Ethanol fuels
Proposals to use alcohol as a fuel are generally concerned with its
use in transportation, chiefly as a total or partial replacement for
gasoline in cars
and other road vehicles. However, other less conventional approaches
have been advanced, such as the use of alcohol in fuel
cells, either directly or as a feedstock for hydrogen
production.
To have a net energy gain, it is critical that detailed energy and
input stock analyses be performed. Although a topic of some debate,
some studies suggest a net energy loss in the production of Alcohol
Fuel versus equivalent oil products. This line of reasoning suggests
that a "negative net energy balance" results if one
considers the aggregate energy input in producing pesticides and
fertilizers necessary for crops production, as well as the fuel
required to operate farm machinery and to ferment and distill the feed
stock.
However, studies that supposedly confirm this idea of a negative
energy balance have often come under fire for using old data - whereas
old distillation plants used to have negative energy balances,
nowadays plants can have positive energy balances of up to 34%,
whereas oil (petrol, diesel, etc.) apparently has a negative energy
balance. <--This may also be outdated. Can someone check
this?--> However, a positive energy balance of 200% or above will
be required before mass-production of ethanol by fermentation becomes
economically- and technologically-feasible.
Fuel ethanol can be produced from a variety of crops, such as sugarcane,
sugar
beets, maize
(corn), switchgrass,
barley,
hemp, kenaf,
potatoes,
cassava,
sunflower,
etc.
Three countries have developed significant bio-ethanol programs: Brazil
and Colombia
(from sugarcane), and the United
States (from corn).
Ethanol for industrial use is often made synthetically from petroleum
feedstock, typically by the catalytic hydration of ethylene with sulfuric
acid as the catalyst.
This process is cheaper than the production by fermentation. It can
also be obtained via ethene
or acetylene,
from calcium
carbide, coal,
oil gas, and other sources.
Agricultural alcohol for fuel requires substantial amounts of
cultivable land with fertile soils and water. It is hardly an option
for densely occupied and industrialized regions like Western Europe.
For example, even if Germany
were to be entirely covered with sugarcane plantations, it would get
only half of its present energy needs (including fuel and
electricity), and even that only if we assume that sugarcane would
grow in Germany at all. However, if the fuel alcohol is made of the
stalks, wastes, clippings, straw, corn cobs, and other crop field
trash, then no additional land is needed. However using these sources
for this purpose would require additional replacement animal
feedstock, fertilizers and electric power plant fuels.
Production and Distribution
Ethanol can be derived from corn, wheat, potato wastes, cheese
whey, rice straw, sawdust, urban wastes, paper mill wastes, yard
clippings, molasses, sugar cane, seaweed, surplus food crops, and
other cellulose
waste. Petroleum is also used to make industrial ethanol.
Ethanol, which is the same chemical as the alcohol in alcoholic
beverages, can reach 96% purity by volume by distillation,
and is as clear as water. This is enough for straight-ethanol
combustion. For blending with gasoline, purities of 99.5 to 99.9% are
required, depending on temperature, to avoid separation. These
purities are produced using additional industrial processes. Ethanol
in water is an azeotropic
mixture which cannot be purified beyond 96% by distillation.
Today, the most widely used purification method is a physical
adsorption process using molecular
sieves. Ethanol is flammable and pure ethanol burns more cleanly
than many other fuels.
Assuming it is derived from biomass, the combustion of ethanol
produces no net carbon
dioxide. When fully combusted, its combustion
products are only carbon
dioxide and water
which are also the by-products of regular cellulose
waste decomposition. For this reason, it is favoured for
environmentally conscious transport schemes and has been used to fuel public
buses.
However, pure ethanol reacts with or dissolves certain rubber
and plastic
materials and cannot be used in unmodified engines. Additionally, pure
ethanol has a much higher octane
rating has 113, than ordinary gasoline,
requiring changes to the compression ratio or spark timing to obtain
maximum benefit.[1]
To change a gasoline-fueled car into an pure-ethanol-fueled car,
larger carburetor
jets (about 30-40% larger by area) are needed. (Methanol requires an
even larger increase in area, to roughly 50% larger.) A cold starting
system is also needed to ensure sufficient vaporization for
temperatures below 15 °C (59 °F) to maximize combustion and minimize
uncombusted nonvaporized ethanol. If 10 to 30% ethanol is mixed with
gasoline, no engine modification is typically needed. Many modern cars
can run on the mixture very reliably.
