In today’s society, everyone is trying to “go green,” and create cleaner lifestyles by recycling, conserving, and using less energy. One large industry that is associated with this movement is that of alternative fuels. As the prices of crude oil keep increasing, the need for alternative energy sources also creates a new demand. Many new alternative fuel sources are researched and developed, but they are often rushed onto the market without thoroughly analyzing the effects they might potentially have on the health of humans, the environment, and the stress on the vehicles. One of the newest and supposedly cleanest alternative fuels is that of ethanol. While ethanol appears to be a viable alternative fuel, it is not cost effective, it requires many natural resources to refine, it uses more energy than it creates, and it actually causes health problems such as cancer. Instead of using ethanol as an alternative fuel, other alternative fuels should be utilized and the petroleum industry should continue drilling here in America.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “ethanol is a renewable fuel made from plants. Essentially non-drinkable grain alcohol, ethanol is produced by fermenting plant sugars. It can be made from corn, sugar cane, and other starchy agricultural products. The cellulose in agricultural wastes such as waste woods and corn stalks (also known as ‘cellulosic ethanol’) can also be used as a base. In the United States, most ethanol is currently made from corn, although because of rapidly developing research, cellulosic ethanol may soon become a larger part of the market” (Fuels). As the prices of oil continue to rise partially due to the dependence on the Middle East for oil, the need for alternative fuels such as ethanol greatly increases. It is evident that alternative fuels need to be developed, especially due to the unrest that exists in the Middle East. On April 7, 2011, The Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing with the United States Senate. According to Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, “the unrest in the Middle East and associated high oil prices are a reminder of the cost of our reliance on foreign oil…Oil prices might well remain high for some period here. These high oil prices and the resulting high gasoline prices endanger our national and global economic recovery. So it makes sense to be sure we’re doing all we can to make our economy less vulnerable to dramatic changes in oil. In my view the key to making our economy less vulnerable to oil price increases is to use less oil. Renewable biofuels are the best near term option for replacing oil in the transportation sector. Increased use of biofuels combined with fuel efficiency gains and increased domestic oil production have together reversed years of increasing dependence on imported oil and have actually lowered our petroleum imports” (United, p.1). Senator Bingaman explains how ethanol is a relatively clean alternative fuel and has few emissions, making it a popular alternative fuel. This is only a small benefit compared to the wide scope of ethanol, and it is therefore necessary to drill for oil to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
While some argue that drilling destroys the environment, the upsides of drilling highly out-weigh the draw-backs. By becoming less dependent on foreign oil, America will prosper more, and the economy will hopefully recover quickly. In addition to being less dependent on foreign oil, creating more biofuels will also create more jobs. Since America is in an economic recession, many people are out of work. J. G. Speight, a petroleum expert, notes that “currently, oil is the primary energy source in the world” (Speight, p.26). If drilling in America stopped, this would cause many people to lose their jobs, and many other jobs would therefore be outsourced. One solution to this problem is to increase the research for alternative fuels. This will create jobs, and will lead to improvements in alternative fuels, which in turn will help reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and will improve the environment.
One of the major problems associated with ethanol is that it is not readily available. Many proponents of ethanol say that corn is readily available. However, many of these assumptions come from people who reside back East who assume that corn is grown everywhere in the western portion of the United States. They are partially accurate with this statement because a majority of the corn used to create ethanol is grown in the Midwest. In the West, locations are generally more spread out as compared to back East, and it is therefore necessary to have more gas stations. One report showed that “less than 2 percent of gas stations have an alternative fuel pump and most are concentrated in the Midwest which makes sense because that’s where most ethanol is produced” (United, p.15-16). There is not much incentive to use alternative fuels such as ethanol out west because these ethanol stations are very spread out. The likelihood of finding an ethanol station is very slim, especially when one is low on gasoline in the first place; the person will most likely find the nearest fueling station that is more convenient, instead. It is therefore necessary to explore the use of other alternative fuels and continue drilling in America until viable, cost-effective alternative fuels are developed.
According to information presented in the same 2011 Senatorial hearing on Energy and Natural Resources regarding Biofuels, the Renewable Energy Association explained that the “sales of E85 have been slow in many markets because it cannot be sold for a competitive price. Because ethanol has fewer BTUs per gallon, E85 delivers between 25-30% fewer miles per gallon. Consequently, for the consumer to break even E85 must be priced 25-30% below regular gasoline. This is not always possible to do, and E85 sales suffer” (United, p.61). The energy efficiency of gasoline is measured in British Thermal Units per gallon, or BTU/gal, and studies have shown the ethanol is not as fuel-efficient as regular gasoline. This means that a car will go a shorter distance per tank of ethanol than it will on a tank of gasoline. In order to produce an alternative fuel that is safe for the environment, it must be tested extensively. This costs money in addition to the cost of refining ethanol, adding to the overall price. The minimum price of a gallon of ethanol is still greater than the price of a gallon of gasoline, and as a result, ethanol is not economically affordable.
