Ethanol

(Image Credit: National Corn Growers Association & Wisconsin Ethanol Coalition)

UPDATE! Check out and join in on The Wisconsin State Journal's forum on the positives and negatives about Ethanol in the US! The discussion also includes explanations of corn vs. cellulosic ethanol

In a long line of alternative fuels, ethanol (here: corn based) is one that receives most of the attention in the U.S. not only from the government but also many environmental and agricultural advocates. In short, its use is advocated over traditional, petroleum-based fuels for its alleged properties to reduce carbon emissions when burned.

While ethanol is typically regarded as a national, even international, issue, it is one that is relevant to Wisconsin in that it is an agricultural state with a vested interest in keeping the industry alive. The state has also taken several measures to promote the use of ethanol state-wide.

WHAT IS IT?

Ethanol is a corn-based, alternative fuel designed for use in transportation, typically standard passenger vehicles (including, but not limited to, sedans, SUVs, minivans, etc.). It is made from corn, which falls into the category of a renewable resource, which is perhaps best explained as the opposite of a non-renewable resource, meaning it is something that can be recreated after some or all of it has been used. An popular example of a non-renewable resource is oil -- once it is all used up, there is no way that we can (at present) recreate it.

In order to make ethanol, the corn has to be fermented into what becomes ethyl alcohol, or ethanol. The corn is taken from fields, sent to a distillery, where it is then transformed into a highly combustible liquid from which it can be turned into fuel. To make it into fuel, it does require a certain amount of traditional, petroleum-based gasoline. Once the two are combined, a new fuel has been created that has different properties when burned.

In popular use, ethanol is found in two forms: E-85 and E-10(the latter commonly known in larger cities as reformulated gasoline).

THE ISSUE
The issues surrounding ethanol are quite complex, mainly from environmental and economic standpoints, the two of which tend to intertwine and conflict a great deal. It is perhaps best divided into two categories, the pros and cons, here having the meaning of why people/agencies support using ethanol and why people/agencies do not support ethanol.

PROS

Supporting ethanol use supports agricultural industry and farmers

Since ethanol's primary input is corn, an increased demand for corn would keep growers employed by having to keep up to satisfy that demand. They would have to grow and sell more corn, thus theoretically increasing their profits and sustaining their livelihood. The 2007 US Farm Bill through the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed increased funding for alternative fuel development, which includes corn-based ethanol.

Ethanol vehicles reduce carbon output, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change

Perhaps the biggest card played in favor of ethanol and yet the most controversial. It is estimated that ethanol can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 29%. Ranges vary depending on the research but seem to fall somewhere between 12% - 29%.

Creates new jobs, investment, and industry in rural America

It is estimated that the ethanol industry has created 147,000 jobs in all sectors of the economy and conservative projections of growth are estimated at10,000 to 20,000 jobs for every billion gallons of ethanol produced in the U.S.

Reduces U.S. dependency on foreign oil

America is undoubtedly dependent upon foreign sources for crude oil. In 2004, the U.S. consumed an estimated 20.73 million barrels of oil per day, of which 13.15 million barrels, or two-thirds of oil consumed, were imported. While crude oil is used in a number of applications (yes, those plastic shopping bags), a large amount is allocated for the production of gasoline. Some groups estimate that U.S. ethanol production could reduce U.S. foreign oil consumption by 46.7 million gallons annually.
This also has economic and political implications due to the global locations of oil (Middle East) and the falling worth of the dollar in global markets. This sagging worth of the dollar is only compounded because other countries competing to purchase oil do not get hit by the exchange in currency, which could be a non-issue if the U.S. were considerably less dependent upon foreign oil sources and thus fluctuations in currency markets.

CONS

A federal $0.51 per gallon subsidy on ethanol in the U.S.