A mixture containing gasoline with approximately 10% ethanol is
known as gasohol. It was introduced nationwide in Denmark,
and in 1989, Brazil produced 12 billion litres of fuel ethanol from
sugar cane, which was used to power 9.2 million cars. It is also
commonly available in the Midwest
of the United States and is the only type of gasoline allowed to be
sold in the state of Minnesota.
The most common gasohol variant is "E10", containing 10%
ethanol and 90% gasoline. Other blends include E5 and E7. These
concentrations are generally safe for recent, unmodified automobile
engines, and some regions and municipalities mandate that the
locally-sold fuels contain limited amounts of ethanol. One way to
measure alternative fuels in the US is the "gasoline-equivalent
gallons" (GEG). In 2002, the U.S. used as fuel an amount of
ethanol equal to 137 petajoules
(PJ), the energy of 1.13 billion US gallons (4,280,000 m³) of
gasoline. This was less than 1% of the total fuel used that year.[2]
The term "E85"
is used for a mixture of 15% (by volume) gasoline and 85% ethanol.
This mixture has an octane rating of about 105. This is down
significantly from pure ethanol but still much higher than normal
gasoline. The addition of a small amount of gasoline helps the engine
under cold start conditions. E85 does not always contain exactly 85%
ethanol. In winter, especially in colder climates, additional gasoline
is added (to facilitate cold start). E85 has traditionally been
similar in cost to gasoline, but with the large oil prices seen during
2005 it has become common to see E85 sold for as much as $0.70 less
per gallon than gasoline, making it highly attractive to the small but
growing number of motorists with cars capable of burning it. With no
real hope of large long-term reductions in oil prices, the long term
cost-competitiveness (even without tax subsidies) of E85 seems
assured.
Beginning with the model year 1999, an increasing number of
vehicles in the world are manufactured with engines which can run on
any gasoline from 0% ethanol up to 85% ethanol without modification.
Many light
trucks (a class containing minivans,
SUVs
and pickup
trucks) are designed to be dual
fuel or flexible
fuel vehicles, since they can automatically detect the type of
fuel and change the engine's behavior, principally air-to-fuel ratio
and ignition timing to compensate for the different octane levels of
the fuel in the engine cylinders.
In the past, when farmers distilled their own ethanol, they
sometimes used radiators as part of the still.
The radiators often contained lead,
which would get into the ethanol. Lead entered the air during the
burning of contaminated fuel, possibly leading to neural damage.
However this was a minor source of lead since tetraethyl
lead was used as a gasoline additive. Today, ethanol for fuel use
is produced almost exclusively from purpose built plants eliminating
any use of lead.
In Brazil
and the United
States, the use of ethanol from sugar
cane and grain as car fuel has been promoted by government
programs. Some individual U.S.
states in the corn
belt began subsidizing ethanol from corn (maize)
after the Arab oil
embargo of 1973. The Energy
Tax Act of 1978 authorized an excise tax exemption for biofuels,
chiefly gasohol. The excise tax exemption alone has been estimated as
worth US$1.4
billion per year. Another U.S. federal program guaranteed loans for
the construction of ethanol plants, and in 1986 the U.S. even gave
ethanol producers free corn.
In August 2005, President
Bush signed a comprehensive energy bill which included a
requirement to increase the production of ethanol and biodiesel from 4
to 7.5 billion US gallons (15,000,000 to 28,000,000 m³) within the
next ten years. It is expected that in the short term the majority of
this increase will come from ethanol produced from corn.
[
Other alcohols
- See also Methanol
fuel
Although not as common as ethanol, other fuel alcohols have been
considered, notably methanol,
butanol,
and propanol.
These alcohols are toxic, although the latter two are considerably
less toxic than methanol, and considerably less volatile. In
particular, butanol has a high flashpoint
of 35 °C, which is a benefit for fire safety, but a difficulty for
starting engines, particularly in cold weather. (In comparison,
ethanol has a flashpoint of 13 °C; methanol has a flashpoint of 11 °C;
and propanol has a flashpoint of 15 °C.)
