Ethanol contributes more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than gasoline while at the same time decreasing the mileage per gallon of gasoline.
The issue of the nation’s financial and economic security is likely to dominate the November 4 election. Earlier in the campaign cycle we might have assumed that foreign affairs and energy would be uppermost on the minds of voters, but we’re told that, ultimately, voters vote their pocketbooks.
One place they most notice a major problem, however, is at the gas pump where prices continue to remain over $3.50 a gallon. It is doubtful anyone really thinks about the part of that cost that can be attributed to the government mandate that each gallon include ethanol. Other costs include the government-mandated different blends of gasoline required in different regions or sections of the nation. The refinery costs of that are built into the price as well. Then, of course, there are the federal and state gasoline taxes that add considerably to the cost.
The consumer is constantly being told that the cost is determined by the global marketplace for oil and, to an extent this is true. However, left largely unsaid is the role the government plays in its refusal to permit exploration and extraction of oil reserves that are either known or which potentially exist on the mainland and off the continental shelf of the nation.
The mere mention of offshore drilling by Senator John McCain was sufficient to drive down the global price per barrel for a while. It lifted his campaign prospects. Largely unexamined, however, have been Senator Barack Obama’s long-held positions on ethanol production.
Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and Director of Global Food Issues, recently took note of the disparities between the candidate’s positions on ethanol. “Obama wants more ethanol, while McCain thinks we should probably have less,” noting that “both say man-made global warming is a serious threat, and both say they want the best for the nation’s farmers.”
Both candidates are wrong on many counts, not the least is their belief that global warming is either man-made or actually happening. It is not. Ironically, the wailing about man-made greenhouse gas emissions completely ignores the fact that ethanol actually contributes more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere while, at the same time, decreasing the mileage per gallon of gasoline.
Avery says that “global food and feed demand will double over the next 40 years” and that is leading to the clearing of forests to grow more corn, both as a gasoline additive and as food. Forests absorb carbon dioxide. They are often called “carbon sinks.” In addition, the more ethanol plants there are, the higher the price of corn rises due to demand.
Robert Bryce, the author of Gusher of Lies, one of the best books on global energy issues you will ever read, is also a co-editor of Energy Tribune, a leading monthly. In the October edition, he takes aim at ethanol calling it a scam and “pure, unadulterated lunacy.”
Bryce writes, “Barack Obama doesn’t want to talk about corn ethanol. And it’s no wonder. In early August, his campaign Web site purged several sections of his energy plan that talked about corn ethanol.
“Before the purge, Obama was touting corn ethanol as a pivotal element in his push for ‘energy independence.’ His site declared that Obama ‘will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.”
By August, however, Obama had come up with a new set of talking points on energy and “All mentions of corn ethanol were removed,” wrote Bryce. “The word ‘ethanol’ only appears once.”
Do not be fooled. Obama is a major proponent of ethanol. Bryce reports that, “In January 2007, Obama and two other senators, Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa and Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana, introduced legislation called the ‘American Fuels Act of 2007.’ It aimed at promoting the use of ethanol and provided mandates for the use of more biodiesel.”
Obama’s national campaign co-chair is Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader and longtime ethanol booster. Daschle serves on the boards of three key ethanol companies. Obama represents Illinois, a state that trails only Iowa and Nebraska in ethanol production capacity.
If you have any hope of seeing the price of gasoline reduced or the cost of food decrease, that is unlikely to happen if Obama is elected. At the very least, McCain has signaled that he is no fan of ethanol.
ACaruba@aol.com
http://www.anxietycenter.com/
Read more articles by Alan Caruba
Ethanol is a joke, with corn ethanol being the saddest version of it. Do you think that matters to the energy independence folk? Of course not. Screw up our economy by limiting our food supply and raising its price. No one has the right to eat, but everyone has the right (no, the obligation) to drive an ethanol-powered car!
You would think the major media outlets, with their affinity for the "truth" would dive deeper into Obama's ties to Big Corn in Illinois.
Comment by Anderson | October 6, 2008
Alan,
Individuals can be hard to stampede, but the mob is easy. A year from now we'll all realize this would have been better had government 'not' done all it could to help. Then, we'll be back to carping about gas prices and promoting ethanol (or solar, wind, methane, geothermal, whatever), anything except the one thing that actually works as a replacement (nuclear) because it is un-PC.
Anderson,
You should have said 'patriotic duty' where you said 'obligation'. In fact, I am surprised Joe Biden hasn't jumped all over this declaring it "patriotic" giving up corn-products in order to be energy independent (not to mention good little Earth-Nazis).
