| Corn ethanol ineffective as viable energy source (5/08) | | Print | |
| Written by Roy Lee | |
|
Brazilian Renewable Energy Co. recently launched a $2.7 billion project to export one billion gallons of ethanol every year by 2015. Recently, Brazil has grown to be the leading sugarcane ethanol producer in the world. According to the New York Times on April 10, 2006, 70 percent of Brazilian cars now have engines that can run on either diesel or gasoline. Now, as the price of oil reaches $130 per barrel and over $4.00 at the pump, some analysts suggest the United States encourage the growth of more corn to be converted to ethanol fuel, modeling what Brazil has done with its sugarcane. However, these analysts are shortsighted: Growing more corn fails to solve our problems, it only introduces more. While corn may be touted as the solution to our oil problems, it cannot be produced efficiently enough to be a viable alternative. Currently, oil is among the most efficient fuels available. It yields 40 times the energy required to harvest it. Sugarcane, which is mainly grown in Brazil, yields 8 times the energy required to harvest it, and while this is less efficient than oil, it is an acceptable price to pay for a renewable energy. Corn, on the other hand, yields only 1.3 times the energy required to harvest it, according to an October 7, 2007 article in National Geographic. Sugarcane is grown with half as much land as is required for corn, making corn terribly inefficient for making ethanol. It is not realistic to hold U.S. corn to Brazilian sugarcane’s standards for producing ethanol, and it is unfair to constantly point to Brazil’s energy independence. It is a much easier feat for Brazil to be energy independent since it uses less gasoline and diesel than the United States. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, Brazil consumes 20 billion gallons of ethanol, diesel, and gasoline each year. The United States consumes 180. Corn is causing enough problems by itself. Currently the federal government subsidizes ethanol by giving farmers money to grow certain crops — usually corn, wheat, soybeans and rice. Giving subsidies to farmers who grow corn encourages monoculture, greatly reducing biodiversity and dramatically increasing the chance of crop failure or even bioterrorism. Increasing the already-high corn subsidies for ethanol production would only increase this threat. Imagine what the United States would do if, when all of its cars were adapted to ethanol, major crop failures or disease decimated the corn supply. Increasing ethanol corn production may cause more problems, and there is no guarantee that it will solve global climate change. Many current supporters for ethanol rely on the assumption that ethanol carries none of the problems of gasoline. However, this assumption proves fallacious. While ethanol does not release particulates like gasoline does, it still releases carbon dioxide during both fermentation and combustion. Furthermore, ethanol may introduce a slew of new health problems. An April 18, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article shows that if the United States is to switch to ethanol and ethanol vehicles become common on highways, an increase of toxic ozone gas in urban areas would create a worse health hazard than gasoline for people with asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Finally, the benefits of ethanol may be offset by one other key economic concern: the rising price of food. A Christian Science Monitor article from May 7, 2008 reveals that current ethanol use has led to a recent rise in domestic food prices. The need to reduce oil consumption is clear. But one other thing that is clear is that we simply do not know what economic, social or heath-related side effects ethanol will bring. As the energy situation we are in grows more dire, it is imperative to find renewable energy sources. We can still look to hydrogen, solar and electric options, but ethanol simply won’t work. |
| Next > |
|---|
to listen.
