News

At first glance, you would think ethanol is not only the cure for global warming, but also a way to reduce our dependence on costly oil imported from trouble spots in the Middle East and elsewhere.

It's not. But that hasn't stopped governments, auto makers and various industry lobby groups from pushing ahead enthusiastically on the ethanol front.

Let's start with governments, which have set up new rules for ethanol that are aimed at reducing vehicle emissions.

Ethanol, an alcohol fuel which in Canada is refined primarily from corn, must make up 5 per cent of all gasoline sold in Ontario by 2007. In Saskatchewan, the figure is higher at 7.5 per cent. Nationally, the provinces and the federal government have agreed to boost the amount of ethanol mixed into all Canadian gasoline to 5 per cent by 2010, up from the current 1-per-cent requirement.

Then we have the lobbyists who have begun to make what they hope are pre-emptive strikes in their favour prior to the federal government's releases of a comprehensive energy strategy in the fall.

If the supporters of E85, ethanol and biodiesel have their way, the feds will begin offering major tax credit subsidies for a renewable fuel that is highly unlikely ever to unseat gasoline and diesel as the fuel of choice for drivers.

The fuel in question is E85, a brew of 85-per-cent ethanol (mainly made from corn and other grains) and 15-per-cent gasoline that is now generating a lot of buzz.

E85 is seen by many as the answer to spiking pump prices, concerns about oil supplies from the Middle East and elsewhere and a growing concerns about global warming, not to mention the costs and environmental worries associated with tapping Canada's massive oil supplies in the tar sands of Alberta. Ethanol is being touted as the green alternative motor fuel.

The lobby group pushing E85, ethanol as an additive in general and biodiesel is the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. Last month, it released a plan calling for numerous tax incentives and subsidies for companies in the renewable fuels business, not to mention outright grants for farmers.

The predicted economic benefit: 14,000 new jobs and higher revenues for farmers who grow corn that is turned into ethanol. The predicted environmental benefit: a 4.2-megatonne reduction in greenhouse gases from transportation fuels. That's the carrot.

The stick comes in the form of a warning: If Canada does not subsidize its renewable fuels industry, the country will be swamped by cheap imports from the U.S., warns the renewable fuel lobby group. However, the Canadian government already exempts renewable fuels from a 10-cent-a-litre excise tax, and some provinces offer additional breaks.

Certainly there is interest in flex fuels like E85 among car buyers, though it is hardly overwhelming. A recent study by Synovate, a global market research firm, found that 37 per cent of U.S. consumers would consider purchasing a Flex Fuel vehicle that runs on gasoline or E85. However, more than a third of those same consumers lose interest in E85 Flex Fuel vehicles when they learn that there is a reduction in fuel economy.

The truth is, ethanol is not as environmentally friendly as its most ardent supporters say and vehicle performance is compromised, too. True, compared with gasoline, ethanol produces 12-per-cent less so-called greenhouse gasses linked to global warming, notes a recent study from the University of Minnesota.

But the researchers also said it has environmental drawbacks, including "markedly greater" releases of nitrogen, phosphorous and pesticides into waterways as runoff from cornfields. Ethanol, especially at higher concentrations in gasoline, also produces more smog-causing pollutants than gasoline per unit of energy burned, the researchers said.

In addition, the researchers say ethanol would supply only 12 per cent of U.S. motoring fuel requirements even if every hectare of corn grown were used to fill gas tanks rather than hungry bellies. Biodiesel from soybeans is the better choice compared with corn-produced ethanol, say the researchers. But "neither can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies," the researchers concluded in the paper, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In a blow to those who support the kind of farmer subsidies that are rampant in Europe and North America, the paper supports an alternative to corn-based ethanol. The development of non-food materials such as switchgrass, prairie grasses and woody plants to produce cellulosic ethanol would be a major improvement with greater energy output and lower environmental impacts.

Unfortunately, the creation of cellulosic ethanol remains in the laboratory research stage. And even non-food sources of ethanol would fall far short of replacing gasoline, most researchers agree.

The point is, biofuels such as ethanol are "not a practical long-term solution" and their widespread use could have a devastating impact on agriculture, two researchers at the Maglev Research Center of the Polytechnic University of New York argued recently in the Washington Post.

More than one researcher argues that ethanol derived from food crops such as corn and soybeans comes with more negatives than positives. Start with the energy gains. Fuel ethanol from corn produces a modest 25-per-cent more energy than is consumed in growing the corn, converting it into ethanol and shipping it for use in gasoline.

Still, major auto makers such as Ford and General Motors are putting their weight behind the ethanol push. GM is the most active. The big auto maker offers ethanol FlexFuel technology on most of its larger vehicles and plans to expand its offerings in 2007.

Why? GM has a lot of ethanol expertise. It has developed E85 technology largely to meet competitive demands in the South American market where GM is a major player. However, in South America the ethanol is produced from sugar cane, not corn.

Still, it's nice to have alternative fuel vehicles out there; if only there were places to fill them up. GM is interested in developing a service station infrastructure in Canada and the United States, but one doesn't exist now and there isn't likely to be one any time soon.

In Canada, there are only about 1,000 service stations selling ethanol-blend gasoline and there are only two E85 pumps in all of Canada — both in Ottawa. There are less than 700 E85 filling stations in the U.S. out of a total of 165,000.

GM would like the oil companies to build a lot more ethanol pumps, but Chevron estimates that installing a single one and its related equipment costs more than $200,000 (U.S.). Expect the oil industry to move slowly on this.

So where does this leave consumers and taxpayers? First, taxpayers should be alert to pleas for government subsidies designed to promote the ethanol business. If the oil industry is unlikely to build the pumps, why produce the fuel? Over all, the benefits of ethanol refined from corn are questionable on many fronts. The fuel is not energy-efficient and the impact on food sources could prove "devastating."

As for consumers, the auto makers are working hard to get more ethanol-capable vehicles on the road at no extra charge, even though they require special fuel injectors and other parts. In some cases, in particular where the fuel is properly produced not from corn but something else, these efforts are laudable. These vehicles do offer some environmental benefit and help reduce our dependence on oil from questionable sources. Who can argue with that?

But anyone who has done the research knows there are solid arguments to be made against a wholesale push to ethanol. Before taxpayers start footing a large bill, let's have those arguments addressed by both governments and all the various industries involved.