Anyone REALLY bored?

[NES_Rules]

And want to proofread a paper for me?  Basically I just need some people to scan it for typos and stuff like that.  It's only 8 pages long, and who knows you might learn something. 
 
Which Ethanol Will Fuel The Future?
Every day, millions of barrels of oil are consumed; clearly, a solution to this problem is necessary and ethanol fuel looks like the answer.  However, there are two popular types of ethanol that can be produced, cellulosic and corn ethanol.  Corn ethanol really onlysolves one problem, vehicle emissions, vehicles running on corn ethanol produce fewer harmful chemicals than vehicles running on fossil fuels.  Cellulosic ethanol, on the other hand, solves that same problem in addition to a plethora of others. 
   Ethanol has been around for thousands of years, but as a drink, not a fuel source.  “History of Ethanol” reports that “dried residues on 9000-year-old pottery found in northern China imply the use of alcoholic beverages even among Neolithic peoples” (par. 1). The article goes onto state that pure ethanol was first produced by Johann Tobias Lowitz in 1796 (par. 1).  Ethanol has been used as a fuel for much longer than most people think.  “History of Ethanol” points out that the model T Ford, which was produced in 1908, was capable of running on pure ethanol or gasoline (par. 4). It has been reported that Henry Ford did this so that farmers could make their own fuel if they wanted to, but still allow the average consumer easy access to gasoline.  Ethanol continued to be used into the 1920's and 1930's, but slowly became less popular as fossil fuels were abundant and cheap at the time (“History of Ethanol” par. 4)  It was not until the 1970's that it became popular once again. 
In 1978, Congress passed the Energy Tax Act of 1978 which exempted gasoline producers from a four cent tax if they blended the gasoline with ten percent ethanol (Clean Fuels Development Coalition 4).  For the years following that, Congress passed several more pieces of legislation that continued to give ethanol producers exemptions to encourage the growth of the new fuel source.  Because of these efforts from Congress, ethanol has become exceedingly popular across the United States and the world, “History of Ethanol” reports that “the past 25 years of Congressional initiatives have resulted in more than 2 trillion miles driven on ethanol-blended fuel.”  Steve Miller proves ethanol's popularity by stating that in 2006 Ford built 250,000 cars that run on eighty five percent ethanol while Chrysler plans to build 500,000 and General Motors plans on 400,000 (par. 4).  So, the solution to the United States' and the rest of the world's hunger for fuel seems obvious; produce more ethanol fuel.  However, there is a major problem with this plan. 
   As the editors of the National Review Online state “we could plant corn from New York to California and still not produce an equivalent amount of ethanol” (par. 2). This means that using current production methods, it is impossible to grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to fuel the current consumption rates.  Today, the most popular way to produce ethanol in the United States is by using corn by far.  Michael D. Bailey who is the Senior Program Manager of the Marketing Division at the Ohio Department of Agriculture, states that “over 97% of the ethanol currently produced in the United States comes from corn.”  Producing ethanol from corn is actually a simple procedure; Joel K. Bourne, Jr. explains, “the corn is ground, mixed with water, and heated; added enzymes convert the starch into sugars. In a fermentation tank, yeast gradually turns the sugars into alcohol” (3).  One of the problems with this process is that it requires heat, and that heat is produced from burning fossil fuels like natural gas or coal (Bourne 3).  Burning fossil fuels to produce ethanol creates problems that ethanol fuel is supposed to solve.  One of these problems is the release of carbon dioxide, one of the most important greenhouse gases.  As Bourne states, the yeast also emits carbon dioxide (3).   Deane Morrison reports that ethanol from corn only produces twenty five percent more energy than is required to make it (par. 1).  This means that ethanol from corn may be better than using fossil fuels to power cars, but surely there is a better fuel source out there.
   Fortunately, there are other ways to produce ethanol fuel that is less detrimental to the environment.  Like the United States, Brazil has used ethanol to fuel automobiles in the early part of the twentieth century, but became less favorable when oil prices were lower (Bourne 3).  Bourne goes onto say that:
    But by the 1970s it was importing 75 percent of its oil. When the OPEC oil embargo crippled the nation's economy, Brazil's dictator at the time–Gen. Ernesto       Geisel–decided to kick the country's oil habit. The general heavily subsidized and       financed new ethanol plants, directed the state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to    install ethanol tanks and pumps around the country, and offered tax incentives to Brazilian carmakers to crank out cars designed to burn straight ethanol. By the mid-1980s, nearly all the cars sold in Brazil ran exclusively on [ethanol]. (3)
