Friday, January 27, 2012

Pro's Vs. Con's of creating new alternatives to Gasoline


Since the gasoline supply is getting lower people have been coming up with alternatives.  Some of these alternatives include Ethanol, Biodiesel, Natural Gas, Propane, and Hydrogen.  There are many advantages of switching to a new source to run our cars, but there are also a lot of disadvantages in switching.  If we find a fuel which could be mass produced to be used by the American people a lot of people would lose their jobs.  With this new fuel they would need to create new gas stations or for electric cars, new outlets or charging stations.  With the creation of these new pumps there would be new jobs but the people who work at gas stations would continue to lose customers because they want to go green or are fed up with the rising gas prices.  The positives in changing are very beneficial to people.  If we could find a new fuel or power source we can create new jobs, reduce our emissions, reduce our dependence on imported oil, and make a lot of money which would help our economy.  Most of these new fuels are produced domestically from food.  Ethanol is created from corn and Biodiesel is derived from vegetable oils and animal fat.  These new fuels emit no harmful air pollutants, they are found on US soil, and they would help struggling farmers.
If you want to look into these fuels i have posted a link here.

What is your opinion on these new fuel sources?  Would it be worth switching?  When the Gasoline runs out oversees what are we going to rely on if we don’t create a new fuel source now?

1 comment:

  1. I am of the opinion that using corn based ethanol as a fuel is not a good idea. The only reason that ethanol is financially viable is that tax payers are funding these operations in the way of 6 billion in subsidies each year. This is no longer necessary as oil prices are high enough now to make ethanol competitive. There are many alternatives to gasoline/ethanol, but none share the vast infrastructure that has also been largely subsidized by taxpayers since the early 1900s. This of course results in a false picture as to the affordability of oil. Beyond the direct subsidization of oil there are tremendous external costs that we do not include in the price of a gallon of gas. Mostly these costs are related to pollution. The adverse effects of air pollution cost us over 50 billion each year in health costs by some estimates. Other costs relate to damage caused to the environment. These costs are massive and could lead to a change in life as we know it through global warming. It is time to measure the true cost of our system, and invest accordingly into renewable, clean energy.
    Do you agree?

    ReplyDelete