth concerts were a classic example. Hundreds of thousands of people all over the world paid good money to have some of the world's lagest carbon poluters lecture them (converts to green living) on why they should do more to clean up this planet!

I mean, you could not make it up! Al Gores carbon footprint is several thousand times greater than mine, and he has the gall to lecture me on how to be green? AND he doesn't even get his science right! In fact, he's not even close!

These Brain washed, hypnotised and thoroughly well-meaning idiots are causing great harm to our society and economy and huge parts of the planet too.

It is about time the "Man-kind is the main driver of the CO2 which is the main driver of catastrophic climate change" myth was killed off once and for all.

Answer 7

Did you know you are wrong? it takes 1 gallon of fuel to make 6 gallons of ethanol in 2007. That was not the case 5 years ago. My links below prove it. And more ethanol plants are getting on board to save money by eliminating natural gas as an energy substrate. Making ethanol has become IMMENSELY more efficient in the last 10 years. If it took more energy to make than we got out of it every ethanol plant in the country would go bankrupt because ethanol sells for cheaper than gasoline and natural gas both on a unit by unit basis. It's simple math.

Ethanol is being produced via "green" means with ZERO fossil fuels used in the process. Read that again---ZERO FOSSIL FUELS ARE BEING USED TO MAKE ETHANOL. Ethanol plants are using wind energy and biomass (dried cow manure to be specific) exclusively for power because it saves them a heap on their natural gas bill. Below are 2 links to prove it:

http://www.connectbiz.com/stories/moonsh...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/...


The top link above states that 1 gallon of fuel produces 6 gallons of ethanol. At some ethanol plants the net energy yield is essentially infinite as wind and biomass are used to produce it.

And as an aside, why do people think that gasoline and diesel require no energy to produce? Gasoline doesn't come out of the ground. Crude oil does. That crude oil has to be shipped on a massive oil tanker 5000 miles from saudi arabia to the gulf of mexico. Ocean oil tankers require massive amounts of fuel.Then the crude oil has to be refined into usable gasoline via heated distillation. Both steps require tremendous amounts of fossil fuels. Unfortunately big oil companies have put alot of myths out there and people are buying into it.

Answer 8

That isn't strictly speaking true.

It takes less energy to *extract* gasoline than it does to make biofuel, but the energy needed to create gasoline is much greater. We just don't need to supply that energy because we draw upon the reserve created by nature. All the "debt" has already been paid.

I know that was pedantic, for which I apologize, however it is quite an important point as we are not involved in creating gasoline at all, whereas we do plant and harvest corn.

The C02 creation is as your article states, a distribution issue which isn't strictly tied to the fuel, or at least, need not be.

(your article states: JAN KRIEDER: You know, there's not. If we grow ethanol, grow corn, make ethanol, burn it in cars, we produce more CO-2 than if we just used gasoline. And, again, that comes back to the fact that we have to haul that ethanol out of the refineries with trucks. We can't pipe it like we do gasoline; that's the problem.)

So it shouldn't be insurmountable to fix this.

There are enough other problems with biofuel IMO to reject as anything more than a byproduct created from other forms of waste such as cellulose or food.

Answer 9

any biodesel is more energy intensive than natural occuring oil diesel
When energy input for biodiesel is concerned the raio is less than 1 while for extracted oil it is more than 2

Answer 10

FACT. It takes 1.2 gallons of fuel to make 1 gallon ethanol. That is to MAKE it. Does not take into account the diesel burned to harvest the corn or semi's to haul it to methanol makers. Plus, it has driven the price of corn sky high, which makes beef more expensive as well as milk. GREAT job, environmentalists.