Not even Kansas can come up with a good reason for corn ethanol
The Kansas City star printed a point-counterpoint yesterday that tries to answer this question: "Is increased use of corn-based ethanol a good idea?" Well, guess what? The pro response does now contain a convincing argument for corn ethanol. They don't even try.On the "Yes" side (from the The Hutchinson (Kan.) News), the column is simply in favor of ethanol in general (all cars should be E85-capable, there should be more consumer awareness of ethanol). OK, but what about corn? We all know that cellulosic ethanol holds a lot of promise, but this point-counterpoint is specifically about corn ethanol. When Kansas can't come up with any good talking points for the farmer's great yellow hope, then perhaps it's seriously time to kick the fuel down the road in favor of better alternatives.
On the "No" front (from the Raleigh (N.C.) News and Observer), the argument is one we're quite familiar with: the expansion of Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone," possibly due to ethanol use. This is not the only good argument against corn-based ethanol, but at least it answers the question at hand. We can certify that corn ethanol loses the Kansas round. I wonder how the debate will pan out in, say, Alaska?
[Source: Kansas City Star]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bob Moffitt (Bob from ALAMN) 3:55PM (1/08/2008)
The editors of the KC Star could have adopted this op/ed I wrote for the Star Tribune in Minneapolis:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/11150451.html
Reply
Sebastian 4:49PM (1/08/2008)
Bob,
I was wondering if it wouldn't take you long to comment on this. :)
Sebastian
Reply
Jimmy 5:12PM (1/08/2008)
This best comment to this is one published by the News and Observer:
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/story/859937.html
Reply
1985 Gripen 1:28AM (1/09/2008)
The NUMBER ONE and most immediate environmental threat to the entire world's population is anthropogenic climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. There are many bad side effects of corn-based ethanol, but I believe that using corn-based ethanol is better than gasoline to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It's not the ideal solution, but it's the lesser of two evils and it's available NOW.
Sure there are other promising technologies on the horizon but we can't wait to start enacting change right now.
Reply
rgseidl 7:49AM (1/09/2008)
@ 1985 Gripen -
corn ethanol is hugely expensive and actually does very little to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Depending on whose study you believe, the fossil fuel inputs involved in growing corn are almost as high or higher than the heating value of the ethanol produced.
For Brazilian ethanol made from sugarcane, the ratio of energy output to fossil energy input is on the order of 7-8. Ergo, HOW you produce ethanol is hugely important. Of course, sugarcane doesn't grow in the Midwestern US whereas corn does. Politicians are only to happy to pander to King Corn by subsidizing corn and corn ethanol production while maintaining stiff tariffs against ethanol imports.
Reply
BurlHaigwoodCFDC 11:13AM (1/09/2008)
Like all controversial issues and resulting choices, it usually comes down to personal values and understanding the necessary comprises we each need to make in order to change a bad status quo into a positive change for the majority of Americans. Good old fashion Democracy at work.
Here are a few links to pictures from “Dead Zones” related to the ethanol alterative (crude oil) and the Persian Gulf, which concerns me much more the “possibility” that our “extra” food production “may” have some environmental impact on the Gulf of Mexico, which also happens to be one of the world’s largest oil producing zones.
http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/AdhamiyahSS/
http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/sept11/
http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/inductionday/
Making a current judgment about current ethanol production technology, which does have a positive energy balance http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf, is like throwing away the black and white TV and rabbit ears before seeing HDTV and satellite.
If one can not justify supporting ethanol on moral grounds and core personal values, then consider it to be an old fashioned red, white and blue capitalistic boondoggle! Ethanol and E85 should be a welcome site and bargain at the pump!
First and foremost the real cost of oil is about $50 to $100 per barrel higher than the ongoing record market prices we are seeing today "The Hidden Cost of Oil: An Update," These hidden costs translate into $3-$5 more per gallon than your gasoline pump price. People need to start including what extra they pay for gasoline morally, environmentally, diplomatically, and in increased taxes on April 15th. These external/extra costs cover the cost of the $600 billion war in the Middle East, the global war on terrorism, the cost of oil dependence and risk of peak oil, fossil fuel induced climate change and mounting insurance premiums, the increasing cost of health care from the effects of multiple known carcinogens being in gasoline, and $1 billion dollars a day of lost economic opportunity going to many foreign oil exporting regimes that hate us.
If oil companies had to pay their employees to keep oil flowing from the Middle East we would all be making alternative fuels in our backyard – no subsidies needed – and no complaining. Hopefully more and more Americans will rise to the occasion and try to learn more about ethanol. In doing so, one will discover that some of their core values, moral integrity and sense of urgency to address national security, energy security, environmental security and economic security can all be addressed by buying ethanol at the pump and a flexible fuel vehicle at the car dealer. Ethanol’s value needs to be somewhere above the price of gasoline. Get square on the facts, download a copy of the Ethanol Fact Book at www.cleanfuelsdc.org.
BurlHaigwoodCFDC
http://blog.cleanfuelsdc.org
Reply
1985 Gripen 8:40PM (1/09/2008)
rgseidl: this controversy was settled long ago. While ethanol made from corn isn't as efficient as ethanol made from sugarcane (there used to be a sugar industry in the U.S. South), only one study has determined it to be "energy negative". That study has largely been debunked. The great majority of studies which followed show corn ethanol to be slightly energy positive.
So again, while it's not perfect, and not nearly as good as sugarcane-based or cellulosic ethanol, corn ethanol is STILL better than gasoline when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions.
Q: is it your belief that corn ethanol greenhouse gas emissions are worse than gasoline?
It's a lesser-of-two-evils thing to me. I don't see sticking with petroleum-based fuels as an acceptable answer either.
Reply