Comment by Bob Stapler | October 6, 2008
Bob
I'm glad you mentioned methane. Might you be talking about methane hydrate? That stuff that lies at the bottom of the oceans seems to me to be the answer to all our problems:>) It's just sitting there and I've only heard that the Japanese are working on extracting it.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 6, 2008
The issue is not so simple. As an engineer and research scientist, I too used to think that it was a simple open and shut case against ethanol/alcohol & biodiesel. But as I matured and gained knowledge, experience, and hopefully a little wisdom I discovered this not to be the case — it is a matter of more complete "Systems Analysis" (a skill with few masterful practitioners). There are many labels for Systems Analysis, but the fancier names only tend toward intellectual snobbery and obfuscation.
Anyway, to cut-to-the-chase: when looked at from the simplistic point of view of burning fuel in a bowl, there's not much to recommend alcohol vs gasoline, except that alcohol exhaust is basically non-toxic (whereas gasoline exhaust is toxic). But when you draw a wider circle, and take more variables into account, and the interaction of various subsystems, an alcohol fuel economy can be not only more efficient and environmentally sound, but can bolster the food supply and improve a company's bottom-line — and when looked at with this larger view it is at worst "carbon-neutral and potentially "carbon-negative" depending upon the crop(s) and agricultural practices utilized, for the plant's root system sequesters a large amount of carbon in the soil; plus the carbon released in one burning is reabsorbed by the next crop for the next batch of alcohol.
On another note, a properly designed alcohol engine (for the purpose of transportation) can operate more efficiently than a gasoline engine, have longer engine life, and lower maintenance.
Now it should also be noted that poorly designed and implemented alcohol fuel policies (we're talking gov. here, so the outcome is obvious) can negate the benefits of producing and using alcohol as fuel, and make everything worse (as we have seen recently).
Every energy source & technology has its proper application, and no single one is the solution to everything, but some do offer more positives than others, and there are some applications that are totally inappropriate, or that don't scale in certain ways.
It's all about balance and application of knowledge with humble wisdom.
Comment by PECB | October 7, 2008
PECB
You seem to know a great deal, so I’ll ask two questions. Referring to your statement “…alcohol exhaust is basically non-toxic…”, does this imply that suicide by car exhaust is not possible if the car is filled with 100% ethanol? And, related to your statement “”…alcohol engine can operate more efficiently than a gasoline engine…” what is the amount of energy, in BTUs, in a gallon of gasoline compared to ethanol? Your answers would go far in keeping us simpletons on track.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | October 7, 2008
Gentlemen, one and all, thank you for your comments. I would note that ethanol is so corrosive it must be transported by truck because it would eat through any pipeline. It likely has a comparable effect on auto engines over a period of time. As to its exhaust, I cannot speak, but since it is basically moonshine, it might give you a real buzz. And an historical note, Henry Ford in the early days of the automobile considered ethanol as a fuel and abandoned it as a bad idea.
Comment by Alan Caruba | October 7, 2008
I totally agree with PECB, the matter is not simple. However, there are somethings we do know about the hanky-panky behind the scenes and hyperbole center-stage that cuts the legs right out from under ethanol as a substitute for oil. Alan has already brought up the problem of corrosion, but here is some more I gleaned from Drs. Patzek and Pimentel, experts on this topic who studied and reported extensively on ethanol drawbacks.
1. Corn is a complex engineered bio-system with myriad energy inputs and outputs making the collecting of substantiating data difficult and prone to error. [my note: Coupled to this are government, industry, market, and activist hyperbole; all of which seek to promote ethanol by hiding drawbacks while assuming best-case estimates of yield]. Thus, the estimates we have of alcohol’s replacement value are somewhat suspect.
2. Corn erodes soil 18 times faster than it can reform and requires tremendous amounts of fertilizer, pesticide, and water to produce. All of these have an energy component associated with them in producing, transporting, and distributing them to the corn [plus harvesting and replenishing]. So, whereas, stalks and husks may return carbon to the soil, overall, corn depletes the soil of topsoil and vital nutrients rapidly. When performing your systems analysis (and I agree that is the way to go), were these depletions and replenishments properly accounted? Pimentel and Patzek seem to disagree.
3. Approximately 50-gallons of ethanol can be produced per acre of corn. Therefore, 2.8 billion acres are needed to grow the 140-bn gallons of fuel consumed by the U.S. annually. That is more than 5 times all cropland currently and potentially available for crops of all kinds in the U.S.
4. Corn is the largest U.S. crop (70-million acres generating 130-bushels/acre). The U.S. produces 44% of the world’s corn while Canada produces only 1%. 6-million acres of corn is now used to generate approximately 1% of U.S. fuel requirements. One gallon of ethanol is equivalent to ~ 0.65 gallons of gasoline (others argue this is higher). It takes around 22,000 Btu to create one gallon of gasoline having 120,000 Btu, whereas it takes 98,000 Btu to make a gallon of ethanol yielding 76,000 Btu when burned. Even if a gallon of ethanol yielded 85% of the energy of a gallon of gasoline as claimed, that would just break even. Did your systems analysis properly account for this 98-kBtu claimed by P&P in the energy yield per gallon of ethanol? Do you dispute their figure? If so, show how.
