Why I Love Biofuels and Hate Ethanol
- Posted by: Joshua Kagan
- on October 28, 2009 at 7:00 am
Neither ethanol nor electric vehicles address the real problems.
We have two main “solutions” for curbing the unintended consequences of our use of fossil fuels: first generation biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) and electric vehicles. I am unapologetic in my belief that both are very flawed solutions. At best, they make only a marginally positive contribution; at worst, they represent a situation where the patient’s medicine can actually make him sicker.
It may seem like heresy for a self-righteous Prius-driving vegetarian environmentalist to claim that electric vehicles and first generation biofuels are almost as evil as oil, but they are. Let me preface by saying that I love the idea of “zero emission” vehicles. However, we also need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: What will be the source of the electricity that fuels these vehicles? According to the Department of Energy, 50 percent of all electricity generated in the United States comes from coal, while only 10 percent is derived from renewable sources (solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, etc). Thus, if we think we are actually making a meaningful impact on reducing GHG emissions from switching our transportation energy source from oil to coal, then we have read Don Quixote one too many times and absorbed his delusions of grandeur. Electric vehicles also have such arcane battery technology (the $100,000 Tesla Roadster uses laptop batteries after all) that you are more likely to see a “Back to the Future” hovercraft in your lifetime than fly to Bratislava in an EasyJet electric airplane.
Our other current “solution” to displace petroleum is first generation biofuels. In other words: ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is a gasoline alternative made from the starch or sugars of plants like corn or sugarcane. About 80 percent of the world’s biofuels are ethanol and the United States is the largest market (9 billion gallons produced in 2008) followed by Brazil (7 billion gallons). Biodiesel comprises the remaining 20 percent of biofuels. It is made from feedstocks like canola, soybeans, and palm plants. The European Union—due to its preference for diesel over gasoline engines—accounts for half of the world’s biodiesel production, though the United States, Argentina, Malaysia, and Indonesia also produce significant quantities.
Now let’s get to the meat and potatoes. Or in this case corn. Ethanol is an alcohol-based fuel that has been used as a fuel source since Henry Ford’s Model T. Currently, ethanol is blended into up to 10 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply, but higher percentages of ethanol—without engine modification—will cause your car to die a painful death. On a per gallon comparison to oil, ethanol carries two-thirds the amount of energy. It also cannot be transferred via pre-existing petroleum pipelines.
There are many other problems I have with corn ethanol but for the sake of brevity, I will only touch on the big one. According to the USDA, the United States will produce 12.8 billion bushels of corn in 2009, 4.2 billion of which will be used to produce corn ethanol production. That’s one-third of our corn supply to produce a fuel that will displace only 5 percent of our gasoline? All the while, according to the United Nations, 1 billion people will go to bed hungry tonight. As long as there are people starving on this planet, fuel sources that directly compete with food supplies are morally flawed.
According to Greentech Media, 76 percent of all federal renewable energy subsidies went to corn ethanol in 2007. Under mandates directed under the Energy Independence and Security Act, 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol is required to be blended into the U.S. gasoline supply by 2015. Assuming similar corn yield levels, we will soon be dedicating almost 50 percent of our corn crop to produce a fuel with debatable energy and carbon savings.
But hope is not lost. There are non-food crops that can be used for biofuel. The federal government has awoken to this and is heavily promoting “second generation” cellulosic biofuels. Cellulosic refers to the “non-food” component of a plant or tree—like the husk of the corn or tree trimmings—that contain lots of energy in the form of carbohydrates called polysaccharides that can, in turn, be processed into biofuels. The next installment in this series discusses what is cellulosic ethanol, why you need to know about it, why you are not wrong if you find it ironic that cutting down trees is a carbon mitigation strategy, and how algae is really the future of biofuels.
Guest writer Joshua Kagan is an analyst with Atlas Capital, a fellow with the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Technologies, and an all-around expert in the world of clean technology. This is the second in a four-part series exploring a possible transition from fossil fuels to biofuels, and how algae might supplant oil as the dominant energy currency.
From Petroleum to Algae illustrations by Jennifer Daniel.
DISCUSSION: 15 Comments
Josh- you need to do more research………….1. None of the corn used for ethanol production is food corn, let me state that again NONE of the corn used for ethanol is food corn. It is a specific breed for ethanol production that actually has a byproduct that is animal feed called distillers grain that is HEALTHIER than corn by itself. The whole food vs fuel debate is a myth pushed by the big food companies and the oil companies. 2. US exports of FOOD corn have not changed in 5 years- regardless anyone starving elsewhere on the planet AND we have had surpluses for the same period. 3. The subsidies that go to ethanol go to the FUEL refiners(big oil) to actually MIX it with their product. It does not go to the Farmers or the Ethanol Producers- It goes to the OIL COMPANIES to actually mix it. This is why it is called a BLENDERS CREDIT.3. The renewable subsidies that do go to the Refiners is a tiny fraction of the non renewable subsidies that go to the OIL companies. 4. We have already displaced ~ 10% of gasoline usage already. Displacing an additional 5% eliminates all of the oil that we purchase from Hugo Chavez. 5. Lastly- corn is the basis for the industry in the US by necessity- not choice. The industry that fully acknowledges and is preparing to move to the next generation of source plants but will never be able to if uninfomed people like yourself do not have the insight to let the technologies mature.
Josh…As DCPERSPECTIVE suggests, you need to do better research!Your assertion that ethanol CANNOT be shipped in pipelines is categorically incorrect! I have been involved in the ethanol space for 26 years and have participated in more than one test involving the shipment of ethanol in pipelines; all of which were successful.Previously, there was no incentive for refiners to provide a competing product (ethanol) cheaper access to their motor gasoline markets by shipping the competitor in THEIR pipelines; consequently, not only would they not allow ethanol in their pipelines but they have consistently perpetuated the myth that it can’t be shipped in pipelines to protect their market share.Now however, this incentive is in place, via the Renewable Fuel Standard legislation requiring ethanol’s inclusion in motor gasoline nationwide, so you will see that all of a sudden, ethanol IS compatible with and acceptable for shipment in, our nation’s pipelines. In fact there is currently a joint venture between a major midwestern pipeline and an ethanol producer(s) to ship ethanol from the Midwest to the East Coast! As Jerry Macguire so eloquently said, “Show me the money!”
DC Perspective, I expected that when I wrote this piece, that I would be attacked from those within the corn ethanol industry who troll blogs to respond with their own official propaganda. Similar to how Fox News always has a “scientist” commentator who disputes Climate Change, your comments are clearly ideological. I will attempt to invoke reason and provide links so we can return this to a thoughtful discourse.
Fact: The USDA estimates that 12.8 billion bushels of corn will be produced in 2009 on 80 million acres. 4.2 billion bushels of that corn will be used to produce ethanol .
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5917
Your comment that the corn used for ethanol production is not human grade is one of semantics. The fact that the corn used for ethanol is now genetically modified to enhance ethanol yields and create co-products does not negate the fact that roughly 26 million acres of U.S. cropland will be used to grow corn used for ethanol. According to the USDA, the U.S. has a total cropland of 321 million acres.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2009/06_30_2009.asp
Thus, we can say that corn grown for ethanol uses 8.1% of total U.S. cropland. If we did not have to grow corn for ethanol, we could use that land to grow corn, wheat, soy, or any other crop for humans. In light of these statistics, it is hard to take your comment seriously that the “food vs. fuel” controversy is merely a myth.
With regard to your comment about subsidies, I would invite you to dig a little deeper and see that the $0.45/gal tax that we put on imported Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is a de facto subsidy to U.S. corn ethanol industry. Simply put, the import duty on Brazilian ethanol, insulates U.S. producers and provides an artificial margin cushion. Unfortunately, our political leaders have decided that imported oil from Saudi Arabia is preferable to imported Brazilian ethanol. I would imagine that if Congress were to repeal on the Brazilian tax, your constituents in the corn ethanol lobby would cry foul.
One area that I agree with you is the importance of the 5% of U.S. gasoline consumption that corn ethanol displaces. I didn’t mean to completely throw corn ethanol under the bus in this article. Given extremely tight and inelastic oil supplies in 2008, the amount of gasoline that ethanol displaced — albeit modest — was still important in preventing us from seeing oil prices well above $150/bbl.