   However, in the early 1990's, oil prices dropped, and the government phased out the subsidies on ethanol, and high sugar prices left ethanol producers with no incentive to produce ethanol fuel; this left many Brazilians who relied on ethanol to fuel their vehicles with no fuel source (Bourne 3).  When oil prices rose again, most Brazilians wanted to return to ethanol fuel, but many felt that they needed other alternatives (Bourne 3).  Bourne writes that Roger Guiherme, supervising engineer at Volkswagen-Brazil, was given the challenge of creating a car that could run on ethanol fuel or gasoline, or any combination of the two (3).  Bourne reports that “Volkswagen introduced Brazil's first TotalFlex vehicle in 2003…It was an instant hit, and soon every carmaker in Brazil followed suit” (3).  The reason Brazil has such a successful ethanol program is because it does not use corn to produce its ethanol; instead, Brazil uses sugar cane.  Bourne explains the difference between ethanol made from corn and ethanol made from sugar cane; “unlike corn, in which the starch in the kernel has to be broken down into sugars with expensive enzymes before it can be fermented, the entire sugarcane stalk is already 20 percent sugar–and it starts to ferment almost as soon as it's cut” (4).  Bourne adds that “[sugar] cane yields 600 to 800 gallons (2,300 to 3,000 liters) of ethanol an acre, more than twice as much as corn” (4).  Bourne goes on to report several more reasons why sugar cane ethanol is superior to corn ethanol.  He asserts that sugar cane producers can grow up to seven crops in one field before replanting, while corn growers are limited to one (4).  Bourne also notes that while corn ethanol produces little more energy than it takes to be produced, sugar cane ethanol produces eight times more energy than is required to make it (4).  Ethanol fuel made from sugar cane may look like the real answer to the Earth's energy problems, but it does have some drawbacks. 
   Possibly the biggest the reason even sugar cane ethanol is not a solution to our reliance on fossil fuels is that it may be causing deforestation.  Bourne reports that the amount of land in Brazil that is planted with sugar cane is expected to double within the next ten years; this fact is forcing many sugar cane growers to replace forested areas, like the Amazon, with the profitable sugar cane (4).  This would obviously have a dramatic effect on the delicate ecosystems there. A similar trend also happens with corn growing.  Growing corn can be very harmful for the environment it is grown in; the Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School explain;
Conventional corn production in the United States is characterized by intensive soil tillage, heavy application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and cultivation of genetically engineered crop varieties, all of which take a significant toll on soil, water, and environmental quality. (22)
These factors all contribute to the fact that corn can be quite harmful for the environment.  Intense soil tillage causes wind and rain to wash away soil along with the fertilizers and pesticides; once outside the field they were applied to, these fertilizers and pesticides can wreak havoc fish, birds, and people alike.  As corn ethanol becomes more popular, more and more farmers are switching to corn as their primary crop.  “Halt The Gold Rush to Ethanol” reports that the United States planted its largest corn crop since 1944 in 2007. 
The Renewable Fuels Association reported that in 2004, 56.4 percent of America's corn crop was used for food and 11.7 percent was used in the production of ethanol fuel (10).  However, the Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School reported that in the 2006/2007 market year, only 50.8 percent of America's corn production went to food while the amount destined to become ethanol fuel increased to 18.69 percent (20).  This decrease in the amount of corn grown for food is higher prices for the consumers.  The Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School reports that the price of corn has double from two dollars per bushel to four dollars per bushel in the last ten years (34).  This has an immediate effect on consumers as fresh corn and corn products rise as well as an inevitable effect on any products that rely on corn, such as dairy cows that use corn as a staple in their diet. Brazil faces a similar problem with its production of ethanol fuel.  In Brazil, sugar cane is not only used to produce ethanol fuel, but also sugar.  Bourne explains that sugar cane has been a staple export for Brazil since the 1500's.  However, with more sugar cane being devoted to ethanol fuel production, less sugar cane is made into sugar; which has become a staple in foods across the globe.  Like corn, as more sugar cane is grown specifically for ethanol fuel, less is being grown for food; which could increase the prices of anything with sugar in it.  A fuel that does everything corn ethanol and sugar cane ethanol does without the negative effects seems like a fantasy, but there is a way to produce ethanol that could solve nearly every problem associated with fuel.
