(Not) Tomorrow’s Fuel

Given how much the changing climate, rising fuel prices, and declining food supplies have been in the news lately, you’ve no doubt heard some arguments against the use of corn-derived ethanol as an energy source.

While it’s certainly true that ethanol derived from corn using current methods is not the fuel of a green future—and I tip my cap to anyone who can correctly predict what is—it’s also important that we not let the facts about America’s present energy fad color our attitudes toward other biofuels, including even other forms of ethanol.

There are at present a number of viable alternatives that inhibit our breakneck carbon-emissions trajectory and have a potential to make a serious dent on the worldwide release of greenhouse gases. Among these are ethanol derived from sugar cane, which already drives approximately 85 percent of Brazil’s cars, and soy-derived biodiesel, which helps power all the diesel-burning trucks on our campus, according to David E. Harris, Jr., the general manager of operations and finance for Harvard University Transportation Services.

The nature of energy politics and environmental fads promotes embracing the easy, often more popular fix at the expense of the best one, typically at the governmental and corporate level. The Whole Foods chain’s absolute abandonment of plastic bags (which, as was elegantly stated on this page last week, might end up increasing its customers’ environmental impact) is one of dozens of examples of a major corporation polishing its environmental boilerplate without retrofitting its inefficient engine.

It’s easy to see why corn-derived ethanol became this sort of easy-fix solution, and why it has limited potential as a practical global replacement for gasoline going forward. Ethanol is an ace in the political deck of cards; it is backed by a powerful agricultural lobby and grown heavily in the (usually) politically indispensable state of Iowa. Moreover, the infrastructure for distilling and mixing corn-based ethanol into our fuel had been in place since it replaced methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as the fuel additive of choice early this decade.

But from a practical and environmental perspective, this source of ethanol looks more like a joker. For one, its meteoric rise in the United States (where ethanol production has quintupled over the last decade) and around the world has diverted a large portion of an important food crop at a time when demand for food is soaring. This notable hurdle has everything to do with the decision to rely on corn supply: While the production of most biofuels requires land that would otherwise be used for crops, one acre of corn produces 328 gallons of ethanol, compared to 662 gallons per acre of sugarcane, making the former’s impact through accelerated deforestation and reduction in available food more striking.

Although it appears that corn ethanol may not manage to break even on the greenhouse gas balance sheet when its detrimental side effects are taken into account, biofuels from other sources deserve a close look.

According to National Geographic, soy-based biodiesel such as is used in Harvard’s fleet, contains 2.5 units of usable energy for every unit of energy used in its production (which compares favorably to corn ethanol’s ratio of 1.3:1), and decreases the emissions of carbon dioxide by 68 percent compared to standard diesel.

This means that the 50,000 gallons of 20 percent biodiesel used by campus vehicles yearly cut total emissions of CO2 78,000 pounds—the equivalent of taking about eight average American cars off the road. That isn’t bad for one relatively small college. Moreover, soy-derived biodiesel is a byproduct of soybean processing, and its production does not decrease the food supply as greatly as that of corn or sugarcane ethanol.

To be sure, the fuels of the (near) future will have to outshine in a number of areas even the best options we have now. The ideal fuel will annul the feed-versus-fuel debate by complementing, not compromising, the global food supply. Old-fashioned energy politics may still be at play, but scientific advances and increasingly distressed socioeconomic systems signal a readiness to move towards more efficient, less destructive sources of energy. We must now call for an intelligently executed transition from chasing the easy, expedient answers, to seeking the best ones.


Jonathan B. Steinman ’10, a Crimson sports editor, is a chemistry concentrator in Winthrop House.