“DC Perspective”, it is very easy to attack people anonymously on the internet and claim that they are “uniformed” and do not have “insight.” I have no allegiance to any generation of biofuel technology. I just call it as I see it. I would invite you to come out from the veil of anonymity and tell us who you are and who you represent.
Let me start by saying that I too have a slight love affair with Biofuels, particularly algae based fuels. My background is in Chemical Engineering and I have read more articles about algae fuels then I care to admit. It is pretty clear that algae is going to be big business because it will “show you the money”. Bioreactor plants and algae fields will likely require both high tech engineering jobs and blue collar union jobs. This means a higher chance of support from business leaders and politicians alike because the algae plants will create high paying jobs wherever they pop up. No forests would need to be cut down in order to grow the biomass so the true footprint is neutral (more and more studies show that biofuels produced from corn have some carbon footprint). I agree, algae is significantly advantageous when compared to Corn; I could go on and on about the benefits of algae but wanted to clear up a few things.
There is no panacea. It doesn’t exist and if it does it will be found in the form of diversification. The important thing is progress so I believe no technology should be propped up by putting down other very beneficial technologies. I firmly believe algae based fuels are the better then ethanol but ethanol is better then petroleum. Yes, demand corn derived ethanol has caused corn prices to rise and this is bad for everyone (disproportionately so for the poor). But for the time being it does present itself as the best available alternative. Perhaps we should agree: Corn for today, Algae for tomorrow?
Finally, I would like to touch on the subject of electric vehicles. Let me start off by saying that per passenger mile an all-electric-vehicle would substantially less impactful on the environment then any other car on the road today. There are companies (Better Place for one) that are working to implement these vehicles into the infrastructure of major cities. As cities generate more clean energy (a Co-Gen plant that uses Algae fuel, wind farms, wave, solar…) the vehicles too become cleaner and cleaner. Like I said, lets not put down any of these clean technologies lets prop them all up! If big oil and gas companies stay unified and all the alternative energy companies (and supporters) fight amongst each other it will only drag out our reliance on dirty forms of energy production.
I have no affiliation with Better Place or any other alternative energy company; I actually work for a service company that does most of its business with traditional energy companies. But I think it is fair to say that these traditional ways of generation energy are no longer acceptable. It just makes moral and business sense to move away from oil and coal. Its as simple as that.
Roadtrip,
My information that ethanol is corrosive to pipelines and has an affinity to water is based from the Department of Energy’s “Energy Information Administration” official Federal and State Ethanol and Biodiesel Requirements:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ethanol.html
I appreciate that you have been involved with “more than one test” and perhaps you could take this issue up with the DOE, as apparently, they are not a sufficient research source
Josh- I’m an IT guy- no ties to the corn world. I have been reading up a bit and do believe there are indeed trolls pushing info out all over the web. Unfortunately I guess I have become over enthusiastic in my comments on ethanol as it get beat up pretty regularly. I’m not here to debate but will share my view on a few points. We consistently have a surplus of food grains here in the US and to assume that all of the land used for corn ethanol would somehow be transformed into food products that would address hunger issues outside of the US really has no basis. Big oil and the food conglomerates have always pushed corn ethanol as an either or argument that simply does not hold water. Farmers grow to sell. If there was a market for it there would be corn planted in every square inch – even between the highway dividers and under canopy’s in national parks whether the market was for fuel, food, or exportation to space. The point here is there has to be a market to justify the acreage usage argument in relation to food. With grain surpluses running out years, including the biggest US ethanol production years, I can’t accept the food vs food argument. In fat turn tthat argment around and it justifies ethanol production. As for the Brazilian import tax- agreed. Pull it. It really does not come into play now that we have production at the level of the E10 standard. It was put there to ensure that the E10 standard was not undercut by importing ethanol. The intention was to grow and support the American industry development long enough that the initial investments held. Now that the production levels and capacity is here we no longer need it. Peace
Josh- as an added note I fully agree with McGruff that corn ethanol is not THE solution but is part of the path to a diverse solution. But indeed we need to embrace and enhance the fact that we actually have displaced 10% of our addiction to gasoline as our only liquid transportation fuel. It’s a great starting point that Americans should be proud of and encourage. The second and third generations of these solutions have enormous potential both here in the US and in local economies all over the world. Currently we are the largest user of oil – very soon we will be one of three “bidders” and unfortunately the only chips we have to play in that game is innovation. We need to embrace and enhance every possible .solution going forward.
Josh – Glad to see you like hard data. In that case, you should keep in mind, and tell your readers, that corn ethanol isn’t the only game in town. You can make ethanol from a lot of different feedstocks, and by far the most successful of all is sugarcane. You mention Brazil in your article, but just saying they do ethanol really doesn’t do it justice. They don’t just do ethanol: they do it efficiently, sustainably, economically, without affecting food production (Brazil is a top-three producer and/or exporter in most of the world’s most important commodities, and production has grown on all fronts in recent years even as sugarcane has expanded because of ethanol). They’ve also done it for more than 30 years, and the entire cane crop, for all purposes (ethanol, sugar and other uses) uses less than 2.5% of the country’s arable land. Cane for ethanol takes up just over 1% of the arable land… and with that, Brazil has replaced more than 50% of its gasoline needs. This is not a “troll” writing, just someone who has seen it, experienced, got curious and read all about it. Eleven major automakers currently offer 70 flex-fuel models in Brazil, and flex cars account for more than 90% of all new car sales (light vehicles). This is a resounding success story, and the only reason you don’t see more Brazilian cane ethanol entering the US and helping push down the price of gas at the pump is a hefty tariff applied by the US to ethanol imports, courtesy of all that heavy lobbying from the domesticcorn ethanol industry, which refuses to be threatened with the loss of billions and billions in subsidies backed by taxpayer money. Keep researching Josh, and let’s tell the whole story – basically, all ethanols are not created equally. By the way: you stated that adding more than 10% ethanol to gasoline would do horrible things to people’s cars. Better research that one a bit more – Brazil has been adding 25% ethanol to all gasoline sold in the country, and has done this since the 1970s. Total number of car owners whose warranties have been harmed by too much ethanol in gasoline: zero. This is truly a myth, disseminated by automakers… and only automakers can explain why they do it. Here are the brands we all know and drive in the US, which make flex cars, as well as gasoline powered cars that are sold in Brazil, and run on 25% ethanol trouble-free: Ford, Fiat, GM, Honda, Peugeot, Citroen, Toyota, Renault, Nissan, Mitsubishi and Volkswagen…
All forms of biofuels and alternate energy sources have their pro’s and con’s, and the decisions to pursue any particular one should consider issues such as water use, fertilizers needed, land use and distance hauling the raw materials to their destinations for processing and to end users, for starters. No one can currently state emphatically which alternate source or sources will end up being the best, low cost, non-environmentally destructive solutions. We all have our opinions based on what information we have been exposed to. What needs to be intelligently discussed is which alternatives have the best chance for becoming the right solutions, and then decide on which ones should be supported financially by both the government and private industry to determine if they are competitive. I agree that corn based ethanol is not a long term solution but it has a legitimate role in the genesis of alternate energy. My personal opinion is that ethanol from any source will be a short term solution, as hybrid vehicles and plug-in versions will eventually significantly reduce or even eliminate the need for any type of gasoline for personal use vehicles. But the commercial transportation industry will not be nearly as easy convert to electric power. Can you imagine the size of the batteries needed in an all-electric semi-trailer truck? The trucking industry will be running on diesel fuel much longer that the auto industry runs on gas. If it were my money to invest, I would focus on biodiesel fuels made from algae for the greatest chance of having a long-term success in affecting our overall carbon footprint. But I would still support other alternatives as well.
