RadRob
Contributor
there are several problems with the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel. First, it is costly to produce and use. in the last decade or so, the cost has dropped from $3.60/gallon to $1.27/gallon. There are also costs associated with modifying vehicles to use methanol or gasohol, but these costs vary, depending on the number of vehicles produced.
Another problem is that ethanol has a smaller energy density than gasoline. It takes about 1.5 times more ethanol than gasoline to travel the same distance. However, with new technologies and dedicated ethanol-engines, this is expected to drop to 1.25 times.
An important consideration with ethanol is that it requires vast amounts of land to grow the crops needed to generate fuel. The process for conversion of crops to ethanol is relatively inefficient because of the large water content of the plant material. There is legitimate concern that using land for ethanol production will compete directly with food production.
Another problem is that ethanol burning may increase emission of certain types of pollutants. Like any combustion process, some of the ethanol fuel would come out the tailpipe unburned. This is not a major problem since ethanol emissions are relatively non-toxic. However, some of the ethanol will be only partially oxidized and emitted as acetylaldehyde, which reacts in air to eventually contribute to the formation of ozone. Current research is investigating means to reduce acetylaldehyde emissions by decreasing the engine warm-up period.
Finally, ethanol production, like all processes, generates waste products that must be disposed. The waste product from ethanol production, called swill, can be used as a soil conditioner on land, but is extremely toxic to aquatic life.
corn production causes more soil erosion than any other single crop grown in the nation. Corn uses more herbicides and pesticides than any other crop grown in the nation, and these pesticides are causing major problems in polluting our streams and lakes. Seventy percent of the nitrogen delivered to the Gulf came from above the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. In converting coal, if it was done soundly, it would reduce the amount of environmental pollutants by about 10-fold.
in order to produce enough corn or grain or sugar cane to meet the demands of the ethanol industry, farmers may have to restrict how much of their crop will be available for other uses. This often means higher prices for animal feed, flour, corn, grains and many products derived from those raw materials. Even if all the available farmland in the United States were converted to corn fields for ethanol production, it still would only meet a small percentage of the country's total energy needs. Corn production can be very labor intensive, and the corn crops could still be vulnerable to bad weather, droughts or insect damage.
politicians are also lying to the american people by telling them that there is not that much oil here in the states to make a difference. The oil in North Dakota alone holds over 200 billion barrels of oil, which would increase our oil reserves by over ten times. That is not including all of the other states including offshore drilling that we can do.
some politicians would also tell you that drilling now would not make a difference for another 5 too 10 years. Well that was the same rhetoric that was spewed by Bill Clinton back in the 90s' and now over those ten years later we are feeling the pain at the pump for not drilling back then. That is exactly why we need to drill now, if those "alternative fuels" are still not available in the next ten years then we MUST have affordable fuel or everything stops. Food prices are going up because of the shipping, truckers are pulling out 2nd and 3rd mortgages on their houses or completely dropping out of the industry because it costs over $600 to fill their tanks. Flights to anywhere in the world including within the US are skyrocketing AND they are charging more just for the amount of luggage you have to support the rising costs. As another side note to the "alternative fuel" cars of the future, there is also the concern of the availability of the new cars and of the consumers wallet. When we come out with a new fuel source car there will be a mad rush to get those vehicles creating a waiting line. Then there are those that will not even be able to afford buying a new car even with a trade in value amount. Let's face it, new cars with new technology cost more because the development costs more, the costs wouldn't come down for years. It's time to stop saying that "alternative fuel is the solution" until you take all of these factors into account.
Another problem is that ethanol has a smaller energy density than gasoline. It takes about 1.5 times more ethanol than gasoline to travel the same distance. However, with new technologies and dedicated ethanol-engines, this is expected to drop to 1.25 times.
An important consideration with ethanol is that it requires vast amounts of land to grow the crops needed to generate fuel. The process for conversion of crops to ethanol is relatively inefficient because of the large water content of the plant material. There is legitimate concern that using land for ethanol production will compete directly with food production.
Another problem is that ethanol burning may increase emission of certain types of pollutants. Like any combustion process, some of the ethanol fuel would come out the tailpipe unburned. This is not a major problem since ethanol emissions are relatively non-toxic. However, some of the ethanol will be only partially oxidized and emitted as acetylaldehyde, which reacts in air to eventually contribute to the formation of ozone. Current research is investigating means to reduce acetylaldehyde emissions by decreasing the engine warm-up period.
Finally, ethanol production, like all processes, generates waste products that must be disposed. The waste product from ethanol production, called swill, can be used as a soil conditioner on land, but is extremely toxic to aquatic life.
corn production causes more soil erosion than any other single crop grown in the nation. Corn uses more herbicides and pesticides than any other crop grown in the nation, and these pesticides are causing major problems in polluting our streams and lakes. Seventy percent of the nitrogen delivered to the Gulf came from above the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. In converting coal, if it was done soundly, it would reduce the amount of environmental pollutants by about 10-fold.
in order to produce enough corn or grain or sugar cane to meet the demands of the ethanol industry, farmers may have to restrict how much of their crop will be available for other uses. This often means higher prices for animal feed, flour, corn, grains and many products derived from those raw materials. Even if all the available farmland in the United States were converted to corn fields for ethanol production, it still would only meet a small percentage of the country's total energy needs. Corn production can be very labor intensive, and the corn crops could still be vulnerable to bad weather, droughts or insect damage.
politicians are also lying to the american people by telling them that there is not that much oil here in the states to make a difference. The oil in North Dakota alone holds over 200 billion barrels of oil, which would increase our oil reserves by over ten times. That is not including all of the other states including offshore drilling that we can do.
some politicians would also tell you that drilling now would not make a difference for another 5 too 10 years. Well that was the same rhetoric that was spewed by Bill Clinton back in the 90s' and now over those ten years later we are feeling the pain at the pump for not drilling back then. That is exactly why we need to drill now, if those "alternative fuels" are still not available in the next ten years then we MUST have affordable fuel or everything stops. Food prices are going up because of the shipping, truckers are pulling out 2nd and 3rd mortgages on their houses or completely dropping out of the industry because it costs over $600 to fill their tanks. Flights to anywhere in the world including within the US are skyrocketing AND they are charging more just for the amount of luggage you have to support the rising costs. As another side note to the "alternative fuel" cars of the future, there is also the concern of the availability of the new cars and of the consumers wallet. When we come out with a new fuel source car there will be a mad rush to get those vehicles creating a waiting line. Then there are those that will not even be able to afford buying a new car even with a trade in value amount. Let's face it, new cars with new technology cost more because the development costs more, the costs wouldn't come down for years. It's time to stop saying that "alternative fuel is the solution" until you take all of these factors into account.
