I hope that my blog hasn't seemed too alarmist so far. I do not want to suggest that ethanol is this horrible thing that will irreparably damage the Chesapeake Bay and will make beef and poultry $15 per pound. I just want to give air to certain things in regards to ethanol that I feel aren't emphasized enough. The main things that are being emphasized (more than others) are that ethanol reduces our dependency on foreign oil (it could) and that it reduces harmful emissions from the cars that everyone drive (it does).
Of course, if you are trying to sell a car to someone, for instance, you are not going to say "this car is worthless. It breaks down when I just look at it, much less drive it." If you say this, and still think that you are going to sell the car, well I wish you the best of luck. This idea applies to "selling" the idea of ethanol. The proponents of ethanol are not going to emphasize what is bad about it. My goal is not as much to emphasize the bad about ethanol, but rather to present a balanced picture of it.
I just wanted to make that clear. Now, on to how ethanol can be a good thing. Ethanol will undoubtedly contribute to the economy. More ethanol being produced means an increased demand for corn. An increased demand for corn means farmers will have bigger and better profits from their corn crops.
However, as I've mentioned, higher corn prices do drive up the price of poultry and beef. Ethanol will not be THE thing that will wean our dependence on foreign oil. But, as I've also said, it is a good place to start.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Runoff = Bad!
Okay, I suppose the title of this entry might give it away, but hear me out. Something that I hope that I've established so far is that the main problem with planting more corn for the production of ethanol is that it would increase the runoff from the fertilizers (containing phosphorous and nitrogen) that are applied to the corn.
Chesapeake Renewable Energy, LLC is planning the construction of an ethanol production plant in Somerset County, Md. (Click on "Somerset County" to see a more detailed map of the county.) Russell Brinsfield, executive director of the Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc, based out of Queenstown, Md., is concerned with the runoff that would come from the corn being planted. More corn would equal more runoff entering the Chesapeake Bay. More runoff entering the Bay could endanger the wildlife and have more severe effects if left unmanaged over time.
Dr. Brinsfield is quick to emphasize that the management of the crops themselves, along with the promotion of conservation programs, is the best chance that we have to limit runoff entering the Bay. He also mentions that moving to alternate methods of producing ethanol would also help in terms of reducing runoff. "If managed right the impact could be minimal, if not the impact could be significant. In the long term, I believe we need to move towards cellulose ethanol from native grasses like switchgrass and gamma grass," he said.
Like Dr. Brinsfield said, management is key. It's easier to prevent the runoff than having to clean it up later. Remember, hindsight is always 20/20...let's hope that things don't come to that.
Chesapeake Renewable Energy, LLC is planning the construction of an ethanol production plant in Somerset County, Md. (Click on "Somerset County" to see a more detailed map of the county.) Russell Brinsfield, executive director of the Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc, based out of Queenstown, Md., is concerned with the runoff that would come from the corn being planted. More corn would equal more runoff entering the Chesapeake Bay. More runoff entering the Bay could endanger the wildlife and have more severe effects if left unmanaged over time.
Dr. Brinsfield is quick to emphasize that the management of the crops themselves, along with the promotion of conservation programs, is the best chance that we have to limit runoff entering the Bay. He also mentions that moving to alternate methods of producing ethanol would also help in terms of reducing runoff. "If managed right the impact could be minimal, if not the impact could be significant. In the long term, I believe we need to move towards cellulose ethanol from native grasses like switchgrass and gamma grass," he said.
Like Dr. Brinsfield said, management is key. It's easier to prevent the runoff than having to clean it up later. Remember, hindsight is always 20/20...let's hope that things don't come to that.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Developments...and concerns
Is the Chesapeake Bay in danger because of three ethanol plants that could (and in one case, is) be constructed in Maryland?
First of all: this blogger has some good points that I think you should read.
Second of all: Is the supply of corn for corn-sourced ethanol running low already?
Now, back to the bay. In May of 2007, the state of Maryland approved the construction of a $136 million ethanol plant in the Curtis Bay area of Baltimore. The plant, expected to have a production capacity of 52 million gallons a year, will be built off of Pennington Avenue in Baltimore. After hearing the news, residents immediately pointed out that the Curtis Bay area already has too much air pollution. The residents cited other concerns that the plant will produce a bad odor, and that it will attract rats from the corn used to produce the ethanol. Officials were quick to allay these fears, but they are valid fears nonetheless.
Other sites being considered for the construction of an ethanol plant is in Sparrows Point, MD as well as on the eastern shore of Maryland, in Somerset County. Officials for the three companies interested in all three sites (Atlantic Ethanol, LLC being one of those) are not addressing as well as they should the environmental concerns in regards to the construction of ethanol plants in Maryland.
Will the plants produce increased pollution in Baltimore (adding to the city's preexisting problems)? Will there be runoff from these plants? Will the prospective plant on the eastern shore be cost effective? (It will receive its supply of corn from the midwest.) All these are questions that need to be answered.
I get the feeling that there is a great deal of haste involved here. Government and business officials are so quick to leap onto the E85 bandwagon that they are (seemingly) not considering what could happen if they hurry and slap these three ethanol production plants in Maryland. The construction for the Curtis Bay plant could begin as soon as the year 2008. Is that enough time to allay the fears of people in this state?
I hope that I am not seeming like too much of an alarmist here. I am all for finding alternative sources of fuel. I just am trying to point out things that I do not think are getting mentioned enough, such as the environmental impact of these three plants.
Something to think about:
If you found out that an ethanol plant was going up close to where you live, what would your reaction be?
