The Triangle

Issue date: 5/8/09 Section: Ed-Op

Media Credit: David Trotman MCT

California made a decision April 23 to pass the Low Carbon Fuel Standard bill, which will limit the amount of carbon dioxide that can be produced by both the fuels being used as well as the process by which those fuels are created.

One of the industries that will be hit hardest is the ethanol, and it's about time. For being hailed as the "green" energy of the future, ethanol consistently only offers false hope. Between the low energy returns of fossil fuels (it takes 50 percent more ethanol than gasoline to get the same amount of energy) and the ethical nightmare it's becoming, I couldn't be more glad that we nipped that pipe dream in the bud.

The first issue is simple math. If the purpose of biofuels is to reduce carbon emissions, it means not only does the fuel have to be efficient, but the means to manufacture it does too. This is where things get problematic. Dimitri Stanich, public information officer for the California Environmental Protection Agency, said the formula the CEPA utilizes to assess the net greenhouse gas impact of alternative fuels takes into consideration that typically the electricity used to produce corn ethanol involves burning coal, which emits carbon dioxide and defeats the state's regulatory intent to reduce net greenhouse emissions. Next is the problem of where to grow the extra corn needed for fuel. As of February 2006, the annual capacity of the U.S. ethanol sector stood at 4.4 billion gallons, and plants under construction or expansion are likely to add another 2.1 billion gallons to this number.

That means a lot of corn needs to be produced which will lead to more clear cutting of forests for farm land and defeats the purpose since those wooded areas are essential "carbon sinks" that help filter out the carbon already in the environment. Current federal government mandates require U.S. gasoline producers to use 12 billion gallons of ethanol this year, with the requirement increasing to 15 billion gallons by 2015.

This is because the Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifies a new Renewable Fuel Standard that will ensure that gasoline marketed in the United States contains a specific minimum amount of renewable fuel.

This still ignores the major economic and ethical issues. Higher corn prices increase animal feed and ingredient costs for farmers and food manufacturers. Corn, along with an increased demand for ethanol, helped push prices from under $2 per bushel in 2005 to $3.40 per bushel in 2007. In the 2006/2007 crop year, over 2 billion bushels of corn (19 percent of the harvested crop) were used in the production of ethanol. This is a 30-percent increase from the previous year. These higher corn prices have motivated farmers to increase corn acreage at the expense of other crops, such as soybeans and cotton, raising the prices as well. Most of the corn in this country is grown primarily as feed for livestock. The result of this increase in price means that while our cornflakes may only be a few pennies more expensive, our meat supply will have prices that relate directly to the energy market. This is one of the worst situations I can imagine: My food competing with my energy. The natural result is higher prices in both. Do we really need more of that in these hard times?

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools