Alternative Fuels I: Ethanol

Alternative is a word that always sounds cool. It means you’re different from everyone else and you aren’t afraid to embrace it. It means you have another way to accomplish the same thing. It means you’ve broken out of the same old thinking and you’re living a new paradigm. Isn’t that the American dream? So when we hear discussion of alternative fuels, it just seems like the next evolution in the world of energy. But is this sentiment genuine?

Alternatives should have some value, relative to the norm. For example, disinfectant spray is an alternative to bleach if you want to kill germs. Bleach works better in most cases, but the spray is safer and easier to use. So you can trade off one advantage for another. If, however, one trades the norm for a so-called alternative that has no advantage to weigh out, it’s not really an alternative. This would be like eliminating bleach from your disinfecting regimen and replacing it with vanilla ice cream. Sure it’s different, but it’s not really a viable alternative. The same is true of many proposals to replace petroleum.

There are a few things to bear in mind when considering any discussion of fuels, energy, and transportation. Energy is energy, regardless of its source or form. So, whether one is considering petroleum, electricity, biofuels, or fuel cell technology, the same amount of energy is required to perform the same amount of work. So, for our purposes, let’s compare apples to apples and see the comparative benefits. This topic will take up more than one article, but we’ll keep the methodology as consistent as we can throughout the series.

We’ll start with the most popular alternative out there now – corn ethanol. This is a biofuel, made by fermenting corn. The most common ethanol fuel is E85, which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. This is considered the “summer blend”, while E70 (70% ethanol) is the winter blend. It is touted as a prime and immediate petroleum alternative because it can be derived from domestic sources, it is renewable, and current automotive technology will support it, as seen in flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs). These arguments sound good, but what is the rest of the story?

The first thing to note about ethanol is that is has a lower energy content than gasoline. According to the Department of Energy, a given volume of ethanol contains less than 70% the heat energy of the same volume of gasoline. Put another way, to get the same heat energy as a gallon of gas, one would have to burn about a gallon and a half of ethanol. This speaks to a decline in fuel economy in the same engine. The EPA says that FFVs get an average of 25-30% lower fuel mileage when running on E85 than on gasoline.

The translation is that an FFV will burn 25-30% more fuel when that fuel is E85. All things being equal, one would expect 25-30% more emissions with E85. The EPA asserts that E85 releases 15-20% less greenhouse gases (GHGs) than gasoline. Even so, the reduced emissions balanced with the increased consumption means more emissions overall. Furthermore, the 15-20% figure includes the refining and distribution processes. Since there are significant GHG savings in the fact that ethanol can be sourced locally and that photosynthesis absorbs GHGs, the emissions released at the vehicle are likely even higher.

The question of ethanol’s renewability is somewhat outside my expertise, but some sources indicate that corn cannot be grown indefinitely on the same land. The crop depletes certain minerals and nutrients from the soil and, even with good crop rotation strategies, arrives at a point of diminishing return. I will research this further and include my findings in a follow-up. Whatever the case, agricultural capacity is at a premium, and devoting this capacity to biofuels has already increased food prices around the world. And, while the decision between producing corn for fuel or corn for food comes down to simple economics, the amount of corn needed for 25 gallons of ethanol would provide the average person enough calories for a year.

Finally, instead of fuel economy, one must look to financial economy. Provided one has an FFV and can purchase E85 (there are less than 2000 E85 pumps open to the public in the US, with a literal majority of those in a few Midwestern states), she will find it selling for a national average of $3.02 per gallon. Compared with the current national average for a gallon of gasoline – $3.70 – this is a savings of 18.3% (see e85prices.com). To go 1000 miles in a mid-sized sedan, she would need 50 gallons of gasoline ($185) or 63 gallons of E85 ($190.26). So the prices are comparable, right? Wrong. The price at the pump for E85 is after a government subsidy program has taken its toll. According to The Economist, US ethanol subsidies are equal to $1.90 per gallon. Take that into account, and the price for a consumer (after all, federal subsidies are paid by the American taxpayer) to fuel 1000 miles’ worth of driving rises to a blistering $309.96. That’s an increase of over two thirds over the price of gasoline. It would be like paying $6.20 a gallon for gas.

With these facts in mind, it is clear that E85 is not the answer. It cannot match gasoline in cost, emissions, or fuel economy. The sustainability is questionable, and the impact of food vs. fuel debates cannot be overlooked. Clearly, petroleum supplies are finite and the transition to renewables is inevitable. Still, this transition must be made to a genuine alternative, which ethanol is not.