Background
The immediacy and urgency of the pollution problems in the 1950s and 1960s led to an air quality strategy that focused mainly on cleaning up existing problems. The remediation that was needed allowed little time and effort devoted to preventing the pollution in the first place. As engineers often do, they dedicated their skills and creativity to finding ways to remove and treat the pollutants, and their success in this effort over the past half century is nothing short of phenomenal.
As measurement, control technologies, and predictive/descriptive models have improved, there has been a growing, commensurate capacity to begin to think about ways to address problems before they begin. This approach begins with a concern about future generations, i.e. it is not only important to achieve an acceptable condition, but that the level of acceptability be sustained. Solving an immediate problem may well be unacceptable if it leads to consequences in time. (Vallero p 929)
Problem
Energy production and use are major sources of air pollution, especially in the mobile source category – cars, trucks, etc. Questions loom about how to become less reliant on finite energy sources – fossil fuels – and how to balance economic growth with environmental stewardship (Vallero p 111). While the choice to pursue an air pollution control option/strategy may seem to be a simple matter of benefits versus costs, simply comparing the status quo to costs and risks associated with a new technology may be biased. The new technology may have problems over time that are not yet apparent from experience with limited applications.
Alternative fuels provide an illustrative example of these complexities, especially in the case of ethanol. “Choosing” the best energy source is complicated, as advocates both for and against various energy sources often invoke a number of criteria for what is “best.” Comparisons are often difficult due to the differences is steps needed to provide energy to the end user. (Vallero p 112)
The challenge of the scientist, engineer, and policy maker – and your assignment for this final project – is to sift through the myriad of data and information to ascertain whether ethanol truly presents a viable alternative fuel. Control of any air pollution source requires a complete knowledge of the contaminant and the source. Preventing the formation of an air pollutant also requires an understanding of the physical and chemical properties of the precursors of that pollutant, and the conditions that promote or inhibit its formation.
Assignment
The CEO of your company has called his Environmental Department into his office. He is considering expanding the current business line by purchasing a corn-based ethanol production facility. The CEO sees biofuels as a potential revenue source, as efforts to control global warming and climate change will lead to an increase in ethanol use as a replacement for gasoline in motor vehicles.
The CEO has asked you to prepare an 8-10 page report, making a case either for or against the use of corn-based ethanol.
The report regarding corn-based ethanol should be based on the three-step life cycle analysis (LCA), including:
- Data analysis – The actual efficiency must be analyzed – no matter how politically attractive or favorable by a society, corn-based ethanol must conform to the physical laws of conservation of mass and energy.
- Each step in the life cycle (e.g., extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, use, and disposal) must be considered – the “greenness” as a measure of sustainability and effectiveness must be characterized.
- The societal benefits and risks must be viable for corn-based ethanol to be accepted – the policy and geopolitical options and outcomes must be evaluated.
The CEO expects you to review available literature and environmental/economic analyses, any applicable regulatory mandates, and come to a conclusion: Based on all your analysis and everything available and the results of your LCA, does corn-based ethanol truly represent a viable alternative fuel?
