Ethanol is better for the Environment than Oil
yngster said 03/21, 10:56 AM
Ethanol in much better for the enviornment than oil. It is biodegradeable and will not be harmful to the environment if it leaks or spills. It emits, co2 and not co1 and carbon monoxide.
ShawnF said 03/21, 12:03 PM
Until environmentally friendly biofuels can be made from agricultural waste or grasses grown on land that's not suitable for crops, biofuels are worse for the environment. When we divert our corn or soybeans to fuel, and people around the world are continue to eat the same amount that they're already eating, you have to replace that food somewhere else. That is done in a significant part by burning down forests and plowing up grasslands. That releases a great deal of carbon dioxide. In fact in a study published online by Science magazine, showed those actions end up releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. The study finds that over a 30-year span, biofuels end up contributing twice as much carbon dioxide to the air as that amount of gasoline would, when you add in the global effects.
yngster said 03/21, 07:42 PM
Ethanol is much better than oil.
1)Ethanol emits CO2 but it doesn't emit carbon monoxide. The plants can use the CO2. I dont know if you're familiar with indoor grow setups that are used to produce vegtables; CO2 is often added to the grow room to increase vegative growth. Don't you see? The Co2 that is emited when the ethanol is burned forms a type of symbiotic relationship with the corn that is used to produce it. This will increase the rate of growth for plants. Because the rate of growth is increased it will help maintain a balance of Oxygen and Carbon dioxide. Nature has its own solution for that particular problem put forth in you argument. So the fact that ethanol emits twice as much carbon dioxide isn't as big of a problem as you make it out to be.
2)Ethanol is biodegradable and can be naturally broken down if it leaks or spills into the enviornment. Oil, on the other hand, kills anything and everything that it comes into contact with.
ShawnF said 03/22, 12:23 AM
Just a few sources to back up my arguement.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18784732
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103144404.htm
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/21/science-magazine-declares-ethanol-worse-for-the-earth-than-fossi/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266842,00.html
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/22/ethanol-is-worse-than-oil/
http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-study-finds-corn-based-ethanol-is-worse-for-environment-than-fossil-fuels.html
yngster said 03/22, 11:06 AM
I dont know why you felt that you needed to post some sources to back up your argument. I conceded that ethanol emits carbon dioxide than oil does. However, I also stated that its not as big of a problem as you make it out to be. Maybe you ran out of points to argue?
Ethanol is better for the enviornment than oil because:
1)Ethanol plants emit less greenhouse gases than oil refineries. The older plants run on coal but are bieng converted to run on biogas. The new plants are bieng built to run on biogas. Methane gas is an example of a gas that is used to produce ethanol.
2)Cellulosic Ethnaol can be produced out of organic waste. At the end of 2008 there is a plant in Southern California that is bieng built next to a waste dump. Cellulosic ethanol is pordduced from organic waste. This is great for the enviorment because it extends the life of landfills and it helps the landfill operator avoid costly emissions.
ShawnF said 03/22, 04:05 PM
There is no other points to argue, you just stated the same postition again in your rebuttal. It all depends on the timeline you are using for your arguement, current or future. As of right now, ethanol is not better for the environment. In the future, if the technology continues to grow (which is now in it's infancy) to make it possible for organic waste to be used for mass ethanol production, then it will be better for the environment. The ethanol boom is causing rain forests to be destroyed to make room for palm oil production. There are so many arguements to go against why ethanol production in it's current state is so bad for the environment. If you would like I will list them below along with more and more scientific sources to establish my point more if it's not clear.
Comments
Add Your Comment
We should really work to create automobiles that do not need any outward fuel added, such as fuel cell cars that just run without needing any gasoline, or ethanol or anything extra.
base89 | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Nearly six months ago, scientists were able to 'burn' salt water, converting it into heat, with only a certain radio signal as the catalyst. Now, I have to ask, why hasn't this become a larger project? And what about the Hydrogen Cell cars? Where is the research for these products?
J.A.B.C. | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
As for my earlier reference, I am sorry I did not include this earlier: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/14/saltwater.fire/index.html?iref=newssearch
J.A.B.C. | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1433
ShawnF | 03/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Both forms have their tradeoffs. Which environmentalism is more friendly? Gasoline exhaust contains CO1 (a toxic gas that contributes to smog), ethanol exhause contains CO2 (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming [if you hold to that theory]). Gasoline requires dependency on oil, but ethanol will require deforestation to make way for the amount of land production will require to replace gasoline. They both have their tradeoffs. We have yet to create a comparable renewable fuel to replace gasoline. We just have to wait for science to catch up.
Ariyel | 03/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
The only fact that is on your side is the fact that they are clear cutting the rainforest. Also you stated that they don't have the technology to make ethanol out of orgainic waste. That is incorrect. There are currently two plants under construction in California that are putting that technology to use.
yngster | 03/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Under construction!!!! I said it was in it's infancy did I not?
ShawnF | 03/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
I never stated that we didn't have the technology, you should probably re-read what I have written, and take a look at all posted links.
ShawnF | 03/22/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
The important thing here is the distinction. Corn and most edible-crop based biofuels are not more energy efficient than gasoline or fossil fuels - however, ultimately, the biofuel intiative is intended to use crops that will be more efficient.
priestly | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment