Ethanol Fuels - Cure Or Curse?
Recently, the US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has made a recommendation to the government to increase the percentage of ethanol that can be blended into our fuel in order to boost the ailing biofuel industry.
While the use of biofuel boomed last year during the high gasoline prices, it has now shrunk considerably and an estimated 21 percent of ethanol producers have shut down.
"My hope is that we get a blend rate that's higher than 10 percent," Vilsack said.
"That's going to create more opportunities for the ethanol industry.
" The US is the world's largest producer of ethanol which comes mainly from corn, pumping out 9 billion gallons last year, seconded by Mexico.
At present a maximum of 10.
2 percent can be blended with gasoline to produce the ethanol-based E85 or "Flex Fuel".
While industry groups appeal for a 15-20% blend rate to boost the ethanol industry, the EPA is currently considering the impact on both cars as well as the environment.
Meanwhile a coalition of green groups, including the Clean Air Task Force, Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Working Group is strongly campaigning against the ethanol-based fuels, claiming that rather than helping the environment, they are actually doing far more damage.
The increased requirement for corn to supply ethanol producers has not only taken land away from food production, but has been associated with increased use of fertilizers and pesticides, increased water depletion due to the very high water requirements of corn and contributed to an increase in food prices.
There are studies that also suggest that the production of ethanol actually increases greenhouse emissions over gasoline, and there is a growing body of evidence that the emissions produced by burning ethanol fuels which include formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are actually carcinogenic.
Not only that but it is a much hidden fact that while the ethanol-based fuel may cost a few cents less at the pump, it actually reduces the efficiency of vehicles significantly, meaning they need more fuel per mile traveled.
Jonathan Lewis, an environmental lawyer with the Clean Air Task Force "The notion that [corn-based] ethanol fuels are carbon neutral has been proven false", while even Tom Vilsack admits that "There are a number of challenges to the way in which ethanol is being produced today, and we have to respond to those challenges.
" Under the Federal "Renewable Fuel Standard", biofuel production has been set to produce 36 billion gallons by 2022, much of which should come from more advanced "cellulosic" biofuels derived from non-food crops and waste materials.
While Vilsack and his group claim that the corn-derived ethanol production will prepare the US for this kind of biofuel production, Craig Cox from the Environmental Working Group claims that this may actually remove the incentive for ethanol producers to move towards these more environmentally friendly methods.
Whatever the decision by the US Government about the increased ethanol percentage, it is essential that the public remains informed about its production and the real environmental cost/benefit of ethanol usage.
While the use of biofuel boomed last year during the high gasoline prices, it has now shrunk considerably and an estimated 21 percent of ethanol producers have shut down.
"My hope is that we get a blend rate that's higher than 10 percent," Vilsack said.
"That's going to create more opportunities for the ethanol industry.
" The US is the world's largest producer of ethanol which comes mainly from corn, pumping out 9 billion gallons last year, seconded by Mexico.
At present a maximum of 10.
2 percent can be blended with gasoline to produce the ethanol-based E85 or "Flex Fuel".
While industry groups appeal for a 15-20% blend rate to boost the ethanol industry, the EPA is currently considering the impact on both cars as well as the environment.
Meanwhile a coalition of green groups, including the Clean Air Task Force, Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Working Group is strongly campaigning against the ethanol-based fuels, claiming that rather than helping the environment, they are actually doing far more damage.
The increased requirement for corn to supply ethanol producers has not only taken land away from food production, but has been associated with increased use of fertilizers and pesticides, increased water depletion due to the very high water requirements of corn and contributed to an increase in food prices.
There are studies that also suggest that the production of ethanol actually increases greenhouse emissions over gasoline, and there is a growing body of evidence that the emissions produced by burning ethanol fuels which include formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are actually carcinogenic.
Not only that but it is a much hidden fact that while the ethanol-based fuel may cost a few cents less at the pump, it actually reduces the efficiency of vehicles significantly, meaning they need more fuel per mile traveled.
Jonathan Lewis, an environmental lawyer with the Clean Air Task Force "The notion that [corn-based] ethanol fuels are carbon neutral has been proven false", while even Tom Vilsack admits that "There are a number of challenges to the way in which ethanol is being produced today, and we have to respond to those challenges.
" Under the Federal "Renewable Fuel Standard", biofuel production has been set to produce 36 billion gallons by 2022, much of which should come from more advanced "cellulosic" biofuels derived from non-food crops and waste materials.
While Vilsack and his group claim that the corn-derived ethanol production will prepare the US for this kind of biofuel production, Craig Cox from the Environmental Working Group claims that this may actually remove the incentive for ethanol producers to move towards these more environmentally friendly methods.
Whatever the decision by the US Government about the increased ethanol percentage, it is essential that the public remains informed about its production and the real environmental cost/benefit of ethanol usage.
Source...