In addition to the high cost of ethanol, studies have shown that ethanol is hard on the engines of vehicles. One report showed that “only 3% of the vehicles in the market are flexible fuel vehicles manufactured and warrantied to operate on E10+ fuels” (S. Rep., p. 61). In addition to this, “E85 ethanol is corrosive to many components of automotive fuel systems, especially in older vehicles” (Starr). Since older cars are not usually warrantied, this means that people with older cars will have to replace hoses and fuel system components more often if ethanol becomes the “fuel of choice.” It has already been determined that the United States has used ethanol to its limit, as one Senator suggested in a hearing. He said that “the infrastructure issues, however, are specific to the renewable fuels industry. We have maxed out our capacity to absorb ethanol into our gasoline pool. This is true of traditional corn based ethanol, but also true of emerging cellulosic ethanol which is the advanced biofuel that is expected to be the first to enter the marketplace” (United, p.2). Although many proponents of ethanol think that there is practically infinite room for expansion with ethanol as an alternative fuel, this is not the case. As this report suggests, ethanol is not a viable source of alternative fuel because ethanol is too costly to be absorbed as an alternative fuel, regardless of what type of refining is used.
Another aspect that makes ethanol unsafe for everyday use as a fuel is that it can cause health risks. Ethanol has been shown to produce excess amounts of formaldehyde, which results in throat and lung cancer. Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol, is found to cause many different health risks. According to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for ethanol, these potential health risks include: “Eye: Causes severe eye irritation. May cause painful sensitization to light. May cause chemical conjunctivitis and corneal Damage; Skin: Causes moderate skin irritation. May cause cyanosis of the extremities; Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. May cause systemic toxicity with acidosis. May cause central nervous system depression, characterized by excitement, followed by headache, dizziness, drowsiness, and nausea. Advanced stages may cause collapse, unconsciousness, coma and possible death due to respiratory failure; Inhalation: Inhalation of high concentrations may cause central nervous system effects characterized by nausea, headache, dizziness, unconsciousness and coma. Causes respiratory tract irritation. May cause narcotic effects in high concentration. Vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation; Chronic: May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. Animal studies have reported the development of tumors. Prolonged exposure may cause liver, kidney, and heart damage” (Fisher, p.1). These are all very serious health problems, and could very well endanger human beings. In addition to causing health effects now, the use of ethanol could result in reproductive and fetal abnormalities. This would mean that there would be more birth defects in future generations due to the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel. Gasoline has been used for decades, and it has not been shown to cause any of these birth defects. People in favor of ethanol realize that there are some environmental benefits of ethanol, however, they do not realize how potentially hazardous ethanol truly is. This is yet another reason why ethanol should not be used as an alternative fuel.
With the rising prices of oil, it is imperative to continue drilling in America to reduce gasoline prices while new alternative fuels are being researched. It is important to research new alternative fuels to reduce dependence on foreign oil and this requires collaboration between various organizations. In Michael Hordeski’s book, he recognizes the importance of alternative fuels in today’s society. He predicts that “a combination of available alternative fuels will evolve with the most likely affected by a number of technical, political and market factors. In order to allow a wider application of alternative fuels, a number of obstacles have to be overcome. These include economic, technological, and infrastructural issues. In the past, gasoline has been plentiful and has had a significant price advantage compared to other fuels. This could quickly change and alternative fuels would need to become more commonplace. One of the alternatives involves the more widespread use of biomass produced fuels. More efficient biomass conversion techniques would help make biofuels more cost-competitive” (Hordeski, p.2). Hordeski addresses the increasing oil prices, and the need for alternative fuels. He explains the importance of alternative fuels especially in today’s society with the high cost of oil prices. In this quote, Hordeski analyzes the difficulty of implementing alternative fuels because it requires collaboration between government, auto manufacturers, consumers, and more. As a result, it is important to create alternative fuels that will truly be cost-effective. Opponents of alternative fuels often think that they are too expensive. In reality, alternative fuels are currently expensive, but with extensive research over the next few years, they will become affordable for most everyone if they are thoroughly researched. While companies are researching and developing alternative fuels, it would therefore make sense to continue drilling in America. Until the details of alternative fuels are determined, it is imperative that drilling still occurs in America because this will reduce the dependence on foreign oil significantly.
