Photo by Frank Pribyl

Ethanol: The Most Viable Alternative Fuel

Editorial By Frank Pribyl

Foreign oil, OPEC and big oil companies are by and large seen as evil by the American consumer, and with good reason. As gas pricesreached an all-time high last year, oil companies posted record growth and profits. Exxon Mobile alone posted a profit of $36 billion, making it the most profitable company in the world, ever. At the same time, the oil industry in Saudi Arabia is making an average of $208 million more each day since the price climbs began.

Any technology that can utilize more domestic product in place of oil is seen as a good thing. If recent history is any indication, we will not have to wait long until gas prices climb high enough to make ethanol viable without its current subsidies. Also keep in mind that gasoline is not without its own subsidies. Gasoline is one of the most heavily subsidized items in the marketplace if you consider that the U.S. has to send fleets of armed Navy ships to protect production and transportation. These costs are not reflected in the final price.

(Current ethanol = $3 billion/yr, current Iraq war = $82 billion/yr)

Replace farm aid

The increased demand on grain for bio-fuel production will lead to higher grain prices. This is not a bad thing if you realize that without such demand, the U.S. would face a huge surplus of most grain crops that would cripple the market.

Over the past few years, corn production has outstripped the demand from its traditional market, as yields have increased but animal feed demands have remained level. Without additional corn markets, the industry would face significant decline. Higher grain prices will help the industry and may allow the discontinuation of the current farm aid program, making crop farming an independently profitable industry once again.

On the other hand, if ethanol demand becomes too high, the resulting higher prices will threaten the livestock industry. Critics often point out that there is not nearly enough corn in the world to completely replace gasoline with ethanol, and they are correct. This is why the best approach to ethanol production is moderation. Production must start slow and then be allowed to expand as improvements are made in yield and efficiency. Due to an energetic government endorsement, production may be a little ahead of the curve in the next few years, but it will eventually balance out and then grow at a more appropriate pace. At least part of the displaced feed supply will be offset by distillers’ grain, which is a byproduct of ethanol production, and should be relatively cheap and abundant if ethanol production is high.

It is more convenient than other forms of renewable energy

	If anything is known about American consumers, it’s that they are resistant to change. A car that runs on water sounds great on paper, but when it comes down to it, how many people would go out of their way to make it happen? How much more would they pay? Electric cars have existed almost as long as their combustion counterparts and even outsold gasoline engines in 1899 and 1900.	Photo by Frank Pribyl Some individuals have raised concern that increased ethanol production would take land and resources away from food crops such as wheat.
	But as gasoline became cheap and plentiful, consumers spoke with their wallets, and the electric car faded away. By the same measure, solar cars have not become commercially viable. With solar, sacrifices have to be made in the areas of power, range and appearance, and thus they are rarely even discussed. Hydrogen fueled cars have been proven possible, but their acceptance would require a completely new fuel distribution system, and they are completely incompatible with all traditional vehicles on the road today.

Ethanol, on the other hand, is convenient. A low ethanol blend (up to 30 percent) can be used in virtually any car and performs almost identically to pure gasoline. The same gas stations are being used all over the country.

Transform other energy sources into a convenient form

It takes energy to produce energy, and there is debate on just how much energy is needed to produce ethanol. Additional unbiased studies are needed, but even if ethanol production is found to have a negative energy balance (that is, it uses more energy than it makes) it is still a valuable process. Much of the required input energy is used during production in the form of electrical or thermal input. Since ethanol production facilities are stationary, they are able to tie into larger, more complex power sources then would be available directly to a car. Geothermal, wind turbine, hydroelectric, solar and other methods can be utilized. Much of this depends on the continued and expanded use of these technologies, but the world is already headed in that direction. This also could be accomplished with battery powered electric cars, but again, they are inconvenient and plagued with many problems of their own.

Interestingly enough, an energy efficiency study has never been done on the petroleum industry, but in terms of fossil energy used, ethanol consumes approximately 0.74 Btu of fossil energy for each Btu of ethanol delivered, compared to 1.23 Btu of fossil energy consumed for each million Btu of gasoline delivered. Remaining energy inputs are from renewable sources. A 2006 Berkeley study reinforced these findings of ethanol as a net energy producer.

While ethanol is not free from problems, it is a proven, reliable technology and the best replacement fuel available. As the industry continues to develop, efficiencies will increase and prices will drop. It is not possible to replace the entire gasoline demand with corn-based ethanol, but it is an important first step. It is a step that has been properly identified by politicians and industry leaders, and the proper actions have already been put into motion.