Okay, it was lame, that speech. A little blip about “global climate change” (woo-hoo!), a few nods to ethanol. Nothng epic like last year’s “addicted to oil.” But the news that Bush likes biofuels (not news at all, but I’m being nice), combined with Schwarzenegger’s renewed interest in alternative fuels for California cars, has got everyone talking about ethanol again. Is it the fuel of the future? Will it slow the pace of climate change by reducing pollution from automobiles? Will it cause the price of tortillas to go through the roof in Mexico? And why does Chevron like it so much?
Answer: Maybe, maybe, probably not (ethanol and tortillas use different kinds of corn) and because they can still make money on it.
I’ll make it easy for you.
Corn-based ethanol: Evil
Grain-based ethanol: Bad
Cellulosic ethanol (made from the same stuff of cat litter -- waste husks, sawdust, paper pulp, etc.): Good
Cellulosic ethanol + biodiesel from rapeseed and waste oil + plus forcing automakers to produce cars that get better mileage + bike lanes + living closer to work . . . aw, forget it. It’s too good to ever be true.
Way back in 2001, Cornell agricultural scientists David Pimentel did the math on corn-based ethanol, and came up with this:
An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre.
In other words, corn would have to be even more heavily subsidized than it already is to produce cost-efficient energy crops, and it would take so much petroleum to grow it the net carbon load on the atmosphere would hardly decrease at all.
Ethanol from other crops, like soy, isn’t much better: You just can’t get that much ethanol out of feed stock. For every unit of energy invested in producing it, soy ethanol yields only about 1.6 units, while soy biodiesel, gets roughly 3.4 units out of every unit invested.
If you make biodiesel from rapeseed, 8 big units of energy emerge from just a single unit invested. Why aren’t we doing it? I mean, besides the nitrogen issue (biofuels emit more nitrogen which turns to ground-level ozone in the sunlight), which can be easily eliminated with better emissions-control technology?
The problem with all this, I think, is that we’re looking for the One Big Thing that can solve all our energy problems, while allowing us all to live exactly the same lives we live now – drive the same big cars, commute the same miles to work, make as many small trips to the grocery store in our Range Rovers and Blazers. But only if we attack our energy consumption on a number of fronts, will we kick our addiction, and at the same time address a whole slew of other problems, including obesity, pollution, traffic congestion and the intense isolation and fracturing of communities that has cause us to welcome surveillance cameras on every corner.
On another alternative energy note, my esteemed colleague David Zahniser brought my attention to a story in the L.A. Daily News this week about Bob “I don’t wanna zetz the guy” Hertzberg taking his solar panel startup to Wales. Yes, Wales, where hurricane-force winds last week left thousands without power for days , and you can bet they’re thinking about how to reduce their carbon output. I don’t want to zetz the guy, but when you have to bring your solar power business from California to Wales to make a buck, something is terribly wrong in the state of California. Something, suggest the story, to do with a lack of government subsidies and public support, A Million Solar Roofs notwithstanding.
Oh, and one more thing: the California Air Resources Board has announced appointees to two committees making decisions about the state’s new climate initiative, AB 32, signed into law this fall. People I’ve heard of and admire, such as Martha Arguello of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Jason Mark, the U.S. Transportation Program Officer at the Energy Foundation, have been appointed on both committees. And something about that thrills me.
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.laweekly.com/mt-tb.cgi/35658
Comments
There are 4 comments posted for this article.
Well, I'm glad there's something to be thrilled about... Thank you for the lucid and informative Ethanol breakdown. My question is, where is the grass roots movement to enjoin us in actively attempting to sway thems in power to look at this issue less myopically? Where's the MoveOn of ecological policy change?
Posted on January 26, 2007 6:01 AM by mernitman
That's a really good question. There's the Berkeley Biodeisel Collective, I suppose, and here in L.A., Joe Gershen's Green Depot (www.greedepot.org) does a good job of advocating for alternative fuels. But outside of the biodiesel movement, I'm not really seeing any grassroots effort to, say, install solar panels on low-income homes.
Oh, I take that back. Ted Bardacke of Global Green told me not long ago about efforts they were making to install solar in low-income multi-family buildings. I'm sure there are more but I dont know about it.
But you're talking about a Move-On like thing, that sends out emails and stuff? Environment California (a PiRG offshoot, if I'm not mistaken) does that. I signed you up for their email list here:
http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/tell-a-friend
I hope that's okay.
Of course, it's more marginalized, in part because, well, see earlier post on getting people worked up about the environment.
Posted on January 26, 2007 9:01 AM by Judith Lewis
One of the other reasons everyone is talking about ethanol now is because a Presidential election is nigh. You will note that all of the supposedly environmentally aware Democratic candidates will be (and some already have stated their positions) extremely supportive of corn-ethanol.
Have you guessed why this would be so?
Iowa caucus. Corn subsidies. (otherwise known as washington, d.c. pork.)
When I was on the Sierra Club Board of Directors, my colleague Doug LaFollette, who is Secretary of State for the state of Wisconsin, and who is a scientist by education and training, and who has studied the work of David Pimentel and others on this topic, tried repeatedly to get Sierra Club to take a position similar to the analysis you have written on ethanol above. I read a great deal of material Doug provided us, as well as other opinions, and became convinced that we was right.
We could gain no traction, as the Presidential elections of 2004 were on the horizon, and Democratic Party operatives in the Club prevented any action because they were concerned the Democratic candidates would be upset with Sierra Club. This is not the way to make environmental policy for an environmental advocacy organization, in my view.
It's so sad that self-interest is what drives political decisions. Unless, of course, the people speak up. It is time to shine more light on this issue.
Thanks, Judith Lewis, for beginning this enlightenment process so more people know about the realities of ethanol.
Posted on January 26, 2007 10:01 PM by Marcia Hanscom
[...] “Where is the MoveOn of climate change?” asks comment-poster mernitman a few weeks back. It was a good question and I didn’t have the answer. As far as I knew, there was no nonprofit zapping emails to the masses, no one entity that had appointed itself the task of spurring collective action among our legislatures. And given the dire nature of the warnings recently handed to us, that seemed wrong. [...]
Posted on February 8, 2007 11:02 PM by Another Green World » Blog Archive » The Planet is not Your Political Football: On the p