Ethanol has always sounded sort of sketchy to
me. It's not truly a sustainable source of energy, because it takes a lot of room to grow and may actually use more
fossil fuels to produce than blending it with gasoline saves. An article in
Business Week adds fuel to the fire, saying that using ethanol in gasoline blends causes more smog
(due to higher volatility) and reduces fuel economy by up to 40%. Add that to the extra fuel being burned by sneaky
corporations who are using ethanol-equipped Suburbans and other vehicles that consume a lot of fuel in order to get
around CAFE regulations, and it becomes clear that ethanol is definitely not going to do America any favors. I've
thought of ethanol as a decent short-term solution to our fuel dependency problems, but the cost suddenly seems to
dramatically outweigh the benefits. [Source: Business Week, and thank you to starlightmica for the tip on this
important article]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Donovan 5:16PM (5/06/2008)
I want to make it very clear: I do NOT believe ethanol will solve all of our energy problems. That being said....
Business Week is not a scientific journal or magazine, therefore you cannot quote it as reliable - it is a secondary source at best. They are in the business of making profit and are concerned about the economy - not the business of finding certain facts. However, increased ethanol production actually creates more jobs, how ironic.
Next, I certainly agree with the implementation of cellulostic ethanol. Not only that, your car should be able to also run with a gasoline-water blend (plans are for sale on the internet by a guy who designs engines for the U.S. military). It uses the water seperately and breaks the Hydrogen-Oxygen bond with electricity, then uses the power given off from re-bonding them to push the piston. The bi-product is some water and gas. You could decrease gas consumption by up to half.
Also, You should recheck your sources. Ethanol, according to studies performed by the USDA and their Argonne National Laboratory state that ethanol yeilds 34% more energy than it takes to produce and, I quote, "production of corn-ethanol is energy efficient." This includes growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and distilling it into ethanol (Shapouri, et al. No 721 and No 813).
Also, a Canadian Renewable Fuels Association study found that a 10% ethanol blend reduces smog forming CO2 by 30%, although I don't know about NOx (which also forms smog) less CO2 would still fight smog and global warming. In addition, every state, city, or region that has implemented a 10% blend has only seen a DECREASE in smog and an overall improvement in air quality.
A University of Minnesota study recently completed found that "analysis of vehicle [drivability] evaluations performed by the trained raters shows that seasonal performance differences between E0 and E20 are not statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval" (Kittleson, et al.). A 5% error level. 95% is still an A in my book.
Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils. I guess the questions you have to ask yourself is:
Can it really be any worse? What is the harm from a little change?
Here are the sources:
1. Shapouri, Hosein, James A. Duffield, and Michael S. Graboski. Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Office of Energy. Agricultural Economic Report No. 721, July 1995
2. Shapouri, Hosein, James A. Duffield, and Michael Wang. The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report No. 813
3. I don't have the proper citation, howeever: Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, the report is on their website or you can call them and get the report from their records. Also, I am sure the Library of Congres would have a copy as they have pretty much every publication.
4. Kittelson, David, Andy Tan, Darrick Zarling, Beth Evans, and Carlton H. Jewit. Demonstration and Drivability Project to Determine the Feasibility of Using E20 as a Motor Fuel. University of Minnesota, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Evans Research Consultants, Renewable Fuels Association. 19 October 2007.
Reply
St?ane Dumas 1:01PM (4/30/2006)
Corn-based ethanol isn't the best solution in the long-term. However cellulostic ethanol, like Iogen in Canada experiments (check their site for more infos at http://www.iogen.ca ), coming from forest waste, wheat, switch grass, bagasse, sugar beets, sugar cane, etc... like they do in Brazil is more promising. I spotted an article on Google groups at http://tinyurl.com/l7sd5
[Open in new window]
Then, another biofuel we didn't talk a lot here, butanol http://www.butanol.com
Reply
AJ Ballou 2:59PM (4/30/2006)
Good article--thanks for the link.
What about Waste Vegetable Oil, Straight Vegetable Oil, and Biodiesel? These still release pollutants, but (theoretically) have a lower impact on the environment because the carbon released into the air is reabsorbed by the plants that are growing the products. This article makes a compelling argument against ethanol, something I've heard from opponents on both the left and right sides of the debate. Brazil is energy independent, but still relies on good ol' petrol and diesel for 50% of its fuel, as Mr. Wallace points out. In America, we should be developing a markey for renewable fuels with a shorter-term production rate, such as biodiesel and the like.
Reply
Christopher Millner 3:10PM (4/30/2006)
I agree that ethanol isn't a "wonderfuel" by any means, but I think it will be an important step in the near future to sustainable fuels. Even if making ethanol currently takes more energy than it produces, there's a good chance the difference will reverse once production levels rise.
Reply
Glenn A. 4:22PM (4/30/2006)
Butanol instead of ethanol (the link is in Stephanie's comment) which is a gallon for gallon drop-in (fill-in?)replacement for gasoline. Not forgetting that Butanol (a 4-carbon alcohol) can be made from the same things that can produce ethanol (a 2-carbon alcohol) and Butanol has the huge benefit of being able to be sent through pipelines.
Then, look at www.changingworldtechnology.com for the process of making offal, garbage, sewage into OIL. Specifically, pure diesel oil (low or no sulfur) and heating oil. This thin oil can also be refined into gasoline.
We could become a net EXPORTER of energy if we really busted our chops and put these two technologies into place.
We need to do the equivalent of a Manhattan project, nationwide, and adopt the production of Butanol instead of ethanol.
We need to do the equivalent of an Apollo project, nationwide, and produce oil from garbage etc. instead of putting it into landfills.
IMHO, anyway. What do you think?
Reply
Andrew 4:54PM (4/30/2006)
To autobloggreen: thanks for much needed balance in ethanol debate.
Ethanol is popular not just because of ADM et al. spending millions on lobbying; it is a beautiful fantasy: imagine our hard working, norman-rockwellesque midwestern corn farmers make our fuel, and the Arabs go back to raising camels.
Behind this facade of yankee-ingenuity and efficiency lies central planning, huge subsidies, and questional engineering.
One thing not mentioned in this excellent article: ethanol converts millions of acres from nature to herbicide and ammonia saturated, intensively tilled farmland. One good thing about modern farming is that its greater efficiency has returned large amounts of US to nature. Now this land can be used to produce a money losing, subsidized fuel.
Reply
StoutBock 1:56AM (5/01/2006)
what we need is HEMP based ethanol.
CHEAPER,
EASIER TO MAKE,
RESTORES THE SOIL,
NATURALLY PEST RESISTANT,
CAN GROW ON SLOPES,
PRODUCES MORE ETHANOL FROM THE SAME AMOUNT,
PRODUCES LESS POLLUTION THAN CORN BASED ETHANOL
read:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060126_ethanol_better.html
Reply
StoutBock 1:57AM (5/01/2006)
AND
http://www.votehemp.com/markets_stalk.html
http://www.votehemp.com/markets_oilseed.html
Reply