Allison Windham (’13)
*This essay is the first installment of a Point-Counterpoint on Ethanol
Just a few years ago, an outsider observing the U.S. never would have known that the world was running out of petroleum; Hummers roamed the highways, $3.00 per gallon of gasoline was unheard of, and optimism abounded about a potential new source of fuel: corn-based ethanol. The idea that rolling golden cornfields could one day replace the monstrous rigs and black muck we’ve relied on for our energy was extremely appealing. It seemed that corn had the potential make the world a happier and greener place. Though many still wish to perpetuate that myth (namely those who live in agricultural states such as Iowa), the use of corn for ethanol production has since become a contentious issue. New information about the consequences of using ethanol have come to light, tipping the balance in favor of those opposed to corn-based fuels. The main arguments against corn-based Ethanol are that it would deplete food resources, is less efficient than the existing alternatives, and engenders many risks.
It’s one thing for the world supply of oil to dwindle. In the short term, that means that the general population will fly less often and do its best to conserve gas and energy. On the other hand, if the world begins to utilize its already scarce food sources to perpetuate a culture based on transportation and materialism, it will soon have many other problems.
Corn is not a perpetual resource like wind- though it can be planted again and again, it requires specific types of soil to thrive and fields can only grow corn intermittently, with the “off” years allowing the soil to rest and regain lost nutrients. If it were to become the world’s fuel supply, suitable fields previously used for food crops would be reallocated for the cultivation of fuel crops. Because not all land is suitable for corn, reallocation of land to fuel would create a shortage of land for food crops. As it is, floods and the relentless summer sun have reduced the amount of arable land, making corn has scarcer and more expensive this year than in past years. If fuel crops relegate food crops to even fewer fields, food prices would rise even more sharply. In turn, this would increase the cost of Ethanol production due to the rising cost of corn, and if food sources like corn continue to be converted into fuel, the world will find it more difficult to feed its growing population with each passing year and each new ethanol plant opened. Though opponents argue that using corn for ethanol production is no different than using it for insect repellant or antibiotics, that is categorically untrue. Unlike other uses, the amount of corn that would be used to produce enough ethanol to sustain the world is of a far greater magnitude and would dramatically influence markets as well as the diet of the world population.
However, food scarcity isn’t the only downside to corn-based ethanol – it’s also far less efficient than gasoline. Firstly, ethanol contains approximately 34 percent less energy per unit volume than gasoline, which theoretically translates to a 34 percent drop in efficiency, as measured by miles per gallon. Though pure ethanol has not yet been tested for efficiency, E85 (a mixture composed of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) is about 26 percent less efficient than pure gasoline. Additionally, ethanol presents a huge problem for engines in cold weather. Once the temperature falls below a certain level, ethanol doesn’t have enough vapor pressure to evaporate and spark the ignition. This is why the United States and a few other countries have begun to sell E85 and other similar substances. When the climate becomes particularly frigid, the gasoline in the mixture allows the engine to start. Lastly, though ethanol produces less greenhouse gasses than gasoline, it still only has an energy balance ratio of 1:1.3, meaning that one unit of fossil fuel energy is required to create 1.3 energy units from the resulting ethanol. This pales in comparison to the energy balance of crude oil, which is 1:5.
Corn-based ethanol was originally pitched as being a healthier, safer alternative to gasoline. In recent years the government has unearthed data that ethanol production produces more volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, than had originally been disclosed. VOCs are compounds that, when released into the air, lower air quality and cause damage to soil and groundwater. Additionally, a research team of atmospheric scientists at Stanford University did a comparative study of E85 and gasoline. They found that relative to gasoline, E85 would increase the risk of air pollution deaths by nine percent. It would also significantly increase the ozone levels, which in turn would increase photochemical smog and aggravate medical problems such as asthma.
Despite scientists’ belief that the world’s oil supplies will be depleted within the next fifty years, the number of people who argue for corn-based ethanol is quickly dwindling, which proves just how unworkable it is. Ethanol’s supporters suggest that we embrace corn-based ethanol, essentially because it exists and it works. They present many claims that it is efficient, clean, and harmless, yet the factual evidence garnered by the scientific community contradicts those claims. Science has produced damning evidence that ethanol is significantly less efficient than gasoline (on the order of 34 percent), that it produces more VOCs than originally disclosed, and that it would aggravate health problems, increase ozone levels and lead to increased rates of death from air pollution. In light of these facts, it’s safe to say that corn-based ethanol is not an ideal option. In addition to the three main issues, ethanol production would lead to deforestation, soil erosion, and a depletion of water resources. However, there are other alternatives that are currently being researched and tested, namely bio-diesel and cellulosic ethanol, which is the greenest alternative that presented thus far.
Over the next generation as our gasoline supply is depleted and prices continue to skyrocket, science and technology will be in a to race against time to fill the gap left by fossil fuels. Based on current information, it seems that ethanol or other food-based fuels are not the answer we seek.