I’ve been fascinated with biofuels since I saw the documentary The Fat of the Land on Free Speech TV, where a group of young women drive cross-country in a van modified to run on cooking oil (stopping at restaurants along the way to refuel). That was a few years before the more-recent ethanol craze, and it really opened my eyes.
There’s been a lot more information about ethanol in the media lately, and I realize it’s not the silver bullet I’d hoped. Conclusions are mixed (to say the least) on biofuels’ environmental and other impacts; in a worst case scenario, it seems biofuels could have a net energy loss (i.e., take more energy to produce than they provide) and cause a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Doubtless, much of the outcome depends on the details of how it’s implemented. But I think there’s a lot of potential.
I see it like this. Even if it’s there no net environmental benefit, compared to oil, biofuels are the lesser of two evils. If we’re going to kick the oil addiction, biofuels will probably have to be part of our suite of energy solutions. Don’t get me wrong: We need better efficiency and more conservation. We need better-designed cities and regions, more pedestrian- and transit-friendly communities, more transit options (and greater consumer demand), more transit-oriented development. We need better land use, more trees. We need to save the rainforest (the world’s lung). We need to cap greenhouse gas emissions. We need more solar, more wind, more hydroelectric, more geothermal. We need all those things.
But, while we’re working toward those goals, there’s a lot of cars and trucks and buses which still need to get around. And there will always be cars, even if (hopefully) there are fewer of them, they’re more efficient, and we use them less. So unless the cars are pure electric or hydrogen powered — either of which have limited practical applications at this time and for the near future — we’ll need liquid fuel. (Other technologies are even further off.)
If we can replace 85%, or even 10%, of that liquid, which is now gasoline or diesel, with ethanol or biodiesel, it’ll be a step forward. Again, it’s progress even if there’s no environmental benefit. Why?
- It raises awareness of alternative energy sources and makes them seem more realistic. This lowers the barrier for cleaner sources.
- It’s money which goes to ethanol companies instead of oil companies. (If you want to be stereotypical, it’s money which goes to American farmers instead of Middle Eastern oligarchs, though the reality is more complicated than that. A lot of oil production, and oil interests, is American; two of the top three importers to the U.S. are Canada and Mexico.) Although some of the ethanol companies are giant agribusinesses — and, in some cases, the oil companies themselves — I still feel better sending my money there. Giving money to oil companies is a magnificent way to shoot yourself in the foot; they use your money to lobby against you, fighting progress aggressively 100% of the time. Even if the ethanol companies fight progress 80% of the time, that’s still an improvement.
- It demonstrates there’s a market for alternative fuels, which encourages more entrants and greater investment (a virtuous cycle).
- It reduces demand for oil, which should moderate prices. I just returned from Minnesota, where E85 was on sale in most places — at around $2.63 a gallon. Regular unleaded was around $3.29. (Lowering the cost of oil further results in less money to oil companies. On the other hand, lowering the cost of oil could also have the unfortunate effect of encouraging more driving; but we shouldn’t rely on the cost of gas alone to discourage unnecessary or inefficient driving.)
Of course, one negative effect of ethanol, aside from any environmental concerns, is the potential pressure on food prices. This is unfortunate. But maybe good can come of even this: higher food prices might encourage consumers to eat less meat, which is generally more expensive than grains, fruits, or vegetables. (The price of meat should rise along with grain, since grains are used for livestock feed.) Eating less meat has its own environmental, not to mention health, benefits. Anyway…
So where are Florida’s retailers selling E85, an 85% blend of ethanol? As it turns out, there aren’t many: According to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, there are only four E85 retailers in Florida. Unless you live in Tallahassee, Lake City, Tampa, or Miami, keep wishing…
From what I understand, if we go with cellulosic or sugar ethanol, we avoid most of the problems with corn ethanol. In particular, the cellulosic is more environmentally-friendly, less expensive, doesn’t affect food prices, and doesn’t compete with food for the use of arable land.
While the meat argument is a relatively good one, it leaves out the fact that the real concern with those rising food prices is that people in poorer countries don’t get to eat.
Kenneth, you’re right that the concern with rising food prices is mainly with poor people in poorer countries, not in America. And it is a concern. But I think the better way to address that concern is a.) through more development aid (such as the relief package which has saved 1 million lives, which most of Florida’s Republicans voted against) which helps economies stabilize and develop opportunities for wider prosperity, and b.) by removing barriers to agricultural trade and restructuring agricultural subsidies, giving farmers in developing countries more opportunities to export to the U.S. (Europe is a big offender in this camp as well). We could also add c.) greater consumer demand for Fair Trade agricultural products, further supporting a better life for farmers in developing countries.
None of these will change the fact of rising food prices. But they mitigate it, and can even result in a net benefit for millions of families in poorer countries.
“Where’s the ethanol in Florida?†I wish I could tell you and the readers of Progressive Coalition.
but you may be interested in the following:
There are too many people (including State Government Agencies in Florida)who want the ‘Status Quo’ and provide very little space for a small innovative company.
For the past six months (and many years before that period) I have been ’shouting in the wilderness’ and to major News Media that I have TECHNOLOGY and SYSTEMS to provide as much as 12 Billion gallons* of BioEthanol at less than half the price of corn and other grains used to produce ETHANOL. I spent more than 30 years in R&D. and need a Partner(s) because it is a Business that requires that we move quickly to enter the market work on a worldwide basis. If you want ‘the rest of the story’, It is available. sternh@alltel.net If you publish, I prefer responses
from Major International Companie(s) Only. Howard stern