Petroleum or ethanol?..which is better?
@berryappleberry (548)
Philippines
March 6, 2007 2:52am CST
Bush told America to cut its petrol consumption by 20% over the next decade, largely by using ethanol and other biofuels. Bush has attempts to deal with the Brazillian President to boost ethanol production and trade.
Do you use ethanol? Can it provide the world with genuine alternative to fossil fuels? Are you worried about the environmental costs of further ethanol production such as deforestation?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@Modestah (11179)
• United States
6 Mar 07
they are really pushing ethanol in the state I reside, I do not like it. It makes our car engine run poorly and causes all kinds of hiccups and noises. Its production has also caused the cost of corn for animal feed to go sky rocketing. I think it is a very poor alternative, which will have several negative ramifications.
1 person likes this
@blademaiden (734)
• Romania
2 Mar 08
Ethanol is a renewable resource, so we wouldn't have to worry about running out. It is a clean burning fuel.
@revellanotvanella (4033)
• United States
31 Mar 08
Can you explain how ethanol is a renewable resource when its depleting other things, namely land deforestation which is being encouraged to crow these senseless crops, entire rainforest are near depleted and we come up with another genius way of adding more fuel to the flame. So genius.
@oldcoger (112)
• United States
8 May 08
Using corn to produce ethanol is not very efficient, and increases the cost of all foods made from corn. We could plant all the available land in the USA in corn and not decrease our dependancy on foriegn oil by even 1%. There are other things that make a lot more sense. There are vehicals that have been developed to run on compressed air, that could get 100 miles to the gallon of gasoline. This would reduce the amount of gasoline we use by 70%, if there wasn't so much government red tape involved in getting them produced in the USA. The compressed air vehicals are propelled by air, and have a small gasoline engine to keep air pressure in the vehicals air tanks. The congress could help by relaxing the red tape required to produce them in the USA, and promoting them as an alternative. They can't even get any pulicity here because of the government.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
4 Apr 08
It's not a question of "either or", ethanol is merely an additive to gasoline, so you are still burning petroleum. Furthermore, it takes petroleum to make ethanol. It also takes petroleum to transport ethanol, since it cannot be put through a pipeline.
Gasoline with ethanol also gets lower gas mileage and is harder on engines.
All that together means that the ethanol boondoggle is actually going to increase our petroleum consumption.
@oldcoger (112)
• United States
8 May 08
Why can't most of the public see that ethanol is not efficient as a souce of fuel. You got it right. It takes to much energy to produce ethanol, and it increases the cost of food by using our corn crops to make the ethanol. Read about the new compressed air vehicals that have been developed, and can get 100 miles to the gallon of gasoline. They could reduce our depenency on foreign oil immediately, if there weren't so much red tape involved in getting them produced in the USA. The word is that it will take about 4 years for them to even be able to start producing them in the USA. These vehicals are propelled by compressed air, but have a small engine to keep pressure in the air tanks allowing them to get 100 miles to a gallon of gasoline. They will travel at up to 80 miles per hour. They can't even get any publicity here for some reason. Help spread the word, if you have any way of doing so.