While other types of alternative fuels are being researched, the best solution is to continue drilling and using the resources that exist here in America and offshore. There are many places in the U.S. that have oil reserves that compare in size to those found in Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries. The National Academy of Engineering Program Office’s Alvin M. Weinberg explains how “this country was blessed with enormous reserves of fossil fuel, and one could hardly conceive of a day when the United States would be importing 30 percent of its oil” (Helm, p.21). By drilling here in America, this would also provide jobs in this recession, and decrease our dependence on other countries. Also, funding should be increased for alternative fuels to encourage new research. This research could be completed at the college/university level and be funded through grants. By having research completed at college/university level, it would not be necessary to waste tax dollars on new research laboratories throughout the country. Many scholastic institutions already have extensive research centers available and these could be further utilized to help at the national level regarding alternative fuels. This solution offers the most benefits because ethanol is degrading the environment, while its original intention was to help it. This solution will be implemented by completing advanced research about other types of alternative fuels. In addition, funding should be provided to research new alternative fuels as well as study the effects that each of the fuels has or will potentially have on the world in the future. It is important to look at long-term effects and truly study the effects of each of the alternative fuels on the environment, health of the population, vehicles, etc. to determine if the alternative fuel is truly a viable alternative to gasoline. The newest trend is to “go green,” but many of the proposed solutions cause more harm than good. Proponents of “going green” often do not look at alternative fuels realistically. They need to take a step back and look at the overall effects of the fuels, and critically analyze what potential effects the fuels will have on society years down the road. It is therefore of the utmost importance to research each of the new ideas thoroughly before implementing them. What sounds like a good idea through research is not often the best solution in practice. The price of gasoline is already known, and if it were refined here in America, the price would probably decrease due to the exchange rate and import rates. Gasoline therefore provides a viable option until truly clean alternative fuels are created.
Another reason that ethanol should not become a widely-used alternative fuel is because it will potentially lead to food shortages. While many think that ethanol will be the one and only alternative fuel of the future, they do not think about what constitutes the actual composition of ethanol fuel. Ethanol requires large amounts of corn to be grown, and this requires lots of farmland. The production of corn requires substantial amounts of water as well, another dwindling resource. The government has therefore created incentives for farmers to grow corn instead of other crops. This leads to a shortage of other crops, and thus they must be imported. This causes the price of these other crops to increase due to the exchange rate and the import rate. As the U.S. Department of Agriculture notes, the “large and rapid expansion of U.S. ethanol production affects virtually every aspect of the field crops sector, ranging from domestic demand and exports to prices and the allocation of acreage among crops. Many aspects of the livestock sector are affected too. As a consequence of these commodity market impacts, farm income, government payments, and food prices also change” (Westcott, p.1). Also, the demand for corn rises, as does the cost. If ethanol is utilized as an alternative fuel, this means that food prices will dramatically increase. Others argue that “the distiller’s grain that is left over after you make ethanol is a good feed source for livestock” (United, p.11). While this is somewhat true, the amount of grain that is leftover is not significant compared to the amount that is required to create the fuel.
On the other hand, a pro of alternative fuels is that they will help the nation’s national security. According to the U.S. National Research Council, studies have shown that the U.S. will be safer if America relies less on foreign oil. The report explained that “security net benefits are based on changes in the probability or severity of abnormal energy-related events that would adversely impact the overall economy, public health and safety, or the environment…[the study] focused on dependence upon imported oil and the vulnerability to interdiction of supply or cartel pricing as a political weapon. More recently, the economic disruptions of rapid international price fluctuations from any cause have been emphasized” (National, p.58-59). It is therefore evident that drilling in America would increase the nation’s security, and would lead to self-sufficiency instead of depending on foreign, often hostile countries for oil. This book described the result of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) program to increase the amount of alternative fuels to reduce the dependence on petroleum. This report looked at the cost-to-benefit ratio of the program created by the DOE during the 1980’s energy crisis. The Department of Energy created the Fossil Energy Program which helped develop new technology to produce alternative fuels, as well as drill for petroleum. Drilling also increases the number of jobs available to Americans, which in turn helps the economy. From this report, it was determined that drilling for petroleum had positive consequences. The DOE was successful with its spending because drilling helped the economy, the environment, and national security.
