Kruse Kronicle

The Many Myths of Ethanol

—

by

mwkruse
in , , ,

RealClearPolitics.com: The Many Myths of Ethanol

When everyone in politics jumps on a bandwagon like ethanol, I start to wonder if there's something wrong with it. And there is. Except for that fact that ethanol comes from corn, nothing you're told about it is true. As the Cato Institute's energy expert Jerry Taylor said on a recent "Myths" edition of "20/20," the case for ethanol is based on a baker's dozen myths.

A simple question first. If ethanol's so good, why does it need government subsidies? Shouldn't producers be eager to make it, knowing that thrilled consumers will reward them with profits?

But consumers won't reward them, because without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline.

The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant," Taylor says.

And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline is. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it.

More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn growing — which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides.

This makes ethanol the "solution"?

……

OK, but it will cut down on air pollution, right? Wrong again. Studies indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline.

Well, then, the ethanol champs must be right when they say it will reduce greenhouse gases and reverse global warming.

Nope. "Virtually all studies show that the greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once we examine the entire life cycle of the two fuels," Taylor says.

The triumph of symbolism vs substance.

Comments

5 responses to “The Many Myths of Ethanol”

  1. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    It gets better. My uncles, who own a dairy, are paying 50 percent more for feed this year than they did last year. Ethanol quotas mean that there’s less corn on the feed market to begin with, and government subsidies make it possible for ethanol producers to outbid farmers for the supplies that do exist. The end result? Expensive milk, cheese and ice cream.
    The costs associated with this kind of nonsense don’t stop at the gas pump.

    Reply
  2. Ryan O Avatar
    Ryan O

    Only people who come from a fossil fuel background believe that Ethanol is the answer. It is simply the wrong kind of thinking. However, for people who want “energy independence”, while maintaining the status quo of the current fuel market, ethanol is the right solution. It is like putting filters on cigarettes. Thanks for reminding people just because people suggest it doesn’t mean the data backs them up.

    Reply
  3. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I would argue that if you aren’t concerned about burning fossil fuel and you want independence, then open up American oil deposits that have been placed off limits by the government and build nuclear power plants. Both would have a far greater impact than ethanol. From the article:
    “But won’t it at least get us unhooked from Middle East oil? Wouldn’t that be worth the other costs? Another myth. A University of Minnesota study [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11206] shows that even turning all of America’s corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand. As Taylor told an energy conference last March, “For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all cropland in the United States, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that for cultivation.””
    I think ethanol’s contribution (espeically in light of the energy used to produce it) does not help reduce dependency by significant amounts.

    Reply
  4. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    Nuclear waste still scares the heebie-jeebies out of me. I don’t care how efficient it is- spent nuclear fuel is just too dangerous.
    I think nuclear power comes from an “old school” paradigm, and the ethanol push reminds of the nuclear push of yore. The difference is that in the early nuclear days it was the only alternative technology, and ethanol is not the only new thing out there.
    I think we are verge (next few decades) of coming up with technology that will produce Clean energy relatively cheaply, efficiently and without fossil or nuclear fuel. I hear that newer solar tech. is much advanced toward this end.
    Dana

    Reply
  5. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    I think Dana is right – other technologies are far more promising. I’m also rather unconvinced by the idea of using food in this way. As has been pointed out, I can’t see how you’re going to avoid raising the price of food, and I also think we underestimate the possibility of drought, disease, etc. causing major crop failures. Then you’d have food and energy needs competing for limited resources.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading