Which is Worse: Exporting $1 Billion Per Week or Growing Fuel?
There’s no doubt that growing corn-based ethanol has some serious problems: the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, controversy over increasing food prices, and questionable energy return.
But how does the impact of ethanol production compare to not doing anything?
Last week, the Delta Farm Press picked up on a statement made by Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens. Pickens admitted that he has opposed ethanol in the past, but on the other hand couldn’t support exporting half a trillion dollars—something the US will do this year in order to satisfy its oil addiction. Pickens said (via Delta Farm Press):
- » See also: Biofuels Breakthrough: Making Fuel From Air With Engineered Microbes
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
“You take 10 years, and you have $5 trillion,” said Pickens. “That’s more than $1 billion a day. We can’t stand that.” (That $500 billion per year is not far from the record federal deficit of $552 billion in 2004.)
Acknowledging he didn’t think much of ethanol’s claims in the early years, he said he now supports increased production. “I’d rather have ethanol and recirculate the money in the country, than to have it go out the back door on us.” (Pickens is investing $10 billion in wind energy.)
While corn-based ethanol is far from perfect, injecting some of that export money back into the US economy might not be such a bad idea. And even if it’s only slightly better than using gasoline in terms of energy return and pollution, it’s still slightly better. A lot of puzzle pieces are going to have to come together to solve the US’s petroleum problem, and sitting around waiting for the perfect biofuel or new technology to come along isn’t going to do it.
Whether or not ethanol is a good thing, it’s going to increase in a big way: by 2015, 30% of the US corn harvest will be made into gasoline.
Think this is a bad idea?
Source: Delta Farm Press (Mar. 28, 08): And now for the rest of the ethanol story
I’ve thought all along that ethanol would be a wasted
step. Isn’t it also highly corrosive? Would all pipelines, gas pumps and (older) vehicle gas tanks
tolerate the liquid?
Ethanol is still a questionable source of energy when all things (fertilizers, etc) are added into the equation. But, I agree with T. Boone Pickens in that I would rather recycle the dollars here in the US than export them.
If you look back about 15 years, you will see that Pickens was heavily involved in Natural Gas as a vehicle fuel. THe problem is distribution and the heavy tanks needed to hold the CNG in the cars.
I have asked my senators to for many years to come up with a better energy plan - one that includes alternative energy.
I feel that we can drill in ANWR and other places if we do so carefully and with new technologies, I think these places would be safe.
My plan is to open up ANWR and off shore areas for drilling AND for every barrel of oil we get from that, we must put in place an equal amount of energy from alternative sources. Simple plan that would appeal to both sides of the energy equation.
Alcohol is not good for engines and messes up rubber seals, not to mention what it does to the present day metals in engines. It has significantly less energy content that gasoline and it purportedly takes more energy to make than that which it saves. Finally, by taking corn out of food production, food prices will go up, which they already have done.
I believe that the most viable energy solution for the US (not that wind and solar should not be advanced) is Nuclear. France has perfected their reactors and have standardized on a single type of reactor which all of their technicians understand. Their safety record is unblemished. Three Mile Island would not have even made the news had their technicians just allowed the automatic safety mechanisms work as designed. We must use this green, non-poluting source of energy for much of our electricity rather than burning up oil and coal for electricity. Oil and coal ARE poluting.