I’m more than a little skeptical about this, because it seems to me that the CO2 from the power plant is only being captured temporarily– eventually it’s released again when the Ethanol is burned. (This is in contrast to Ethanol brewed from crops, which absorb CO2 out of the air.) Still, if it helps us burn less coal in total, then I suppose the net effect is positive. Always nice to see New York State leading the way in testing new techniques.

What would be really incredible is if we could use that CO2 from power plants to make something non-fuel-related, say fertilizer for crops. Then that carbon from the coal would truly be going back into the earth.

• Ethanol is expensive to produce: To brew ethanol, you need a plant that’s high in sugar. In the US, the obvious crop to use is corn. However, corn-brewed Ethanol currently only puts out about 1.2 times as much energy as is put into its manufacture. In Brazil, where E85 has already become a standard fuel, the yield is closer to 1:8– that’s because they use sugar cane, which doesn’t grow here in the US. [link] Also, much depends on the technologies involved; older ethanol plants may actually be putting out less energy than they take in, while newer plants may achieve a ratio closer to 1:1.7.
• Ethanol gets worse mileage than gasoline: Estimates vary, but the Dep’t of Energy claims that a gallon of E85 has only 72% as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. “A Chevrolet Impala equipped with the 3.5-liter V-6 engine is rated 21 miles per gallon in town on gasoline and 31 mpg on the highway. On E85, it’s rated just 16 in town, 23 on the highway.” [link] Environmentalists will probably not mind the hit, but it’ll be a harder sell to the rest of the nation.

On the other hand, here are some plusses:

• Ethanol may be brewed from garbage: Research focuses on brewing ethanol from cellulose, a plant fiber that’s found in pretty much anything that grows. Cellulose-brewing plants could use native grasses as fodder (cheaper to grow than corn) or even cellulose harvested from our solid waste (farm and industrial.) The new plant in Fulton, NY will start off brewing corn and move to cellulose as technologies improve. [link, link]
• Ethanol is a “net-zero” emissions fuel: Burning ethanol releases CO2 into the atmosphere in exactly the same way as burning gasoline, but growing the crops required to brew ethanol absorbs CO2. Therefore, the more ethanol you mix with gas, the less it contribues to Global Warming. [link]
• Ethanol reduces smog: Some ethanol skeptics claim that, because of ethanol’s higher volitility, it may product more smog than gasoline. It may also be that a small amount of ethanol in gas decreases smog, but a large amount increases it. However, the jury seems to be coming back in favor of the less-smog scenario. [link]
• Republicans loooooove ethanol: Under the banner of “decreasing our dependence on foreign oil,” the White House has started pushing ethanol aggressively this year. Keep in mind that this is totally a political move, and does not in any way imply that the Government admits Global Warming is a serious problem. Also, be prepared for the onslaught of stomach-turning propaganda that will link ethanol production to “homeland security.” [link]

So, the upshot is that ethanol is far from a silver bullet, but it’s promising. It has supporters on both sides of the fence, because it makes sense from both an environmental and political viewpoint. An ethanol economy is also a lot closer to reality than the “hydrogen economy” the President spoke about in recent years. And increased R&D will probably bring efficiency gains as industry begins to make money off the stuff.