The U.S. Government currently subsidizes ethanol production at $0.51 per gallon produced, in addition to a 30% tax credit (up to $30,000) for the installation of alternative fuel stations. In addition, there exists a $0.54 per gallon tax on imported ethanol to keep production in the U.S.
In 2005, it is estimated to have cost the U.S. Government $2 billion in lost revenue (since it is assessed as a tax credit and isn't money that is paid out but rather money that is never collected in the first place). This number only accounts for revenue lost to the $0.51 subsidy and only grows larger when additional federal and state incentives are added to it.

Creating and transporting the fuel emits more carbon than is saved by burning it over traditional gasoline

In creation, the refinery uses a lot of energy that probably comes from a coal-burning power plant. Roughly 70% of power in the U.S. is generated from coal-burning plants so there is a high likelihood than an ethanol refinery and or farm is dependent upon large amounts of energy, requiring the burning of coal, which in turn creates extensive fossil fuel emissions. Coal is problematic because it is estimated that coal-burning power plants account for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Transportation is much more difficult because of ethanol's highly toxic and flammable nature. Pipelines are not an option at this time so it must be transported by truck or by rail, neither of which tend to run on clean fuels or engines. About 75% of ethanol is transported by rail with the other 25% transported by truck. About two-thirds of all carbon emissions in the U.S. are due to transportation, which is the second largest carbon-emitting sector. While clean rail engine technology does exist, it is about a decade away from implementation due to the cost inefficiency of rail companies replacing their "dirty" engines while they are still functional.
This is also highly problematic because ethanol requires a great deal of energy to create, more than it saves by being burned in an engine. So, in essence, by using and promoting ethanol, more pollution is actually falling upon the earth because of the excessive amount required for creation that is not made up for in savings by burning the fuel. It is unclear what is accomplished by promoting a fuel that creates a net excess of carbon on earth.

It is a less-efficient burning fuel than traditional gasoline

Ethanol does not burn as efficiently in an engine as petroleum-based gasoline, meaning that in order to go the same distance as you would on one gallon of gasoline, you would need about 1.56 gallons of ethanol fuel.
Economically, this translates into paying about $0.59 more per every 25 miles driven, which can add up over the lifetime of a vehicle.

Water pollution effects can be seen hundreds of miles away

Because corn grown for ethanol is not intended for human or animal consumption, it can be fertilized in excess to promote rapid growth. The problem with doing so is that it introduces an excess of chemicals into the ground and subsequently into runoff water that goes directly into streams, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc.
Increased demand for ethanol has also depleted the number of lands at-risk for erosion problems in the voluntary Conservation Reserve Program. Subsequently, this has caused even higher amounts of hazardous chemicals to seep into and pollute waterways.
Fish hypoxia in both the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay have been as a result of increased farming to supply ethanol demand in the Midwest. This means that excessive use of fertilizer to meet demand for ethanol crops in the Midwest has resulted in decimating fish populations and aquaculture thousands of miles away.

"Agflation," or increased food prices

Corn is ubiquitous in food production. All corn is not created equal, meaning that the same corn that is grown for ethanol production cannot be consumed by humans or animals. Farmers have shifted their production of crops in great numbers to corn that can be sold to ethanol refineries which translates into a decrease in lands used to produce edible corn. In fact, one-fifth of corn produced in the U.S. goes into ethanol production. Impacts have also been seen in wheat and soybean markets, as farmers have also tended to shift away from these products as well in favor of farming corn for ethanol.
The Wall Street Journal reported in Nov. 2007 that the U.N. at one point deemed the allocation of corn for fuel and not food a crime against humanity (although the statement was later retracted) since many developing and third-world nations are dependent upon developed world exports of corn and grain to sustain their populations.

HERE IN WISCONSIN
Wisconsin isn't included in "fly-over country" because of it's metropolitan attractions. Being a state that has a big interest in the agricultural sector, Wisconsin in turn has a vested interest in promoting corn production. Recently, Governor Jim Doyle has been encouraging his commitment to making Wisconsin a national leader in ethanol development and production by allocating more funding to projects, despite serious budget concerns. He has even said that he hops to make Wisconsin the "Saudi Arabia of alternative fuels through the Clean Energy Wisconsin program.

