In Argument One: "there is less energy in eight gallons of Ethanol than in the seven gallons of gasoline it takes to produce it" - why do you need gasoline in order to produce bioethanol? Bioethanol production is essentially the same as brewing (with the main difference being that purity is not as stringent, because the end product isn't going to be drunk), so you'd need heat and some electrical energy to power the production plants, but you wouldn't need gasoline.
In Argument Two: "The pollution often referred to as CO2 make the hole in the ozone layer even larger than it already is, which leaves the sun’s harmful rays available for humans." That is nonsense. CO2 does not have any effect on the ozone layer, or the "hole" in it; depletion of ozone is caused by species such as chloro-fluoro carbons (CFC) - CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it will add to the insulating effect of the earth's atmosphere, increase climatic temperatures, but in terms of the ozone layer or UV rays, it is not a factor.
It should also be noted that the whole idea of bioethanol is that the net effect of CO2 production is cancelled out by the fact that the product is produced from vegetation which needs to be grown first, and which absorb CO2 during growth.
In Argument Three: "Not only that, but Ethanol also contains alcohol which can possibly rust cars and make them unable to work properly which leads to replacing the car’s entire inside which would make everything more expensive"
Ethanol doesn't "contain alcohol"; ethanol IS alcohol. The argument about it rusting cars, leading to the whole engine needing to be replaced is complete nonsense. Ethanol does not cause rusting, which is basically oxidation of iron; electrolytes can promote rusting, but as these cannot dissolve in ethanol anyway, it is not going to be an issue.
Jennifer, "your opinion" needs to also be backed up with some scientific facts. The water content of ethanol that is used in fuels is typically around 100 ppm (I know this because I sell it!). Even if it went into gasoline at 15%, this means that it would only introduce 15 ppm of water into the fuel (or 0.0015%). As cars use internal combustion engines, any water is simply vaporised and comes out as water vapour from the exhaust pipe. It will be in contact with the inside of the engine in order to cause rust. You're talking nonsense.
Argument 2 is incorrect. CO2 presents no direct challenge to the ozone layer. Additionally, the CO2 released, was CO2 captured recently by the plants. Net zero CO2 emission.
Argument 3 is incorrect. Alcohol does not rust cars. Alcohol does not burn as hot, so exhaust gases cool enough for water to condense in the exhaust pipes. Where cars burn more than 15% ethanol, they make these pipes out of stainless steel. It does not rust out the whole car, just the exhaust system.
Let's do add that alcohol has a higher vapor pressure, and tends to end up in the atmosphere more easily. It is a VOC, and helps make ozone-as-pollution more easily.
Your argument number one looks to me to have four points in it, that you should expand on:
- ethanol is too expensive to use alone / on its own
- ethanol does not provide the power of gasoline (or biodiesel)
- ethanol requires more expensive exhaust system components
- ethanol increase the price of food corn
You're ot quite correct on #3, alcohol absorbs water, that's what causes the rust.
I believe this whole ethanol scam is nothing but political back-scratching and payback to the big agricultural firms for their political contributions
I think bad.
not bad
In school I'm currently working on my final which is debating. We all got assigned a topic and I got the con side of Ethanol.
I need some good ideas on how Ethanol is bad or atleast ways to expand on what I already do have. I have three arguments so far and I need a little more information to make this OPENING STATEMENT last seven minutes.
We are continuously running out and need an alternative, but using Ethanol is not the way to go. These so called “energy alternatives” cause a great deal of damage not only to our environment but to our daily lives as well.
Argument One: According to procon.com, Ethanol already gets an indefensible tax break at the pump of 51 to 71 cents a gallon. Congress now wants to compel everyone to add it to their tanks and if that happens we will be left with less fuel at higher prices.
Why? Because there is less energy in eight gallons of Ethanol than in the seven gallons of gasoline it takes to produce it. By rounding up our information, one gallon of Ethanol is about $2.09 p/g. Since Ethanol has less energy than gasoline it would require drivers to fill up more than they already have to fill up now which means more money is spent.
Not only would we be paying higher prices for the fuel itself but we would also be paying higher on other things such as our ways of transportation and corn products. How would you like to pay five dollars for your typical 2 ounce bag of chips? If Ethanol is our new substitute for gasoline, we’ll be losing a crop we use all over the world for a ton of different things.
Argument Two: Companies who produce the chemical ‘Ethanol’ also happen to produce a large amount of pollution, which is sent out into the environment. The pollution often referred to as CO2 make the hole in the ozone layer even larger than it already is, which leaves the sun’s harmful rays available for humans.
Argument Three: Not only that, but Ethanol also contains alcohol which can possibly rust cars and make them unable to work properly which leads to replacing the car’s entire inside which would make everything more expensive.
CAN ANYONE HELP ME ADD ON?
Thank you.
