She Blinded Ethanol With Science
Frequent visitors to this blog know that I have a thing or two to say about renewable energy, specifically ethanol. I don’t care for ethanol, even if my friend Willie Nelson loves. It drives up the costs of gasoline and food and makes our cars less efficient. It attracts large government subsidies, and those new corn commercials are starting to get very annoying.
I figured it was only a matter of time until some sort of scientist would muster proof that ethanol = bad. Finally, the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Energy & Environmental Science journal has published a study ranking alternative energy sources in terms of their relative abilities to address problems with “global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security,” and “other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.”
Surprise, surprise — ethanol finished dead last.
Hopefully, these findings will not fall on deaf ears. And, if you haven’t read it by now, here is the Show-Me Institute’s ethanol study. Still looking for more ethanol fun? Why not try searching for “ethanol” on Policy Pulse and seeing what pops up?
Oh, and if you didn’t already know, today’s blog title comes from Thomas Dolby’s classic ’80s hit “She Blinded Me With Science.”
Great post title! But anyone who didn’t get it immediately and have their morning coffee depart their nasal passages sisn’t get the explanation either, I am afraid…
I have been screaming for years that corn ethanol was exactly the wrong alternative energy path to pursue because corn is an environmental nightmare. (I think hydrogen fuel cells are the way to go, myself.)
Comment by Blue Girl — December 18, 2008 @ 10:51 a.m.
I couldn’t agree more. Throw in some wind and maybe something to do with the tides and the planet should be set. Although, as we all know, I do not believe public utilities should be forced to move to alternate energy solutions.
Comment by Jacob Voss — December 18, 2008 @ 4:16 p.m.
Yep. There is plenty of naturally occurring renewable and clean energy out there – we just need to figure out how to harness it. I suspect we disagree on how to go about figuring that out, tho. I want to see a massive push on the scale of the Manhattan project or the moon shot. In my professional experience government funded research projects yielded better results.
I don’t care so much about the size of government as the quality of it.
Comment by Blue Girl — December 18, 2008 @ 5:45 p.m.
See, I believe market forces will naturally guide us to renewable energy. Already, prior to the Missouri Clean Energy Initiative, Ameren was investigating renewable energy and already had a 1 percent level of renewable energy. I believe once demand for clean energy is sufficient, then supply will reflect that. And obviously, the best thing to come out of the Manhattan Project was Dr. Manhattan.
Comment by Jacob Voss — December 19, 2008 @ 1:17 p.m.
Companies are out there powering their plants with garbage and we want to waste all this money to subside ethanol? Talk about a renewable energy source! Its bad enough the farm subsidies are no longer going to the family farmers its intended for but going to these big bulk farms who are double dipping getting money under the ethanol banner.
I agree hydrogen cells are a course we need to be subsidizing as its a near reality in Europe. Anyone that proposes a single source for energy is a fool. The ethanol plant the built near my home smells more like Jack Daniels than a power plant and they get more product out of their corn mash!
Comment by Michele Whiting — December 21, 2008 @ 7:06 p.m.
Market forces drive us to renewable sources but amidst a recession it allows for the greed to win the battle raising costs of commodities to carve their own success amidst economic disarray at the hands of the regular working class.
Comment by Michele Whiting — December 21, 2008 @ 7:47 p.m.