Wisconsin's FlexFuel Fleet
In 2006, Doyle passed Executive Order #141, ordering that, "all state agencies reduce the use of petroleum-based gasoline in state-owned vehicles by twenty percent (20%) by 2010 and by fifty percent (50%) by 2015, and reduce the use of petroleum-based diesel fuel by those vehicles ten percent (10%) by 2010 and twenty five percent (25%) by 2015; and Direct the Department of Administration to develop an awareness plan designed to facilitate usage of renewable fuels in the State’s flex fuel vehicle fleet. This program shall ensure: All flex fuel vehicles in the State’s fleet shall be identifiable; and All state employees driving flex fuel vehicles shall be made aware of the renewable fuel refueling stations in the location of their destination; and All state employees shall strive to use renewable fuels when operating flex fuel and diesel powered vehicles in the fleet, whenever practical and cost effective; and Direct the Secretaries of the Department of Administration and the Department of Agricultural, Trade and Consumer Protection to actively pursue the establishment of additional renewable fuel refueling facilities at public retail outlets."

Loosely translated, that means that an active emphasis is being placed on using FlexFuel vehicles in the state fleet which are vehicles designed to run on both regular gasoline and ethanol fuel. By placing more of these vehicles on the road, the result is an increased demand for ethanol fuel throughout the state which will help further the building of refineries and implementation of ethanol.

Financially this should cause a stir because, since ethanol is a less efficient fuel and the taxpayers pick up the tab for state vehicles and their fuel, it will cost more for state officials to drive than it would on conventional gasoline. Crunching a few numbers and assuming that each vehicle drives roughly 12,000-15,000 miles a year, it will cost $235-$350 more per year, per vehicle to operate than it would for a gasoline-fueled vehicle. Ethanol is not significantly less expensive to purchase than gasoline and fluctuates with oil prices since it does have an oil component.

It is unclear as to just how much this will support Wisconsin's economy (financially or otherwise) in either agricultural or manufacturing terms, since a number of FlexFuel vehicles are made at the General Motors plant in Janesville. That sort of information seems to be lacking in proposals and information disclosed by the state.

Proposed tax-break for purchasing a FlexFuel vehicle
In March 2007, Assembly Bill 85 was proposed to give Wisconsin residents who purchase a FlexFuel vehicle a $1,000 tax break. Again, this would be in the form of a credit meaning that the state wouldn't pay $1,000 but rather just forgo that amount in its revenue collection.

Wisconsin produces FlexFuel vehicles
The General Motors plant in Janesville is reported to have produced roughly 400,000 FlexFuel vehicles in 2006. With such manufacturing, Wisconsin has a vested interest in generating enthusiasm and support for ethanol fuel. This also means making sure the fuel is accessible to those who would purchase such vehicles, also meaning that there needs to be support for its production.

Wisconsin Ethanol Coalition
In step with many other Midwestern states, Wisconsin has its own ethanol advocacy group that supports production and consumption of E-85 fuel in Wisconsin.

Investment in Ethanol Refineries in the State
Global Renewable, LLC has invested a significant millions of dollars through a number of proposed projects that have had the backing and support of such notables as former governor Tommy Thompson. Such investment bodes well for the state in terms of being recognized as a national leader, since the state will be capable of producing large amounts of ethanol and furthering research and development. The investment is also beneficial in terms of creating new jobs in the state in manufacturing sectors, which have been on the decline due to trends in outsourcing.

katie.dorman	Latest page update: made by katie.dorman , Apr 23 2008, 8:32 PM EDT (about this update About This Update Edited by katie.dorman 2 words added 1 word deleted view changes - complete history)
	Keyword tags: agricultural innovation alternate fuel corn costs ethonol pollution concerns More Info: links to this page

Threads for this page

Post a new thread

There are no threads for this page. Be the first to start a new thread.