Why I oppose ethanol technology
11 06 2007Ethanol is a red herring, it can reduce net CO2 emmissions but will also require huge amounts of resources to grow, distill and distribute. In order for ethanol to replace gasoline all cars would need to be retooled to be able to run on 100% ethanol (the most currently available pump varieties are a blend with mostly gasoline; E10 or E15) plus to supply the world with enough ethanol to run all internal combustion engines could require more or most of the arable land that is currently available, leaving little or none for food production.
The real emphasis should be on changing how society consumes energy, making our processes more efficient and sustainable and harnessing the free and mostly unused energy the sun throws at us constantly. In fact the real crux of the matter is we need to reinvent the way we travel and move things. We need to reduce the number of vehicles and make the ones we use more efficient. Whether this means switching to biodiesel or hydrogen feul cells, electricity, etc… the most important step is to go on a car diet. Personal transportation should be reduced to next to nothing. Trying to force technology to catch up with our consumption is a batlle we have been steadily losing ground on for the last century and it shows.
More after the fold.
Biodiesel and ethanol blends made from waste products are viable but cannot be produced in nearly enough quantities to satisfy our energy needs. In other words they should be employed as a stop gap measure but shouldn’t be viewed as a solution to environmental concerns.
Take Canada as an example. We need about 35 billion litres of gas a year to feul our vehicles. If we switched to an all ethanol technology (which does not exist yet, only ethanol blends are commercially viable) we would need about 80-90 million tonnes of grain to produce enough fuel. Currently out total grain production is at about 50 million tonnes, where does the rest come from?
When I calculate how many litres of gasoline we use in the world per year I come up with 3.23 trillion. Ethanol from sugar beets (a good candidate that can be grown in many climates) has been reported to produce 150 million litres a year from 20 thousand acres or 7500L/acre. To replace our oil consumption we’d need 431 million acres of land. That’s 21% percent of the earth’s estimated arable land… E85 has anywheres from 25-30% less MPG than gasonline in similar cars. So make that 27%. This represents a huge amount of land that currently provides food, forest areas, etc… even 5% would be a huge amount, factor in crop rotation required to keep the land arable and you can easily double or triple that amount.
Just because it’s not a fossil fuel doesn’t make it the best choice. Sure it’s better than gas or diesel but is it the worthwhile alternative? When you factor in all the costs and impacts is it really practical? Is using 27% (or possibly much more) of the earth’s arable surface for growing fuel crops sustainable? Sure you have lower emissions, but you are also cutting down forests to plant the crops you need to produce it and therefore reducing the earth’s ability to absorb carbon. So are you any further ahead?
This argument can be further bolstered by calculationg the planting, harvesting, fertilizing and refining impacts as well. I have not had the time to look into it, and may never do so as from a land usage standpoint ethanol is proven unrealistic already.
People scoff at the notion that the world needs to completely change the way it does things. “Impossible” they say, “Too drastic” they caution. Nonsense! The industrial revolution changed the way the world worked/lived/consumed virtually overnight (relatively speaking), there soon needs to be another revolution to deal with the problems this has caused.
I really like this, I will most likely highlight it on the main site on tuesday, its a nice article. However what about feed stock for ethanol that is not food based? Like algae or wood chips. I have also thought about biofuels as nothing more than a replacement for the small percentage of vehicles that will not be feasible to move over to electric.
I agree that a small percentage of vehicles would be suited to running on ethanol or biodiesels using existing waste/by-product organic feed stock. However care should be taken not to treat bio-fuels as anything other than stop-gap measures.
Most of our fuel problems can be solved through reduction in consumption and eliminating excess waste in our transportation technology and use. This of course is a socially driven solution that requires society to no longer accept low MPG personal transit as preferrable to high MPG car pooling or mass transit. So educate your peers and coworkers and family, and don’t let it slide when you see them being wasteful! People used to think smoking inside was socially acceptable, 20 years ago people would laughed at you if you suggested people who smoked would be made to go outside to smoke! The inconvenience of changing your driving habits may no be the same as changing your smoking habits but the precedent is there. If enough people in a society express their disapproval that society will adopt a more “inconvenient” lifestyle.
Well, I will try to comment again. I tried once, but it failed to get through the Askimet filter. I’m unsure as to how it happens; my comments get marked as spam and it takes a while to regain a proper clearance. So much for the aside.
The paragraph upon which I am focused is:
First, I agree that an insufficient amount of liquid transportation fuel can be made from waste to satisfy our energy needs. There is even an insufficient amount of waste to provide electric power for our transportation needs, if this were a viable option.
Still I would quibble with some of the assumptions implicit in your assertions. It would seem better to avoid phrasing such a necessary transformation as a stopgap measure. Such thinking sets the stage for ill-advised solutions such as coal to liquid fuels. There is a role for biofuels if, and only if, they reduce green house gases.
Also, I disagree with lumping biodiesel and ethanol together, they have different energy and emission profiles. Diesel engines predominate in Europe, and biodiesel can offer a small qualitative improvement. Spark ignition predominates, for now, in the United States and in many other countries. The addition of ethanol is a way to reduce emissions.
Lastly, the inference is the viability of a particular transportation is separate from environment concerns. Such thinking contradicts increasingly strident warnings from climate scientists. There is substantial evidence that life, on this planet, as we know it, is threatened by green house gases, in particular, but not limited to, anthropogenic carbon emissions. Cars, coal and concrete are ongoing sources where major change needs to occur.
Anyway, I thought I would offer this critique since I might presume from the general tenor of your post that we have kindred philosophies about the need for change.
I, too, am quick to rail against what I call the alternative fuel spin, but would stop at outright rejection of either biofuel. Neither should be adopted or promoted at the risk of further environmental damage or other risk to populations, e.g., food. Both have a limited role to play in a transition to cleaner transportation in the near future.
Jcwinnie, Thanks for the reply, glad to know other people out there are thinking critically about energy and where it comes from.
I suppose I should have titled the article differently as I don’t oppose ethanol and biofuel from being used completely, just as a replacement to gasoline and diesel as it is currently being consumed. Although the title does command attention!