This was supposed to be a
cakewalk, a no-brainer, a slam-dunk.
Ethanol from corn
lessened our dependence on foreign oil, they told us. It helped our
struggling Midwestern farmers. It was much better for the
environment. Who could not support this?
As it turns out,
quite a few of us. Ethanol plants are sprouting like weeds in
mid-America, but more and more question marks are emerging along
this corn-paved road to energy independence. Ethanol, as it is made
from corn, isn’t nearly the renewable fuel it’s cracked up to be.
Here’s the simple but telling equation: Our federal farm
bill subsidizes the growing of corn — about $10 billion this
past year, according to the Environmental Working Group. That
policy leads to overproduction of this thirsty crop, which drains
the Great Plains’ precious Ogallala Aquifer and requires massive
amounts of nitrate fertilizer that, inevitably, seep into that same
groundwater.
Our federal, state and local governments
also subsidize the building and operation of ethanol plants,
usually with incentives and property tax breaks. Many of these
plants have been cited for water and air pollution violations.
Yet another subsidy, more than 50 cents a gallon, occurs
at the pump. The fuel desperately needs it because, depending on
the ethanol content and the vehicle, it gets anywhere from 5
percent to 30 percent worse mileage efficiency than regular
unleaded.
After all this, how can we view the corn
ethanol apparatus any other way than the obvious? It is little more
than political gift to the corn and ethanol lobbies.
When
you scratch beyond those lobbies’ slogans and sound bites, the
realities emerge.The latest: Some, perhaps a majority, of our
newest ethanol plants are making the switch from natural gas to
coal to make the fuel. Because coal is cheaper, a new Iowa ethanol
plant has chosen that route. Similar plants are planned for North
Dakota, Montana, Minnesota and perhaps Kansas.
The
problem, says the Natural Resources Defense Council, is that the
carbon emissions alone from the coal plants will far outweigh any
possible gains in using ethanol in our tanks.
Other corn
ethanol realities:
- Producing one
gallon of corn ethanol needs 1,700 gallons of water to irrigate the
corn and process the fuel, according to Cornell researcher David
Pimentel, who’s been lambasted by ethanol proponents because he
says what they don’t like to hear. Because of that depletion, the
Ogallala Aquifer in the Plains is under considerable stress. Crop
irrigation has already effectively dried up most of the aquifer in
the Texas Panhandle, western Kansas and eastern Colorado. - Growing corn for ethanol increases soil erosion and
reduces biodiversity, according to Washington State University
researchers. - The Des Moines
Register, in an enterprise story last fall, found that
Iowa’s ethanol plants have contaminated the state’s air and water.
A corn ethanol plant in Hastings, Neb., was cited for clean-air
violations every year from 1995 to 2004. And some studies performed
in California, where ethanol blends are required in the Sacramento
and Los Angeles areas, show that the fuel increases harmful
emissions. - The rich get richer: Nearly half of
all ethanol plants are owned by Cargill and ADM, and that
percentage is likely to increase, according to the Renewable Fuels
Association. - In parts of the Midwest this
spring, the price of Ethanol-10 was higher than regular unleaded.
Since a gallon of E-10 lacks the energy content of a gallon of
regular, the price of the former must be 15 to 75 cents cheaper to
offer any real savings for consumers. (Check out
www.fueleconomy.gov)
So does all this mean we
should forget ethanol entirely as a player in our energy future?
Well, no.
Ethanol will become a more attractive
alternative when we kick our corn addiction and get serious about
more efficient alternatives. It can be made from numerous materials
— landfill waste, livestock manure, even beer waste, as Coors
is demonstrating.
But what really has scientists and
researchers excited is cellulose.These materials include wheat
straw, hemp, miscanthus and switchgrass. The latter promises the
greatest rewards.The technology is developing quickly. The huge
advantages of cellulosic ethanol are threefold — it’s much
easier on our natural resources than corn, it yields much more
energy per acre(and it’s a perennial), and it emits two-thirds less
greenhouse gases.
America’s first commercial cellulosic
ethanol plant may break ground next year in Idaho. It will use
wheat straw and barley to make its ethanol. That’s a good first
step. From there, we can pursue truly environmentally friendly
fuels and put this culture of corn ethanol to bed.
Pete Letheby is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a
service of High Country News (hcn.org). He is a
writer and reporter in Grand Island,
Nebraska.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
