In 1977 I worked in Nebraska for United Press International, covering ethanol and debates about storage, pipelines and train transportation.

Thirty years later we are discussing the same things.

Instead of looking to the future for progress, I looked to the past and asked: “What would pioneers do in the Statehouse today if they were dealing with the ethanol issue?”

They would:

1. Rebuild the rails.

2. Create a National Strategic Ethanol Reserve in Iowa.

3. Design a locomotive that runs on ethanol.

4. Use that engine to deliver ethanol to stations lacking the resource.

That is my “Capitol” idea. More important is what triggered it:

In January I participated in a debate sponsored by The Economist on the use of social networks as educational tools (see www.economist.com/debate/index.cfm?debate_id=3&action=hall).

I argued against that proposition, noting how consumer technology distracts learners and hinders critical thinking.

Some online readers on the Pro side bemoaned education in the Victorian era, which demanded commitment, discipline and self-reliance.

Sound familiar? Those are Iowa values because many of the parents and grandparents of pioneers were Victorians.

Victorians ranked among the most accomplished mechanical engineers in history. Richard Trevithick built the first locomotive in 1804 and George Stephenson the first railway a decade later. Both involved transport of coal.

In this country, coal and water were precious commodities in the 19th century. But engineers then did not think as many of us do today, waiting for the next great thing; they designed machines that circumvented problems while performing the desired task.

This is why they would design a locomotive that ran on and distributed ethanol, just as they did with coal and water.

Moreover, they would not view storage of ethanol as a problem but as a reserve.

Several months ago I asked Robert Brown, who directs our Bioeconomy Institute, about the idea of a National Strategic Ethanol Reserve, to which he responded:

“It could provide the renewable fuels industry with drought and flood protection. Pure ethanol has a lower vapor pressure than gasoline. It is only when you mix ethanol with gasoline that it takes on the peculiar property of being more volatile than either alone, so store it as pure ethanol.”

He added that he was not sure that “the reserve addresses the problem of getting ethanol to distant markets.”

When I informed him about ethanol-powered locomotives, he wrote, “An interesting ‘back to the future’ idea. There is no doubt that train vs. truck transportation is more energy efficient.”

Unlike diesel, ethanol is renewable.

We in Iowa have known about ethanol powered locomotives for some time now. The Iowa Independent (whose nameplate echoes self-reliance) wrote about it in August:

“An Ohio company is looking to Iowa as it develops a new generation of railroad locomotives.” The article quoted Tom Mack, the CEO of Alternative Hybrid Locomotive Technologies, who, at the time, was perfecting an ethanol-electric locomotive that he wanted to build in Iowa with a goal of “the world’s first” such engine “‘on the rails’ sometime before the end of 2008.”

I tracked down Mack in London at the world’s first Future Fuels Rail Traction summit. He hopes to sell two engines this year in Iowa and will announce that when the deal closes.

“It is a great comparison,” he said about Victorians designing an engine running on the fuel it transported. With ethanol, he added, “the solution is even simpler.”

Pioneers had to rely on coal mined back east. “Ethanol has this potential of being produced virtually anywhere in the United States where you can grow crops.”

But time is running out as quickly as gasoline at the pumps.

I used to teach at Oklahoma State University, so former students are executives now at oil companies. One wrote that those companies want us to engage in political discussions about ethanol because the more we politick, the more time his company has to tap oil in the arctic and elsewhere where the environment may be at stake.

Another executive confided, “There appears to be some companies that are supportive and active in alternative energy, but this may be more for public relations and image rather than a real interest in alternatives.”

Big Oil knows one thing, he added: “The alternative energy movement is still fragile enough that it could be derailed by a significant political or economic issue.”

That is why I have titled this article a “Capitol” idea to spur legislative action rather than a “capital” one, which is how the oil industry views $100 per barrel rates.

Finally, there is another Capitol that might consider this pioneering strategy. Our U.S. senators might request Homeland Security funds to found a national reserve in Iowa with a fleet of engines running on and delivering ethanol to all points in a crisis.

In the past, America was known for that kind of self-reliance. The future may depend on it again.

– Michael Bugeja is the director of the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication.