As concerns mount over soaring fuel prices and the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, ethanol is emerging as a controversial balm for the nation’s growing energy problem.
Politicians and automakers say the corn-based biofuel can reduce demand for gasoline. By using more ethanol, advocates say, gasoline (petrol) prices would come down, air quality would improve, and American farmers would benefit.
But some critics say there are far more effective alternatives than a fuel which requires massive energy inputs to produce.
“I wish ethanol were everything that advocates say it is, but it is terrible that this has been latched on to and proposed to be a solution to our liquid fuels problem,” said David Pimentel, a Cornell University ecology and agricultural sciences professor.
Not only does ethanol require 30% more energy input than what is produced, Pimentel said, but crop pesticides and fertilisers cause water pollution and other environmental problems.
At the same time, he said, farmers stand to receive billions in federal subsidies.
For its part, the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition said ethanol production has become less energy-intensive over the last 20 years, and will continue to improve.
There are two types of ethanol gasoline: E10, a blend which contains 10% ethanol, can be used in any vehicle and is already used in 40% of all gasoline sold in the United States; and E85, a blend which uses 85% ethanol and requires specially made vehicles.
Although automakers are on board, even touting their products, the question is whether consumers will warm to vehicles that require a different fuel and engine.
A JD Power and Associates’ study reported that only 7,23% of all new car buyers last year said that “environmental impact” was a key factor in their buying decision.
Added Pimentel: “I think the public will buy into it, but only until the facts get out. They’ll find out that this is not solving our energy problem.”
There are other challenges. For one, ethanol achieves lower mileage than traditional gasoline, according to www.fueleconomy.gov.
The website shows, for example, that a 2006 Chevy Monte Carlo can travel a combined 40km per gallon on gasoline, but only 31km per gallon on E85. By comparison, a 2006 Toyota Prius hybrid gets 88km per gallon.
Another problem is the lack of infrastructure. There are about 180 000 gasoline stations in the United States, but only 600 or so ethanol stations, according to the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition.
Most of those are in the Midwest. The number of ethanol stations is expected to grow to 2 000 this year, thanks to a tax credit for station owners who install E85 pumps.
Some say it’s worth it.
President George Bush said he wants to increase ethanol production to replace 30% of gasoline demand by 2030 in order to stanch the nation’s growing reliance on foreign oil.
In January, two Midwestern senators sponsored a Bill that would require carmakers to annually increase the number of vehicles capable of burning E85 until nearly all vehicles are so equipped.
General Motors, still smarting from being late to market on hybrid technology, has launched an ad campaign touting ethanol. Hybrid leader Toyota Motor recently said it would consider building ethanol-friendly vehicles.
Chrysler plans to add three new vehicles to its lineup of E85 flexible-fuel vehicles this fall: The Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander SUVs, and the Dodge Dakota pickup.
The manufacturer expects to sell 250 000 E85-fueled vehicles in 2007 and 500 000 in 2008. Nearly all of the company’s E85 vehicles have been sold to fleet customers — at least half of those to government agencies — but the new versions will be sold directly to consumers.
By the end of this year Ford will have sold two-million E85 vehicles.
Earlier this year Ford introduced the Escape Hybrid E85, a research vehicle that marries hybrid electric power and flex-fuel capability, and is said to produce 25% less carbon dioxide than a gasoline-fueled Escape hybrid.
In all there are about six million E85-compatible vehicles on the road. – AFP