Another point that needs to be made is that none of the alternate energy sources - ethanol, biodiesel, solar, wind, etc - will actually lower the amount of CO2 in the air. At best, they will drastically cut down on the rate of increase CO2 being dumped into our environment. Under the assumption that we need to get CO2 back down to a 350 ppm level, we still need to maintain a parallel focus on identifying what solutions will actually start reducing the CO2 ratio. Pumping CO2 into underground caverns makes no sense to me at all, as that means we are burying 2 atoms of oxygen with every one atom of carbon. Taken to an extreme, eventually, this would have a negative impact on the ratio of oxygen in the air we breathe and use in combustion engines. There is plenty of water in the world available to replenish the oxygen if it actually became an issue, but the cost of converting water to hydrogen and oxygen needs to be considered in the arguement for sequestering CO2 in caverns. Alternately, I have read that single celled microbes and algaes account for about 80% of the removal of CO2 in the air. Contrary to popular opinion, the rain forests of Amazon are not really an effective CO2 dump! They re-emit most of the CO2 that they take in within a few years. That leads me to suspect that a biodiesel algae solution to the energy issue could also be extrapolated to be a part of the solution to reduce the CO2 ppm. Burying dried algae in caverns makes a lot more sense to me than sequestering CO2.
Corn and Biomass are not the only feedstocks that ethanol can be derived from.Although I (sadly) find that Ethanol these days is synonymous with corn, with lignocellulosic sources being a close second.I represent a company that uses a proprietary technology that has been proven to capture waste carbon from from Steel Mill flue gases (in form of carbon monoxide emissions which are currently flared into CO2), and converts this into ethanol (and other high value chemicals).Basically, imagine this, reducing steel mill CO2 emissions for ethanol production. In addition the technology could be used to convert landfill gases into ethanol, where the normally emitted methane has a 20X higher global warming potential than CO2. So Joshua, do you still hate Ethanol?
You will never grow enough terrestrial crops for our energy needs in the US. Algae is renewable, does not affect the food channel and consumes CO2. To learn more about the fast-track commercialization of the algae industry, you may want to check out the National Algae Association. It is the first algae trade association in the US. Biodiesel and ethanol producers attend all their quarterly forums.
I would like to clarify some misconceptions.USDA Land 11% CROP land25% FARM land64% NON-CROP landWhen you say corn grows on 8% of CROP land it can be confusing for an unknowlegdeable reader.I think we need to understand the whole picture of corn use in this country to make an educated choice in regards to corn ethanol.56% used for domestic animal feed18% used for export animal feed18% ethanol production & byproducts are used to feed animals (healthier than corn to cattle)8% Human use, (majority corn syrup and sweetners) And we can’t give our corn away to most impoverished countries. They will not accept it because it is geneticlly modified and in their opinion not fit for human consumption.I don’t like corn ethanol because it is too inefficient. It takes too many inputs of fertilizer and pesticides. But my arguements are more against industurial agriculture in general. If we can set up sustainable farms with many different feedstocks and crop rotations for ethanol with organic practices it would be a huge step to combat nearly all arguements against corn ethanol. Finally optimize an auto engine for ethanol something like Scania’s ethanol diesel type engine and we end up much more efficient than gasoline, and much greener. I loved Dave Bloom’s book, Alcohol Can Be a Gas. It really opens your eyes and has you look past internet stories on ethanol.