   And that fuel is cellulosic ethanol.  Cellulosic ethanol has several pertinent characteristics that make it superior to not only corn ethanol but even sugar cane ethanol.  Diane Greer declares that “while chemically identical to ethanol produced from corn or soybeans, cellulose ethanol exhibits a net energy content three times higher than corn ethanol and emits a low net level of greenhouse gases” (par. 1).  The difference between corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol is simply how it is made.  The Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School explain the key difference in cellulosic ethanol production versus corn ethanol production; “the sugar is pulled from their cellulose—the woody, structural part of the plant—rather than the starch, as is the case with corn” (52).  The difference is small, but it makes all the difference.  According to Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratories, cellulosic ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions about eighty percent, while corn only reduced them by about 25 percent. (qtd. in “Cellulosic Ethanol: Spinning Straw into Fuel” par. .  Although the fact that cellulosic ethanol produces less greenhouse gases than corn ethanol is extremely important, another fact is the real reason cellulosic ethanol is a more viable alternative to gasoline. 
   As states earlier, corn needs land to be grown that just is not available; on the other hand, cellulosic ethanol can be made from plants that not only yield more ethanol, but it can actually be made from waste.  Presently, cellulosic ethanol supporters point to switchgrass as the favored source for cellulosic ethanol.  Switchgrass is favored because it is fast growing, a perennial, is more easily grown than corn, and actually improves the quality of the soil that it is grown in (Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School 53).  The authors also state that because switchgrass has a very extensive root system, it can help slow or prevent soil erosion in areas prone to erosion (53).  Another huge benefit that switchgrass has over corn is that it is a native species, this means that it is more resilient to both pests and disease, resulting in a higher crop yield without the need for harmful and expensive fertilizers and pesticides (Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School 53).  Besides switchgrass, nearly any plant material can be used in the production of cellulosic ethanol; including corn waste, wheat straw, sugarcane waste, milo stubble, miscanthus, woody biomass, triticale straw, yard waste, wood waste, barley straw, rice straw, poplar trees, willow trees, eucalyptus trees (Bailey; Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School 52).  One will notice that most of those sources are waste products, which may be the best part of cellulosic ethanol. 
   Being able to produce a product like ethanol fuel from materials that would otherwise be discarded is a huge encouragement for cellulosic fuel.  Turning waste products into fuel would have virtually no adverse effect on the environment as no new crops are grown and less material is being deposited into landfills.  However, recycling some materials may actually have a negative impact is some instances.  Michael Bailey revealed that Dr. Rattan Lal of the Ohio State University claims that removing crop residue from fields may cause soil erosion and disrupt nutrient cycling in the soil.  Unfortunately, this is not the only disadvantage to cellulosic ethanol. 
   Cellulosic promises to provide solutions to many fuel problems, yet it is being held back by the lack of technology to produce it.  The problem with creating cellulosic ethanol is the very substances that make it so appealing as a fuel source; the complex structure of the plant cell.  Bailey reveals that cell walls are much harder to break down into sugars than the starch in corn is.  Currently, there is not a cost effective way to breakdown the cell walls.  Bourne writes that with the current method of breaking down the cell walls, only forty five percent of the possible energy in the plant material is extracted, in contrast, the oil refineries extract eighty five percent of the energy from crude oil (5).  Another drawback to cellulosic ethanol is that there is not yet an infrastructure to support it.  Michael Bailey claims that currently there is not a way to easily collect, move, or process raw materials into cellulosic ethanol fuel.  On the other hand, since corn has been around for so long, there is a significant infrastructure for it.  While these obstacles may impede the production and use of ethanol fuel, there is no reason they will prevent it.  These minor problems will eventually be solved as technologies advance and time passes. 
   This Earth's dependence on fossil fuels is slowly coming to an end thanks to ethanol fuel; but the question about which way is the best to produce that ethanol is still unanswered.  Corn ethanol has its benefits, while sugar cane ethanol has even greater benefits; cellulosic ethanol trumps them all in terms of sustainability and ecologically awareness.   

