The One Basket Answer
Finding a source of energy that is not based solely on oil is a complicated problem, but one that has to be solved if a host of other problems are to be addressed. Unfortunately, and as usual, US politicians have settled on a simple answer without considering the cost and the consequences: corn-based ethanol. Today's Los Angeles Times has an op-ed piece written by Colin A. Carter and Henry I. Miller which points out some of the unintended consequences of using such a single track approach.
POLICYMAKERS and legislators often fail to consider the law of unintended consequences. The latest example is their attempt to reduce the United States' dependence on imported oil by shifting a big share of the nation's largest crop, corn, to the production of ethanol for fueling automobiles.
Good goal, bad policy. In fact, ethanol will do little to reduce the large percentage of our fuel that is imported (more than 60%), and the ethanol policy will have widespread and profound ripple effects on other markets. Corn farmers and ethanol refiners are ecstatic about the ethanol boom and are enjoying the windfall of artificially enhanced demand. But it will be an expensive and dangerous experiment for the rest of us. ...
President Bush has set a target of replacing 15% of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use, to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative. However, achieving the 15% goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40% of the world's corn supply. This would do more than create mere market distortions; the irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil.
Thus, it is no surprise that the price of corn has doubled in the last year — from $2 to $4 a bushel. We are already seeing upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn. Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60% of the annual U.S. corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs and chickens or used in food or beverages. Thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts. In Mexico, where corn is a staple food, the price of tortillas has skyrocketed because U.S. corn has been diverted to ethanol production.
...Although corn is a renewable resource, it has a far lower yield relative to the energy used to produce it than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from other plants. Moreover, ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage drops off significantly. Finally, adding ethanol raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle.
Lower-cost biomass ethanol — for example, from rice straw (a byproduct of harvesting rice) or switchgrass — would make far more economic sense, but large volumes of ethanol from biomass will not be commercially viable for many years. (And production will be delayed by government policies that specifically encourage corn-based ethanol by employing subsidies.)
I don't agree with some of the assumptions underlying the arguments used by the writers. For example, they suggest it's better to import the cane-based ethanol from Brazil because that country has more land for growing sugar cane for the ethanol and have the distilleries close at hand. However, for Brazil to produce the ethanol for US consumption, it will have to take more of its land from food production, grazing, and forest land. Why is it ok for Brazil to do, but not the US?
Still, the authors have provided a pretty sound analysis of what's wrong with relying on the single and simple fix of corn-based ethanol for our complicated energy needs. What the article implies is that a multi-faceted and long term plan is needed, one that does not depend on a one-size fits all approach and which takes into consideration what the effects of decisions are likely to be.
Sadly, such an approach doesn't appear to be on the horizon. We're too interested in simple fixes that look to be painless.
POLICYMAKERS and legislators often fail to consider the law of unintended consequences. The latest example is their attempt to reduce the United States' dependence on imported oil by shifting a big share of the nation's largest crop, corn, to the production of ethanol for fueling automobiles.
Good goal, bad policy. In fact, ethanol will do little to reduce the large percentage of our fuel that is imported (more than 60%), and the ethanol policy will have widespread and profound ripple effects on other markets. Corn farmers and ethanol refiners are ecstatic about the ethanol boom and are enjoying the windfall of artificially enhanced demand. But it will be an expensive and dangerous experiment for the rest of us. ...
President Bush has set a target of replacing 15% of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use, to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative. However, achieving the 15% goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40% of the world's corn supply. This would do more than create mere market distortions; the irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil.
Thus, it is no surprise that the price of corn has doubled in the last year — from $2 to $4 a bushel. We are already seeing upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn. Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60% of the annual U.S. corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs and chickens or used in food or beverages. Thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts. In Mexico, where corn is a staple food, the price of tortillas has skyrocketed because U.S. corn has been diverted to ethanol production.
...Although corn is a renewable resource, it has a far lower yield relative to the energy used to produce it than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from other plants. Moreover, ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage drops off significantly. Finally, adding ethanol raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle.
Lower-cost biomass ethanol — for example, from rice straw (a byproduct of harvesting rice) or switchgrass — would make far more economic sense, but large volumes of ethanol from biomass will not be commercially viable for many years. (And production will be delayed by government policies that specifically encourage corn-based ethanol by employing subsidies.)
I don't agree with some of the assumptions underlying the arguments used by the writers. For example, they suggest it's better to import the cane-based ethanol from Brazil because that country has more land for growing sugar cane for the ethanol and have the distilleries close at hand. However, for Brazil to produce the ethanol for US consumption, it will have to take more of its land from food production, grazing, and forest land. Why is it ok for Brazil to do, but not the US?
Still, the authors have provided a pretty sound analysis of what's wrong with relying on the single and simple fix of corn-based ethanol for our complicated energy needs. What the article implies is that a multi-faceted and long term plan is needed, one that does not depend on a one-size fits all approach and which takes into consideration what the effects of decisions are likely to be.
Sadly, such an approach doesn't appear to be on the horizon. We're too interested in simple fixes that look to be painless.
Labels: Ethanol
posted by Diane at 4:12 AM
1 Comments:
The real issue is energy use - something they keep missing as they encourage waste on all levels, with this after-disease model to fix the problem with renewable energy to waste.
If we weren't wasting energy heating & cooling empty buildings, enabling fat old men to wear 3 piece wool suits with ties in the heat of summer, and hauling trucks down highways to cover our physical insecurities...we wouldn't be facing such a crisis.
Post a Comment
<< Home