Think it through

With crude oil prices flirting with $100 a barrel and prices at the pump well north of $3 a gallon, the issue of alternative fuels is crying out for attention. In this context, the ethanol plant being planned for Texas Township in Wayne County, PA (see page 5) might be arriving just in time. And all in all, we think it represents a laudable experiment at a time when such exploratory ventures are sorely needed. But with this or any proposed solution to our energy crisis, we must make sure that we do not rush blindly to embrace a short-term solution that, like fossil fuels, will land us in a long-term mess.

Of all the various alternatives to conventional energy sources, the one that has probably gotten not only the most press, but also the most legislative support, is ethanol. The main reason for its unique political viability is the fact that vast swaths of this country’s central plains are devoted to growing corn. While the population of these states is small, they wield a disproportionate influence because each state has two senators, just like the more populous ones. Even more important, the vast majority of ethanol subsidy dollars goes to big agribusiness companies like Archer Daniels Midland, that are flush with dollars that can finance appeals for more government welfare to produce more corn—and more lobbying.

But a consensus is growing that corn ethanol is not a viable long-term solution to our energy problem. To begin with, there is substantial controversy as to whether it produces net-positive energy, that is, whether the energy produced from burning a gallon of ethanol is greater than the energy consumed by production factors like pesticides, fertilizers and fuel for farm and transport vehicles.

Moreover, the increased use of corn for ethanol production has led to skyrocketing costs for food and animal feed. We can see this in our own area, not only in the increased pressures on, and closures of, dairy farms but in the steep increases in the price of supermarket food, from eggs and beef to cereal and candy.

What is the potential for ethanol crowding out food? One bushel of corn produces 2.7 gallons of ethanol. One proposal before Congress would mandate the production of 36 billion gallons of gasoline by 2015, requiring 13 billion bushels of corn—roughly 100 percent of the 13.261 billion bushel crop produced in 2006. That should work out just fine—as long as we stop eating. And that 36 billion gallons still falls far short of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline we burned last year.

Those who are planning the Wayne County ethanol plant, to their credit, recognize the problems with corn and eventually intend to switch to more promising feedstock, to produce so-called “cellulosic” ethanol. Waste products from other industries, like wood waste, are one possibility. So are crops like switch grass that use little pesticide or fertilizer and can be grown on marginal cropland—like most of our own local farmland. Unfortunately, the technology for converting such feedstock economically does not exist yet.

But even cellulosic ethanol is not necessarily a panacea. Some experts believe that, although it would be more efficient than corn ethanol, it would still produce less energy than its production would consume. And there are pollution issues with ethanol production as with traditional refineries: in 2004, the group Environmental Defense ranked a corn processing plant in Clinton, IA as the 26th largest emitter of carcinogenic compounds in the United States.

None of this means ethanol should be ruled out, although we would argue that the money currently being used to subsidize corn ethanol would be better employed researching alternative feedstock. But to calculate the true sustainability of any energy source, we have to think through all the costs—in terms of energy, dollars and environmental mayhem—incurred throughout the chain of production. The Wayne County ethanol plant could be a real-life test case to help us make this determination. If, as a community, we can help see to it that it is operated with a minimum of environmental impact, and converts as rapidly as possible to more viable feedstock, we will have contributed our bit toward humankind’s attempt to solve the energy crisis. But we need to remain open to the possibility that this particular solution may not prove to be the best one, and be ready to study other alternatives.

Addendum

As we went to press, a story about a breakthrough in the production of hydrogen, which can be used in fuel cells as a replacement for gasoline, hit the newswires.

A study published on Monday, November 12 by researchers at Pennsylvania State University reports that they have developed a method of producing hydrogen gas from biodegradable organic material, potentially providing an abundant source of clean-burning fuel. Thus, an alternative to ethanol that may well be worth exploring seems to be emerging in our own back yard.

The general method used by engineers at Pennsylvania State University, which combines electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a microbial fuel cell to produce hydrogen gas, had been tried before with poor results, but the researchers modified the reactor to obtain 288 percent more energy in the form of hydrogen than the electrical energy needed in the process.

We’ll keep you posted.

What are you thankful for?

In our Thanksgiving editorial, we will be talking about things we are thankful for. We would like to hear from you, too. Please send your thoughts to copyeditor@riverreporter.com no later than Monday, November 19 at 12:00 noon.

Dr. Punnybone

Peak Performance