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

I'm working on my own twelve pager at the moment. Looking at yours all that comes to mind is: "WALL OF TEXT CRITS YOU FOR OVER NINE THOUSAND" then my face melts.

[logical123]

And want to proofread a paper for me?  Basically I just need some people to scan it for typos and stuff like that.  It's only 8 pages long, and who knows you might learn something. 
 
Which Ethanol Will Fuel The Future?
Every day, millions of barrels of oil are consumed; clearly, a solution to this problem is necessary and ethanol fuel looks like the answer.  However, there are two popular types of ethanol that can be produced, cellulosic and corn ethanol.  Corn ethanol really onlysolves one problem, vehicle emissions, vehicles running on corn ethanol produce fewer harmful chemicals than vehicles running on fossil fuels.  Cellulosic ethanol, on the other hand, solves that same problem in addition to a plethora of others. 
   Ethanol has been around for thousands of years, but as a drink, not a fuel source.  “History of Ethanol” reports that “dried residues on 9000-year-old pottery found in northern China imply the use of alcoholic beverages even among Neolithic peoples” (par. 1). The article goes onto state that pure ethanol was first produced by Johann Tobias Lowitz in 1796 (par. 1).  Ethanol has been used as a fuel for much longer than most people think.  “History of Ethanol” points out that the model T Ford, which was produced in 1908, was capable of running on pure ethanol or gasoline (par. 4). It has been reported that Henry Ford did this so that farmers could make their own fuel if they wanted to, but still allow the average consumer easy access to gasoline.  Ethanol continued to be used into the 1920’s and 1930’s, but slowly became less popular as fossil fuels were abundant and cheap at the time (“History of Ethanol” par. 4)  It was not until the 1970’s that it became popular once again. 
In 1978, Congress passed the Energy Tax Act of 1978 which exempted gasoline producers from a four cent tax if they blended the gasoline with ten percent ethanol (Clean Fuels Development Coalition 4).  For the years following that, Congress passed several more pieces of legislation that continued to give ethanol producers exemptions to encourage the growth of the new fuel source.  Because of these efforts from Congress, ethanol has become exceedingly popular across the United States and the world, “History of Ethanol” reports that “the past 25 years of Congressional initiatives have resulted in more than 2 trillion miles driven on ethanol-blended fuel.”  Steve Miller proves ethanol’s popularity by stating that in 2006 Ford built 250,000 cars that run on eighty five percent ethanol while Chrysler plans to build 500,000 and General Motors plans on 400,000 (par. 4).  So, the solution to the United States’ and the rest of the world’s hunger for fuel seems obvious; produce more ethanol fuel.  However, there is a major problem with this plan. 
   As the editors of the National Review Online state “we could plant corn from New York to California and still not produce an equivalent amount of ethanol” (par. 2). This means that using current production methods, it is impossible to grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to fuel the current consumption rates.  Today, the most popular way to produce ethanol in the United States is by using corn by far.  Michael D. Bailey who is the Senior Program Manager of the Marketing Division at the Ohio Department of Agriculture, states that “over 97% of the ethanol currently produced in the United States comes from corn.”  Producing ethanol from corn is actually a simple procedure; Joel K. Bourne, Jr. explains, “the corn is ground, mixed with water, and heated; added enzymes convert the starch into sugars. In a fermentation tank, yeast gradually turns the sugars into alcohol” (3).  One of the problems with this process is that it requires heat, and that heat is produced from burning fossil fuels like natural gas or coal (Bourne 3).  Burning fossil fuels to produce ethanol creates problems that ethanol fuel is supposed to solve.  One of these problems is the release of carbon dioxide, one of the most important greenhouse gases.  As Bourne states, the yeast also emits carbon dioxide (3).   Deane Morrison reports that ethanol from corn only produces twenty five percent more energy than is required to make it (par. 1).  This means that ethanol from corn may be better than using fossil fuels to power cars, but surely there is a better fuel source out there.
   Fortunately, there are other ways to produce ethanol fuel that is less detrimental to the environment.  Like the United States, Brazil has used ethanol to fuel automobiles in the early part of the twentieth century, but became less favorable when oil prices were lower (Bourne 3).  Bourne goes onto say that:
    But by the 1970s it was importing 75 percent of its oil. When the OPEC oil embargo crippled the nation's economy, Brazil's dictator at the time–Gen. Ernesto       Geisel–decided to kick the country's oil habit. The general heavily subsidized and       financed new ethanol plants, directed the state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to    install ethanol tanks and pumps around the country, and offered tax incentives to Brazilian carmakers to crank out cars designed to burn straight ethanol. By the mid-1980s, nearly all the cars sold in Brazil ran exclusively on [ethanol]. (3)