The fermentation processes to produce butanol and propanol from
cellulose are fairly tricky to execute, and the Weizmann
organism (Clostridium acetobutylicum) used to perform these
conversions produces an extremely bad smell that must be considered
when designing and locating a fermentation plant. This organsim also
dies when the butanol content of whatever it is fermenting hits 7%.
For comparison, yeast dies when the ethanol content of its feedstock
hits 14%!
One advantage shared by all four alcohols is octane rating. Butanol
has the additional attraction that its energy per kilogram is closer
to gasoline than the other alcohols (while still retaining over 25%
higher octane rating).
As
of 2005, production of all four alcohols from petroleum is cheaper
than fermentation and extraction from biomass, but this is expected to
change as fermentation and extraction processes become more efficient
while petroleum becomes more expensive.
Ethanol and hydrogen
A view is emerging that current consumers of fossil fuels should
move to using hydrogen
as a fuel, creating a new so-called hydrogen
economy. However, hydrogen is not a fuel source in and of itself.
Rather, it is merely an intermediate energy storage medium existing
between an energy source (be it solar
power, biofuels,
and nuclear
power) and the place where the energy will be used. Because
hydrogen in its gaseous state takes up a very large volume
when compared to other fuels, logistics
becomes a very difficult problem. One possible solution is to use
ethanol to transport the hydrogen, then liberate the hydrogen from its
associated carbon in a hydrogen
reformer and feed the hydrogen into a fuel
cell. Alternatively, some fuel cells can be directly fed by
ethanol or methanol. As
of 2005, fuel cells are able to process methanol more efficiently
than ethanol.
In early 2004, researchers at the University
of Minnesota announced that they had invented a simple ethanol
reactor that would take ethanol, feed it through a stack of catalysts,
and output hydrogen suitable for a fuel cell. The device uses a rhodium-cerium
catalyst for the initial reaction, which occurs at a temperature of
about 700 °C. This initial reaction mixes ethanol, water vapor, and
oxygen and produces good quantities of hydrogen. Unfortunately, it
also results in the formation of carbon monoxide, a substance that
"chokes" most fuel cells and must be passed through another
catalyst to be converted into carbon dioxide. (The odorless,
colorless, and tasteless carbon monoxide is also a significant toxic
hazard if it escapes through the fuel cell into the exhaust, or if the
conduits between the catalytic sections leak.) The ultimate products
of the simple device are roughly 50% hydrogen gas and 30% nitrogen,
with the remaining 20% mostly composed of carbon dioxide. Both the
nitrogen and carbon dioxide are fairly inert
when the mixture is pumped into an appropriate fuel cell. Once the
carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere, where it can be
reabsorbed by plant life. No net carbon dioxide is released, though it
could be argued that while it is in the atmosphere, it does act as a
greenhouse gas.
EEI has developed a new method for producing butanol
from biomass. This process involves the use of two separate
micro-organisms in sequence to minimize production of acetone and
ethanol byproducts. Interestingly, this process produces significant
amounts of hydrogen as well as butanol. [3][4]
Alternate sources
Sugar cane grows in the extreme southern United States, but not in
the cooler climates where corn is dominant. However, many regions that
currently grow corn are also appropriate areas for growing other crops
that can be used for energy production. These crops include corn
stover, sugar
beets, wheat straw, hybrid poplars, and dedicated herbaceous
biomass feedstocks such as switchgrass
or bermudagrass. Some studies indicate that using these sugar beets
would be a much more efficient method for making ethanol in the U.S.
than using corn. United States Department of Energy reports have shown
that a minimum farmgate price, hybrid poplars and switchgrass would be
economically advantageous over conventional crops in certain regions
of the U.S.
In the 1980s, Brazil seriously considered producing ethanol from cassava,
a major food crop with massive starchy roots. However yields were
lower than sugarcane, and the processing of cassava was considerably
more complex, as it would require cooking the root to turn the starch
into fermentable sugar. The babaçu plant was also investigated as a
possible source of alcohol.
