|
I was pleased to see the Daily Herald isn't jumping on the biofuel/ethanol bandwagon like other newspaper, enviros and Governor Doyle have done. You are correct that the only tried and true solution to the problems of global warming and high fuel prices is to burn less fuel, not make more of it. I've told that to the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board but they remain steadfast in their opinion.
Mike Neuman
Madison
-----------------------
Ethanol isn't the solution to our energy consumption
July 14, 2006
To hear some folks talk about it, ethanol is some sort of holy nectar given to mankind by the gods.
It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will burn cleanly and won't contribute to global warming. It will create jobs, and help struggling family farmers survive by creating a new market for their crops.
It slices. It dices. It removes stubborn stains. All it needs is some high-volume pitchman with a British accent, screaming its virtues on late-night cable TV, and the stuff will fly off the shelves.
It's all hogwash.
Some scientists have been saying for quite some time now that ethanol can't do all it is promised to do. But their concerns have been dismissed by some, in part because folks didn't want to hear them and partially because some of their studies have been funded by the petroleum industry.
But a new analysis released this week backs the skeptics. And this wasn't some study bought and paid for by Exxon or Shell Oil. It was done by researchers at the University of Minnesota -- Minnesota being one of the states that has jumped on the ethanol bandwagon with both feet.
According to their research, even if every ear of corn in the United States were devoted to making alcohol, it would supply only 12 percent of our motor fuel. And that's at today's consumption rate, which is expected to double by 2025.
The news gets worse. In addition to seriously harming food supplies -- corn also is a huge source of livestock feed -- corn isn't as green as it has been advertised to be, and growing it robs soil of nutrients that have to be replaced.
Previous studies on ethanol's drawbacks haven't stopped politicians up to and including President Bush from endorsing it, especially as gasoline prices have crept back up to $3 a gallon. Gov. Jim Doyle himself has sung ethanol's praises, last week again mentioning it as he called for 25 percent of the state's energy to come from renewable sources in coming years.
This new study should get their attention. It should get everyone's attention because it's scientifically sound -- printed in the peer-reviewed publication of the National Academy of Sciences -- and balanced.
Jason Hill, lead author of the review, told The Associated Press that he and other scientists "definitely believe that biofuels have a significant potential."
But he went on to say that ethanol is "no savior."
And that's the important part.
Ethanol no doubt will play a role, and a significant role, in our future energy consumption. It already is blended with almost every gallon of gasoline sold in Wisconsin.
It will be joined by biodiesel and other renewables as we search for every source of fuel that will reduce our use of the finite supply of petroleum on this planet.
But ethanol isn't magic.
It won't slice and dice. It won't even cut an aluminum can in half and then slice a tomato paper-thin.
IF WE'RE TO REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON OIL, ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY WILL WORK: WE HAVE TO USE LESS OF IT.
THAT MEANS DRIVING SMALLER, FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES AND DRIVING THEM LESS. IT MEAN TAKING THE BUS, OR RIDING A BIKE OR WALKING WHEN POSSIBLE. IT MEANS INSULATING OUR HOMES MORE, AND WEARING SWEATERS IN THE WINTER WHEN WE TURN THE THERMOSTATS A LITTLE LOWER.
Those aren't easy truths in a country that has come to depend so heavily upon cheap and abundant fuel. But those days are over.
Today, gasoline is $3 a gallon. A year from now, it might be $4. It sure doesn't seem to be going down.
![Picture (Metafile)]() http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/WDH06/607140422/1636 | 