Science and Society

There's more to the downside. It takes more energy to make ethanol than can be got from it. So, it's a dead end, energy-saving-wise. We'd be much better off going to electric cars and finding alternate ways of producing electricity. The food problem will get worse exponentially. Wars have been started for less important reasons.

Farmers here in the Midwest love the idea of using corn for ethanol, because it's one of the two big money-making crops (the other being soybeans) grown in this region. But what would happen to the ethanol supply if the harvests were particularly low for the year? I'd suggest investigating the possibility of using other plants, too, since it makes no sense to have a sole dependency on corn. Brazil makes its ethanol from sugar cane, and, while that wouldn't probably be practical for the US, it does demonstrate that other plants can be used.

I never understood the whole ethanol craze -- or biodiesels -- for that matter. Yes, it's "renewable" because you can always grow more crops to produce the fuel. But, as we're learning, probably not at the efficiency or production rate that would meet demand.

Supply vs. Demand....

Ummm, perhaps we should address the DEMAND side of the equation, then? I can't tell you how many cars I pass on the road everyday where it's just ONE occupant in the car! (And don't get me started about the lone driver of a fuel chugger like a monster 4x4 or even a mini-van!)

The simple matter, to me, has always been more cars means more fuel and MORE congestion on the roads.

Hydrogen is the answer.

One thing ethanol does that is not renewable is exhaust the soil. Another is it takes about 8ight barrels equivalent of energy to make the ninth barrel of ethanol. Ethanol is an immoral use of agricultural land for wantonly destructive transporation policies of individual vehicles on publicly maintained roads fueling urban spawl, and the loss of irreplacable farm land.
It is immoral to use agriculture for the rich to literally burn food up Corn and soil) while raising the costs for food to the poor.

Redtech5 is spot on, as is Jim Newport. It sounds to me like another political grasping hand, big time. If only someone who knows would sit down with the administration and show them numbers that would utterly refute this ethanol foolishness. I think someone has been nipping at their own product.

Ethanol is not the answer. As stated above and in an article ('Is Ethanol for the Long Haul?'; January 2007; Scientific American Magazine; by Matthew L. Wald) the overall effect on the environment makes it no better than what we have now. Hydrogen is not the answer. It is created by splitting water, using electricity. And where does the electricity come from now? From coal and gas fired power plants, which are still dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. We need to get off of any type of combustion engine type and go to electricity, battery power in, using the renewal source of energy of solar cells and wind, along with tidal and wave in areas where it is applicable. No, the efficiency of solar cells is not very high, but the amount of money we will have to spend to scrub the atmosphere to remove the CO2 will be many times more expensive than the amount we could spend on increased research. And this doesn't even take into consideration the damages brought about by rising sea levels, increased force of hurricanes and tornadoes, climate change around the globe, etc. The amount of energy falling on the earth from the sun each day is many times more that we could ever need. We just have to adapt to this new source, change our distribution system, change our thinking, etc.

Earlier this week I wagered that global warming would be mentioned in the SC debate. The lack of attention afforded by the moderator and candidates alike is very disappointing. At least Tancredo volunteered to look at the GW issue through a familiar lens of his: national security. Maybe attention will shift by June 5 - - in NH, 70 percent of likely republican primary voters surveyed in December felt global warming was a serious issue and needed to be addressed. A majority also believe humans are responsible for the increased CO2 and effects.