10 Responses

1. It is not economically feasible give the damage ethanol is causing many engines and fuel tanks. These costs are never considered.

2. Another inportant factor you left off is water. It supposedly takes a lot of water to grow corn.

   And you raised a good point. I really dont know if its going to be just as economical.

3. No fuel alternative would be economical in the long run because the engines would all have to be retooled and the auto reworked. It would cost too much to purchase one. Also, people would lose their jobs asa result of these changes and unemployment and poverty would skyrocket.

4. Not yet. Even though it is cheaper to make, it yeilds less miles to the gallon and your car has to be able to burn it. However, once oil derived fuels go up another couple of dollars a gallon, it will be worth it to burn that corn based fuel. E85.

5. it’s just another way for corn farmers (mainly big agrobusinesses), pharmaceutical co (making GMO corn), and auto makers to make mroe money fleecing America.

   however, hydrogen fuel is a good alternative, it’s doable, and the fuel is cheap.

6. If you are just looking at production costs, ehtanol would be similar to gasoline. Think of the process to produce gasoline. You have to find, drill for, and remove crude oil. Then you must ship or pipe this oil to a refinery where it undergoes a lengthy process to make gasoline. There are huge energy costs involved in this process too. The truth of the matter is that yes it is a economically feasible alternative if consumers accept it.

7. It doesn’t damage engines, as evidenced by the WIDE use of ethanol in Brazil. But in the U.S. it isn’t economically feasible for some very interesting reasons.

   In Brazil, ethanol is made from sugar cane, which grows really well in the Brazilian climate.

   In the U.S. ethanol is made from corn.

   Making ethanol from corn is much more expensive than making it from sugar cane, thus the difference.

   Making ethanol from corn uses tremendous amounts of energy and uses a lot of water which must be treated afterword. In addition, it is expensive to transport because it can’t be moved through pipelines due to ethanol’s tendency to absorb water, a problem petroleum distillates don’t have.

8. I think at the moment you may be right, but we have to come up with something and this is a start. I think the only way America is going to stay the worlds last super power is to find new sources of energy. So at this time ethanol may cost the same or even more than crude oil but over time the technology will improve. The real answer is in hydrogen and when we harness that energy source, we can liberate ourselves and our economy from foreign dominated markets.

9. I think that it is probably not viable, although there are some adjustments that could and probably will be made to narrow the gap. A couple of directions that I think would be interesting to explore are:
   – the use of plant fibre (cellulose) which is digested into a fermentable form, so that less productive agricultural land could provide the raw material, and plants requiring less input could be used as the raw material. Hemp is probably not a bad candidate for this since it also has the capacity to provide a good quality oil;
   – the use of solar stills;
   – the use of a rational crop rotation system involving a legume (i. e. soya, alfalfa);

   Bio-diesels are probably a better alternative.
   In any case the best strategy is probably to reduce energy needs.
   Homes should be built using the ambient temperature of the earth to heat and cool through the use of geothermal energy and heat pumps or by building more underground.
   There are also other strategies which might help, such as:
   – large solar collectors in space that generate power that is then sent down to earth;
   – using all existing nuclear weopons (the nuclear material is made anyway) to fuel nuclear reactors until they are all spent. The example of the West dismantling its nuclear weapons to create energy instead of using their threat to maintain energy supply would also go a long way to legitimising the nuclear weapons non-proliferation process in the eyes of the international community.

   In any case, this is a problem that will be with us for a long time. Right now bio-energy that took a long time to produce (millions of years – petroleum) is being consumed in a very short amount time (decades – petroleum industry). The best option is to reduce consumption.

   There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

10. well it still costs more energy to produce a gallon of gasoline than to burn it, thats a constant for any fuel, but just look at brazil, the entire country thrives on ethanol, so obviously ethanol makes more sense for them than gas.