Awful Ethanol
Biofuels, busted
Even the good kind of ethanol is harmful to the environment-at least in the short term. In April, a government-funded, peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Climate Change found that corn-residue biofuels release roughly 7 percent more greenhouse gases than traditional, oil-based fuels.
For years, studies have shown that ethanol, which the United States spent decades subsidizing with tax credits and still mandates as part of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, is, in addition to being less efficient and worse for engines, worse than traditional fuel sources for the environment, once the entire carbon cost of the production process is factored in.
But green energy devotees held out hope for so-called second generation biofuels like cellulosic ethanol, which relied not on corn itself but on the detritus-stalks and leftover leaves-created during the corn harvesting process. This was supposed to provide a greener, cleaner alternative.
But the Nature Climate Change study, by a team of researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, found that advanced ethanol products can actually generate more greenhouse gases than their traditional fuel counterparts.
A few weeks later, a separate study in the journal Nature Geoscience found that in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the more ethanol that drivers used, the more local ozone levels increased. The study was unusual because, unlike most ethanol studies, it relied on real-world measurements rather than on computer climate models, many of which predicted that increased ethanol use would cause ozone levels to decline.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed somewhat reducing the amount of ethanol required by the Renewable Fuel Standard last November, but received heavy pushback from biofuels lobbyists and had not released a final requirement as of the beginning of May. At the same time, a tax extenders bill was working its way through the Senate Finance Committee-with a credit for cellulosic ethanol production intact.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?