Editorial: To Burn Or Not To Burn?—Ethanol That Is

The world is full of scientists, and the United States has its share. After more than a few years we are now being told that ethanol burns more energy than it produces. Why has it taken so long to deliver that finding? On the other hand, there are those who disagree strongly with this assessment. So the question remains, will ethanol be a key factor in reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Critics say no.

To quote the Associated Press: "Researchers at Cornell University and the University of California at Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and the eastern United States, it takes 45 percent more energy, and for wood, 57 percent." On the face of it, that is quite a condemnation of a process that thousands of farmers, et al, have embraced.

These researchers dispute ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry challenges that claim, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.

Well, spin it any way you want, the consumer is at the mercy of people who do the research, and, more importantly, those who profit from ethanol production. As consumers, we simply don’t know what is and what isn’t about the industry. The broth has been boiled up by far too many cooks—cooks who have very strong reasons for reaching the conclusion that they have.

The farmers, for instance, are pleased with ethanol because they can keep their corn right in the Midwest and get more money for it because they don’t have to ship it to tidewater. Should the savings be figured into the equation? So promising is the process to them that many have invested millions in ethanol plants. So one would expect strong support from the farmers.

Following the farmers’ lead, many politicians support the use of ethanol because it encourages the growth of ethanol plants in their districts. Doesn’t it seem the right thing to do?

Well, we don’t know. Some say yes. Some say no.

Several years ago, when it was discovered that the gasoline additive MTBE was polluting water sources hither and yon, the nation was virtually outraged over the situation. California quickly passed a ban on MTBE. We’re certain similar legislation was considered or passed elsewhere.

But among all the stories we saw, we found only one where a critic said that ethanol produces more pollution than it prevents by displacing MTBE. We even went so far, editorially, to ask someone to come forth with more information related to that statement. Certainly we could have missed some somewhere along the line. But there has not been a blockbuster list of stories downplaying the value of ethanol.

The dependence of the U.S. on foreign oil is almost a laughable situation, while at the same time being tragic. In the 1970s we dropped national speed limits to 55 mph. and demanded cars that provided higher mileage. Our use of oil dropped precipitously. So we do know how to at least help remedy the condition. But Americans, spurred along by automobile manufacturers who prefer to build the bigger cars, and their own preference for "soupier" cars with lots of horsepower—take the modern SUVs, for example—are short on memory. Now vehicles are bigger than ever. For the last couple years, SUVs have been outselling many other automobiles. But look where it has gotten the manufacturers. Today they are giving employee discounts to everyone. The car lots are filled to overflowing.

We’re pretty certain that a huge segment of our population, particularly those with fat wallets, is not about to give up big cars and SUVs. Some others are willing to sacrifice in other areas to have that big monstrosity of a vehicle in their driveway. But that is their choice, and they have that right. We can talk about it being a moral problem, but that leads us to a slippery slope. How many other extravagances could we also choose to call immoral?

The nation’s dependency on foreign oil is a critical problem that should be solved by bipartisan leaders who are willing to put their country’s needs ahead of their own goals or the goals of their industrial constituents. We are talking "serious" big time here. In peace, such dependency is costly, iffy, and just plain foolish, particularly when there are other avenues we can pursue to reduce our oil consumption. This actually translates not into reducing consumption but reducing the amount by which our annual consumption increases due to growing demands. In times of major conflict, dependency on foreign oil can be disastrous.

In our opinion, we should have been hearing a lot more about the attributes of ethanol and its shortcomings long before now. It seems to be a process that would hold no secrets from scientists. Perhaps it is merely the reporting of their findings that is at fault. We need to clear the air!

What we do know is the oil dependency and the solution for reducing it is nothing with which politicians and industrial leaders should play around. It is not a stretch to say that our future depends on it.

So let’s have the facts.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)