Posted on 06/02/2003 1:05:11 PM PDT by Sonny M
WASHINGTON (AP) - Politicians hail ethanol, the corn-based gasoline additive, as a boon to the environment and a way to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.
But ethanol also comes with its own environmental problems and scientists disagree over whether producing ethanol actually uses more fossil energy than it replaces.
The Senate this week will decide whether to double the amount of ethanol to be used in gasoline, to 5 billion gallons a year. Critics say the plan is just one more subsidy for corn growers. Supporters make the case that the proposal is essential to an energy policy that is less reliant on oil.
``It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will protect the environment,'' says Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
There is skepticism about those claims.
Ethanol's benefits are ``a mixed bag,'' says Blake Early, a lobbyist for the American Lung Association.
Ethanol's clearest air quality benefit is that it significantly cuts carbon monoxide, he says. But ethanol also releases more nitrogen oxide, a key element of smog, and evaporates more easily than gasoline, causing still other air pollution problems, Early says.
On balance, ethanol ``certainly isn't worse than gasoline,'' Early says, but ``it's not that helpful from a smog perspective.''
The government also has identified ethanol plants as significant air polluters, but has reached deals to curtail plant emissions.
And some scientists now say that ethanol, while not as troublesome as a methanol-based additive known as MTBE, also may complicate cleaning up gasoline spills into waterways and groundwater.
``It certainly is not all that benign,'' says Tom Curtis, an official of the American Water Works Association, which represents professionals involved in the drinking water supply business.
Curtis cites research indicating that gasoline plumes containing ethanol degrade more slowly in groundwater than plumes of only gasoline. Toxic chemicals such as benzene in ethanol-blended gasoline disperse more widely and take longer to degrade, the studies found.
These studies ``are far from conclusive'' and should be pursued further, says Monte Shaw, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, which represents the ethanol industry.
But he maintains that because ethanol replaces 10 percent of the gasoline, there is also less benzene and other toxic chemicals - normally found in gasoline - going into the water in the first place. And, he says, refiners can blend their gasoline in ways to counter the air pollution concerns caused by ethanol's evaporation.
Ethanol supporters emphasize that it is a motor fuel made in America and that it is not a fossil fuel - particularly from another country.
That, they argue, makes it perfect for improving America's energy security, as well as helping to fight global warming because greenhouse gases mostly come from the burning of fossil fuels.
Critics counter that ethanol does not come through as advertised on either of those points.
``Ethanol does not increase energy security,'' insists David Pimentel, an agricultural ecologist at Cornell University. ``It remains a fact that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it.''
Pimentel says ethanol, when made from corn, should not even be considered a renewable fuel - and actually provides little help on global warming. It takes large amounts of nonrenewable natural gas, coal, and oil to make fertilizer and grow the corn, process ethanol and transport it in trucks and rail cars.
Pimentel's claims, frequently cited by ethanol critics, have prompted a pile of research. Reports from the Agriculture Department, the Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory, and by scientists at two other universities concluded that Pimentel is wrong.
Michael Wang, a co-author in both the Argonne and Agriculture Department studies, maintains that Pimentel used old data that does not take into account substantial improvements in corn farming and ethanol processing. All of that, he contends, has reduced energy use.
In an interview, Piementel dismissed his critics and said he recently updated his findings to reflect current production improvements. Still, he insists, the numbers show a 30 percent net energy loss with ethanol.
By contrast, the Argonne lab and Agriculture Department studies conclude 34 percent overall energy gain in using ethanol. Most of the energy used in making ethanol comes from coal or natural gas, domestic sources instead of petroleum-based gasoline that relies on imports, they note.
Hmmm - with ethanol, you first pay the farmers subsidies to grow the corn, and then you give Archer-Daniels Midland a tax break to make ethanol competitive with gasoline. It would be cheaper just to burn greenbacks, because you only have to pay for THEM once...
People shouldn't drink and drive. Neither should cars.
Ethanol is not an "energy policy," it is exortion paid to the farm-lobby mob.
LOL!! Quote of the week!
Two lies told together. It takes almost a gallon of gasoline just to produce a gallon of ethanol. Ethanol is an unnecessary loop in the production of energy for automobiles, whose only purpose is to justify farm welfare.
By gar, I believe you have precisely summed up the entire article in one well-written paragraph. LOL!
To Chile??
So, if energy input was the only cost in ethanol production, the return on the investment would be 34%. A fairly good return, except for the fact that energy input is far from the only cost in ethanol production.
Here's a crazy idea. Why don't we let some folks produce automobile fuel and let other folks buy the automobile fuel, and let the producer who makes the best fuel most efficiently prevail in the marketplace?
Naaah, it would never work. We need the guiding hand of government to figure this all out.
I get ill as well - for double tax subsidies just to be burning corn squeezin's in car engines instead of drinking them...
To Chile??
It's on the same continent(s), no water obstructions. ~ that's my answer to environMENTALists. Either pollute, or don't pollute at all. This Greenpeace crap about global warming is purely for money. If they really cared about the environment, they would be cavemen. A lot of pollution is bad but lower it down a little more then it will be ok? What a bunch of whackos.
Ethanol is not an "energy policy," it is exortion paid to the farm-lobby mob.
Especially including Archer Daniels Midland.
Right on the mark griddy...if this stuff is as good as sliced bread, it wouldn't need any big subsidies from Uncle Big Bucks, or special legislation, or any help what-so-ever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.