There is also growing interest in the use of waste biomass
as a source for alcohol other types of fuel. New technologies such as cellulose
to ethanol production could provide much higher positive energy ratios
of 2 to 3 times more energy in ethanol produced than input. Cellulose
to ethanol production could also run on any cellulose and
hemicellulose source from farm waste, hay/grass, basically any plant
matter including wood, cardboard and paper. Theoretically farms could
produce fuel without sacrificing food production, because all that is
needed is the left over plant matter after harvesting. Cellulose to
ethanol production is still in development and has seen limited use in
industrial ethanol production. However, a bioenergy corporation in
Canada is producing 1 million gallons/year of cellulosic ethanol from
their Ottawa facility. Using current technologies, 1 ton of biomass
(such as switchgrass) would be able to produce 80 gallons of ethanol
using a conventional enzymatic fermentation process. The biggest
challenges in using cellulose as a feedstock is the treatment and
disposal of process waste and the conversion of C5 sugars (hemicellulose).
Lignin,
a part of the cell wall that provides plant structure, does not
readily break down to simple sugars but has a energy equivalent of
soft coal.
Lignin would be incinerated to produce energy for the ethanol plant
and surrounding areas or gasified to produce a syngas (hydrogen and
carbon dioxide). Unlike grain based processes which produce a
by-product known as distillers grain with minimal waste treatment
needs, cellulosic processes are typically effluent and waste treatment
intensive.
Distiller grain is a protein enriched animal feed with much higher
nutritional value than natural grain and is typically priced at less
than half that of natural grain. It therefore tends to be a desirable
product for animal feeders. Approximately one-third of grain usage in
the production of ethanol in modern plants is recovered as distillers
grain.[5]
[6]
[7]
At this time, most of the different processes for converting
biomass into ethanol and other fuels are very complicated and not
particularly efficient. A few processes have seen increasing buzz,
including thermal
depolymerization (though that process produces what is described
as light crude
oil).
It is possible to decompose cellulose into sugar in strong or weak
solutions of sulphuric acid, but this process also decomposes and
wastes perhaps half the potential sugar content and creates large
amounts of acidic waste, so scientists are searching for more
efficient and less polluting enzymatic and microbial processes for
breaking down cellulose into sugar.
Another approach under development is to gasify biomass by heating
it in an oxygen-poor environment. This yields hydrogen, methane and
carbon monoxide as well as noncombustible carbon dioxide and nitrogen
compounds. Bacterial cultures have been isolated that can convert the
reactive gasses into ethanol, which is then distilled out of the
liquid medium.
Net fuel energy balance
To be viable, an alcohol-based fuel economy should have positive
net fuel energy
balance. Namely, the total fuel energy expended in producing the
alcohol — including fertilizing,
farming,
harvesting,
transport,
fermentation,
distillation,
and distribution, as well as the fuel used in building the farm and
fuel plant equipment — should not exceed the energy contents of the
product.
This is a controversial subject charged with potential bias. Much
of it depends on what is included and what is excluded from the
calculation, particularly when compared with the energy balance of the
production of gasoline itself. Analyses are greatly complicated by
various methods of accounting for the energy value coproducts and
consideration of alternate uses of the feedstock. Not surprisingly,
this debate has been at best inconclusive to date.
Switching to a system with negative fuel energy balance would only
increase the consumption of non-alcohol fuels. Such a system would
only be worth considering as a way of exploiting non-alcohol fuels
that may not be suitable for transportation use, such as coal,
natural
gas, or biofuel
from crop residues. (Indeed, many U.S.
proposals assume the use of natural gas for distillation.) However,
many of the expected environmental and sustainability advantages of
alcohol fuels would not be realized in a system with negative fuel
balance.
Even a positive but small energy balance would be problematic: if
the net fuel energy balance is 50%, then, in order to eliminate the
use of non-alcohol fuels, it would be necessary to produce two units
of alcohol for each unit of alcohol delivered to the consumer.
In this regard, geography is the decisive factor. In tropical
regions with abundant water and land resources, such as Brazil,
the viability of production of ethanol from sugarcane
is no longer in question; in fact, the burning of sugarcane residues (bagasse)
generates far more energy than needed to operate the ethanol plants,
and many of them are now selling electric energy to the utilities.
Also, in countries with abundant hydroelectric power, the net fuel
energy balance of the cycle could be improved to some extent by using
electricity in the production, e.g. for milling and distillation.
