In Hawaii, that includes The Honolulu Advertiser pushing it (June 20, 2006), and in recent weeks Hawaiian Electric Co. spokespeople, Governor Linda Lingle, and local radio talk show hosts. We had the Bill O'Reilly/Sen. John Kerry love fest on June 29 asserting the ethanol option is the right one. Even President George W. Bush has been swayed by the rhetoric.

These politically correct solutions to our energy supply problems, if allowed to persist, are beyond silly and quite dangerous. Too few understand what energy is and does; too few know what goes on upstream of the gas pumps and behind the electrical switches.

There are many good handbooks of chemistry and engineering which can add considerable information to all. There are all too few engineers involved with these debates as well. Thus, according to American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the energy content in a gallon of Ethanol is well known to be about 76,000 Btu/gallon of ethanol. Gasoline by contrast contains about 50 percent more energy at 114,000 Btu/gal. (The British thermal unit, Btu, is one of many commonly used units of energy)

As Ethanol is mixed with gasoline, the energy per gallon of the mixed fuel drops, being diluted with the less energetic ethanol. The E85 mixture (85 percent Ethanol) contains 83,260 Btu/gal. Obviously, this is less energy than is in the gasoline itself, and as a result, the mileage will therefore drop.

A major reason why Ethanol is so popular in the United States is the presence of huge subsidies throughout, not because of any magical energy sources.

There are subsidies for growing the corn, for building the distilleries, and a 51 cent subsidy for every gallon of ethanol produced. This is to say that the taxpayers are paying much of the Ethanol tab. Whatever the consumers pay at the pump is so much the better for the ethanol lobby.

This excludes state tax credits and other subsidies.

For the record according to Patzek, in the 10 years from 1995 to 2004, taxpayers spent $41.9 billion in corn subsidies.

Currently, according to Patzek (UC Berkeley The Real Biofuel Cycles April 17, 2006), there is an estimated total ethanol tax credit of 57cents per gallon.

This is collected by the Ethanol lobby, too. Just to make things sweeter, the U.S. has erected import tariffs on imported ethanol of more than 50 cents/gallon to defend against lower cost imports of that Brazilian ethanol. This helps to inflate the price of ethanol to the consumers, quite similar to the tariffs erected to protect the US sugar lobby.

According to Tad Patzek, the true costs of corn ethanol to the taxpayers are $3.12 per gallon of ethanol, or $4.74 per gallon of gasoline equivalent GGE—to adjust for the energy difference in the two fuels).

This sleight of hands bears studying. If ethanol at the pump shows a price of say $2.75/gallon, and that for gasoline is $3.00/gallon some would conclude that the ethanol is the cheaper energy. It’s not. Since the gallon of ethanol contains only 65% of the energy of the gallon of gasoline, the price for the ethanol per gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGE), is $2.75 / 0.65 = $4.23/gallon. This is not a good deal for the consumers.

A closer look is needed at the “great Ethanol successes” in Brazil claimed by television host Bill Oreilly, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, and others. It’s a completely different situation.

First, Brazilian Ethanol is made from sugar cane, not corn, and is a much more suitable source of ethanol. Furthermore, the sugar cane grows all year around.

We can’t grow corn year round in the US, nor is it very well suited for ethanol, nor can we grow sugar cane in the Midwest climates. Brazil is in many ways a 3rd world country certainly not fully developed and not nearly as productive and energy intensive as the U.S.

Many families do not own any cars and the cars which do exist are much smaller. The population is smaller, 62 percent of the US at 186 million. Brazil also has vast tracts of very cheap land available for agriculture.

Ethanol has a great number of engineering problems to be a serious energy source for the future, not the least of which is its relatively low energy density 76,000 Btu/gal. For our leaders to be throwing out these superficial one-line energy solutions for uninformed Americans is as dangerous as it is misleading. There are many long range cost and performance uncertainties in comparing sugar cane, sugar beets, and corn infrastructures needed in the manufacture of ethanol.

In all cases the crops require long term agricultural operations, infrastructure, and investment including water, land, and energy, nutrients (fertilizers) of millions of acres of land.

In spite of the exaggerations the word is getting out about the dubious nature of Ethanol. The Salt Lake Tribune wrote (June 29, 2006):

“We don't make ethanol from corn because it is efficient..... And we don't use corn because it is environmentally friendly. Growing it sucks up huge amounts of energy and water and leaves tons of chemicals adrift in the ecosystem. We make ethanol mostly out of corn because it is astoundingly plentiful, thanks to decades of heavy federal subsidies.”

We’d do well to remember what John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the energy and science writer for Hawaii Reporter. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

It's Your Money...