By Nate Howard

Sometimes what seems like a good idea at the time actually turns out to be a pretty bad one in the end. Such is the case with ethanol. Ethanol is not the answer to either global warming or reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol has huge physical and economic drawbacks, is inefficient, and produces more harmful emissions than gasoline.



A Minnesota study in 2005 revealed that one gallon of ethanol required 4.5 gallons of water, while a new ethanol plant can use up to 1.3 million gallons of water and produce 400,000 gallons of contaminated water every day. This type of pumping has recently shown a negative impact on Greene County, Missouri's aquifer which has dropped 140 feet in some places, and has led to more than half of the 300 well owners in the county to report problems with their wells. - St. Louis Post Dispatch



Currently, ethanol is being made primarily from corn. The U.S. does not produce enough corn to meet the demand, and even if it did, would we really want to rely on it. Current methods for producing ethanol require 450 pounds of corn to produce 25 gallons of ethanol, enough calories to feed one person for an entire year, which has resulted in an 80% increase in corn prices in 2006. Continuing increases in corn prices would obviously result in an increase in the production price of ethanol, but aside from this, it would also result in an increase in virtually every food item consumed in this country. Why? The answer is simple. Corn is found in virtually all food products produced in the U.S. in the form of Corn Syrup. Thus, as the price of corn rises, so does the price every product made from it, which does not bode well for the American consumer. At our current rate of corn consumption, both from food and ethanol, we all better hope that nothing happens to our corn harvests, because if anything did, it would make the Irish Potato Famine look like a walk in the park.



Scientists are working to produce ethanol from substances other than corn and that cost less than corn; however, unless these methods can make production and use of ethanol more efficient, they will do little good. Based on my assessment of information relating to ethanol, ethanol at best is as efficient as gasoline, yet requires much more energy make and produced more greenhouse gases than gasoline to produce (due to the use of farm equipment and processing needs). That being said, ethanol also produces more harmful emissions than gasoline.





Results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage (because) E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others—formaldehyde and acetaldehyde (but) E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog (and) inhaling ozone—even at low levels—can decrease lung capacity, inflame lung tissue, worsen asthma and impair the body's immune system (which would likely) increase the annual number of asthma-related emergency room visits by 770 and the number of respiratory-related hospitalizations by 990. - See Science Daily



There are alternatives, such as battery-electric, plug-in-hybrid and hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, whose energy can be derived from wind or solar power. These vehicles produce virtually no toxic emissions or greenhouse gases and cause very little disruption to the land—unlike ethanol made from corn or switchgrass, which will require millions of acres of farmland to mass-produce. It would seem prudent, therefore, to address climate, health and energy with technologies that have known benefits. - See Science Daily



So, what should we do?