The Fallacy of Ethanol

There have been a number of people who have been trying to convince us that ethanol is a viable source of energy. But is there any truth in what they claim? Major universities have completed studies that prove that we actually burn up to 1.7 times MORE fossil fuels in the production of ethanol. Plowing the fields. Planting. Irrigating. Harvesting. Transporting. And only then do we incur the huge energy expenditures in processing it. Every stage requires the burning of fossil fuels.

According to David Pimental (agricultural expert, Cornell University) it would take 11 acres of farmland to grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to run the average U.S. automobile for one year, if blended with gasoline, as it now is. This is equal to the amount of farmland required to feed seven people for one year. More important, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol, while one gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. This means it takes 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol than the energy that is actually in the ethanol.

Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs. In other words, production of ethanol creates a substantial LOSS of energy, making ethanol production unsustainable. 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. But even more important is the fact that we cannot replace the fossil fuel with ethanol, because ethanol is so much more expensive than fossil fuels when you add the costs of converting the corn into ethanol.

The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price. Now, here is something the ethanol crowd won't tell you. Corn is a "heavy feeder" - it requires more fertilizer, more nitrogren and phosphorous than most other crops, erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn uses up groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water.

In short, corn is not a sustainable energy source, especially in the amount that would be required. And then we must consider costs to consumers. Using all the corn necessary to make a difference results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices. Your food costs would increase significantly. And if a drought occurs, food for human consumption could disappear. And, to make matters worse, the U.S. Census states the world population is expected to double over the next 40 years. With food resources already strained, can we really afford to turn food into fuel?

If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. I would like to see America become self-sufficient insofar as energy is concerned. But before we jump onto any bandwagon, we really need to look at the bigger picture, and ask ourselves what the ultimate cost would be. What are the long term effects? Is it sustainable? Does it cost more to make than what you get? What are the dangers?

I just hope we do not run out of time before we find answers.