Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
not their fault. The Governor of Texas in the summer of
s requirement for
corn ethanol use so that more corn will be available for
animal feed. The hog farmers of Iowa are at odds with the
corn growers of Iowa because feed prices are so high.
There is a
asked the EPA to reduce that state
'
final bit of irony: the increase in corn prices
has led to the abandonment of some plans to build more
ethanol factories.
You may wonder with all of this if the US policy on
ethanol makes any sense. Technically it makes no sense at
all unless you believe that reducing oil imports is the only
way to measure the bene
ts. Since the energy inputs
required to make ethanol are about the same as its energy
content, using ethanol as a motor fuel is really driving
your car on a combination of coal, natural gas, nuclear
power, and oil (don
t forget farm machinery and trucks to
transport the crop) depending on the mix of energy
sources where the corn is grown. There are cheaper ways
to convert coal to liquid fuel though they tend to produce
more greenhouse gas than gasoline. Converting natural
gas to liquid fuel or using it directly is better. Also, it may
seem odd to you, as it certainly does to me, to mandate an
increase in ethanol production by the year
'
that can
only be met with a process which has not yet been
developed.
Where the US ethanol program does make sense is
politically. Its origins were in the Farm Bill of
.
Enthusiasm in Washington for corn ethanol increased
dramatically in the run-up to the US election of
.
The goal was to capture the votes of the corn-belt states,
and both political parties jumped in. The result was that
no one got any political advantage and the politicians are
