For the Transcript
If you like fairy tales, surely you are familiar with the story of Rumpelstiltskin. He could spin straw into gold. A similar story would be the old Bugs Bunny cartoon, where Bugs is prospecting for gold, and Yosemite Sam offers to partner with Bugs. Yosemite says to Bugs, "You find the gold and I'll share it with you, 50/50." Today's fairy tale is to make ethanol out of corn, cane or whatever. I think the overall thread through these tales is, "we can always get something for nothing."
In my humble opinion, the public is being misled to believe we can continue to drive and live just like we always have, and we do not have to change our lifestyle, or our attitude about transportation. Ethanol will come to save us from the specter of mass transportation or vehicles that have increased fuel efficiency. Of course, many corporate giants would like us to believe today's "fairy tale." That way, they can get even bigger and richer, while the public is misled, tricked and otherwise fooled into thinking that our carbon footprint, fuel problems and energy problems are solved.
The real problems, as I see it, are several fold. Neither ethanol nor E-85, a blend of ethanol (alcohol) and gasoline, produces as many BTU's (British Thermal Units) as gasoline or diesel fuel; therefore, less power and less fuel mileage. In racing or real driving conditions, it takes nearly twice as much pure ethanol as gasoline to do the same job. No one seems to be willing to talk about this problem. Additionally, it takes several modifications to existing cars or trucks to be able to use ethanol instead of gasoline. A fuel pump that can deliver a larger quantity of fuel, larger fuel lines, and a larger fuel tank, to give the same driving range, are just a few of the modifications that would be needed. However, even if all these things were overcome, in my opinion, the real problem is water.
What does water have to do with ethanol production? Plenty. We all know that the additional demand for corn to produce ethanol has driven up the price of everything from corn chips to T-bone steaks, or anything with corn syrup in it, has increased in price. Animal food using corn has increased, causing meat, milk and other food stuffs to rise in price. But, do we all know about the amount of water it takes to produce the corn, or the ethanol? I doubt it. According to various studies I have seen, there is a consensus that it takes between four to six gallons of water to manufacture a gallon of ethanol. But, a much bigger problem, as I see it, is the amount of water it takes to grow the corn to convert to ethanol. According to information I received from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Environmental Science -- Technology Magazine stated, "irrigated corn consumes 2,000 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced." That is a huge amount. Some will say, that we already grow corn, so what is the big deal? The big deal is that with the increased corn demand, higher corn prices result, and more and more land will be converted to the production of corn, meaning we need more water, so we can grow more corn, needing more water, starting a vicious cycle.
Additionally, there is another problem that receives little attention. Again, quoting from the Environmental Science -- Technology Magazine, "To grow corn for ethanol, each year, farmers release 1,000 kg/km2 of nitrogen fertilizer into the Mississippi River. High levels of nitrogen in stream flows are a major cause of low-oxygen or 'hypoxic' regions, commonly known as 'dead zones', which are lethal for most living creatures and cover broad areas of the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and other regions," as reported from The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council. "Soil erosion of 5-10 tons per acre per year represents a loss of 20-40 pounds of soil per gallon of ethanol produced." I fear that formerly untilled land will be converted to crop production, which will reduce the acres of grassland, trees, and suitable habitat for wildlife, another problem. The National Academy of Sciences also gives the example of the Ogallala (or High Plains) aquifer, that runs from west Texas to Wyoming and South Dakota, that show water table declines of over 100 feet. They additionally state, "Deterioration in water quality may further reduce available supplies. Increased biofuels production adds pressure to water management challenges the nation already faces."
In my mind, it is not a sustainable project. We might be able to produce enough corn or other crop to convert to ethanol, for a few years, but not long term. What would happen when we suffered another drought, like we just had in the last few years? To me, it makes more sense to promote the use of mass transportation, such as passenger rail and light rail. When I was a young boy, we enjoyed the use of the Interurban, which was an electric trolley. It ran from Norman to Guthrie, and from El Reno to Shawnee, and completely covered Oklahoma City. The Interurban provided us with safe, economical and reliable transportation from the 1930s through the early 1950s. I think we need that again. Some say we don't have enough population density to support such a system. My thoughts on that are this: Oklahoma City in that era was not much larger than Norman is now. With the increase in population in Norman, Moore, Edmond, Midwest City, Del City, El Reno, Yukon and Shawnee, not to mention Oklahoma City itself, I believe we have sufficient population for just such a system. And, with the threats of more air pollution, ozone alert days and increasing traffic jams, how can we not support it? Not support it, we should demand it!
Wallace Collins serves as state representative for District 45.
