Use of Ethanol for Environment - Research Paper Example

Sur Supervisor Ethanol Fossil fuels have polluted our environment in last one hundred years or so leading to global warming and climate change. Of late many countries have promoted the use of alcohol as bio-fuel blending with fossil fuels in a certain ratio; however, promotion of ethanol as a bio-fuel is now highly questionable. Studies reveal that environmental impact of ethanol as bio-fuel is much higher than that of gasoline and other fossil fuels. The paper aims at exploring how ethanol is more damaging to our environment and its use as energy source cannot be encouraged. Flow diagram For E85 and Gasoline Source: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/03/yang-20120316.html Researchers from the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Technical University of Troyes, France and the University of Minnesota conducted a study to find real effect of ethanol as bio-fuel on environment. The study involved 19 American Corn producing states and the effect of corn farming for ethanol production were analyzed based on 12 environmental factors. The study also considered the factors known as ‘eutrophication’ that is simply described as "an increase in the rate of supply of organic matter in an ecosystem" (Evans). Based on their study, it is revealed that E85 (blend of 85% ethanol and 15% of gasoline) fuel causes worse environmental impact than pure unblended gasoline. To be precise, E85 shows, on average, 23% higher impact in relation to gasoline. Moreover, if greenhouse gas emissions from land use are taken into account, the impact on environment is found to be 33% higher than gasoline. The researchers in their findings used the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model developed by Argonne National Laboratory. The model determines "the amount of fuel required for the average gasoline and flex-fuel vehicle over a distance of about 0.62 miles (1 kilometer)" (Evans). E85's benefits and drawbacks are compared with gasoline that is produced from imported crude oil and refined in the country. The authors point out that in previous studies the impact of irrigation, fertilizer uses, and pesticide application for feedstock growth has not been taken into account and without that real impact of ethanol on environment cannot be estimated accurately (Yang et al.). On land-use change, Searchinger et al. argues that when American farmers divert corn for ethanol production that means some other land within the US or outside must cultivate corn required as feed stock for human consumption assuming total consumption remains stationary. It can be construed that bio-fuel production is bound to drive agriculture in some other parts of the world. With new areas converting to agricultural use, a carbon debt is bound to occur. Searchinger et al. estimate emissions using agricultural model of land-use change and they have found that corn-based ethanol production enhances green house emission by 100% over 30 years. Authors conclude that as long as biofuel is grown on farmland, it can not imporve our carbon foot print (Searchinger, 2008). It is important to note that the Federal government in the US is providing large subsidies to farmers so that corn-based ethanol production could be enhanced. The objective is to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent. Does that mean that the US government is providing subsidy to worsen the environment instead of improving it? Michael Grunwald argues that bio-fuels take away the agricultural land and destroy the forests, and grasslands that are storehouse of huge amounts of carbon. In Indonesia, in a bid to grow palm oil trees for bio-diesels people have reduced wilds to such an extent that the country has been now third largest emitters of carbon. Same is the case with Malaysia where palm oil farming for bio-fuel production has taken surge reducing agricultural land for human consumption. In the US, 20 percent of corn is sold to ethanol production creating scarcity of corn for human and cattle feed consumption (Grundwald). Elisabeth Rosenthal argues that all bio-fuels lead to more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels. The most critical issue is that the production of all bio-fuels results into new land use whether within the country or outside eliminating forests that are major sources of absorbing carbon emissions. These studies also inform that any amount of efficiency improvements in producing ethanol cannot change the equation because ethanol production depends on corn production and that in turn, creates pressure on limited agricultural land (Rosenthal). Meredith Strang Burgess who serves on the Health and Human Services Committee and a republican member of Maine House categorically describes ethanol production as bio-fuel a big hoax. She states that ethanol is 30 percent less efficient when compared with gasoline. That means more fuel is required for the same mileage. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that one gallon of ethanol needs 1700 gallons of water. It is essential to realize that while producing one gallon of ethanol one gallon of fossil fuel is spent because the corn needs to be grown using pesticides, fertilizers and then that corn must reach to ethanol producers by trucks that also consume fuel. In one of the study at Stanford University, ethanol-fueled cars are harmful for the environment because ethanol fumes are detrimental to public health when compared with gasoline fumes. This is also opposed by Sierra Club and many environmental groups in the country (Burgess). Recommendation It is amply clear that ethanol as bio-fuel simply shifts the environmental impact but does not help in reducing emission. Uninterrupted use of fossil fuels that is going on for last several decades across the world has deteriorated our environments causing global warming. In 1960s, Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was 320 parts per million (PPM) that has crossed 380 PPM in 2010. An increase of almost 20% in just 50 years! Current climate change observed in several parts of the world is attributed to global warming and unfriendly environmental practices that include fossil fuel emissions. Frequent ferocious cyclones erupting across Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans have been a regular phenomenon. Global warming causes ice melting resulting into the submergence of land areas permanently. Countries such as Mauritius, Bangladesh are glaring examples of land losses due to rise in sea levels year after year. Countries already facing huge pressures on land due to burgeoning population get further squeezing on available land for living and agriculture. Carbon footprint, currently, has reached to a level that even if it is possible to bring emissions at zero level now, it will take at least 60-80 years to make our environment free of excess carbon. Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php Conclusion In view of the above perspectives, any effort to promote ethanol as bio-fuel is further going to aggravate global warming putting human existence into jeopardy. Several renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro energy can not only meet our energy needs but also clean our environment and eliminate dangers of global warming and climate change lurking large since last few decades. The most fortunate part with these energies is that they are completely non-polluting and capable to meet our needs and sustain living on this earth. There have been remarkable advances in solar technology in last couple of years that have improved its conversion efficiency manifold and reduced its cost to consumers significantly. The US governments including state governments have so far provided huge subsidies up to USD 25 billion to increasing ethanol production and it is high time that the government completely stops encouraging them because it is amply proved that ethanol does not help in reducing emissions rather it accelerates deteriorating our environment leading to global warming at faster pace than fossil fuels created. Works-Cited Burgess, Meredith Strang. “Is Ethanol a Giant Hoax”? Maine.gov. Web. 7 Dec. 2013 http://www.maine.gov/legis/house_gop/opinion/strangburgess_ethanol.htm Evans, Huw. Study: E85 Hurts Environment Up To 33 Percent Worse Than Conventional Gasoline. Web. 2012. 7 Dec. 2013. http://www.hybridcars.com/e85-impacts-environment- 33-percent-more-gasoline-42892/ Grundwald, Michael. “The Clean Energy Scam”. time.com. Web. 2008. 7 Dec. 2013 http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html Rosenthal, Elisabeth. “Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat”. Nytimes.com. Web. 2008. 7 Dec. 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html Searchinger,Timothy; Heimlich, Ralph; Houghton, R. A; Dong, Fengxia; Elobeid, Amani; Fabiosa, Jacinto; Tokgoz,Simla; Hayes, Dermot; Yu,Tun-Hsiang. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land-Use Change". Science. 319 (5867). 1238-1240. 2008. Yang, Yi; Bae, Junghan; Kim, Junbeum; Suh, Sangwon. “Replacing Gasoline with Corn Ethanol Results in Significant Environmental Problem-Shifting”. Environmental Science & Technology. 2012.46 (7). 3671-8. Read More