Pros And Cons Of Corn To Replace Fossil Fuels

In recent years, the debate over whether or not ethanol could feasibly replace fossil fuels has emerged. However, with the current technology, I do not think that it is reasonable to believe that converting corn to ethanol could replace the use of fossil fuels in the world. During the past seven years, most cars in the United States can only run on ten to fifteen percent ethanol, and that ethanol is not as efficient as the eighty-five to ninety percent gasoline mixture that is used (Sojka, 2011). Corn is the best producer of ethanol among crops commonly considered to produce the biofuel, with a theoretical yield of around 124 gallons of ethanol produced per dry ton of corn (US Dept. of Energy, 2016). There are impacts for the nation and for the world, if ethanol was to replace fossil fuels as gasoline. In the United States, many jobs would be lost in the oil, coal, and gas industries. Although some of these could be gained in agriculture and the conversion of corn and other crops to fuels. Globally, there could actually be a food shortage. Even if all the United States corn and soybean crop went to the production of ethanol, that would only cover 18 percent of the global need for fuels

One pro of ethanol it that it is sustainable; we can be nearly certain that the corn will continue to grow back and we will have a continued energy source. Another pro is that ethanol releases less greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as compared to fossil fuels (Hill et al., 2006). The cons of ethanol as compared to fossil fuels are also to be considered. As previously stated it could cause a food shortage that would affect a great number of the world’s population. Another con is that ethanol has a lower net energy yield as compared to fossil fuels; that is, by the time the corn is grown and converted to fuel, so much energy has been used in the process that only 25 percent is gained back (Hill et al.,