Ethanol: It’s still fuel
MacRaven points to an interesting conversation on biodiesel. Ed of Dispatches from the Culture Wars is skeptical of using corn for fuel, and he gives a number of fairly convincing reasons. Increased demand for corn has raised the price of corn, which has in turn raised the price of foods using corn products. It’s also encouraged production of corn at the expense of other crops, which has had the effect of raising the price of foods not using corn.
And if I remember correctly, corn is particularly hard on the soil. This administration isn’t much for regulation or encouraging sustainable agriculture practices, so I’m envisioning a twenty-first century Dust Bowl.
All this to create a fuel that burns 29% more fossil fuel than it saves.
But not so fast. The comments include complaints about the research that generated those numbers, claiming it counted every possible source of production energy cost, based the costs on 1970s farming practices instead of modern practices, and ignores the potential energy savings that could be gained from corn by-products.
Two things become clear. First, the science is so incredibly politicized at the moment that it’s nearly impossible for a lay-person to sort out. Especially if you rely on reading other people’s characterizations of the research, which I have generally found I have to do. I may have worked for AAAS, but that doesn’t mean I ever understood any paper in Science.
Second, no matter what we do, it’s going to cause a significant amount of economic and political upheaval. Replacing oil upsets everyone’s apple cart and is going to have carryover effects we haven’t even begun to think about yet. And just replacing it probably won’t be sufficient because that will have environmental costs of its own, and those are also horribly unclear. Even monkeying around the edges here with ethanol has agitated the economy of the western hemisphere.
It’s enough to make a body anxious.
