The Un-Promise of Ethanol

I’m not usually one to write about topics that are very much political in this forum mostly out of respect for everyone’s political views, the polarizing nature that such views can be, and the fact that I could care less about a person’s political views: They are of a personal nature, and it is as simple as that. That being said, I’m going to breach what is mainly an energy topic in this post, and what is only a political topic by extension of it being an election year.

I saw a commercial today in which someone said “I don’t want to drill my fuel, I want to grow it:” Conventional wisdom that flows nicely and strikes an emotional note with many people sympathetic to the so-dubbed energy crisis.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, senior Democrat Senator from California, describes the promise of Ethanol: It is “a perfect, win-win solution for both the nation's farm economy and its energy needs. According to the National Corn Growers Association, ethanol production could make 1.4 billion bushels of corn "disappear" in 2004 ... enough to replace more than 2 billion gallons of gasoline and provide a much-needed market for farmers stricken with chronically low corn prices.” People feel the pinch of gasoline prices at the fuel pumps, eliciting an emotional reaction; furthermore people will tend to feel the plight of the depressed corn farmer—heck, I grew up on a farm and understand how economics work in agriculture.

However, I am an economist. From this perspective a dispassionate view of the situation must be done in order to properly assess the situation. What does the science say? What about the data?

David Pimentel has some insight on the situation. As an ecology professor at Cornell University, his research indicates that it takes the equivalent of just about 1 1/3 gallons of gasoline to produce enough ethanol to replace 1 gallon of fuel that goes into anything from your SUV to hybrid. In larger quantities, according to an article he authored in the science journal Natural Resources Research, it takes the equivalent of 271 gallons of gasoline to grow 2.47 acres of corn: Tractor fuel and the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizers are the biggest culprits here. The National Corn Growers Association, reporting on a study done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, agrees: “In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of the issue and determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1. (For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced.) In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1.”

Then, there’s the whole thing with the corn as part of the food supply situation: “The U.S. ethanol sector will need 2.6 billion bushels per year by 2010—1.2 billion bushels more than it consumed in 2005. That’s a lot of corn, and how the market adapts to this increased demand is likely to be one of the major developments of the early 21st century in U.S. agriculture. The most recent USDA Baseline Projections suggest that much of the additional corn needed for ethanol production will be diverted from exports.” MSNBC goes on to elaborate on the demand factors in the formula: “Demand has risen so sharply, the amount of corn in storage is expected to drop to half of last year's levels, the department said. Farmers should harvest 10.55 billion bushels of corn, a 5 percent drop from last year.”

Heck, it’s even making the price of the tacos I love so dearly to increase.

What are the essentials of the ethanol-as-a-biofuel situation? Ninety five percent of ethanol is produced from corn, and 11 percent of the U.S. corn crop went into ethanol production in 2004. With these numbers in hand, the U.S. Congress passed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005; Section 1501 of which mandates 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in use by 2012. As of August 2007 there were 124 ethanol plants around the country with 7 being expanded and 76 more being constructed: As a whole, somewhere in the range of 200 to 300 have been proposed.

The General Accounting Office of the U.S. Government, a body that deals almost entirely in numbers, has been quoted as saying that “ethanol's potential for substituting for petroleum is so small that it is unlikely to significantly affect overall energy security."

Now that we’ve defined the problem, what about the solution?

Human ingenuity, especially in the capacity for which the United States has been known, knows no bounds. If one is to take the two fundamental areas of scientific research of basic and applied, the former applies to research for the sake of research and “basic” or fundamental knowledge in the sciences; the latter is the sort such that the end result is a product or technology. With that, I believe strong basic research of a nation translates into a strong national defense—and I don’t believe that there is any political debate in this premise.

The best solution to this problem, then, is a joint approach whereas the markets and government work together towards the same goal of a economical form of energy which is either renewable or easily enough produced, and integrated into the current circumstances of our economy. Although not impossible, we live in an economy fueled by oil—making all that more difficult for this to happen. However, if part of economics is the risk-reward quotient, data firmly suggests that with the right motivation, impetus, and resources the reward hiding behind the risk could someday be a reality.