OPINION & EDITORIAL
Doyle overstates benefits of ethanol for political points
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Scannell:
- Doyle overstates benefits of ethanol for political points (February 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Letters to the Editor (March 17, 2005)
- Ethanol proposal mere cop-out (March 14, 2005)
- Gas tax hike would keep America's engine running (October 17, 2007)
- Bush gets unfair, nonsensical blame for gas prices (September 28, 2006)
- Mad at MADD (April 18, 2002)
by Ryan Scannell
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
One solution to this country's severe dependence on foreign oil lies with a component of beer and liquor — a molecule responsible for intoxicating college students and contributing to their penchant to skip Friday morning classes.
Christened "ethanol" by chemists, this combustible alcohol partially replaces gasoline as an automotive fuel. Employing fermentation techniques similar to those of the liquor industry, American ethanol plants convert corn into fuel, allowing the United States to grow its own fuel. As Gov. Doyle said, according to a press release from the governor's office, ethanol makes America "more dependent on the Midwest and less dependent on the Mideast."
Nevertheless, too many politicians exaggerate ethanol's role in weaning the United States from foreign oil. Despite estimates that a mere 16-20 percent of the country's current fuel needs could be satisfied by converting 100 percent of the current corn production into ethanol, many podium pounders advocate ethanol mandate laws that would require automotive fuel to contain 10 percent ethanol.
These political figures care little about your rights and satisfaction as a consumer. An ethanol mandate would force you to buy ethanol in order to fulfill your fuel needs, even if gasoline is cheaper than ethanol, your car engine performs better on gasoline than ethanol or you want to avoid polluting the air with NOx emissions from ethanol.
Moreover, an ethanol mandate is unnecessary if ethanol is a better fuel than gasoline. Consumers will actively purchase ethanol if it achieves more miles per dollar, extends engine life, and supports American agriculture and renewable energy instead of Saudi princes and big oil.
An ethanol mandate especially hurts Wisconsin's animal agriculture by artificially inflating the demand for corn, an important daily staple for livestock. As more and more corn is fermented into ethanol, corn prices increase due to supply and demand. According to a release from Gary Schnitkey, a farm financial specialist at the University of Illinois, "While exhibiting variability, corn prices did not trend up or down between 1973 and 2005 and averaged $2.35 per bushel." Since last summer, corn prices have climbed to $4 per bushel, and many economists are telling farmers to get used to high corn prices. Although other grains, including distillers' grains, may be fed to livestock, there is no substitute equivalent to corn.
Due to high prices, cash croppers will grow more corn, but crop acreage and land productivity have upper limits. Additional corn production comes at the cost of other crops, such as soybeans. Soybeans are another important input for animal agriculture. As cash croppers plant corn instead of soybeans, soybean inventories decrease and soybean prices increase.
High grain prices result in a combination of decreased profit margins for Wisconsin farmers and increased beef, pork and dairy prices for Wisconsin families. Ethanol mandates sacrifice animal farmers' livelihoods and families' low food costs in the name of renewable fuel. Despite the economic inefficiencies, Wisconsin Democrats and Republicans find an ethanol mandate very appealing. Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, kicked off the new year by announcing a bill that would require 10 percent of motor fuels sold in Wisconsin come from renewable sources like ethanol and biodiesel by 2008. This minimum standard would increase to 15 percent by 2012.
In order for a bill to become Wisconsin law, the state's Assembly, Senate and governor must approve it. During the previous session, the Assembly voted 54-38 in favor of AB15, a bill requiring regular unleaded gasoline to contain between 9.2 to 10 percent ethanol. If such a bill were on the Assembly floor today, it would pass handily.
However, a bipartisan coalition of state senators narrowly killed the same bill in a 17-15 vote last March. During the November elections, two Republican senators who opposed ethanol mandates were replaced and the Democratic Party seized majority control. The result is a Senate that probably favors ethanol mandates.
