asyouwish72
Posts: 69
Joined: 11/2/2004 Status: offline
|
The big difference between ethanol in Brazil and ethanol here isn't the availability of water... it's the crop used to make the ethanol. We use corn, in part due to our temperate climate, but mostly due to the fact that we have an established agricultural base growing it and a structure of existing subsidies that can support it. The Brazilians use sugar cane... unfortunately for us, sugar cane returns 8 times as much fuel relative to the costs of producing it as corn does. Corn is not all that much better than break-even in net energy balance. There's talk of using switchgrass and cellulose waste for ethanol production here (sugar cane isn't an option outside of Florida and maybe the southwest), which may improve things somewhat, but it's unlikely we can achieve the sort of energy independence that Brazil has just with ethanol. We DO have other options, though... while we may (possibly, possibly not) be at the point of peak oil production, the world has decades, and maybe centuries,worth of coal stockpiles remaining. The US is basically the Saudi Arabia of coal- we're loaded with it. It's possible to convert coal into liquid fuels- it's just not as cheap or convenient as refining oil. According to today's NY Times, the air force is actually working to develop a coal-based aviation fuel, so this isn't pie-in-the-sky stuff; it's commercially feasible with current technology. If things get really dicey with gas and oil, this is one of the things that'll take up the slack. And of course, as much as most folks hate it, there's always nuclear fission. If you need to produce A LOT of electric power, fission reactors(especially fast-breeder plants) are pretty tough to top. Just my 2 cents...
< Message edited by asyouwish72 -- 5/14/2006 7:01:08 PM >
|