A study last year by Cornell University biologist David Pimentel and University of California at Berkeley engineer Ted Patzek says no. According to the study, "Ethanol production using corn grain required 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced." And the news was even worse for cellulosic ethanol using switchgrass, which requires 50 percent more fossil energy than it displaces; woodchips needed 57 percent more; and biodiesel burnd 27 percent more fossil fuel than it displaces.
Biofuels are commercially questionable, do not materially advance energy independence, and may not even help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Bioethanol is just a subsidy boondoggle masquerading as a solution to America's energy problems.
But it does help get some politicians elected.
2007-12-04 13:41:13 · 14 answers · asked by Bubba 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Chi Bro,
Yup, and what happens when farmers have that one bad year with crops.
Ooooooooops!
2007-12-04 13:47:25 · update #1
I think I saw a report that stated it takes as much or more energy to refine corn for fuel. Brazil is using sugar. The US should have a three pronged approach. Go electric or hybrid. Go solar and wind.
There is a company in Cali that has bred algae to eat their carbon emissions. They funnel their emissions into these huge transparent tubes in liquid form. The tubes are 30% filled with algae that converts the emissions to oxygen. The algae is then later used to produce rubber or something.
2007-12-04 13:45:30 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
At best, greenhouse gas emissions stay the same. This is not to say that bioethanol is worthless, it could still have an effect on gas prices if it was introduced as an alternative to the gasoline we use today. That doesn't do much for environmentalists, but gas prices are a problem and anything that could be a solution should be entertained.
2007-12-05 01:41:14 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ethanol and bio-diesel will both be used in the future but neither will be made from corn. Corn is not the ideal crop because of the care it needs and the fact that only the ears even come close to producing enough sugar to convert to alcohol or oil enough for diesel.
There are better ways but right now corn is the easiest route to get people accustomed to the idea.
2007-12-04 13:49:14 · answer #3 · answered by Locutus1of1 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Maybe it helps those politicians in the corn belt get elected, but their are much better alternatives to fossil fuels out there than Ethanol....
2007-12-04 13:46:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
how can a tax on electricity make it suddenly 2 or 3 times more expensive... that is just not going to happen. I can see a few percent, sure and how did they come up with that $750 number ? post your web link to the calculation. at my house we decided to just buy efficient bulbs to use less power and our bills went down. It didnt cost us more... but less. Don't forget that making your home more efficient in the long run saves you lots of money, and burns less coal and oil, which is good all around. Its funny how everyone wants things to get better, but without any cost at all to them to make it happen. Funny how Europeans all pay more taxes than in the US, yet their standard of living is higher... Its not the taxes... its what the government does with them that makes the difference. Taxes are ok, as long as the government uses them wisely to help the people. Thats what you have to decide... is the money being spent wisely that will improve the economy, and America in general in the long term
2016-04-07 09:13:03 · answer #5 · answered by Tara 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question and can only add that doen't it take like six pounds of corn for a gallon. I think the chicken and cow pie deal is better. But just think of all the people tht got paid serious money figuring it out. Wonder if they used the corn cobs? or what they do with them. take care.
2007-12-04 13:58:40 · answer #6 · answered by R J 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
According to my Earth Sciences Proffessor - biofuel is a reasonable way to reduce greenhouse gases in SOME countries.
The USA, however, may not be one of those countries... You see, it depends on how the biofuel is made and what it is made of.
We would have to grow corn and sugar and use alot of energy to do it... and that energy has to come from oil initially... Not to mention the waste of vegitation and the destruction of land.
So, I think it would have to be very carefully studied for overall efficiency in reducing greenhouse gases and the jury is still out on it.
2007-12-04 13:56:41 · answer #7 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, actually it produces higher levels of CO2....a more dense greenhouse gas. Not the answer
2007-12-04 13:44:55 · answer #8 · answered by The prophet of DOOM 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I read somewhere that too much water vapor in the atmosphere leads to more drastic changes in global temperatures.
So I think it's time we ban saunas.
2007-12-04 13:48:31 · answer #9 · answered by mvpposada20 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We're screwed.
We should be going all out for solar, hydro, wind, and NUCLEAR. Yes, I said nuclear. We have no choice.
2007-12-04 13:49:00 · answer #10 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