Our governor is a lush when it comes to ethanol mandates. In August, Gov. Doyle and U.S. Rep. Ron Kind released a joint statement supporting a higher federal renewable fuels standard that called for 7 percent renewable fuel use by 2010 and 20 percent renewable fuel use by 2015.
Unfortunately for Wisconsin, politicians can score big political points through supporting ethanol mandates. Democrats can expand their image as crusaders for renewable energy, the environment and the downtrodden, while simultaneously positioning Republicans as in bed with big oil and insensitive to the needs of the lower and middle classes. On the other hand, by denying the tenets of capitalism, Republicans can distance themselves from oil companies and the bourgeoisie.
Shrewd politics does not necessarily produce good public policy. Ethanol is an exciting renewable fuel that can meet some of our fuel needs, but it has its limits. By imposing ethanol mandates, public officials ignore the limits of ethanol at the cost of the public's well-being. To act in Wisconsin's best interests, state officials should oppose ethanol mandates while promoting further research into renewable energy.
Ryan Scannell (rsscannell@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in Biochemistry and Agricultural Business Management
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 7:10am):
You're right, Ryan, I'm pretty sick of this unleaded gas bullshit too. Say no to ethanol and yes to lead. The revolution begins here, now. Viva la lead-olution.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 7:14am):
Ethanol would ONLY make sense if we could grow three crops of sugarcane in Wisconsin.
Otherwise it cost more energy than it's worth.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html
Alcohol is a corrosive solvent. Anything exposed to ethanol must be made of corrosion-resistant (and expensive) stainless steel or plastic--from fuel-injection components to the tanks, pumps and hoses that dispense E85, as well as the tankers that deliver it.
Growing corn is an intensive process that requires pesticides, fertilizer, heavy equipment and transport. When considering the viability of ethanol, the total impact of all that activity needs to be taken into account.
Vehicles that operate only on electricity require no warmup, run almost silently and have excellent performance up to the limit of their range. Also, electric cars are cheap to "refuel." At the average price of 10 cents per kwh, it costs around 2 cents per mile. Electric cars can be recharged at night, when generating plants are under-utilized.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 12:19pm):
To 7:14.
You are right on ethanol, bad choice, for your reasons and others.
Electric cars, bad choice as well. There is already huge debate about power lines, if everyone starts driving electric cars (no matter when they charge them) electric demand will skyrocket, more power plants will be needed, and cost per kwh will increase (it is unreasonable to assume current prices). On top of that, many more lines will be required to get power from the plants to the cities (and where there are proposed lines, there is much debate and they never get done on time and cost the ratepayers buku bucks).
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 12:52pm):
12:19, the United State is incapable of making infrastructure upgrades, in your opinion? And, you're assuming that everyone will convert to electric vehicles over night, not gradually.
Why aren't there windmills lining our interstate highways right now? For the sake of migrating birds or the ever important asthetics?
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 2:02pm):
Also, 12:19, if people charge their cars at night, there will not be a surge in demand. And by the time electric cars are more integrated and more people own them, we will hopefully also have non-oil powered energy sources supplying our electricity.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 2:13pm):
Why do higher feed purchase prices count as anti farm but higher corn sale prices do not count as pro farm?
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 2:47pm):
Also keep in mind that burning a gasoline/ethanol mix in a gasoline specific engine (all of them!) without reprogramming the controls for that engine causes much less fuel efficiency and can even cause the car to BURN MORE GASOLINE!!! Ethanol is not even close to the best solution unless we build engines that are designed to run strictly on ethanol.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 5:23pm):
I am 12:19. Energy is energy is energy, how much energy does a car use to go 100 miles, 300 miles, or more? A lot (it really depends on the weight of the car and the frictional losses, both due to wind and imperfect lubrication). Anyhow, if even a small percentage of people used such cars, the draw on the grid would be exceptional, no matter what time of day it occurred (of course it would be worse in the dead of winter or heat of summer). Yes, utilities are capable of upgrading the infrastructure, but it will cost you! So much for the low cost per kwh arguement (upgrading is NOT cheap and someone has to pay).
