Should Transportation Be Transitioned to Ethanol with Carbon Capture and Pipelines or Electricity? A Case Study

An important issue today is whether gasoline vehicles should be replaced by flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) that use ethanol-gasoline blends (e.g., E85), where some carbon dioxide (CO2) from ethanol's production is captured and piped, or battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) powered by wind or solar. This paper compares the options in a case study. It evaluates a proposal to capture fermentation CO2 from 34 ethanol refineries in 5 U.S. states and build an elaborate pipeline to transport the CO2 to an underground storage site. This ethanol plan is compared with building wind farms at the same cost to provide electricity for BEVs (wind plan A). Compared with the ethanol plan, wind plan A may reduce 2.4-4 times the CO2, save drivers in the five states $40-$66 billion (USD 2023) over 30 years even when BEVs initially cost $21,700 more than FFVs, require 1/400,000th the land footprint and 1/10th-1/20th the spacing area, and decrease air pollution. Even building wind to replace coal (wind plan B) may avoid 1.5-2.5 times the CO2 as the ethanol plan. Thus, ethanol with carbon capture appears to be an opportunity cost that may damage climate and air quality, occupy land, and saddle consumers with high fuel costs for decades.

Automated summary

This paper compares the options of using ethanol-gasoline blends vehicles and battery-electric vehicles. The study finds that building wind farms to provide electricity for electric vehicles can reduce more CO2 emissions, save more costs, and decrease air pollution. Therefore, the use of ethanol vehicles may cause damage to the climate and air quality.