Originally Posted by zoobie555

sugar cane based ethanol is a whole different story... much of the land was already converted form rainforest to agricultural land, and in Brazil the rainfall is so prolific that the use of sugar cane for ethanol doesn't endanger the water supply.

Originally Posted by mlurp

Awwww my morning is good the ignore list has fresh meat.......

Originally Posted by mlurp

IGNORE LIST...........It works.

Originally Posted by zoobie555

sugar cane based ethanol is a whole different story... much of the land was already converted form rainforest to agricultural land, and in Brazil the rainfall is so prolific that the use of sugar cane for ethanol doesn't endanger the water supply.

Here in the U.S., regardless of what wetlands may or may not have been destroyed to create the corn fields - the problem well supercedes the drive for ethanol... for decades the corn industry has had a massive lobby and have benefitted from major subsidies - which is why for so long all sodas in the U.S. have been made with corn syrup and not sugar as they had been say 100 years ago... now ethanol has displaced the corn market and many soft drinks and other products are returning to sugar as so much corn is being used for ethanol.

IF it were possible to get sugar cane based ethanol here in the states - I'd say go for it... but it isn't - and the corn based stuff is draining our aquifers and wasting water resources.
It IS possible quite easily. The GOVERNMENT is the force stopping this. We produce much sugar in this country and many places want to supply us with more but "big sugar" teamed up with our government to stop sugar imports and enviros have closed down almost half of US production.

Not only that, but corn based eth. is more equipment intensive farming, which requires about .7 or .8 gallons of petroleum based fuel to deliver each gallon of ethanol - which is why it costs so much, and doesn't lower the carbon footprint but about 20% - a wash when you consider it is about 15% less efficient. And the fact that you only get 19 gallons of ethanol per acre means it is a land waste.

Ethanol derived from algae, on the other hand, if properly farmed in verticle racks of plastic bags or tubes, can produce hundreds of times more ethanol than corn - but these experimental "niches" as they have been refered to, though technically viable, are fighting the massive corn lobby.

Ethanol is not a bad idea by any stretch of the imagination, just depends on the source biomass, and the climate where it is being produced.

England is moving ahead with sugar beet ethanol, which is probably slightly better for a temperate climate than corn, but still maybe not a good idea as it is also somewhat a water and land hog.
Oh yea...we produce a great amount of sugar beets too.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried producing hemp ethanol? Yes, the seeds make great oil themselves.

Originally Posted by Adept1

What the wackos continue to fail to recognize is the simple fact that oil and coal ARE far better than "biomass" as an energy source and THAT is why even with years and years of "tampering" with the markets and forcing price increases on both of them THEY are STILL more efficient, easier to use, readily available (except for the government restricting them), and most of all CHEAPER with the "infrastructure" for their use already in place.