Natural Gas? A bit, for corn-based ethanol (the Nitrogen fertilizers used to make modern corn fields requires a surprisingly large amount of energy, of which is primarily given through Natural Gas IIRC). Various calculations I've seen however, suggests that Ethanol uses less greenhouse gasses than say Electric vehicles (since most of our power grid is still coal / natural gas based). Aside from that one guy who keeps making anti-ethanol research papers for the last 15 years.
The bulk of energy going into corn is the sun, all natural solar energy. A bit of it is hacked together with Nitrogen fertilizers that must be accounted for, but still better than other methodologies. The other major greenhouse gas issue is the greenhouse gas costs of converting forested land into farmland, and this seems to be the biggest area of debate.
------------
Bonus points: Switchgrass based ethanol uses no fertilizers, meaning its 100% green. Since Switchgrass grows naturally in the US Fields (unlike Corn, which is a domesticated crop), Switchgrass is arguably better for the environment (or at least, more "natural"). The lack of fertilizers needed for it to grow is proof to how its a plant designed for our geography.
So Switchgrass solves the fertilizer and land-conversion issues.
And of course the only reason ethonal is even remotely competitive is that is was essentially forced into production and subsidies. Its not actually a viable solution if you wanted to transition 10s of millions of vehicles onto it. You would have to include both methanol and ethanol.
I would actually have been a fan of that solution if it was the 90s, but its time has come and gone.
Also, you realize you are still producing harmful emissions when driving that car threw a city right?
Cobalt can easily be mined in North America, there is no reason it has to come from Cobalt. If that is the issue, the solution is not to drive around with ethanol.
Making Ethanol from corn production seems terrible though IMHO. It increases the cost of food stuffs even outside the US from what I've read since most of its highly subsidized which unbalances prices. Switchgrass could be better.. Maybe even better would be some kinda kelp/saltwater plant since it'd not consume freshwater which is ever more a valuable commodity.
'a bit'? Fertilizer production is energy intensive, plus a huge amount of land is given over to producing a relatively small proportion of the fuel mix.
If youre going to compare switch grass, why don't you compare that against the best scenario for EVs. No cobalt, lithium extracted from sea water, powered from a clean grid?
The switch grass is still going to require fertilising, maybe not as much, but if you're removing nutrients you have to replace them.
Natural Gas? A bit, for corn-based ethanol (the Nitrogen fertilizers used to make modern corn fields requires a surprisingly large amount of energy, of which is primarily given through Natural Gas IIRC). Various calculations I've seen however, suggests that Ethanol uses less greenhouse gasses than say Electric vehicles (since most of our power grid is still coal / natural gas based). Aside from that one guy who keeps making anti-ethanol research papers for the last 15 years.
The bulk of energy going into corn is the sun, all natural solar energy. A bit of it is hacked together with Nitrogen fertilizers that must be accounted for, but still better than other methodologies. The other major greenhouse gas issue is the greenhouse gas costs of converting forested land into farmland, and this seems to be the biggest area of debate.
------------
Bonus points: Switchgrass based ethanol uses no fertilizers, meaning its 100% green. Since Switchgrass grows naturally in the US Fields (unlike Corn, which is a domesticated crop), Switchgrass is arguably better for the environment (or at least, more "natural"). The lack of fertilizers needed for it to grow is proof to how its a plant designed for our geography.
So Switchgrass solves the fertilizer and land-conversion issues.