Today's MacGuffin: E85 ethanol and other "Alternative Fuels"

Many "alternative fuels" such as E85 ethanol and Biodiesel are being touted as cure-alls for our impending energy crisis in America. With apologies to Chuck D. and company, Don't Believe The Hype.

The MacGuffin

Fossil fuels, specifically as used for automobile fuels, are probably the biggest environmental problem we face. Consider this document from the EPA: HTML version, PDF version which clearly states that " in numerous cities across the country, the personal automobile is the single greatest polluter." While pollution figures have dropped considerably for automobiles in the past several decades, cars continue to be our biggest polluters. Of gravest concern for many is that cars, in burning so much fossil fuels, add extra carbon to the air in the form of carbon dioxide, since this carbon was formerly locked-up underground, this creates a net increase of CO2 and thus, a net increase in greenhouse gas levels, potentially leading to global warming.

Enter "alternative fuels" in the form of ethanol and biodiesel. While these fuels still add CO2 to the air, the carbon in these fuels ultimately came from the air itself, since they are from living sources, meaning that they are theoretically carbon neutral. Biodiesel comes with the added benefit of removing what was formerly an environmental hazard (used cooking oil) from the waste stream. Best of all, you get to keep driving your gigantic Escaladepedition or your Canyonero or whatever giant gas guzzling "look at my giant penis, er, SUV" car you want to, since these fuels can be used in standard gasoline or diesel engines with very little modifications. Wow, you mean I get to be good for the environment and take no responsibility for my own behavior? Great!

Not exactly. It turns out that the major source of ethanol is from corn. Also, it turns out, that if the entire agricultural capacity of the U.S. was turned into producing nothing but ethanol for cars, it would only meet 12% of our automotive fuel needs. (see Ethanol demand will outpace corn supply by Matt McKinney at Scripps News) Biodiesel makes even less of an impact. Well, 12% is better than nothing, right? Maybe not. Consider this report: Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy from ScienceDaily. It turns out that, in terms of energy needed to produce these alternative fuels, every biomass source of ethanol actually uses more energy that it replaces. This is not unexpected, as no system can produce energy for free. However, where does most of that energy come from? Well, it comes mainly from natural gas and oil burning power plants, which are fossil fuels. The net result is that for corn-based ethanol (E85), 29% more fossil fuel energy is needed to make it than the ethanol itself produces. In other words, using ethanol in your cars actually causes more fossil fuels to be used than just using good old gasoline. The prospect for non-agricultural based sources, such as switchgrass and wood, are even worse.

So why is there such a big push to get ethanol into cars? As already implied, the biggest source of ethanol will be corn. Who stands to benefit? Well, not the old Nebraska family farmer. The guy in the plaid shirt and overalls tending 40 acres is a romantic myth. Who really makes most of the money from corn? Archer-Daniels-Midland, that's who. ADM is one of the largest corporations in the U.S., and they are essentially the market-controlling syndicate in charge of the entire corn output of the U.S. (think of how DeBeers handles diamonds worldwide, and that's how ADM handles corn). The push for E85 ethanol is driving the price of corn through the roof, and that's what its all about. The entire ethanol-as-good-alternative-fuel story is a boondogle, designed to make ADM shareholders tons of cash.

The Real Issue

Ultimately, the only real solution is the abandonment of the internal combustion engine as a means of transportation. As long as we have cars that burn carbon-based fuels, we will never get out of this trap. Biodiesel is at least a noble enterprise in that it does remove material from the waste stream, but again there isn't near enough cooking oil out there to power all of your cars. There is a technology on the market. Its 50+ years old, next-to-no pollution, and could end all of our problems. What is it? Fuel cells. Basically, a fuel cell is a battery designed to run on hydrogen and oxygen. Rather than burning, the cell maintains a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen and uses electricity generated by that reaction to power your car. (I could go into far more detail, I am actually a chemist by training, but I'll leave it there for the lay person.)

Why have fuel cell cars not replaced gasoline cars, or even entered the market? Well, for one there are too many vested interests in keeping gasoline around. As already mention ADM is getting rich by making you think that ethanol will solve all of our problems. We're in a war in Iraq which is maintaining artificially high fuel prices to drive record profits at ExxonMobil and BP/Amoco. You don't think that with this much money flowing that anyone in any position of power is interested in turning off the tap.

We're stuck in a Catch-22. Before hydrogen-powered cars can gain a foothold on the market, there needs to be a hydrogen-delivery infrastructure in place (hydrogen fueling stations, hydrogen pipelines, hydrogen-producing plants, etc.) However, in order to establish that infrastructure, there needs to be a demand for it. As there are no fuel-cell cars at the moment, there is no demand for a hydrogen infrastructure. See; there are no cars because theirs no hydrogen; there's no hydrogen because there are no cars!

Why won't the government step in to fix this? I mean, after all, the government is forcing us to abandon our old TV sets in the next few years, as the FCC is requiring the end of old analog transmissions in the favor of digital transmissions. Why does the government do that? Because if left up to the market, we would never make the change over. Major corporations want the huge amount of bandwidth currently taken up by TV; it stands to make them tons of cash. So the government is helping them along by requiring us all to make the change. So why doesn't the government do the exact same thing for automobile fuels; require us to change over by a certain date? For the exact same reason, it turns out. Major corporations have a vested interest, but instead of an interest in forcing a change (from analog to digital TV), this interest is in preventing one (from gasoline-based economy to a hydrogen one). Thus, there will be no major government push to the newer technology, because the major oil companies stand to lose out in the long run if it ever happens.

The other problem? A total lack of public transportation in the U.S. At my count, there are 5 major cities with reasonable public transportation infrastructure (New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington). Of those, only in New York does public transport actually beat the car in terms of ridership. Again, public transportation would greatly reduce our reliance on cars. However, it is expensive; in order to be affordable to the individual passenger it needs to run at a loss, and the loss needs to be made up in public funds. Is the money there? Sure, but only if we take it away from the major corporations that pay money to the campaigns of every political candidate. See the abortion article below; if it means taking money away from pork-barrel projects and putting it into worthwhile ventures, the donors will beat the voters every time. All the politician needs to do to get your vote is put up some random worthless environmental promise (such as requireing the use of E85 ethanol); they use some MacGuffin, some meaningless plot device to get your attention and get you to ignore that they are doing nothing to help you at all. Emotion, not reason, wins elections...