|
From both a scientific and economic
standpoint, ethanol is a waste of resources. While many may claim
that ethanol is the ultimate solution to the fuel oil crisis, they do
not realize some of the many problems that the substance has. While
ethanol can be useful in applications other than fuel, it is not a
viable option for the United States, as it is not cost effective or
environmentally friendly. Everyone from chemical engineers to common
citizens recognize some of the problems. Citizens of various towns
do not want these plants in their towns, as they use many millions of
gallons of water that could possibly run out. While ethanol is
purported to be the ultimate solution to saving the environment by
government officials and oil corporations alike, it is actually a
scam by government officials and oil companies to line their pockets,
and cheat the taxpayers.
From a scientific
standpoint, it is not. The burning temperature of ethanol is far
lower than gasoline. In fact, ethanol needs 99,119 British Thermal
Units of heat to produce a gallon, which will yield 77,000 BTUs of
energy when burned in an automobile. Furthermore, ethanol is
produced by burning fossil fuels as ethanol cannot be burned to
produce ethanol (Dvorak). This means that one gallon of gasoline
will propel a vehicle longer than one gallon of ethanol, due to
ethanol having far less energy stored within it per gallon.
Furthermore, a scientific concern for the environment is that for
every pound of ethanol produced, an excess pound of carbon dioxide is
released into the atmosphere (Reisch 32).
Economically speaking, the
ethanol situation is a mess. While ethanol may be cheaper at the gas
pumps, it is not cheaper to the end buyer, as their tax money is
being used to hide the cost of the ethanol. Some of the cost
involves paying off farmers to grow or not grow corn. The government
still tries to manipulate the economy for everyone's good, while it
is actually stopping John Locke's invisible hand of the capitalistic
economy from working. This subsidized corn is transported to an
ethanol factory, some of which are located far flung from the corn
fields. This means that more money has to be spent to ship in the
raw corn needed to make the ethanol. The corn is finally converted
into ethanol, which costs around $2.24 per gallon, versus $0.63 per
gallon for producing gasoline (Dvorak). Once produced, the ethanol
has to be shipped out to the pumps, but it cannot be transported via
pipeline as it is corrosive, and it picks up water in such pipelines.
Instead, the ethanol has to be transported by trains and trucks to
places all over the country, spending yet even more money on fuel to
transport the ethanol. The major misconception is that ethanol is
cheaper at the pump than gasoline. This is due to the massive
government subsidies taken from tax dollars. Ethanol is costing
consumers more at the pumps, even though it appears to be cheaper.
In fact, consumers currently need to add another $0.51 per gallon to
the cost of ethanol to get a rough idea of the real price they are
paying. This $0.51 adds up to be around $3 billion annually in
government subsidies (Tyner and Quear). Another set of disturbing
aspects related to ethanol come from an article by
James Eaves of Laval University, and Stephen Eaves of Eaves Devices,
which provides several good arguments:
"When we
assume the ethanol production process is fully renewable, it would
take all the corn in the country to displace about 3.5 percent of our
gasoline consumption — only slightly more than we could displace by
making sure drivers’ tires are inflated properly. There are also
ethical considerations. In particular, the United States is
responsible for over 40 percent of the world’s corn supply and 70
percent of total global exports. Even small diversions of corn
supplies to ethanol could have dramatic implications for the world’s
poor, especially considering that researchers believe that food
production will need to triple by the year 2050 to accommodate
expected demand. Furthermore, ethanol would not necessarily be a
more reliable source of fuel. By displacing gasoline with ethanol,
we are displacing geo-political risk with yield risk, and historical
corn yields have been about twice as volatile as oil imports.
Finally, because high temperatures can simultaneously increase fuel
demand and the cost of growing corn, the supply response of ethanol
producers to temperature-induced demand shocks would likely be weaker
than that of gasoline producers. (27)."
Thus the economic issues are
numerous, alongside ethical issues that need to be addressed.
Considering the fact that the United States is interested in taking
care of the poor, how will it look if the poor are unable to eat as
the United States increases the cost of all of their exported foods
to fund ethanol subsidization?
The economic and
environmental aspects of this fuel are obvious. Many politicians
benefit from promoting and subsidizing such programs because they can
get “gifts” from the manufacturers they subsidize, as well as
campaign contributions. Cal Dooley, president of the Grocery
Manufacturers Association says that “Many policy makers were
seduced by ethanol,” and it appears that many others still are
(Etter A8). Whether or not the program works or is cost effective
does not matter to them, as long as they get re-elected, and can line
their pockets with taxpayer money at the same time. Those few
politicians and figures that oppose such programs are usually scoffed
away, as the pro-subsidy politicians continue banter and propaganda
to promote their latest scheme. Ethanol is one such scheme.
Governor Matt Blunt has authorized the construction of an ethanol
plant in the town of Rogersville, Missouri. Besides the fact that
the citizens of the area totally oppose such a plant, there are
several issues that make Rogersville a poor choice for an ethanol
producing facility. The first is that the owner of the company who
got permission to build is none other than Greg Wilmoth, Blunt's
cousin. Wilmoth did his best to dispel any worries by stating that
“No member of the Blunt family … has any direct or indirect
financial or personal involvement with Gulfstream Bioflex Energy or
any of my other businesses.” This is impossible, as government
subsidies are in play from the state of Missouri, headed by Matt
Blunt (Wagner). This means that it is highly likely Wilmoth will be
making money off the taxpayers through subsidies. In such a setup,
it is inevitable that Matt Blunt will end up pocketing or campaigning
with any kickbacks he receives from the plant. Another problem is
that these ethanol plants use up to 1.2 Billion gallons of water
daily (Fellin). This plant plans to draw straight from the water
table that is already dropping every year. In the event a drought
occurs, or ethanol production is increased, the possibility of water
shortage in Rogersville is very possible. Whatever the case, the
citizens of Rogersville are taking the matter to court, which has
been unsuccessful thus far.
In the end, ethanol is
nothing but a scheme created by the government and oil companies at
the expense of the taxpayers and the environment. Thanks to the
various concerns, ethanol is busted as an alternative fuel. Thanks
to the production processes that waste energy and pollute the earth,
as well as the negative impact of subsidization, ethanol is nothing
but a farce. Greedy politicians behind the ethanol initiatives may
do their best to make ethanol sound like the ultimate way to power a
vehicle, but they are full of deception. If a politician supports
ethanol, they are either conspiring with the production company, or
are not totally informed about the downsides economically and
environmentally. The quest for alternative fuels is a noble cause,
but when a fuel is found to be below the requirements it is supposed
to supply, it should be abandoned, and the next source investigated.
Sources:
Dvorak, Blake. “Ethanol's Nine Lives.” The American
Enterprise 12 September 2003. 15 October 2007.
Eaves, James, and
Stephen Eaves. “Neither Renewable Nor Reliable.” Regulation
(2007): 24-27.
Etter, Lauren.
“Politics & Economics: Ethanol Industry Is Losing Clout In
Congress As Food Prices Climb.” The Wall Street Journal 10 November
2007.
Fellin, Edward.
“News-Leader.com | Readers' Letters.” 15 October 2007.
Reisch , Mark. “A
Rational Approach to Energy.” Chemical And Engineering News 85.43
(2007): 32.
Tyner , Wallace,
and Justin Quear. “Comparison of a Fixed and Variable Corn Ethanol
Subsidy.” Choices Article 2006. 15 October 2007.
Wagner, Matt.
“Blunt Brothers Deny Connection To Cousin's Ethanol Plant.”
Springfield Business Journal 13 November 2006. 15 October 2007.
|