Good article, but the comments, not so good.Electric cars will not reduce CO2 if we don’t replace coal as our main means of making electricity. I have seen many studies that have documented this over the years. But, if we don’t replace coal, it will not matter what kind of car you drive as far as global warming is concerned because coal is the main driver of fossil fuel GHG. Luckily, few, if any new coal plants are being built in the US. I strongly suspect that electric car owners will also be motivated to install solar panels to charge their cars. Good tech begets good tech. We certainly don’t want to wait for coal to be entirely replaced before investing in electric cars. Consumers will demand a clean source of electricity.Using the Tesla as an example of what electric cars will look like was not a good idea.Should have used the Nissan Leaf, or the Mitsubishi iMiEV, or the Blue Car.http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-status-symbols-on-horizon.htmlThe problem with cellulosic and algae biofuels is that they don’t really exist in an affordable, retail format. The EPA is scaling back its mandate for cellulosic because nobody can supply much of it. They were counting on Cello for most of it next year but they were just convicted of fraud.And for anyone who thinks oil independence is an overarching priority, you can’t beat electric cars. But is energy independence achievable, or even really desirable? Trading partners are less likely to make war on each other. Liquid fuel supply shocks will only get worse as our dependency on crops grows because we can’t control weather and bad crop years could impact us as bad as an OPEC embargo.It is unlikely that corn ethanol had any measurable impact on oil prices in 2008. The simple three variable supply and demand elasticity equations are only good for discussion in economics 101. In the real world, they fall to complexity:http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/biofuelmyths1.htm#bookmark8McGruff02A dozen recent peer reviewed science studies have shown corn ethanol is worse than gasoline in almost every category. I also don’t agree with your suggestion of “Corn for today, Algae for tomorrow?” If corn ethanol disappeared today it would have no impact of algae fuel research. Why would you make ethanol from algae when you could just as easily make even more energy dense fuels compatible with our engines and fuel distribution system with it? Corn ethanol does not usher in competitors, it thwarts them and if cellulosic ever becomes cheap, the corn ethanol lobby will come down on it like a ton of bricks. A corn ethanol refinery can’t make cellulosic ethanol. They will be economic rivals.DCPerspectiveIt’ absurd to claim that feed corn is not food for people. It feeds people via livestock, which process it into eggs, dairy, and meat, all of which are food for people. And it is not a specific breed for corn ethanol. It is ordinary field corn, used for livestock and ethanol. Genetically modified corn specifically for ethanol would be a bad idea:http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/02/13/transgenic_ethanol/index.htmlFood exports continue because we have not used all of our corn for ethanol and we also planted a million more acres of corn this year. Price reflects supply and demand. The average annual price of corn has increased almost 100% over the averages preceding the biofuel mandates in 2006:http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img30.gifThe blending subsidies given to the oil refiners was put in place by the ethanol lobby and they want it to stay in place. It is to get the oil companies to buy ethanol. Without it, the last ethanol refinery would have already gone bankrupt. The oil companies use the subsidy to buy ethanol, get it?We have replaced less that 5% of our gasoline us, not 10% and have not reduced imports at all:the contribution of ethanol is so small relative to that of overall demand, that any actual displaced imports would be lost in the noisehttp://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/10/ethanol-and-petroleum-imports.htmlAmerica does not have to buy any oil from Chavez. We can buy that same amount from somewhere else. Oil is highly fungible. Not buying it from Chavez would only cost us more to buy it from somewhere else and he will simply sell it to someone else. High mileage cars like the Prius and Insight are our best bet in the short term.Global grain stocks have become unstable. Humanity has been using more grain than it has produced seven out of the last nine years. You don’t accept that when corn prices double poor people starve? Pulling the Brazilian tariff will kill corn ethanol. Not going to happen:http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img8.gifRoadtrp1Ethanol and oil can’t both be shipped through the same pipe system. You can pipe one or the other but they can’t share the same system. That is why it is trucked and shipped by rail. Your oil company conspiracy theory does not hold water (or ethanol, or both since ethanol absorbs water). Oil companies want to make money. They could care less if the liquid fuel is made from oil, food, or little old ladies and newborn babies.Privahini,Lignocellulosic sources are a close second to corn ethanol? We consumed 9 billion gallons of ethanol last year. Almost no cellulosic has been sold retail.KKopf,Why would we incur the expense and energy losses to convert methane into ethanol? Methane is a fuel that is often burned in place to make electricity or compressed to run natural gas vehicles.True, the Amazon is not a CO2 dump, it it a vast CO2 storage area. Destroying it to make pasture and cropland releases that stored CO2.MikeGreen,”Better research that one a bit more..”According to Wikipedia, unlike American cars, cars in Brazil where ethanol blends have been 22% since 1993 are all designed to run on that higher blend.Biodiversivist
The reasons that people in Africa and other areas are starving are political, religious, and social and not agricultural. China and India have increased their food production over the past few years to the point that they can now feed their own populations whereas the food production in Africa has gone DOWN since the end of the colonial era. Until these areas of the world develop a social/religious/politicial system that allows their people to live in peace and harmony and to receive the individual fruits of their labor they will continue to have problems. This is not something other people can do for them or impose upon them; they must do it for themselves. The best way to help is to provide a good example, and we must improve on doing that.