The picture is quite different for other regions, such as most of
the United
States, where the climate is too cool for sugarcane. In the U.S.,
agricultural ethanol is generally obtained from grain,
chiefly corn.
[
Energy balance in the United States
One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would
have a negative net
energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce ethanol
from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing,
fuel for farm tractors,
harvesting
and transporting the grain, building and operating an ethanol plant,
and the natural
gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol — exceeds the
energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent studies have
concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it consumes
(most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1 — [8]
and see below).
Using old data greatly affects the outcome in these studies.
According to the USDA, farms have become more energy efficient since
1978 due in large part to replacing gasoline powered equipment with
more fuel-efficient diesel engines. Total farm energy use peaked in
1978 at 2,244 trillion Btu
(2.368 EJ),
but by 2000 had dropped to about 1,600 trillion Btu (1.7 EJ). In the
meantime, corn production rose from an average of 110 bushels per acre
(6.9 Mg/ha) in 1980 to 140 bushels per acre (8.8 Mg/ha) in 2000.
A study by Cornell
University ecology
professor David
Pimentel found a negative energy balance. Pimentel's study was
disputed by other specialists, forcing him to revise his figures.
Still, in August 2003 (and again in March 2005), he stated in a
Cornell bulletin that production of ethanol from corn takes 29% more
energy than it produces, ethanol from switch grass requires 45% more
energy and ethanol from wood biomass requires 57% more energy that it
produces [9].
He concluded that the yield was 218 US gallons per acre (204 m³/km²)
of gasoline equivalent, due to the energy in ethanol being only 66%
that of gasoline. Pimentel also calculated that corn (maize)
production requires about 115 US gallons per acre (108 m³/km²) of
gasoline equivalent. Thus, he calculated a net energy production of
103 US gallons per acre (96 m³/km²), while his studies somehow all
concluded a net energy loss in producing ethanol. Critics of
Pimentel's study cite questionable deductions, for example; 1,000,000
Btu per acre (260 kJ/m²) for labor, 5,656,000 Btu per acre (1474 kJ/m²)
for machinery, as well as additional deductions for steel and concrete
production and construction of ethanol refineries, while not saying
from where these numbers were derived. (Shapouri, Hosein, James A.
Duffield, Michael Wang. The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update.
USDA: Office of the Chief Economist; Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses. Washington, DC. July, 2002) Pimentel’s work has been largely
criticized and discredited by subsequent studies.
It is only fair to hold gasoline to the same standard that ethanol
is being put through. The focus of the USDA report, and others, was on
ethanol and the energy balance equation, but according to a report by
the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, when taking into account the
energy needed to extract, transport and refine crude oil into
gasoline, the final energy product of gasoline has an energy ratio of
0.805. That means ethanol production is 81% more energy efficient than
gasoline. (Groschen [10])
Continuous refinements to ethanol production procedures have much
improved the benefit/cost ratio, and most studies of modern systems
indicate that they now have a positive net energy balance. Also, when
ethanol is mixed with water vapor and converted into hydrogen, it does
not need to be as pure as when it is used in a combustion engine,
making the process more efficient. (see source below)
Many other studies of corn ethanol production have been conducted,
with greatly varied net energy estimates. Most indicate that
production requires energy equivalent to 1/2, 2/3, or more of the fuel
produced to run the process. A 2002 report by the United
States Department of Agriculture concluded that corn ethanol
production in the U.S. has a net energy value of 1.34, meaning 34%
more energy was produced than what went in. This means that 75%
(1/1.34) of each unit produced is required to replace the energy used
in production. The study also concluded that the energy used to
produce and convert the ethanol was from abundant domestic sources,
with only 17% of the energy used coming from liquid fuels, therefore,
for every 1 unit of energy from of liquid fuel used, such as gasoline
or diesel fuel, there was a gain of 6.34 units of energy. MSU
Ethanol Energy Balance Study: Michigan State University, May 2002.
This comprehensive, independent study funded by MSU shows that corn
ethanol production has a net energy value of 1.56: it produces 56%
more energy per unit volume of ethanol than it consumes. Nevertheless,
as noted earlier, these relatively small energy gains are problematic,
for they imply that between 2.79 (assuming net energy value 1.56) and
3.94 (assuming net energy value 1.34) units of ethanol must be
produced for each unit of ethanol that can be sold to consumers.
