I first went to the U.S. Department of Energy's website and found an article on the facts and myths of ethanol. It starts out by talking about the environmental benefits of ethanol, saying it sends less harmful gases out into the atmosphere. Then it talks about using the corn for ethanol will not have significant effect on the corn supply in the US, and it will be able displace 30% of gasoline consumption by 2030. The next myth/fact combo addresses the point that ethanol produces more energy than it takes TO produce it. Finally, the website talks about how ethanol burning in a engine actually enhances engine performance, which disputes the original article I found.
So after reading all these benefits, I felt it was a no-brainer that ethanol was the real deal: the way to get out of the dependency from gasoline and deserved all of the economic subsidies it was receiving. It won't disrupt the food supply, it actually makes engines perform better, decreases air pollution, and produces more energy than it requires. Then I found another article...This article from Forbes.com addresses the issue of the amount of subsidies that ethanol it receives, and basically refutes everything the Department of Energy said.
I honestly don't know who I should believe, they both seem to be a little biased, but I still feel that ethanol is a fairly good substitute for our dependence on gas. If only there was a non-biased scientist that could just deliver the facts and let the public decide for itself whether or not they want to continue using ethanol... Maybe I just found a possible job for myself...
Could you post some actual numbers with this post. I would like the see the numbers both sides are putting out for more clarity.
ReplyDeleteThanks
Yeah, this is a complicated topic. Part of the problem is that different studies are looking at different things and therefore generate different measurements. So sometimes you end up comparing apples with oranges without intending it. Also, looking at huge systems like ethanol production is difficult, because they can be challenging to measure. And policy analysts may be influenced by politics....
ReplyDeleteIn general, most research I've seen supports the development of cellulosic ethanol but is quite critical of corn ethanol because it is seen as a way to subsidize farmers (not really about energy), because the distribution systems are not well-developed yet, and because it may displace food production if it expands further. All things to think about.