Conservative Student News

Photo credit: media.modbee.com

President Bush recently signed "The Energy Independence and Security Act" on Dec. 19, 2007. Included in this bill is a Renewable Fuels Standard insisting upon an increase in ethanol production nationwide from 6 billion gallons annually to 36 billion gallons annually by the year 2022, according to the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE). Was this a wise decision? We can find out by examining whether or not ethanol, and not some other energy source, is a suitable substitute for petroleum energy/fuel.

Let's focus on a specific type of ethanol: corn-based ethanol. Corn ethanol dominates the ethanol market in America at this time and so it deserves most of our attention. The purpose of corn ethanol is to provide a cleaner, renewable, and therefore more secure, energy source that diverts our energy consumption away from fossil fuels.

Corn ethanol is concrete evidence of our commitment to researching and funding renewable alternative fuels. Is, however, our commitment to corn ethanol beneficial? Those who produce the corn-the farmers-benefit from the larger market and higher price for their product. Not to mention the government subsidies that are given to many farmers also make such a market profitable to the agricultural community. According to the Kansas Fuel Retailer's Ethanol Guide the federal government grants a $0.51 per gallon tax credit from the general fund to ethanol plants.

Corn ethanol does not provide cleaner air, however. According to the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University which sponsored the "Workshop on the Environmental, Resource and Trade Implications of Biofuels", it appears that corn ethanol may not be a smaller emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) than gasoline. In addition, the Workshop says that air quality with the use of E85 is no better or perhaps even worse than gasoline with respect to health problems such as asthma and respiratory disease. Increase in food prices, soil erosion, runoff, and CO2emissions from greater cultivation of agriculture were also found to be harmful products of corn ethanol according to the Workshop.

Further, Ford Gunter of the Houston Business Journal cites numerous examples of restaurant owners facing the necessity of significantly increasing their prices. The Workshop also cites production of corn ethanol as a serious factor in the reduction of natural ecosystems. Studies by The Nature Conservancy and University of Minnesota also supported this idea, saying that the carbon stored in natural areas is released, forming "carbon debt", when the land is cultivated for corn, sugarcane, palm trees, or soybeans production. Studies show, that as a result of this cultivation 17 to 420 times more carbon is released into the environment than is acquired by substituting fossil fuels for corn ethanol production.

Joe Fargione, lead author of the study and a scientist with The Nature Conservancy, says that this cultivation is not worth the price we must pay. The Nature Conservancy says that converting grasslands to corn ethanol production "creates a biofuel carbon debt that would take approximately 48 years to repay".

J.R. Pegg of Environment News Service cites Princeton University, Iowa State University, and the Woods Hole Research Center who say that corn ethanol production "nearly doubles greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gasses for 167 years". These sources also propose that "estimates that corn-based ethanol results in 20% reductions in GHG compared to fossil fuels are inaccurate".

Another important topic when discussing ethanol is that of net energy. Net energy is the total amount of energy produced minus the cost of the energy input necessary to produce that final energy. David Pimentel who has a Ph.D. from Cornell University and Dr. Michael Wang who has a Ph.D. in ecology from UC-Davis disagree on the net energy of corn ethanol. Dr. Wang assigns a net energy balance of 20,400 BTUs while Pimentel assigns a net energy balance of -53,600 BTUs, according to The New American. If Pimentel is correct then ethanol production is not a profitable or beneficial investment of our valuable corn resources.

The Institute of Energy Research provides support for Pimentel's position saying that "even if all the corn produced in America last year were dedicated to ethanol, it would reduce the U.S. consumption of gasoline by only 12 percent." In addition according to the IER, 4 to 5 gallons of water are necessary to produce one gallon of ethanol at the distillery. That goes without mention of the 880 gallons of water irrigated corn needs to furnish one gallon of ethanol.

To say the least, corn ethanol stands on unstable ground. There is sufficient question that corn ethanol is the cleaner, renewable, and more secure form of energy than gasoline. Before we dedicate more research and resources to ethanol production we should consider what other realistic options are available to us. My next articles will present the energy sources that we have as a country that are not being utilized anywhere close to their potential.