Just because something is tagged as "alternative energy" doesn't mean it's an inherently good option. So says Andrew Kantor in USA Today. He takes some pot shots at both ethanol and electric cars.
Regarding ethanol...
But there are a bunch of problems with ethanol. First, it doesn't have as much energy as gasoline, which means it takes about 1.5 gallons of ethanol to get you as far as one gallon of gas.
Ethanol also requires a lot to produce it — 26 pounds of corn to get a gallon, in fact. And growing corn requires lots of water and fertilizer and pesticide, not to mention the energy required to distill it into ethanol.
And by-products of that distillation include (according to the EPA) acetic acid, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and methanol, all of which are pumped into the air. Yum.
It boils down to this: Ethanol sounds good, but the energy required to produce it, and the pollutants it generates, mean it's arguably worse for the environment than gasoline, especially considering the cleanliness of today's engines.
And electric cars...
Aside from the few folks who have their roofs covered with solar cells, we get our electricity from generators. Generators are fueled by something — usually a hydrocarbon (coal, oil, diesel) but also by heat generated in nuclear power plants. (There are a few wind farms and geothermal plants as well, but by far we get electricity by burning something.)
In other words, those "zero-emissions" cars are likely coal-burning cars. It's just the coal is burned somewhere else so it looks clean.
He's got some interesting points. If we're going to make intelligent decisions about energy alternatives in the future, it's vital that we talk about the downsides of the options as well, not the warm fuzzy parts that make us feel good.
--
Recent Comments