First of all: this blogger has some good points that I think you should read.
Second of all: Is the supply of corn for corn-sourced ethanol running low already?
Now, back to the bay. In May of 2007, the state of Maryland approved the construction of a $136 million ethanol plant in the Curtis Bay area of Baltimore. The plant, expected to have a production capacity of 52 million gallons a year, will be built off of Pennington Avenue in Baltimore. After hearing the news, residents immediately pointed out that the Curtis Bay area already has too much air pollution. The residents cited other concerns that the plant will produce a bad odor, and that it will attract rats from the corn used to produce the ethanol. Officials were quick to allay these fears, but they are valid fears nonetheless.
Other sites being considered for the construction of an ethanol plant is in Sparrows Point, MD as well as on the eastern shore of Maryland, in Somerset County. Officials for the three companies interested in all three sites (Atlantic Ethanol, LLC being one of those) are not addressing as well as they should the environmental concerns in regards to the construction of ethanol plants in Maryland.
Will the plants produce increased pollution in Baltimore (adding to the city's preexisting problems)? Will there be runoff from these plants? Will the prospective plant on the eastern shore be cost effective? (It will receive its supply of corn from the midwest.) All these are questions that need to be answered.
I get the feeling that there is a great deal of haste involved here. Government and business officials are so quick to leap onto the E85 bandwagon that they are (seemingly) not considering what could happen if they hurry and slap these three ethanol production plants in Maryland. The construction for the Curtis Bay plant could begin as soon as the year 2008. Is that enough time to allay the fears of people in this state?
I hope that I am not seeming like too much of an alarmist here. I am all for finding alternative sources of fuel. I just am trying to point out things that I do not think are getting mentioned enough, such as the environmental impact of these three plants.
Something to think about:
If you found out that an ethanol plant was going up close to where you live, what would your reaction be?
Cool interactive on biofuels
Something cool that was brought to my attention online was in regards to a well-done interactive on biofuels by National Geographic. The interactive allows you to compare corn sourced ethanol and E85 with other biofuels in terms of CO2 emissions, energy balance and retail price.
Something that proponents of E85 are quick to point out is the fact that it tends to cost at least 10 percent less than petroleum-based gasoline. That is a little disingenuous because, while on the face of things E85 is cheaper, it is not when you consider that more E85 is required to produce the same amount of energy as gasoline. (That's why your gas mileage on flex fuel vehicles is less when the vehicle is running on E85!)
Accompanying the interactive on biofuels is an article about corn sourced ethanol and the toll that the harvesting takes on the environment. Here's the rub: producing that E85 that is being touted by our government as a possible solution to dependence on foriegn oil takes a toll on the environment. Growing the corn that is used to produce ethanol requires large applications of herbicides and nitrogen fertilizer so that it doesn't die. Farmers are complaining that the runoff from these corn crops is killing their other crops. In protecting the corn (which is currently at record high prices, due in no small part to this sudden appetite for E85), other crops are being killed off, negating the small profit being made by producing more corn for ethanol.
Here's something else to consider. This increased demand for corn-based ethanol is allowing farmers to not just raise the prices of corn products. Corn, as I said before, is at a record high price now. Feed prices have gone up; in turn the prices for beef, poultry and dairy have gone up.
I do not want to bash E85. It is a cleaner fuel than gasoline. It produces less CO2 emissions. Most of all, it does present a gateway of sorts into future conservation. It may not be the solution to the United States' dependency on foreign oil, but it is a start.
Something to think about:
I'd like to hear what you all think about this article. It's very controversial for a lot of people, not least our generation.
(Project update: I am still working on developing my idea further. Something that I found--and not just in reference to this class--is that talking to sources for a big project like this sometimes gives you a different focus. After talking to some sources, I am trying to adapt to what I am finding out, while still maintaining my focus statement for the project.)
Something that proponents of E85 are quick to point out is the fact that it tends to cost at least 10 percent less than petroleum-based gasoline. That is a little disingenuous because, while on the face of things E85 is cheaper, it is not when you consider that more E85 is required to produce the same amount of energy as gasoline. (That's why your gas mileage on flex fuel vehicles is less when the vehicle is running on E85!)
Accompanying the interactive on biofuels is an article about corn sourced ethanol and the toll that the harvesting takes on the environment. Here's the rub: producing that E85 that is being touted by our government as a possible solution to dependence on foriegn oil takes a toll on the environment. Growing the corn that is used to produce ethanol requires large applications of herbicides and nitrogen fertilizer so that it doesn't die. Farmers are complaining that the runoff from these corn crops is killing their other crops. In protecting the corn (which is currently at record high prices, due in no small part to this sudden appetite for E85), other crops are being killed off, negating the small profit being made by producing more corn for ethanol.
Here's something else to consider. This increased demand for corn-based ethanol is allowing farmers to not just raise the prices of corn products. Corn, as I said before, is at a record high price now. Feed prices have gone up; in turn the prices for beef, poultry and dairy have gone up.
I do not want to bash E85. It is a cleaner fuel than gasoline. It produces less CO2 emissions. Most of all, it does present a gateway of sorts into future conservation. It may not be the solution to the United States' dependency on foreign oil, but it is a start.
Something to think about:
I'd like to hear what you all think about this article. It's very controversial for a lot of people, not least our generation.
(Project update: I am still working on developing my idea further. Something that I found--and not just in reference to this class--is that talking to sources for a big project like this sometimes gives you a different focus. After talking to some sources, I am trying to adapt to what I am finding out, while still maintaining my focus statement for the project.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)