Why aren't windmills lining the roadways (and the nation)? Because they are a lousy form of energy. They are very inefficient, and their highest capacity margin happens to be in the fall and spring when the demand is least. In the dead of winter, they actually use more energy than they produce (in the north) because something has to heat the oil that lubricates the things. At best, one can assume a 25% capacity factor... barely worth the effort, but the effort is needed to appease those who know nothing about it yet have loud voices. If you wish to destroy billions of acres to produce the energy needed for electric cars, by all means, build windmills.
You really need to think this stuff through.
BTW, the newer E85 cars to adjust for use of E85 and get very poor mileage. It is real hard to justify the added cost to most consumers who already have a hard time paying for gas.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 5:38pm):
Me again, where are we going to get the energy to charge all the cars (and how is anyone going to be able to travel cross country... a hybrid will work... not very comfortable, but will work) if you rely on charging batteries? Stop every 300 miles to charge? Hopefully hotels charge less to charge than they do for a phone call.
Anyhow, the energy comes from somewhere, you burn more fossil fuels (not a big issue since humans are not responsible for global warming... but if you believe we are, then electric cars are your enemy), more nuc plants are needed (what about all that horrid nuclear waste... wait, I forgot, coal plants release more radioactive material into the environment than nuc plants... a double whammy against fossil), or we can destroy much of our beloved land appeasing the green crowd with wind and solar.
I am all for change, I would love to see change, but I hate to say it, once confronted with reality, even the greens will cringe when they see how much it is going to cost them and they see the cost to the environment they hold so dear.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 5:52pm):
Anon 2:13, the article specifically says "animal agriculture" and "animal farmers" numerous times.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 7:12pm):
1.4 - 1.5 gallons of ethanol equals the energy output of 1 gallon of gas (thus, no matter how great the engine, the mileage of ethanol will be worse). 33+ kwh equivalent per gallon of gas, which means to run an equivalent car, the battery charge would be equal to running 33 microwaves (1000 w), or about 82 400 w refrigerators for 1 hour for each gallon of gas consumed.
That is a whole heap o' 'lectricity to use to charge a car... and it has to come from somewhere.
Anonymous (February 7, 2007 @ 11:08pm):
Next time you're at the local gas station, read the pump. No, not the price or the number of gallons you're pumping, closer to the spot where you grabbed the handle. Ethanol is already used at most stations.
Anonymous (March 7, 2008 @ 10:39pm):
Corn Based Ethanol/E85 – Not a Bargain; Not Feasible as an Alternative Fuel Source
(Letter to Decorah (Iowa) Newspapers 2/19/08)
To The Editor:
In the October 23rd edition of the Decorah Public Opinion, there were two columns presented on the editorial page encouraging the further development and expanded production of corn based Ethanol and E85 fuels. I have known and respected one of these writers my entire life. There have since been multiple columns in Decorah Newspapers by Peter Graham (“Farming and Your Freedom”) containing ongoing Ethanol production discussion, including addressing the politics encompassing the issue. In general, it has been stated in Mr. Graham’s columns that increased production of E85 fuel will aid in gaining U.S. independence from foreign oil, save on gasoline, protect the environment and also benefit farmers. I am writing to pass along information I have learned from greater minds than myself who believe that the benefits of corn derived ethanol as an alternative fuel for our country is a myth.
I write from the Minnesota perspective as this is where I live. The corn based ethanol production issues apply in Iowa and throughout the entire Corn Belt.
On a more positive note, I have included information about a promising alternative fuel source that appears to be highly viable and innovative; Norway’s pioneering HyNor Project. This project includes the completion of a strategic roadway corridor along the southerly coast of Norway dedicated for the specific use of public and private vehicles powered by Hydrogen fuel. The Hydrogen fuel is generated at stations along this route from various sources including electrolysis of water (http://www.hynor.no/english).
Now back to corn based ethanol; I am not running for any public office nor represent any private interest. I am a simple civil engineer with a curiosity about the future for alternative energy development for the good of our country as a whole. I am not pro big-oil (on the contrary). I am not anti-farming. I support government farm programs that would apply common sense assistance for the farming community which promotes fair prices for farm commodities and incentive programs for soil conservation. Unfortunately common sense is not common when politicians become involved. The Federal government is dedicating 14 billion dollars in tax credits in the next four years to support corn based (only) ethanol. Is this logical and justified? Please read on.
The facts that are stated below are taken from multiple articles and television news reports, which are each referenced with an internet address. I encourage those interested in this topic (pro or con) to take time to access these sources and make your own judgment. I ask that corn based E85 advocates enlighten me on what I’m missing here.
My initial reaction to corn derived ethanol and E85 as an alternative fuel source was that of confusion. I found it hard to understand how E85 could be remotely feasible given that it takes fossil fuels to power farm equipment to plow the fields; plant the corn; apply fertilizer and weed controls; harvest the corn; dry the corn (if necessary); and haul the corn to market. Ethanol production plants are powered by fossil fuels. A national expert on ethanol Dr. David Tilman, an ecologist at the University of Minnesota, states that within a gallon of corn derived Ethanol; only 20% represents “new energy”. The other 80% of that gallon represents fossil fuel based energy needed to produce the Ethanol. This low ratio for new energy is alarming to me given that the large governmental subsidy programs are currently based on corn as the sole source for ethanol production. This information is detailed in a multi-installment comprehensive story prepared by KARE 11 TV in Minneapolis (http://search.kare11.com/sp?aff=122&keywords=ethanol).
I first heard Professor Tilman speak at a conference in 2006, where he stated that if all of the corn grown in the United States was dedicated to ethanol production, the resulting decrease in gasoline use would be only 12% nationwide. Given that corn will continue to be in demand as a crucial food source within U.S. and for export, the net total amount of corn based ethanol produced would put only a tiny dent reduction in the total amount of gasoline consumed annually. The level of energy independence generated from the production of corn based ethanol would be miniscule and not worthy of such a major investment of Federal dollars.
Dr. Tilman and others have identified native prairie grasses and other cellulose based plants as a better source for ethanol production where significant use of fossil fuels is minimal and the “new energy” ratio is greatly enhanced. The production of the prairie grasses would be much less costly for the farmer (no plowing of the field, ongoing planting, fertilizing, weed control and fewer soil conservation measures due to permanent ground cover) (http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/Back_to_the_future_prairie_grasses.html & http://www.discover.umn.edu/featuredDiscoveries/biomassBreakthrough.php) . (I won’t dive into sugar cane as a low energy in / high output source, but please look it up). Unfortunately; moving away from corn derived ethanol is not the politically correct answer for corn producers. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is an E85 advocate, but has publicly acknowledged that the current methods for corn based ethanol production are at “the Model T” stage. Why then are tremendous amounts of Federal funds dedicated to this flawed alternative energy product?
Current political rhetoric by the ethanol lobby includes statements that we must stop importing oil from countries that don’t like us and look to cause us harm (inferring Islamic nations). In the Kare 11 story, it was pointed out that the top two sources for foreign oil imported to the U.S. were Canada and Mexico. I don’t think we need to fear our friends up in the Great White North and Mexico is also an ally. Rounding out the top 5 are Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. Only Saudi Arabia falls within the volatile Middle East. Venezuela has leadership issues that have been problematic to the United States. Attaining independence from the need to import fossil fuels to the U.S. is absolutely a worthy long term goal. Still, the fear tactics utilized by E85 advocates about the group of countries currently exporting oil to the U.S. are inflammatory and nonsensical.
Another important issue that must be addressed is the current equivalent vehicle operating cost difference between E85 fuel and regular unleaded gasoline. I found the current E85 price in Apple Valley (MN) where I reside to be $2.47 per gallon on Sunday, February 10. The price for unleaded gasoline at the same station at that time was $2.80 per gallon (The price for E85 is relatively high despite its Federal subsidy). Also; it is documented in an EPA / U.S. Department of energy document that vehicle mileage for E85 is 20-30% lower than unleaded gasoline (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2008.pdf). In the KARE 11 story previously referenced, their comparison vehicle showed a 39% drop in fuel mileage from regular unleaded (0% ethanol) to E85. If you drive a typical SUV or truck vehicle with an average highway/city mileage of 17 miles per gallon with regular gasoline, the equivalent mileage with E85 and a factored average 30% drop would be about 12 mpg. Given these numbers and simple math, the cost per mile for E85 is ($2.47/gal) / (12 miles/gal) = $0.206 per mile; the cost with unleaded gas is ($2.80/gal) / (17 miles/gal) = $0.165 per mile. In this simple comparison of current market prices, the cost per mile using subsidized E85 is approximately 25% higher than regular gasoline! The current significant cost increment upward for use of corn based E85 will soon become apparent to the consumer who would likely cease to use this less efficient and more costly fuel alternative. The documented commitment of Federal funding for corn based ethanol in the next four years appears to be a boondoggle.
The basic laws of economics must apply for vehicular fuels: Supply and Demand. There is currently no great demand for corn based E85; there will likely be no surge in demand, and the supply is generated only by the government subsidies. We need to move forward with research on the more viable sources for ethanol. I want corn farmers to make a good living, but big government subsidies for a bad product with minimal demand is not the American way. There is an elephant in the room and it is corn derived ethanol.
There is an interesting article that was published in Business Week April 27, 2006 written by Ed Wallace. Mr. Wallace is a journalist and an automotive expert from Dallas, Texas. The title of the article is “Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts”. This article provides background history for ethanol production and the involvement with the Federal Government going back to the oil crisis in the 70’s. The basic point of this article is that use of ethanol and E85 as an alternative fuel is not new and its flaws have previously been exposed. (http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm).
As mentioned in the third paragraph, Norway has implemented the HyNor Project; a Hydrogen fuel based roadway corridor with fueling stations at key City links extending from Oslo to Bergen. The first fueling station was opened in Stavanger in August of 2006. Production of the Hydrogen fuel along this route is accomplished through multiple methods with available technology (http://www.hynor.no/pdf/engelsk-hynor-presentation.pdf).
The following is an excerpt from an article describing the project: “As part of the signed Kyoto Treaty, Norway realized cutting emissions from power production was not a viable option, but perhaps they could take a bold step forward in implementing the infrastructure needed for a common and accessible means of hydrogen refueling. This alternative made sense because the emission from hydrogen vehicles is zero compared to fossil fuel based vehicles which chug 1.5 billion tons of gas emissions into the environment.”
“The Norway HyNor Project is working with both governmental agencies as well as the private sector to produce this hydrogen corridor. The plans include the commercial feasibility of large-scale hydrogen fuel based vehicles such as cars, taxis, trucks and buses. Private vehicles will also be used in this globally anticipated study and fueling stations are slated to be completed so that a real-world test case can provide the evidence needed for a shift in the world's fuel dependence.”
“The ultimate achievement would be for the world to recognize that a model for hydrogen transportation is feasible, practical and happening right now. If the Norway HyNor Project is successful, a national infrastructure will be achieved in a few short years (now currently in early stages of operation) with the well noted environmental benefits of hydrogen fuel firmly in place. In that moment, the world may begin to see a rapid readjustment to an entirely new fuel supply.” (http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm).
I conclude that we as a nation must use common sense with identification of and commitment towards viable alternative energy sources now and into the future. Corn derived ethanol production defies common sense for the many reasons stated herein. Technology is progressing in many areas for new sources of “clean” energy. I was driving up Interstate 35 north of Ames last Saturday and marveled at the now extensive array of wind turbines capturing the 40 mph northwest winds and converting the Earth's naturally clean and inexhaustible resource to produce electricity. This is an example of energy technology that is economically and technically viable (near 100% “new” energy). Wind energy and Norway’s Hydrogen fuel project in my opinion are examples of the paths we should travel towards win/win scenarios for energy independence and reduction in the use of fossil fuels for the good of our nation.
Jim Maloney
Apple Valley, MN
jamespm316@frontiernet.net
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