As the price of oil increases, the need for alternative fuels also increases. It is important to thoroughly research each and every alternative fuel option before implementing it. Many times, alternative fuels are rushed onto the market without enough research, as was the case with ethanol. Ethanol has been found to cause health problems, it is not cost-effective, it takes more energy to synthesize it than it returns, and it is hard on vehicles’ engines. It is therefore a smart idea to drill here in America while other viable alternative fuels are being researched since the need for alternative fuels is ever-increasing. Drilling creates jobs for Americans, reduces dependence on foreign countries for their oil, and allows time for viable alternative fuels to be researched.
The real problem or underlying issue with this solution is the attitude of today’s society. Americans do not like change, and because ethanol is already in place, the likelihood that it will be eliminated as an alternative fuel is very slim. This solution will eliminate the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel, and many will oppose this, especially companies that produce ethanol. Additionally, farmers who are getting government subsidies for growing corn will be against this switch. In order for ethanol to no longer be an alternative fuel, it will be necessary to slowly phase this fuel out. This would have to be a slow process because a dramatic change will cause opposition among corporations, the government, oil companies, and stubborn Americans. If ethanol is hypothetically eradicated, this would cause some jobs to be lost in the ethanol industry, the need for new alternative fuel research centers to be established, and collaboration between auto-makers, government officials, scientists, alternative fuel companies, health specialists, and more. This solution causes many different entities to come together and make executive decisions about what determines a truly efficient fuel. New definitions would have to be adopted regarding what constitutes a “clean fuel” that is also safe, and new laws might also need to be created to change emissions standards and current environmental regulations. While it is simple in practice, this solution is very extensive, and requires numerous changes to occur, many of which are not outwardly visible.
While there are countless benefits to eliminating ethanol as an alternative fuel, in reality this change most likely will not occur in the near future. Americans are faced with issues of greater concern, such as the state of the economy, foreign relations, unemployment, and are not solely concerned about switching their fuel source for their vehicles. Until new alternative fuels are developed, this country can provide funding for alternative fuel research, be open to new possibilities of alternative fuels, and critically think about the overall impact of different fuels, both short and long term. This will help reduce the number of alternative fuels that are rushed onto the market without substantial research being compiled. The important fact to realize is that no solution is ever as easy as it seems, but everyone can help make a positive impact, in this case critically thinking about and being open to new sources of alternative fuels.
Works Cited
Hordeski, Michael F. Alternative Fuels: the Future of Hydrogen. Lilburn, GA: Fairmont, 2008. Print.
Fisher Scientific. "Material Safety Data Sheet." Fisher Scientific. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/89308.htm>.
“Fuels and Fuel Additives | US EPA.” US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 01 Nov. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/index.htm>.
Helm, John L. Energy: Production, Consumption, and Consequences. Washington, D.C.: National Academy, 1990. Print.
National Research Council (US) Committee on Benefits of DOE and National Academy of Sciences. Energy Research at DOE, Was It worth It?: Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000. Washington, D.C.: National Academy, 2001. Print.
Speight, J. G. The Chemistry and Technology of Petroleum. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis, 2007. Print.
Starr, Kenneth. Personal Interview. 5 Nov. 2011.
United States. Cong. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearing to Review the U.S. Department of Energy’s Biofuel Programs and Biofuel Infrastructure Issues, and to Consider S. 187, The Biofuels Market Expansion Act of 2011. 112th Cong., 1st sess. Washington: GPO, 2011. Print.
Westcott, Paul C. Ethanol Expansion in the United States: How Will the Agricultural Sector Adjust? Vol. Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture, 2007. Print.
References
Dale, Bruce E. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. 2007. Print.
Maxwell, T. T., and Jesse C. Jones. Alternative Fuels: Emissions, Economics, and Performance. Warrendale, PA, U.S.A.: Society of Automotive Engineers, 1995. Print.
Penner, S. S. Commercialization of Fuel Cells: a Report of the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Fuel-cell Commercialization Working Group. [S.l]: Elsevier, 1995. Print.
Pimentel, David. Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems: Benefits and Risks. [Dordrecht, Netherlands]: Springer, 2008. Print.
Shapouri, Hosein, James A. Duffield, and Michael Wang. The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol an Update. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, 2002. Print.
Sirman, M. Emissions Comparison of Alternative Fuels in an Advanced Automotive Diesel Engine. [United States]: Southwest Research Inst San Antonio Txtardec Fuels and Lubricants Research Facility, 1998. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment