Ethanol: A sustainable Alternative Energy Source
Renewable energy sources are the deemed an efficient way to create sustainable development. The premise in renewable energy sources is the use of alternative energy sources to increase fossil fuel reserves, reduce the threats of climate change, and increase the security of energy supply across the globe (Goldemberg et al. 808). The review of literature indicates that majority of the alternative energy sources are still under development, with a few well established. One of the established alternative energy sources is ethanol, as in the case of Brazilian sugarcane ethanol. This report presents information on the status of the large-scale development of ethanol as an alternative energy source.
The main goal of large-scale development of ethanol as an alternative energy source is the increase in global warming, climate change, and the dependence on fossil fuels. This creates a need to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide emissions, with the use of alternative energy sources (Dias, Vaughan, Rykiel, 594). The use of ethanol fuel is linked with green energy concept, which is the any efficient energy source that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impact (Dias, Vaughan, Rykiel, 594). Therefore, the evaluation of ethanol as an alternative energy source must consider its ability to reduce pollution in terms of green house gases like methane and carbon dioxide, and local emissions like sulfur, lead, and particulates (Goldemberg et al. 808). The classification of ethanol as an alternative energy source factors in production and usage cycles in the evaluation of environmental advantages and disadvantages.
An example of the large-scale growth and production of ethanol as an alternative energy source, is in the sugarcane program of Brazil. By 2005, the country was producing approximately 16 billion liters of ethanol from sugarcane annually leading to a need of 3 million hectares of the crop (Goldemberg et al. 808). The ethanol the Brazilians make is used pure or in a blend with gasoline, in a mixture of 24% ethanol and 76% gasoline (Dias, Vaughan, Rykiel, 594). Like Brazil, the U.S. is involved in the production of ethanol following the Clean Air Act Amendment in 1990 that led to the consideration of alternative fuels for vehicles as a means to reduce emissions (Dias, Vaughan, Rykiel, 594). The main goal for this Act is to control the amount of carbon monoxide produced, and re-formulate gasoline to reduce greenhouse emissions. These goals led the U.S. to seek technologies to increase gasoline’s oxygen content in winter for cities that exceed carbon monoxide pollution for air quality standards. Oxygenation is also for country’s whose ozone areas are worse and have the minimum oxygen content (Dias, Vaughan, Rykiel, 594). This led to the use of ethanol as an oxygenator of gasoline, since it adds oxygen to gasoline when added. Ethanol in the U.S. is from corn, with production increasing from 76 million liters in 1979 to 6.4 billion liters in 2001 (Dias, Vaughan, Rykiel, 594). By 2003, ethanol blended with gasoline made up 10% of all gasoline sales in the nation. However, rarely do consumers make use of pure ethanol as a fuel for transportation, since they prefer the blending with gasoline. The most common blend is the E85 blend for light vehicles at 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (Dias, Vaughan, Rykiel, 595).
The two nations opt to make use of ethanol as an alternative energy source in the oxygenation of gasoline, since ethanol is safer than methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and produces a cleaner combustion (Je Sun 1). MTBE is not used in the oxygenation of gasoline or as an alternative energy source since it is toxic and studies have found that it contaminates groundwater thereby negating the need for an alternative energy source (Je Sun 1). Despite the fact that ethanol production costs are higher than those of fossil fuels are, studies show the benefits of using ethanol are higher.
The ability of ethanol to reduce the amount of emission of green house emissions and the encouragement that it is a promising alternative energy source motivates the U.S. government to support its large-scale production. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, to increase renewable fuel standards under the mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to 36 billion gallons in 2022 (Somma, Loblowicz, and Deason 373). This act supports the increase of ethanol production by the private sector as well as congress, as corn-based ethanol is subsidized by federal tax credits and state credits. The Act has seen a steady increase in the production of ethanol, since by September 2007, 128 ethanol plants existed across the U.S. with a capacity of approximately 7 billion gallons annually (Caroline and Hahn 275). The expectation is that the capacity will exceed 13 billion gallons per year following the completion of new projects (Caroline and Hahn 275).