   However, in the early 1990’s, oil prices dropped, and the government phased out the subsidies on ethanol, and high sugar prices left ethanol producers with no incentive to produce ethanol fuel; this left many Brazilians who relied on ethanol to fuel their vehicles with no fuel source (Bourne 3).  When oil prices rose again, most Brazilians wanted to return to ethanol fuel, but many felt that they needed other alternatives (Bourne 3).  Bourne writes that Roger Guiherme, supervising engineer at Volkswagen-Brazil, was given the challenge of creating a car that could run on ethanol fuel or gasoline, or any combination of the two (3).  Bourne reports that “Volkswagen introduced Brazil’s first TotalFlex vehicle in 2003…It was an instant hit, and soon every carmaker in Brazil followed suit” (3).  The reason Brazil has such a successful ethanol program is because it does not use corn to produce its ethanol; instead, Brazil uses sugar cane.  Bourne explains the difference between ethanol made from corn and ethanol made from sugar cane; “unlike corn, in which the starch in the kernel has to be broken down into sugars with expensive enzymes before it can be fermented, the entire sugarcane stalk is already 20 percent sugar–and it starts to ferment almost as soon as it's cut” (4).  Bourne adds that “[sugar] cane yields 600 to 800 gallons (2,300 to 3,000 liters) of ethanol an acre, more than twice as much as corn” (4).  Bourne goes on to report several more reasons why sugar cane ethanol is superior to corn ethanol.  He asserts that sugar cane producers can grow up to seven crops in one field before replanting, while corn growers are limited to one (4).  Bourne also notes that while corn ethanol produces little more energy than it takes to be produced, sugar cane ethanol produces eight times more energy than is required to make it (4).  Ethanol fuel made from sugar cane may look like the real answer to the Earth’s energy problems, but it does have some drawbacks. 
   Possibly the biggest the reason even sugar cane ethanol is not a solution to our reliance on fossil fuels is that it may be causing deforestation.  Bourne reports that the amount of land in Brazil that is planted with sugar cane is expected to double within the next ten years; this fact is forcing many sugar cane growers to replace forested areas, like the Amazon, with the profitable sugar cane (4).  This would obviously have a dramatic effect on the delicate ecosystems there. A similar trend also happens with corn growing.  Growing corn can be very harmful for the environment it is grown in; the Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School explain;
Conventional corn production in the United States is characterized by intensive soil tillage, heavy application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and cultivation of genetically engineered crop varieties, all of which take a significant toll on soil, water, and environmental quality. (22)
These factors all contribute to the fact that corn can be quite harmful for the environment.  Intense soil tillage causes wind and rain to wash away soil along with the fertilizers and pesticides; once outside the field they were applied to, these fertilizers and pesticides can wreak havoc fish, birds, and people alike.  As corn ethanol becomes more popular, more and more farmers are switching to corn as their primary crop.  “Halt The Gold Rush to Ethanol” reports that the United States planted its largest corn crop since 1944 in 2007. 
The Renewable Fuels Association reported that in 2004, 56.4 percent of America’s corn crop was used for food and 11.7 percent was used in the production of ethanol fuel (10).  However, the Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School reported that in the 2006/2007 market year, only 50.8 percent of America’s corn production went to food while the amount destined to become ethanol fuel increased to 18.69 percent (20).  This decrease in the amount of corn grown for food is higher prices for the consumers.  The Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School reports that the price of corn has double from two dollars per bushel to four dollars per bushel in the last ten years (34).  This has an immediate effect on consumers as fresh corn and corn products rise as well as an inevitable effect on any products that rely on corn, such as dairy cows that use corn as a staple in their diet. Brazil faces a similar problem with its production of ethanol fuel.  In Brazil, sugar cane is not only used to produce ethanol fuel, but also sugar.  Bourne explains that sugar cane has been a staple export for Brazil since the 1500’s.  However, with more sugar cane being devoted to ethanol fuel production, less sugar cane is made into sugar; which has become a staple in foods across the globe.  Like corn, as more sugar cane is grown specifically for ethanol fuel, less is being grown for food; which could increase the prices of anything with sugar in it.  A fuel that does everything corn ethanol and sugar cane ethanol does without the negative effects seems like a fantasy, but there is a way to produce ethanol that could solve nearly every problem associated with fuel.
