Jon Markman at MSN Money doesn't hold back when he says "Corn-based ethanol production is sure to go down as one of the greatest mistakes ever in U.S. energy policy." It's even more provoking when he writes "replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades. The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%."The problem isn't with the cars, the problem is with what it takes to grow the biofuel in the first place. Clearing the land, harvesting, and refining the crops, plus the loss of forest and wild lands and habitats, amounts to creating a carbon footprint worse than fossil fuels. According to the Science article which, admittedly, posits an extreme scenario, it would take 423 years to even out the carbon debt if Indonesia's peat lands were converted to palm oil fields.
The research is starting to give some people pause, such as the folks at the European Union who declared they wanted ten-percent of the block's transport fuel to come from plants. And Joe Fargione of the U.S. Nature Conservancy asks, "Is it worth it? ...[S]urprisingly the answer is 'no'. These natural areas store a lot of carbon, so converting them to crops results in tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere."
Thanks for the tip, Zo!
[Source: MSN Money]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
Iridium @ Feb 21st 2008 8:10PM
Tell me something I didn't know already. Ethanol is the worst idea of the past 100 years.
Other than sugarcane there is not another viable product that can make Ethanol in a way that gives out substantially more energy than is put in.
Get rid of corn based ethanol and our food and energy inflation rate will subside.
Biodiesel from trash is a far better option. Problem is it is really hard to make a few people rich when you are making fuel from garbage.
lad @ Feb 21st 2008 11:49PM
I agree to an extent; but, I don't understand why we're stuck in stupid? Millions of federal dollars are now being tossed into corn at the expense of where we are all headed anyway. Battery cars, electric trains and solar power plants. We should be making an all out effort to develop and mass produce these devices to move the country forward and return Big Agriculture to producing the counties most important product, food. If you don't think Solar is the answer wait until you read the following: http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/2007-12-01/Solar-is-the-Solution.aspx
bfaukner @ Feb 21st 2008 8:16PM
I really wish people would stop saying "ethanol" when they are talking about "corn ethanol." There is still some promising developments coming out of research for cellulosic ethanol.
Stéphane Dumas @ Feb 21st 2008 8:35PM
I agree and I could be tempted they don't want to hear about cellulosic ethanol or other alcool fuel like butanol
awesomehobbes @ Feb 21st 2008 10:01PM
They did mention one type of cellulosic ethanol. Switchgrass is turned into ethanol because of its high cellulose content.
"The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%."
steve @ Feb 21st 2008 8:20PM
scumbags that control this country dont give a crap about anything aside from how much they can accumulate be it money or power; so the idea of any type responsible energy policy is anathema to them
Harrison @ Feb 21st 2008 9:20PM
You do know that energy companies won't throw money into a dying product.
I never can believe why anyone would say that an Oil company won't invest in a new product because it'll cut into their profits. They are a company with shareholders. They won't be dumb enough to tie themselves to a dying product, but would switch to an alternative. That's where the company part of the equation switches on.
TriShield @ Feb 21st 2008 8:21PM
It's not just the issue raised in this study, but it also takes more energy to create ethanol than it actually yields for use. It is easily one of the worst government subsidy bandwagons to come along and one we're going ot pay for later.
KA @ Feb 22nd 2008 1:10AM
Yes yes yes. I don't know why people have trouble understanding this. Energy out < energy in, and therefore it's wasteful (and worse) for the environment.
Cellulose ethanol suffers the same fate; besides, it's just another "promising technology" that is nowhere near maturity on the scale that we need.
Cervus @ Feb 21st 2008 8:40PM
Actually, the energy return on corn ethanol is marginally positive. We get 1.3 units back for every unit of energy we put into it. That is still a very poor energy return, but it's not true that it's in the negative.
CEMan @ Feb 21st 2008 8:53PM
Sadly, as this is just the latest iteration of decades of fram subsidies, we have been paying for years.
Temple @ Feb 21st 2008 11:44PM
Not only is ethanol marginally positive, but the metrics of measuring the input is also skewed. In most cases, the input measure to grow ethanol is measured directly against the BTU of an equivalent amount of petroleum.
The input is measured from everything from the diesel fuel used to plow the fields to the fuel used by sixteen wheelers to transport corn to the fermentation factory. That is measured directly against the straight caloric energy content in petroleum fuel. However, this disregards the fact that petrol also takes an amazing amount of energy to expunge from the soil, especially being that this oil are in places that are difficult to get to (geographically and politically). Hence, the direct comparisons between ethanol and oil and the energy it takes to deliver to the consumer is an incomplete picture.
Phil @ Feb 24th 2008 2:13PM
The person who said the ethanol return on fossil fuel is ~1.3 is right, but even if it was 1.0 it would still make sense. We convert coal to electricity at about 0.7 all the time...why? because we can't burn coal in our toaster oven. We also can't burn natural gas in the autos we own, which is the main fossil fuel used for ethanol. NG is also domestic energy (lessens oil dependence), and relatively clean burning...think about it.
fizzandpop @ Feb 21st 2008 8:52PM
But the car commercials tell me my Flex Fuel F150 Supercrew is a green vehicle that is saving the planet. What should I believe? All my opinions are formed by what I see on TV.
PJ @ Feb 22nd 2008 10:00AM
Don't worry. "FlexFuel" badges boost mileage by 50%!!
Kevin @ Feb 21st 2008 9:04PM
Well, ethanol is a potential solution to two problems: carbon footprint and renewability. If this article is right then ethanol pollutes more than fossil fuels. But it's far and away better on renewability: we can grow it indefinitely. Crude oil is a finite resource, we're going to run out of it sooner or later.
Potosi Joel @ Feb 21st 2008 9:19PM
Fossil fuels are unbeatable. No matter how fast we use them up, there are always more in the ground than last year! Better extraction continues to outpace consumption.
BowserUSC @ Feb 21st 2008 9:29PM
Don't fall into that trap. Just because it's slightly better than what we have know doesn't mean it's the right solution.
Corn is an awful solution. It's extremely inefficient to make compared to even other ethanol fuels. It also doesn't have the same combustive efficiency so you pretty much need to use more of it. It may be renewable but your carbon footprint is not going to decrease, and according to Science may even increase due to corn.
DC @ Feb 21st 2008 10:06PM
Your mistake is assuming ethanol production does not depend on resources that are finite and/or relatively finite within our time frame.
matt @ Feb 21st 2008 10:51PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Combustion
really? ethanol reduces your carbon footprint? how? since ethanol is less dense (energy-wise) than gasoline, you need to burn more of it to travel the same distance in your car.