You're right. We need to utilize them more and increase production. They have a myriad of benefits over oil.
Biofuels are growing. We cannot control what others use as fuel but we can control what we use as fuel. I made the switch to ethanol 2 years ago and have never looked back. It is cheaper than gasoline, burns cleaner, helps our economy, and gives me more horsepower. Many have bought into the lies and myths that big oil has created. Biofuels do not consume more energy to make than they yield. Ethanol is now 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 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/moonshine.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/ethanol_plant_t.html
The top link above states that 1 gallon of fuel produces 6 gallons of ethanol. If it took more energy to make than ethanol yielded every ethanol plant in the country would go out of business because ethanol sells for cheaper than fossil fuels on a unit-by-unit basis. At some ethanol plants the net energy yield is essentially infinite as wind and biomass are used to produce it.
And 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. Then the crude oil has to be refined into usable gasoline. Both steps require massive amounts of fossil fuels.
In addition, ethanol is way better for the environment and here's why:
Cars running on ethanol, which is distilled from agricultural crops and biomass are governed by the same laws of physics as those using petrol in that both fuels emit CO2 as a consequence of combustion, however the crucial difference is that burning ethanol recycles CO2 because it has already been removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis during the natural growth of agricultural crops, such as corn plants. A corn plant removes CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to grow and produce cornstarch. The plant is harvested and the cornstarch is fermented into ethanol. The ethanol is burned and the cycle repeats. NO NEW NET CARBON is added to the atmosphere when you use ethanol, unlike gasoline which spews tons of carbon into the atmosphere which has been trapped beneath the earth's surface for millions of years in the form of crude oil. You can burn all the ethanol you want and you are not contributing one iota to global warming. You are simply recycling carbon. And creating demand for ethanol by using it in your car stimulates farmers to plant more corn to meet the demand. More corn means more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere because corn, like all plants, takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen via photosynthesis. So not only are you not adding any new carbon to the air when you use ethanol, you are stimulating the planting of more corn plants which naturally fight global warming via photosynthesis.
So the bottom line is, if you believe in biofuels, start using them in your car. You can safely use 10-30% ethanol in any car, flex fuel or not. And biodiesel up to 20% can be used in any diesel engine. There are organizations which are promoting biofuels and trying to get them in to greater use. Think about joining one and getting involved!
http://www.e85fuel.com
http://www.ethanol.org
http://www.drivingethanol.org
Tyler, last time I checked the energy to grow corn comes from the sun. It's called photosynthesis. Where does the energy come from for a 5000 ton oil tanker to haul thousands of barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia to the Gulf of Mexico?????? I guess magic elves do all the work.
2007-11-06 22:53:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If we strengthen the vegetation and supply the bounty to the individuals they are going to bred greater and demand greater foodstuff till the worlds inhabitants outweighs the supplies we are able to generating, you are able to't teach those 0.33 worldwide united states's into loose selection delivery administration so do you like China doe's make it regulation and initiate greater conflict that way, Are our governments encouraging farmers to strengthen vegetation for gasoline to help save down the worlds inhabitants via making much less foodstuff available ? the western worldwide can't stay without the automobile, so the gasoline has again from someplace, and if it potential undesirable or unneeded 0.33 worldwide adults and childrens could go through through fact the vegetation have been diverted for gasoline, what proportion westerners utilising to paintings one in a vehicle ought to grant a dam suitable to the ravenous ? Orson Wells could have foreseen the destiny the place we could be controlled to save mankind and planet Earth, much less we destroyed it and ourselves.
2016-10-15 07:23:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
What MS has failed to consider is ALL of the other energy used in ethanol production, not just processing. Growing corn is very energy intensive, and it is also environmentally damaging in other ways (wide spacing allows high runoff rates, for example). Fertilizer is produced using vast amounts of natural gas, and corn uses a lot of fertilizer. Corn ethanol is the worst way to solve our energy/climate crisis. Ethanol produced from agricultural waste (unused crops, or cellulose) is a more viable solution. Growing other, less intensive crops would also work. So why all the talk about corn? Politics. Agrochemical/seed companies (ie. Monsanto), corn belt farmers, "big oil" and car makers all want corn ethanol to happen because it will make them money.
Is it possible to run all of our cars on biofuels, I'd like to think so. Will that possibility ever become a reality, I doubt it.
2007-11-09 02:50:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
One neighbor can do that. Maybe even thousands of people could. But there is not enough used cooking oil in the country for all 300 million of us to do it. Not even close.
2007-11-06 16:34:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The problem is that it takes more fuel to make bio fuels than it creates. Without all of the government subsidies, nobody would be making any because it costs more to make than it's worth. If we used strictly corn for fuel 97% of ALL of the land in the USA would need to be corn fields just to make enough fuel for Americans.
2007-11-06 12:29:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kingler 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
i have nothing against bio fuels (ethanol is good idea everyone is dumb) supposly the fuels would reduce co2 but hey i dirve a american charger with 350 hp and get 14mpgs but i also hate hydrogen cars arent fast or performence oreintate atleast with ethanol evertyon can still drive there own car
2007-11-06 12:30:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
$3.04 is a good price...better fill up!!....The reason Bio Fuels are not in the mainstream...AND probably will NOT be for some time is....The MEGA-RICH that control the Govt. ..And the economy...have soooo much in reserve (crude Surplus)..they need to max their profits first....the rest of what I would waste time sayin....follows those lines....so...as long as we need their fuel...we will pay their prices.....stop buying their fuels.....(yeah....right)...the price will come down..because gasoline goes stale....they can't store it for long.......etc.etc.etc...........
2007-11-06 12:37:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by Freddy D 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
They still produce the same pollutants so what have u gained.
2007-11-08 03:30:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by JOHNNIE B 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
We are.
2007-11-06 13:06:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