   And that fuel is cellulosic ethanol.  Cellulosic ethanol has several pertinent characteristics that make it superior to not only corn ethanol but even sugar cane ethanol.  Diane Greer declares that “while chemically identical to ethanol produced from corn or soybeans, cellulose ethanol exhibits a net energy content three times higher than corn ethanol and emits a low net level of greenhouse gases” (par. 1).  The difference between corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol is simply how it is made.  The Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School explain the key difference in cellulosic ethanol production versus corn ethanol production; “the sugar is pulled from their cellulose—the woody, structural part of the plant—rather than the starch, as is the case with corn” (52).  The difference is small, but it makes all the difference.  According to Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratories, cellulosic ethanol reduced greenhouse gas emissions about eighty percent, while corn only reduced them by about 25 percent. (qtd. in “Cellulosic Ethanol: Spinning Straw into Fuel” par. .  Although the fact that cellulosic ethanol produces less greenhouse gases than corn ethanol is extremely important, another fact is the real reason cellulosic ethanol is a more viable alternative to gasoline. 
   As states earlier, corn needs land to be grown that just is not available; on the other hand, cellulosic ethanol can be made from plants that not only yield more ethanol, but it can actually be made from waste.  Presently, cellulosic ethanol supporters point to switchgrass as the favored source for cellulosic ethanol.  Switchgrass is favored because it is fast growing, a perennial, is more easily grown than corn, and actually improves the quality of the soil that it is grown in (Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School 53).  The authors also state that because switchgrass has a very extensive root system, it can help slow or prevent soil erosion in areas prone to erosion (53).  Another huge benefit that switchgrass has over corn is that it is a native species, this means that it is more resilient to both pests and disease, resulting in a higher crop yield without the need for harmful and expensive fertilizers and pesticides (Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School 53).  Besides switchgrass, nearly any plant material can be used in the production of cellulosic ethanol; including corn waste, wheat straw, sugarcane waste, milo stubble, miscanthus, woody biomass, triticale straw, yard waste, wood waste, barley straw, rice straw, poplar trees, willow trees, eucalyptus trees (Bailey; Food & Water Watch and Network for New Energy Choices In collaboration with Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School 52).  One will notice that most of those sources are waste products, which may be the best part of cellulosic ethanol. 
   Being able to produce a product like ethanol fuel from materials that would otherwise be discarded is a huge encouragement for cellulosic fuel.  Turning waste products into fuel would have virtually no adverse effect on the environment as no new crops are grown and less material is being deposited into landfills.  However, recycling some materials may actually have a negative impact is some instances.  Michael Bailey revealed that Dr. Rattan Lal of the Ohio State University claims that removing crop residue from fields may cause soil erosion and disrupt nutrient cycling in the soil.  Unfortunately, this is not the only disadvantage to cellulosic ethanol. 
   Cellulosic promises to provide solutions to many fuel problems, yet it is being held back by the lack of technology to produce it.  The problem with creating cellulosic ethanol is the very substances that make it so appealing as a fuel source; the complex structure of the plant cell.  Bailey reveals that cell walls are much harder to break down into sugars than the starch in corn is.  Currently, there is not a cost effective way to breakdown the cell walls.  Bourne writes that with the current method of breaking down the cell walls, only forty five percent of the possible energy in the plant material is extracted, in contrast, the oil refineries extract eighty five percent of the energy from crude oil (5).  Another drawback to cellulosic ethanol is that there is not yet an infrastructure to support it.  Michael Bailey claims that currently there is not a way to easily collect, move, or process raw materials into cellulosic ethanol fuel.  On the other hand, since corn has been around for so long, there is a significant infrastructure for it.  While these obstacles may impede the production and use of ethanol fuel, there is no reason they will prevent it.  These minor problems will eventually be solved as technologies advance and time passes. 
   This Earth’s dependence on fossil fuels is slowly coming to an end thanks to ethanol fuel; but the question about which way is the best to produce that ethanol is still unanswered.  Corn ethanol has its benefits, while sugar cane ethanol has even greater benefits; cellulosic ethanol trumps them all in terms of sustainability and ecologically awareness.  

Pretty Good. I din't finish, but the stuff in blue can be revised. I know this sounds wierd, but i like reading factual papers. God am I a nerd...

[Arrrhalomynn]

I wasn't bored before, but I was after being two lines into your paper. Maybe you should do your own homework? (And stop putting two spaces between sentences, it's silly)

[TraderJake]

I agree about the two spaces thing, I find it really obnoxious that some American writing standards require that. I think it is annoying as hell, but yeah, do what the professor requires.