Town Crier: Ethanol and bio-diesel fuels might not be the easy solution they appear at first — but they might not be all bad, either.
In the musical “Oliver,” Fagan
was one step ahead of the law and really unhappy about the way he
lived. But, fantasizing about how his life might change, every scenario
he envisioned invariably caused him to say, “I think I’d better think
it out again.”
Given prices today, perhaps thinking it out again is necessary to shift from petro-fuel in favor of green sources like ethanol and bio-diesel fuels.
While
growing our own fuel is appealing, there are factors that hamper our
ability to easily switch to a bio-fuel scenario for the U.S.
Many
say ethanol is the answer. While it’s appealing, one of the major
problems is that it reduces our ability to feed ourselves and the
world.
In
2004, the U.S. consumed about 150 billion gallons of gasoline and 52.5
billion gallons of diesel. Because of various inefficiencies, like
combustion, the cost of production, energy, growth, harvest,
transportation, other processes and delivery, we would have to produce
210 billion gallons of ethanol per year to replace the petro-chemical energy we now use.
There are two methods of ethanol production we can use, en masse: the traditional fermentation method from corn, and ethanol production from celluloid plant materials.
Right now, ethanol from corn appears cheapest. However, is it really cheaper or even possible to achieve?
In 2004, the U.S. had about 938.5 million acres of land used for all agricultural production. To switch from petro-fuels
to ethanol from corn would require an additional 500.5 million acres of
land to be placed into production to prevent it from adversely
affecting a staple food source.
To
accomplish the same thing more cheaply, using cellulose ethanol
production, about 627 million acres of land not now in agricultural
production is required.
With
either method, there is still a transportation/delivery problem that
needs to be overcome, as you cannot use pipelines to transport
ethanol-based fuels.
Many say bio-diesel is the answer. While it’s possible, it is not yet feasible to convert en masse to this form of fuel, even though it is better than ethanol.
A
bio-diesel scenario would require the U.S. to place an additional
397.64 million acres of land into production and grow trees to harvest
oil of palm. Granted, palm trees grow only in tropical areas, and it
would be difficult to find 397.64 million acres of land required to
make that kind of bio-diesel practical.
The
next crop that might be used would be coconut, requiring 879.79 million
additional acres to be placed into agricultural production. But the
U.S. has only 2.264 billion acres of land.
Do we need to eliminate petro-fuel that quickly?
When
we enjoy the life without problems, we do not seem to have much
motivation to make things better. When we feel the pinch in our
wallets, we take notice, take action and all too often make a quick
fix, ending up making things worse — such as when we spend
25 cents to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs, which cost a dollar each to dispose of properly at a hazmat reclamation site.
Switching
from corn production for food to ethanol production has caused a
shortage of staple grain foods for human consumption, first through the
escalating cost of corn-based foods as a result of a higher
price/demand for corn now used in the production of ethanol.
Secondly,
wheat farmers, to increase profits, switched to more lucrative corn,
creating escalating costs of wheat, because of less availability.
We can either eat or drive, but seemingly not both.
As
we look at world economics, there does seem to be a way of moving away
from oil to another source of energy without damaging the global
economy and lives — just not immediately.
What
if we took a combination of various bio-energy production techniques
and employed them to first reduce our country’s consumption of crude
oil by 20 percent?
This
would equate to placing a glut of crude on the world market by about 16
percent and dramatically reducing the price of crude on the market
today.
Then,
instead of being pocketed, that savings should be used to further
develop cheaper and practical methods of clean energy production.
While
no one source of energy is the complete answer to the problem, little
bits here and little bits there, including conservation and
improvements in other energy technologies, may in fact be the answer to
moving away from petro-chemical based fuels without damaging the world economy.
• Dave Hardesty, a satellite communications engineer, is among a select group of local residents with columns in the Tracy Press.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
DRIVE AROUND LESS.
1) Carpool. Work, school, wherever.
2) If you live within a few blocks of school, have the kids walk. It won't kill them, I promise. If you're more than a few blocks, but still a reasonable distance- have them bike to school.
3) Streamline your errands. Take a friend or two also needing to run errands and go in one car.