Busting the Ethanol Myth
by Oliver St John
Ethanol fuel is a hot discussion point today and a significant political tool in the arena of alternative energy. For one thing, it is cheaper than regular gasoline and can be added to it in existing tanks (up to a 10% ratio) without difficulty. For another, it's made here in the good old US of A, which means reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But here's the real reason that so many politicians like it around primary season: ethanol is made from corn, which is of immense benefit to Iowa, site of the first primary of the season.
A number of prominent figures from both major parties, and indeed a number of green causes, have endorsed ethanol as a fuel for the future, but there is a significant problem with ethanol production that has yet to be addressed satisfactorily.
The process of harvesting the corn requires vehicles running on gasoline. The process of fermenting the corn and distilling the ethanol from it also requires hardware running on petroleum-based products. A joint study by engineers from UC-Berkeley and Cornell University recently found that ethanol production requires 29% more oil than it produces in oil-equivalent. Other studies have placed it somewhat more favorably, but almost all agree that the production of ethanol is in itself a very energy-intensive process. As such, it is unlikely to yield a substantial change in our voracious consumption of petroleum.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has called for a massive expansion of ethanol production as part of her energy policy. Specifically, she is referring to a project to make E-85 fuel more widespread.
E-85 is a fuel made from 85% ethanol, which can be used in any vehicle built to run on it. Naturally this is only likely to take effect if people voluntarily make the switch to E-85 compatible transportation, but since these vehicles are also capable of running on regular unleaded gasoline, people shopping for new cars may well opt to go for the greater compatibility, especially since there will be tax credits involved.
Thus far, the best opposition that has been brought up so far to the Clinton plan has been, "If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil so badly, why won't you let us drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?"
Perhaps Senator Clinton just likes wildlife.
The other facet of the Senator's energy policy is a $50 billion fund, paid for out of the oil companies' obscene profits, to fund strategic energy measure in times of crisis and promote alternative energy research. This particular piece of Robin-Hood politics is sure to guarantee some popular support for the Senator's eventual campaign for the presidency. This fund may prove infinitely more crucial to "green" causes than ethanol; there are two other problems posed by ethanol as a fuel. Firstly, ethanol is soluble in water, thus capable of entering water systems and contaminating them. Secondly, ethanol has a higher vapor pressure than gasoline, which means that it is less completely burned in today's engines, thus emitting more smog-causing particles than gasoline.
Ethanol fuels may have a future, but they are by no means a better alternative today.