Actual net energy values might be improved by measures such as burning
corn stalks (which are not fermentable using current technology) to
run some parts of the corn ethanol production process that currently
consume petroleum, gas, or ethanol (similarly to the way bagasse is
currently burned to produce energy to run the ethanol production
facilities in Brazil). As
of 2005, ethanol production from corn requires a great rise in the
cost of petroleum before it will become economically viable without
government subsidies. Although for brief periods in the past year
ethanol traded for less than gasoline and diesel before the subsidy
was applied.
Arguments and criticisms
The use of alcohol as fuel is advocated with various arguments,
mainly relating to its beneficial effects on the local and global environment,
its independence from foreign oil, and its economic advantages.
Critics generally dispute those arguments, claim that the switch would
be expensive, and object to perceived need for increased government
subsidies, taxes, and regulations.
Air pollution
There has long been widespread acknowledgement that ethanol is a
cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline. Ethanol has far fewer standard
regulated pollutants such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons,
compared with plain gasoline in equivalent tests. See, for example,
the air pollution and environmental studies listed at the Renewable
Fuels Association website http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pubs.shtml
There has been concern about increased evaporative smog-forming
hydrocarbon emissions. For example, the conservative organization RPPI
claims that "adding ethanol to gasoline will at best have no
effect on air quality and could even make it worse. Studies show
ethanol could even increase emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile
organic compounds, which are major ingredients of smog." [11]
Other critics have argued that the beneficial effects of ethanol can
be achieved with other cheaper additives made from petroleum.
It is important to distinguish the issues. Ethanol in a blend with
gasoline replaces tetra ethyl lead, benzene and MTBE -- all of which
are additives that are meant to raise octane levels. Ethanol, with an
octane rating of 110, far surpasses regular gasoline and precludes
needs for other dangerous additives. However, ethanol can increase
vapor pressure of gasoline causing increased evaporative emissions
which, on balance, are far less serious than lead, benzene or MTBE.
Ethanol as a straight fuel is far cleaner than gasoline in its own
right and this has been recognized from the dawn of the automotive
age. See, for instance, Kovarik's "Fuel of the Future" http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/lead
Fire safety
Ethanol appears to be less of a fire hazard than gasoline; while
methanol, being more volatile, is somewhat more prone to fire and
explosions. However, since ethanol and methanol dissolve in water
(rather than floating on it like gasoline) their fires can be
extinguished with ordinary water hoses.
One of the problems with accidental combustion of pure ethanol is
that it burns with a dim, blue flame, with invisible smoke. Methanol
flames are dim enough to be considered invisible in daylight. Blending
significant amounts of gasoline produces a highly visible flame; small
quantities of dye can also produce this effect.
[
Greenhouse gases
A separate (and perhaps more important) benefit of switching to an
ethanol fuel economy would be the decreased net output of the greenhouse
gas carbon
dioxide (CO2),
since all the CO2 that would be liberated in the
manufacture and consumption of ethanol would have to be absorbed by
the plantations. In contrast, the burning of fossil
fuels injects massive amounts of "new" CO2
into the atmosphere, without creating a corresponding sink.
Needless to say, this advantage will be accrued only with
agricultural ethanol, not with ethanol derived from petroleum —
which, due to its much smaller cost, presently accounts for most of
the alcohol produced for industrial consumption. This point must be
taken into account when estimating the cost of the switch.
However, this assumes processes such as distillation of ethanol and
production of fertiliser which require large amounts of energy would
be done without using fossil fuels.
Renewable resource
According to its proponents, another advantage of (agricultural)
alcohol as a fuel is that it is a renewable
energy source that will never be exhausted; whereas an economy
based on fossil fuels will sooner or later collapse when the world
runs out of oil.
However, David Pimentel disputes that "ethanol production from
corn" is a renewable
energy source. However, Pimentel's studies have been widely
discredited, and also fails to compare other viable sources of ethanol
such as Sugar
beets and Sugarcane.
