The Dark Side of Ethanol?
The search for the best alternative energy source has become something of a green-car arms race.
Among the alternatives, ethanol has managed to shoulder its way into U.S. energy policy with special aplomb, largely due to the influence of farmers from the Midwest through the South. These farmers have seen an increase in the price of corn, from an average of $2 a bushel to nearly $4.50.
Recent reports, though, have led to a growing concern that ethanol might simply be a faster way of digging an environmental grave.
According to a piece in Science magazine, experts from Princeton and the Nature Conservancy have focused on serious problems associated with the rising use of ethanol. First and foremost, they said, clearing the vast tracts of land necessary for growing corn can result in anywhere from 17 times to 423 times more carbon emissions annually than are saved by burning biofuels rather than fossil fuels. In addition, as corn prices rise, so do food prices.
There are some caveats to these objections: For instance, the exact emissions numbers are by no means agreed upon, and cellulosic ethanol could be made from switchgrass or other plants, which can grow almost anywhere and would not increase the price of corn.
The more that ethanol supporters claim to have answers, though, the more skeptics seem to have questions. Water use has become a political hot potato in the western United States, which has been hit not only by drought but by water-rights disputes; one undeniable fact is that ethanol production soaks up massive amounts of water. One example: In Colorado, the North Fork of the heavily drained Republican River has shortened by 10 miles in just 20 years, and unchecked irrigation has drained the major aquifers in the area to dangerously low levels. The water table for the area sits 100 feet lower than it did 30 years ago, according to Newsweek.
Even Virgin Group chairman Richard Branson has turned around on his previous ethanol enthusiasm, recently telling the BBC that he “regrets his investment in biofuels on environmental and economic grounds” after investing nearly $400 million in the field two years ago.
This is not to suggest that ethanol spells doom, and some fans point out its ability to cut U.S. need for foreign oil, but these warnings do seem to warrant increasing scrutiny for biofuels before the government and private sector invest more heavily.
Biofuels Might Prove Worse Than CO2 (The Sunday Independent)
Ethanol Boom Saps Water (Newsweek)
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
Water shortage? - no worry. Tax the middle class.
Sure if they're going to go build up in water-restricted areas. Water ain't free.
and the worse part is that it doesn't even save you on gas. a cent/gallon/mile analyisis shows that at best it gives us an extra distance.
Juan Carlos, why don't you analyze where the dollars for oil are going compared to the dollars for ethanol...unless you'd rather send as much money as possible to our enemies.
Im sorry Im sorry, but Hybrit, you are hilarious man. Seriously.
Whats the difference between sending our oil dollars to fundamentalist lunatics who want western culture to go back to the 17th century and the fundamentalist lunatics in the mid-west who want our culture to go back to the 17th century. If you said geographic location, then you are right.
But thats it. Ethanol will just raise food prices, worsen water levels and raise prices for it, and increase the number of fill ups for consumers. Gas stations would love that (they'd get more shots at selling the convenience goods inside), and farmers would love it because they could rape the American consumer on both energy and food prices, but everyone else would suffer.
Another energy source other than corn based ethanol is needed. Cellulosic ethanol is a start as it produces more ethanol per acre and requires far less water (and irrigation, therefor), but instead of that I'd recommend algae based bio-diesel. The algae currently being used elsewhere in the world is producing far more energy per acre used, and diesel engines themselves are 30% more fuel efficient. Bio diesel also doesn't produce the toxic fumes of diesel, and doesn't have the smell. It does smell a lot like fast food, but considering Americans already seem to live with that quite well I doubt anyone will have a problem with car exhaust that smells like junkfood.
Interesting perspective. I didn't think that producing Ethanol could lead to even more disastrous environmental effects.