The lack of consensus and the lack of immediate large-scale production of ethanol as an alternative energy source is associated with the high costs of production as compared to fossil fuel. Despite the fact that the production of ethanol from corn is highly subsidized by the state, and federal tax credits, making it difficult to determine the actual cost of production, studies indicate that ethanol production is not cost effective (Somma, Loblowicz, and Deason 373). This is because ethanol is a highly corrosive fuel that has a high tendency to absorb water, thereby damaging the current fuel infrastructure. This creates a need for special fuel equipment to handle pure ethanol fuel and ethanol blends, and its own supply chain for transportation and distribution (Somma, Loblowicz, and Deason 373). The other challenge in large-scale production is the close intertwine between the agricultural availability of corn for ethanol production with food crops. This is because studies show that the prices of corn fluctuate with the convergence of demand of corn for feed crops, ethanol production, and human consumption (Somma, Loblowicz, and Deason 373).
Ethanol use is associated with the increased emission of nitrogen oxides, with the production and transportation of ethanol may cause the increase in sulfur oxide emissions, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter (Caroline and Hahn 275). From the studies, there is evidence that the use of ethanol can increase water contamination and ground-level ozone, especially as seen in the Gulf of Mexico, consequently leading to an increase in food prices (Caroline and Hahn 275). The studies show that by increasing the production of ethanol, the U.S. is more likely to increase the cost as compared to that of gasoline. Moreover, in the energy sector, the production of ethanol costs more than that of oil, thereby this cost is more likely to distribute across the U.S. market making transportation and traveling expensive (Caroline and Hahn 276). Moreover, the studies argue that the cost of production of ethanol is hidden in benefits like federal and state tax credits, which are government funded programs that create a deadweight cost due to increase in taxes to meet such a budgetary demand.
However, despite these concerns Caroline and Hahn (2009), reports that analyze of ethanol production and its benefits to the environment by the government through the EPA (2007) shows the fuel has benefits. Studies show that ethanol is more likely to reduce the level of carbon monoxide emissions along with some of the air toxic emissions like benzene (Caroline and Hahn 276). Overall, the studies of Caroline and Hahn (2009) and Somma, Lobkowicz, and Jonathan (2010), indicate that ethanol produced from corn cannot boost the energy security demands for America, not fully reduce the dependence on fossil fuels, since its production is largely dependent on availability of corn. Moreover, given the environmental reports and data there is doubt on the ability of ethanol to increase the environmental benefits, as it causes pollution and emission of toxic gases. These studies indicate that the cost of increasing the production volumes of ethanol to 10 billion gallons annually is more likely to exceed the benefits of ethanol use by 3 billion dollars in 2012 following the government policies. However, despite the lack of cost-benefits of the production of ethanol, the ethanol remains an important alternative energy source. The ability of ethanol to oxygenate and reduce the level of greenhouse gas emission in gasoline causes the federal government to support its production through regulations and subsidies.
Works Cited
Dias, De Oliveira, M.E., Vaughan Burton E., and Rykiel Edward J. Jr. Ethanol as Fuel: Energy, Carbon Dioxide Balances, and Ecological Footprint. BioScience, 55.7(2005): 593-603.
Goldemberg, Jose et al. Ethanol for a Sustainable Energy Future. Science Magazine, Sustainability and Energy, 315(2007): 808-810.
Hahn, Robert, and Caroline Cecot. “The Benefits and Costs of Ethanol: An Evaluation of the Government’s Analysis.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 35.3 (2009): 275-95.
Somma, Dan, Hope Lobkowicz, and Jonathan P. Deason. “Growing America’s Fuel: An Analysis of Corn and Cellulosic Ethanol Feasibility in the United States.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 12.4 (2010): 373-80.
Ye Sun, Jiayang C. Hydrolysis of Lignocellulosic Materials for Ethanol Production: A Review. Bioresource Technology, Elsevier, 83 (2002): 1-11.
