Red, Green, and Blue: A Case for Ethanol Skepticism
I am a liberal, and I have a confession to make: I don't like it when the government throws my money away, either. It's hard to admit, but it's just another one of those inconvenient truths. It's also exactly what I think is happening with the at least $5 billion in ethanol subsidies the federal government will hand out this year.
Now don't get me wrong: it's not farm subsidies and certainly not alternative fuel subsidies that I have a problem with. I just think that the government should encourage farmers to grow (organic and sustainable) food, not fuel. It should also support those alternative fuels and technologies that provide a demonstrable measure of increased efficiency and decreased reliance on fossil fuels. Ethanol does neither.
You may recall hearing about a report by UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek and Cornell ecology professor David Pimentel that concluded that it takes more energy to make ethanol than the finished ethanol actually contains:
The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs.
Those 98,000 BTUs of energy? They come mostly from fossil fuels. I'll freely admit that the results and biases of the Pimentel/Patzek report have been the subject of much debate and consternation from ethanol supporters, but it's clear that producing ethanol from corn requires lots of energy. Even with the American Coalition for Ethanol's best case estimates, it still takes a half gallon of fossil fuel to make a gallon of ethanol.
It's one reason why you'll have to forgive me for choosing not to get too giddy when American automakers start mass-producing vehicles that get 10 miles per ethanol gallon.
There are other reasons too. First, with a still-growing population, with poverty and malnutrition still a global problem, and with the unpredictable results of global climate change, do we really want to devote an increasing amount of productive farmland to growing fuel? Pimentel has aptly called government support of ethanol "subsidized food burning." If we do allow food and fuel to fight over farm acreage, we would also have to be prepared to accept the unsustainable industrialized farming of corn monocultures (in the U.S.) that would be required for ethanol to make a dent in America's fuel demands.
As a biodiesel homebrewer, I have many of the same concerns about large-scale biofuel production (and subsidies, too). The vegetable oil I use for biodiesel has already served it's purpose as fryer oil at a local restaurant. I take that waste product and turn it into fuel. Using virgin oil fresh from America's farms makes little sense to me. Even so, and even though I use some really gross, inedible waste oil, my wife and I are still planning to move beyond biodiesel and build an all-electric car later this year that will be fueled by solar energy.
With all of that said, I am still hopeful about the possibilities of the next generation of ethanol. There have been some promising advances in producing ethanol (bioethanol) from agricultural wastes, not virgin crops. These advances are indeed exciting and certainly worthy of being pursued further. Using waste to produce ethanol "would allow agricultural land to be used more efficiently and at the same time prevent competition with food supplies." (And just as bioethanol may be a solution for a more rational ethanol future, algae oil may prove to be the biofuel answer.)
Ethanol can play a role in America's clean, independent energy future, but it's important to remember that it's just one (small?) piece of the puzzle. Many of the best minds in the environmental movement have been telling us for decades that there is no one perfect answer. I think they're right. We don't need ethanol alone, or biofuels alone, or solar panels alone, or wind farms alone, or hydrogen alone, or conservation alone. We need all of them and more.
Tags: Alternative Fuels, Biodiesel, Bioethanol, biofuels, Ethanol, Politics, subsidies
- Uncategorized
March 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
…can be found in the upper Midwest, were biofuels are already part of the solution. See the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest’s website on the subject: http://www.CleanAirChoice.org to see their take on E85 and biodiesel in the heartland.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Higher yeilding corn and cellulosic ethanol will help, but so would conservignthe resources that we have by using smaller cars, running buidings hotter in the summer and coolerr in the winter as well as using thermal insuation.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Yes, agreed. If biofuel advocates and adversaries have to argue over subtle nuances in studies in order to get the figures to line up for their respective positions - then it’s obviously not the solution we need. If there is not a dramatic and obvious/unequivical energy gain, then let’s put it aside, and look at other options. They’ve spent more than twenty years, and billions of dollars on it. Instead, as Biofuelsimon touched upon, how about spending a fraction of the billions we’re spending on biofuels, on corporate and consumer education in conservation, recycling and promoting local businesses over those hundreds, or thousands of miles away - and, as you’ve pointed out, on making a gradual shift towards sustainable methods of working the land.
The land management issue is huge, and is almost completely overlooked due to our modern society’s detachment from the natural world around us. Despite what politicians and economists in their offices might assume our soil is not an exhaustless supply of energy. Soil fertility depletion (lack of organic matter) is a huge problem today - in addition to feeding ourselves (often by way of feeding millions of animals) it is absurd to consider adding the burden of feeding our vehicles. The IPCC report confirmed that our modern system of agriculture is the primary cause of GHG release (amongst other things, the soil stores more carbon than the oceans and atmosphere combined), but we tend to ignore this. Instead of revisiting the way we farm, we’re going to exacerbate our problems by intensifying production - adding vehicles to the list of ‘mouths to feed’.
Technologies like algae hold promise - but let’s not belong to the ‘but wait’ crowd while the boys are working on this.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
You need options.
1. There is specific corn genetics which will enhance effectiveness of growing for energy. Probably another 15% over the next five years.
2. You can use animal waste, available near many of the ethanol plants, and turn the methane gas into a replacement for the natural gas used in the production of ethanol. Reduce risk and reduce cost as well as remove one major fosil fuel from the equation.
3. You can shift to marginal land for energy crops using drought resistant seed along with newly developed seed coating to enhance yields up to 20%.
4. You can reduce the amount of water used in the process by 20% based on proven technology of today and not know at the time of the report you note.
5. You can maintain a 15% ethanol blend to gas and run on the existing engines you have today without any issues. The gas mileage drain is minimal, no where near the 10 miles per gallon you mention.
6. We are five to seven years, by most science estimates, from having biomass options. They will enhance again the ethanol production.
The land can actually be less intensely cultivated with energy crops than now decreasing the carbon release.
Right direction, less than complete use of facts. You need all kinds of options to beat the problem and beating up on one does not help to further them all.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
good points, there, Ryan…
April 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Thanks for the article…it is heartening to see algae getting a lot of publicity, something I feel they deserve. (Oh well, I am happy to see you have given a link to my site Oilgae :-))
I co-ordinate Oilgae, a site that explores use of algae as a feedstock for biodiesel, and I can say with some amount of confidence based on my researches that algae appear to be one of the most qualified candidates for biodiesel production.
While the math certainly appears to favor algae, there are a number of issues to be overcome. These have to do with (1) choosing optimal algal strains, (2) issues faced in cultivation and harvesting (believe me there are some serious bottlenecks here), and (3) cost-effective methods to extract oil and transform it into biodiesel.
So yes, there is still a long way to go before it can be proven with certainty that algal biodiesel can be cost-effective on a large scale, but it is gratifying to see brilliant minds (not to forget VC money) getting into this field. And with institutes like MIT (Boston) getting into the act, I’m optimistic most of the above-mentioned issues will be overcome.
Time will tell if algae are our future source of energy, but for now, they certainly appear to have many of the qualifications required for the same.
Narsi from Oilgae - Oil from Algae