5. 99% of U.S. corn is fertilized, requiring more fertilizer than any other crop. Nitrogen fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are all made using fossil fuels, as are diesel fuel, gasoline, LPG, natural gas, electricity, transportation and irrigation used to grow and transport corn. Any system proporting to replace gasoline must account these in the total energy budget as a deduction.
6. Approximately 50 gallons of ethanol can be produced per acre of corn. Therefore, 2.8 billion acres would be needed to grow the 140-bn gallons of fuel consumed in the US annually. That is more than 5-times all cropland actually and potentially available for all crops in the US.
7. The US consumes 140-bn gallons of fossil fuel annually. Ethanol currently provides around 1% of that or 1.4-bn gallons. The proposed goal of 5-bn gallons of ethanol from corn annually still only represents 3% of total liquid fuel consumption at an enormous cost in input.
8. Ethanol burned alone emits acetaldehyde and other carcinogenic aldehydes. According to reports prepared for the California Environmental Policy Council by investigators at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and U.C. Berkeley, when ethanol is used as an oxygenate for reformulated gasoline, it increases the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) and volatility of gasoline. This results in higher emissions of smog-forming Volatile Organic Compounds and aldehydes, the major constituent of which is formaldehyde. Although even short-term exposure to formaldehyde can be fatal, irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes typically occurs before fatal levels are achieved. Long-term exposure to even low levels of formaldehyde can cause respiratory difficulty and eczema. Formaldehyde is classified as a human carcinogen by OSHA and has been linked to nasal and lung cancer, with possible links to brain cancer and leukemia. Your argument, therefore, that ethanol-burning is non-polluting needs some clarification.
9. As regulated by OSHA, DOT, NFPA and NIOSH, Ethanol is a toxic substance just like gasoline. Ethanol, if put in tanks no better sealed than automobile gasoline-tanks will evaporate out faster than gasoline. Ethanol, as regulated, must be handled with “extreme caution” because it can enter the blood stream from breathing the fumes, or by penetration through the skin or mouth. Exposure can irritate the eyes, nose, mouth, and throat; and protective clothing, including gloves and splash-proof chemical goggles and face shields must be worn by those coming in contact with it. Of course, nobody does outside of labs and trained industrial personnel really do all this, but those are the regs as ordered by Washington. People are advised not to eat, smoke or drink where ethanol is handled, processed, or stored since the chemical can easily be absorbed. Moderate exposure can cause headaches, eye and skin irritation, nausea, and drowsiness, whereas higher levels of exposure (over 1000-ppm per 8-hour period) can cause shortness of breath, genetic mutations, damage to the liver and central nervous system and unconsciousness. Exposure to ethanol levels of over 3300-ppm can result in death. Again, in all fairness, much of the same is true of gasoline; but my point is ethanol is not the 'better than gasoline' replacement proponents would have it.
11. Ethanol water requirements:
• 371gallons of water are needed to produce one pound of corn
• 371 x 56 lbs per bushel = 20,776 gallons per bushel of corn
• One bushel of corn will yield ~ 2.5 gallons of ethanol; or 8,310 gal-water/ gal-ethanol
• An additional 30 to 37 gallons of water are consumed to manufacture ethanol from corn per gallon of ethanol (source: Corn Chemistry and technology handbook, 2002; x 1.5 = ~ 50 gal-water/ gal-gasoline equivalent
• 8,310 + 50 = 8,360 gallons of water needed per equivalent gallon gasoline in form of ethanol
• 140-bn gal gasoline consumed in U.S. annually
• 140-bn x 8,360 gallons of water, divided by 325,851 gallons per acre foot (AF), equals 3.59-bn AF of water annually
Note the U.S. currently consumes ~500-million AF of water per year. Thus to replace gasoline with ethanol requires more than 6-times as much water than currently consumed for agriculture and all other purposes. Making ethanol requires 3,340+ times more water than making hydrogen. By contrast, it takes approximately 2.5 gallons of water to make an equivalent gallon of gasoline in the form of hydrogen. Thus, less than one million AF of water would generate all of the fuel now consumed annually in the U.S.
The above analysis by P&P does not include the over $10-billion corn growers receive annually in taxpayer subsidies, of whom the principle beneficiaries are mega-agriculture corporations like Archer-Daniels Midlands (ADM), Cargill, and A.E. Stanley. Who do suppose, then, are the principle winners and losers in this deal.
I am sorry, but I don't buy the "this stuff is way over your heads argument". I too am an engineer (mechanical), though not a researcher nor is fuel-production my specialty. Yet, as an engineer responsible for a large industrial plant (who did work briefly for an oil company assisting oil research by designing and building research facilities and tools), I have been keenly interested in the question of energy supply for many years, and believe I have a pretty solid grasp of the issues.
Comment by Bob Stapler | October 7, 2008