May 10, 2006

THE GREAT ETHANOL SCAM

The human race is at an environmental/energy crossroads. Because the major energies in use are carbon-based, incalculable and possibly irreversible damage is being inflicted on the Earth. Nothing less than the viability of Earth to sustain life, as we know it, is at stake. And, the supply of these critical energies is dwindling at a time when demand is on the rise.

Our leaders (national and world) look for ‘quick-fixes’ that will take the public mind off the present energy-price crisis and away from the long-term environmental destruction. Such ‘band-aide approaches’ will not meet our gluttonous energy needs. Many leaders pay little or no heed to environmental damage and to what will happen when oil, natural gas and coal are gone.

Some advocates say: Build more nuclear plants. There is the danger of nuclear plant disasters such as Chernobyl. There is no effective way for dealing with nuclear waste; that waste will be a danger to human health for 1,000s of years. There is the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Some enthusiasts say: Use coal. Coal presents many of the environmental problems that the other fossil fuels do. It is expensive to use coal in environmentally responsible ways and coal reserves, too, are finite.

Some suggest biofuel—such as ethanol—use as a way out of the dilemmas. There is a problem with this choice. Ethanol is another giant government/energy industry/agribusiness scam. Here’s why:

It takes energy to extract oil and natural gas from the ground, to transport the raw extracted material to the processing facilities, and to processes them into usable forms such as gasoline, fertilizers and pesticides. Refineries, for example, use huge amounts of energy. It takes energy to deliver the products to consumers.

Modern agriculture is predominantly a way of converting fossil fuels into foodcrops such as corn. Corn is one of the crops that can be converted into ethanol. Here is how fossil fuels produce corn:

It takes energy to prepare the fields and energy to plant, to fertilize, to protect the plants from pests and other potential harm (such as fungi) and to harvest the corn. Irrigation, especially if the water is pumped up from aquifers, uses great amounts of energy.

It takes energy to build and run the huge, complex facilities that make ethanol. It takes energy to process the corn into the ethanol. It takes energy to distribute the ethanol to the final consumers.

Carefully done studies show that, if all of the energy costs and other costs are fully and completely accounted for, ethanol is a net energy loser by up to 29 percent!

How in the name of common sense can something that uses more energy to make than is gotten from it be energy efficient? The short, clear, common sense, honest answer is that it cannot! Is not! Probably never will be!

Why are some energy corporations, government entities, agribusiness industries, and farmers clambering and yammering for this form of energy? Simple. The entire ethanol industry will be subsidized. Already, our government is subsidizing the planning and construction of up to 100 biofuel processing facilities. Citizens who favor the ethanol program are poorly informed.

Energy companies and agri-businesses feed the campaign coffers of the elected officials and wield enormous influence on government bureaucrats. Farmers vote in greater percentages than many other constituencies. This puts the key decision makers ‘at odds’ with both common sense and the long-term common good. It is much easier for lawmakers to ‘go along’ with this scam than is for them to face up to it and face it down.

With a public demanding cheaper gas from the energy industry and cleaner air from governments, the ‘need’ to do something – or to seem to do something – is compelling.

So, 90 U. S. senators voted for this ‘unsane’ energy program and only 8 voted against this travesty, this expensive boondoggle. Sadly, unsanity once again carried the day over common sense. A handful of brave, informed senators from both major political parties voted against the ethanol scam. They were able to do so only because agribusinesses and farmers are not key parts of their constituencies.

Alternatives do exist and must be chosen: practice energy conservation in all aspects of life; while there is still time, switch from non-renewable energies to renewables; and, most importantly, focus responsibly on future generations and on the long-term viability of the Earth.

Finally, is it moral to “feed” ethanol that is made from foodcrops to gas guzzling vehicles while millions die each year from starvation and from under-nourishment-related diseases?

Sincerely, Hal Mansfield, 1275 W. Calle Serrano, Green Valley, AZ 85622-8441

(970) 779.0473 (local Durango call) hal.mansfield3@gmail.com, http://halmansfield.com

Annotated reference sidebar:

Bartlett, Albert A. “Arithmetic, Population and Energy,” DVD, Department of Physics, University of Colorado. Available from the Center for Science, Mathematics & Computer Education at the University of Nebraska Lincoln, 251 Avery Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588. This was recorded during one of Professor Bartlett’s 1,500+ presentations and it is fundamental for an understanding of the population/energy growth limits.

Bartlett, Albert A. “Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis.” American Journal of Physics, 46(9), September, 1978. An ‘oldie but goodie.’ In clear, easy to understand terms, Bartlett shows how the human population will stop increasing and how energy use will stop growing.

Brown, Lester R., Gardner, Gary, Halweil, Brian. Beyond Malthus. W. W. Norton & Company, 1999. The authors detail how 19 factors crucial to a viable, life-staining world are being used up at alarming, non-replaceable rates.

Kidner, David W. Nature and Psyche. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 2001. Professor Kidner indicates how humans must change their psychological orientation to the world to avoid environmental catastrophes.

Patzek, T. W. “Corn Ethanol: Laundering Fossil Fuels, Bilking Taxpayers, Damaging the Environment.” Energy Tribune, March 16, 2006. This ‘lays out’ the case against ethanol in no uncertain terms.

Pimentel, David. “Energy and Dollar Costs of Ethanol Production with Corn.” Hubbert Center Newsletter, #98/2 (Apr. 1998). This, along with Pimentel’s many other works, is one of the fundamental articles for understanding why ethanol is an ‘energy loser.’

Shaw, Jonathan. “Fueling Our Future.” Harvard Magazine, Cover article, May-Jun 2006. This is a long, comprehensive look at energy future scenarios and presents pro- and con-arguments for various energy use configurations.