Dependency on foreign oil and international crime
A somewhat related (but more compelling) argument is that developed
regions like the United
States and Europe
consume much more fossil fuels than they can extract from their
territory, therefore becoming dependant upon foreign suppliers as a
result. As such, this dependency has become a major cause of oil wars
and coups d'etat initiated by Western powers, and attendant misery and
human rights violations in certain oil-producing countries allied with
the West. Even if the energy balance is negative, US production
involves mostly domestic fuels such as natural gas and coal, so the
impact on oil importation is still positive.
Statism
Some critics, mainly on ideological grounds, dislike the idea of an
ethanol economy because they see it as leading to increased government
subsidy for corn-growing agribusiness,
and statism.
The Archer
Daniels Midland Corporation of Decatur,
Illinois, better known as ADM, the world's largest grain
processor, produces 40% of the ethanol used to make gasohol in the
U.S. The company and its officers have been eloquent in their defense
of ethanol and generous in contributing to both political parties.
One U.S. government study, Tax
Incentives for ethanol and petroleum, examined subsidies
historically given to the oil industry and to the ethanol industry and
found that the amounts of those to the oil industry are far higher. At
the same time, this study applies only to historical subsidies and
doesn't investigate the question of what the case would be if
petroleum fuels were substantially replaced by ethanol.
Cost
Some economists have argued that using bioalcohol as a petroleum
substitute is economically infeasible because the energy required to
grow the corn and other crops used as fuel is greater than the amount
ultimately produced. They argue that government programs that mandate
the use of bioalcohol are simply agricultural subsidies enacted to
gain votes from heavily agricultural states, especially Iowa.
However, this reflects a lack of understanding of the motor fuel
industry; production of gasoline also requires more energy input than
the fuel itself provides, but the trade-off is worthwhile because it
converts less portable forms of energy (electricity for pumps, burning
off crude oil for heat at refineries, etc.) into a high-value
(portable, easily used) form of energy. As of 2005, ethanol production
has actually become much more energy-efficient than gasoline
production, with energy inputs as low as 70% of the energy value of
the ethanol produced.
Ethanol fuel in Colombia
Colombia’s
first sugarcane ethanol plant began production in 2005, with output of
300,000 liters a day in Cauca.
The $20 million Ingenio del Cauca plant owned by businessman Carlos
Ardila is the first of five plants with a total investment of $100
million which should begin operation over the next few months. The
government aims to gradually convert the nation’s auto fuel supplies
to a mixture of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Ethanol
plants are being encouraged by tax breaks.
Ethanol production should help to decrease Colombia’s dependency
on gasoline at a time when its oil production is decreasing as well as
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. However, in the past year, many
small amounts of petroleum deposits have been discovered throughout
Colombia. It is estimated that Colombia is sitting on 5 billion
barrels of petroleum.
Ethanol fuel in Brazil
- Main article: Ethanol
fuel in Brazil
Today, Brazil is the largest producer and consumer of Ethanol fuel
in the world. Since the 1980s,
Brazil
has developed an extensive domestic ethanol fuel industry upon sugarcane
production and refining. In 2006, Brazil finaly met its oil
auto-sufficiency thanks to its Ethanol program and recent discovery of
new deep-water oil fields. Ethanol plants in Brazil maintain a
positive (+34%) energy balance by burning the non-sugar waste from
sugarcane.
[
Ethanol fuel in the United States
Ethanol fuel in the Midwest
The so-called corn-belt
in the Midwestern United States produces large amounts of corn. Sugars
from this corn can be and are used to make ethanol. Minnesota
has pioneered the use of ethanol fuel mixes in the United States, and
currently all gasoline mixes must have 10% ethanol (90% gasoline) by
volume. There are almost 200 gas stations in Minnesota that serve E85,
which is a fuel mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.[12]
In the US, there is over a 4 billion gallon a year capacity for
ethanol production. [13]
[
U.S. National security
It is believed by some (including former CIA
director James
Woolsey and Frank
Gaffney, President Reagan's
undersecretary of defense [14])
that oil consumption in the U.S. contributes in a large way to the
funding of terrorism. Oil is the primary source of revenue for many Mid-East
countries. Many of these countries are thought to harbor and/or fund
terrorist organizations. The use of alternative
fuels would divert money away from these nations. Ideally, instead
of funding terrorism, this money would then be used to fuel the U.S.
economy.
See also
