Corn-Based Ethanol - The Ungreen Alternative Fuel

Today's a busy day, so please forgive me for simply cutting and pasting a very well-written article from The Economist which explains in detail why ethanol made from corn is neither a cheap fuel nor a green fuel. I've added some bold here and there to call attention to particular points, and just a few comments following the story.

Corn-based ethanol not cheap, not green

THE ECONOMIST

It is not often that this newspaper agrees with Fidel Castro, Cuba's tottering Communist dictator. But when he roused himself from his sickbed last week to write an article criticizing George W. Bush's unhealthy enthusiasm for ethanol, he had a point.

Along with other critics of the United States' ethanol drive, Castro warned against the "sinister idea of converting food into fuel." The United States' use of corn to make ethanol biofuel, which can then be blended with gasoline to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, has already driven up the price of corn.

As more land is used to grow corn rather than other food crops, such as soy, their prices also rise. And since corn is used as animal feed, the price of meat goes up, too. The food supply is being diverted to feed the United States' hungry cars.

Ethanol is not much used in Europe, but it is a fuel additive in the U.S., and a growing number of cars can use either gasoline or ethanol. It accounted for only around 3.5 percent of U.S. fuel consumption last year, but production is growing by 25 percent a year because the government subsidizes domestic production and penalizes imports. As a result, refineries are popping up like mushrooms all over the Midwest, which sees itself as the Texas of green fuel.

Why is the government so generous? Because ethanol is just about the only alternative-energy initiative that has broad political support. Farmers love it because it provides a new source of subsidy. Hawks love it because it offers the possibility that the U.S. may wean itself off Middle Eastern oil.

The automotive industry loves it, because switching to a green fuel will take the global-warming heat off cars. The oil industry loves it because ethanol as a fuel additive means it is business as usual for the time being.

Taxpayers seem not to have noticed they are footing the bill.

But corn-based ethanol is neither cheap nor green. It requires almost as much energy to produce (more, say some studies) as it releases when it is burned. And the subsidies on it cost taxpayers, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, somewhere between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion a year.

Ethanol made from sugar cane, by contrast, is good. It produces far more energy than is needed to grow it, and Brazil, the main producer, has plenty of land available on which to grow sugar without necessarily reducing food production or encroaching on rain forests.

Other developing countries with tropical climates could prosper by producing sugar ethanol and selling it to rich Americans to fuel their cars.

There is a brighter prospect still out there: cellulosic ethanol. It is made from feedstocks rich in cellulose, such as wood, various grasses and shrubs, and agricultural wastes. Turning it into ethanol requires expensive enzymes, but much research is under way to make the process cheaper.

That is still some way off. In the meantime, the U.S. should trash its silly policy. If it stopped taxing good ethanol and subsidizing bad ethanol, the former would flourish, the latter would wither, the world would be greener and the U.S. taxpayer would be richer.

Ethanol is not going to solve the world's energy problems on its own. But its proponents do not claim that it would. Ethanol is just one of a portfolio of new energy technologies that will be needed over the coming years. Good ethanol, that is -- not the bad stuff the U.S. is so keen on.

Copyright 2007 Economist Newspaper Ltd. Distributed by The New York Times
Syndicate

So there it is. As more farmland is diverted to fuel production, the cost of food increases. Meanwhile, we taxpayers crank out subsidies of more than $7 Billion annually to produce a fuel product that costs us in hidden ways: First in our taxes, and then again in our food purchases. Eventually, it may also cost us when we need to choose between growing fuel and growing food.

What can we do? Write a letter to the editor, or to your Senator or Representative, promoting sensible alternative energy . . . not more subsidies to large-scale corporate agribusiness in our supposedly "capitalist" society!

You may also log on to The Economist's site and view the article here: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJGDQTN&CFID=110855567&CFTOKEN=d7690f-c020e84b-64aa-4dde-a2f2-23db0af23931

The MPG Hacks Heat Up

Over at Treehugger.com, I read about this little doozy. Yes, someone has tweaked out a Hummer to get 40 mpg!

OK, not really. "The equivalent of" 40 mpg. That actually seems to mean 22-24 mpg. How exactly 40 is the equivalent of 22, I'm not sure. Perhaps the Law of Fives has something to do with it, or some of that "Fuzzy Math" Bush II was once so fond of mentioning.

The full story at ZDNet tells us the same thing. "Equivalent of 40 mpg", but only lists 22-24 mpg as an actual achievement. My best guess is that it gets the equivalent distance in emissions as a 40 mpg vehicle if you use biodiesel. Or maybe I'm reading that wrong.

Anyway, it's a lot better than 10 mpg. Right? Let's consider.

It requires the complete replacement of the engine and transmission. This isn't a little tweak. This isn't a home conversion kit you buy off the 'net.

There's no mention of the expense involved in this little "adjustment", but I'd wager it runs several thousand dollars. Probably not worth the expense of the fuel savings. But now it will get 650 horsepower, wheeee! (I bet that figures into that magical 22 = 40 thing. An unmodified Hummer gets 325 hp.)

Then there's the additional invested energy in making a replacement for a brand-new engine. How much energy will be wasted in that? Will anyone make use of the old engine?

In my view, this "greening" of Hummers is all about stroking the egos and soothing the consciences of the owners. It's expensive and wasteful, and serves only to keep these mammoth fuel-wasters on the road and make them appear more socially acceptable.

Want to get 27 mpg in a truck for only $5,000? Do what I did.

Buy a used mid-sized or compact pickup.

Want more luxury? Buy something that's more efficient than a Hummer!

Skyfarming: Skyscrapers to Replace Flat Farms?

New York Magazine offers a look at "vertical farms", an energy-saving, land-saving food production strategy.


Columbia University's Dr. Dickson Despommier (www.verticalfarm.com) has been working on the vertical farm concept since 2001, and is now beginning to attract the attention of both scientists and investors.


Essentially, vertical farms propose 30-story buildings, each floor stacked to grow two to ten different crops.

Once operational, nothing would be wasted:

• Treated wastewater from the adjacent city is retreated for safety and used for irrigation.
• Pure water transpired by plants is condensed, collected, and either sold as drinking water or reused in irrigation.
• Solar collectors or windturbines collect environmental energy.
• Solar power feeds a "pellet power" production facility, recycling biowastes like corn husks and cobs, along with restaurant waste, into pellets. Pellets are then burned to operate a steam-driven electric plant.

Not limited to plants, such urban farms can also raise fish and poultry.


A few benefits of such structures:

• Can be built today, using current technology
• Each building removes thousands of acres of farmland from production
• Efficiently uses resources
• Virtually eliminates transportation expense for food
• Organic farming more feasible
• No weeds, insects, or plant viruses, so no need for GMO plants or pesticides

Using these vertical farms, thousands of acres of farmland could be returned to forest growth, supplying timber and helping reduce global warming.

Drawbacks? They won't be cheap to build -- approximately $200 million in current dollars -- and won't be cost-effective up front. Placing them where they're best sited, in urbanized areas, means relocating or redirecting urban development.

The first such tower may be built in Dubai, the oil-rich emirate in the Middle East which recently constructed an indoor ski resort and is presently constructing islands approximating the shape of all the countries of the world. Dubai has little to no arable land, little water (they're fed by desalinization plants), and plenty of money.

If you ask me, it's about time they put some of their cash toward something useful.

Further designs and information may be found on Despommier's website, www.verticalfarm.com.