Red, Green and Blue: Ethanol: Fuel of the Future or Ponzi Scheme?
Shirley: Color me cynical, but when giant agribusinesses fall over one another in a rush to board the corn ethanol train, I tend to view the situation with something other than rose-colored glasses.
Outside of the juicy profits awaiting corporations like ADM thanks to the combination of U.S. farm subsidies and $60-plus-per-barrel sweet light crude, the ethanol frenzy offers more questions than answers. First, there is the questionable energy payback: some studies say ethanol yields more energy than it requires to produce ("The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update"), while others say it's a net negative energy source ("Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as 'Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning'").
There are other concerns as well: more fuel-crop fields mean fewer forests, grasslands and natural ecosystems, higher agricultural water demands, higher food-and feed-crop prices, and more intensive monocropping on already severely depleted soils. Too many questions, too few answers.
A more responsible approach would be to immediately start jacking up fuel-efficiency standards ("Fuel Economy: The Single Most Effective Step for Cutting Oil Dependence") while investing in serious R & D for all alternative fuels and energy sources. Of course, that approach isn't a gravy train for corporate share-holders, so I won't be holding my breath.
Tags: alternative fuels, biofuels, corn, Ethanol, Red, Green and Blue, switchgrass, vegetable oil
- Uncategorized
June 14th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Now Shirley… you know my opinion about imposing various standards and mandates on the public and automakers. For the others who might be reading, I don’t agree with ‘imposing’ anything and CAFE standards are high on the list of things I think are a problem.
I saw an article recently lauding the fact that higher mileage cars are ‘just as safe’ as earlier generations because traffic fatalities have not gone up with the CAFE standards. So that means that trading Detroit Iron for Korean plastic is ‘just as safe’ as before because of crumple zones, air-bags, increased tire technology, braking technology, etc?
My first thought was how the heck can we have all of these improvements in safety technology and still 43,300 traffic fatalities in this country last year (That’s 57 times the number of US fatalities in Iraq last year, btw.). The answer: CAFE standards are eating up the safety advancements.
As far as corn based ethanol that’s a lot to do with the farm lobby and little to do with an appropriate energy policy. Mandates [more mandates] for ethanol content have driven up the demand for ethanol and since corn based ethanol is now the least expensive; that is where we are feeling the sting (granted, to ADMs benefit). Demand is projected to drop off, however, due to the market’s reaction to the shortage last year. Some are even projecting a Glut on the market.
Cellulosic ethanol is where people are betting these days for ethanol as an alternative fuel.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
CAFE standards are the reason so many people die in car accidents? I'd say the reason lies more with things like, oh, people not wearing seat belts, people driving under the influence, people driving too fast, people talking on their cell phones and eating to-go nachos while driving, etc. Besides, there's plenty of evidence indicating that, say, a Mercedes that gets 35 miles per gallon is a heckuva lot safer than a rollover-prone, U.S.-made SUV that gets 18 mpg.
Knowing from previous conversations how you feel about farm subsidies, I'm glad to see that you acknowledge the corn ethanol craze is (industrial/corporate)-farm-lobby driven.
I'll grant that cellulosic ethanol is preferable to corn ethanol. Still, some serious problems still come with any form of biofuel. By ramping up our fuel-crop production, we're increasing the use of industrial pesticides and fertilizers, some of which run off into waterways and, eventually, help create the ever-growing Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico (see at http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/11280).
There's also the problem of agricultural irrigation. We're already seeing growing battles over declining water supplies out West and dwindling aquifers. Growing MORE crops just so we can keep driving our cars the way we always have is just going to accelerate the water problem (http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/Ote6_2.htm).
June 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
The point on CAFE, Shirley, is that the gains we’ve made in safety technology advancement have been offset by compromises we’ve made for CAFE in weight and thus shielding from harm in a crash. Otherwise the technological safety advancements would have reduced fatalities.
The great thing about cellulosic ethanol is that it uses waste product like corn stover and natural grasses like switchgrass that don’t require substantial fertilization, cultivation and pest control measures.
As for the comparisons of ethanol to gasoline I think we need to add a few aspects to the formula before we declare ethanol a loser. First of all we need to figure in the geo-political cost of a gallon of gasoline. It is a fact that we send our army around the world every decade or so to protect worldwide oil interests. To compare apples to apples this would need to be considered as an additional cost to gasoline.
Also it is true that there is more potential energy in a gallon of gasoline than ethanol making ethanol less efficient on paper. But we are limited to the amount of this potential energy that can be derived from gasoline due to detonation or pre-ignition in our internal combustion engines (this is when the gasoline explodes before reaching optimal compression). Once ethanol is widely available this gap will be closed by engines specifically engineered for ethanol with a higher compression ratio.
Besides… 40% of our trade deficit is in oil. Would we rather pay our farmers for this or continue funding a market that supports the Mad Mullahs in Iran and other US haters like that commie Hugo Chavez?
I think the answer is clear.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
… and how can you worry about this anyway, Shirley, while Paris rots in jail!
June 14th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Poor Paris, although I agree with Will Durst that she's paying for W's sins (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/54070/)
: )
June 14th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Jimmy, as are you, I'm all in favor of reducing our dependence on resources from the world's hot spots (though I did enjoy Hugo's "smell of sulfur" speech!). And the quickest, most efficient way of doing that is not by establishing a whole new industry for which there isn't a complete infrastructure yet (plus, you've got to truck ethanol; it can't be piped — see here: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/ethanol-frequently-asked-questions.html), but by raising fuel efficiency standards as soon as possible.
It's a perfect example of the truism every engineer understands: the simplest solutions are the best.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Geezzz… is there anything you guys won’t blame ‘W’ for?
I personally think they should turn her loose but that’s another discussion.
Ethanol can’t be piped in the existing pipeline infrastructure, Shirley. That’s part of its problem. Oil has most of its capital costs already covered. Again, we’re not comparing apples to apples if we allow oil this huge head-start. The question we should be asking is, ‘does it make sense in the long-term to encourage investment in the infrastructure change our primary liquid fuel’? I think, given the environmental and geopolitical realities we face today, it does.
A good thing about ethanol, though, is that it lends itself to diversified refinement and better competition. How about instead of dumping billions and billions into rural areas in the form of welfare dollars; we build green rings around urban areas where rural towns grow and refine fuel to support adjacent cities? We could even grow the feedstocks in the interstate medians where harvest can substitute for non-value-added mowing.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Quick advancement in nano-capacitors may make the discussion about liquid fuels moot, though.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Jimmy, your suggestion for "green rings around urban areas where rural towns grow and refine fuel to support adjacent cities" sounds great in theory. I briefly saw similar promise in the idea of developing small, locally based biorefineries that would both benefit small farmers in rural areas while providing a needed alternative fuel. However, there's a clear trend with anything small in the food or agriculture sectors (or any sector, for that matter): once the little guys establish a business that's worth buying, some bigger, multi-national corporation will come along and buy it out. All dollars, eventually, flow to ADM and its ilk.
And that, ultimately, is why ethanol is so hot right now. It might reduce our oil dependence by a bit (while incurring steep costs in new infrastructure, land clearing, polluted runoff, additional aquifer depletion and topsoil erosion), but it's the dollar signs that are driving its development more than anything.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
By the way, I don’t blame W for EVERYTHING. I haven’t accused him of having a hand in the wildly disappointing “Sopranos” finale … yet.