 |
| Photo credit to treehugger.com |
It turns out, there are several reasons why we can't, and on top of that, several reasons why we shouldn't. Chances are you've seen gas stations that sell Ethanol blends as well as those that advertise Ethanol-free gasoline. Those people aren't necessarily looking to avoid Ethanol on anti-environment principle. Maybe some are, but biofuels do make engines perform differently and can cause problems. Who am I to blame someone for not wanting to use a product that doesn't work for them?
Biofuels do have environmental benefits, of course. This type of fuel is made from plants like corn or sugarcane, and since those crops can be replanted again and again, it is renewable if we use it wisely. The funny thing is that biofuels are carbon-based, just like fossil fuels are; burning them releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But there are two important differences between biofuels and fossil fuels: First, fossil fuels come with a lot of other harmful emissions, such as sulfur, that biofuels release in insignificant amounts. Second, the carbon dioxide emitted through the burning of biofuels was absorbed by that plant recently. Unlike fossil fuels, which have stored that carbon for millions of years, biofuels don't add new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; they just replace what was already there. This means they aren't technically contributing to climate change.
As nice as these benefits are, however, their are plenty of technical, social, and even environmental disadvantages that come with biofuels. As I mentioned earlier, many car owners don't like Ethanol because it can wear away rubber and metal and leave residue in the engine, and preventing that wear and tear means replacing injectors, gaskets, and fuel lines. In colder climates, different fuels can turn solid before the temperature reaches the freezing point and the driver may not be able to start the car at all.
We have bigger problems than just user-friendliness, however. In the last century, our boom in population was accompanied out of necessity by commercial agriculture. The ability to produce extremely large amounts of food has prevented widespread famine, but there is still an unacceptable number of hungry people in the world. This is partially caused by the demand for beef in the developed world, and as it continues to rise, diverts more food and water to feed livestock. If we can't feed everyone now, how can we expect to produce biofuels on a sufficient scale without causing severe starvation around the world?
The environment could face serious consequences with biofuels, too. Currently, a lot of our food is produced through monoculture, which is when farmers grow very large crops of only one type of plant. Not only does this strip nutrients from the soil creating a need for more fertilizer, it also leads to an increase in pesticide use. In the natural world, you won't find acres and acres of only one type of plant; different species interact and this helps them survive. Without this help from other species, crops are more vulnerable to pests, which necessitate the use of pesticides. But pests develop a resistance to pesticides, and each season, that means more has to be used. Overuse of fertilizer and pesticides can cause dead zones downstream--areas in water ecosystems where nothing can grow due to a lack of oxygen. This is a death sentence for that ecosystem as well as coastal economies that rely on the fish that live there. Read about more biofuel disadvantages here.
So--will biofuels completely take the place of fossil fuels? I don't think so. Nor do I want them to, unless we can find a way to make them more car-friendly, produce them on a large scale in an eco-friendly way, and keep them from taking food out of people's mouths. That said, I don't want biofuel research to stop by any means. While biofuels aren't likely to become the sole source of fuel for our cars, there's no reason they can't help us get away from fossil fuels.
No comments:
Post a Comment