Experts Reject Bush Rationale for Corn-Based Ethanol

[rodeodance]

I had thought ethanol was more cost effective than this.



Got this in an email this morning.

From: BushGreenwatch <[e-mail]>

Date: Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:06 am

Subject: Experts Reject Bush Rationale for Corn-Based Ethanol


> ***************************************
> BUSHGREENWATCH
> Tracking the Bush Administration's Environmental Misdeeds
> http://www.bushgreenwatch.org
> ***************************************
>
> May 26, 2005
>
> EXPERTS REJECT BUSH RATIONALE FOR CORN-BASED ETHANOL
>
> In a speech at a biodiesel refinery in Virginia last week,
> President Bush touted the economic and environmental benefits of
> corn-based ethanol. Scientific evidence, however, contradicts
> the Administration's claims that increasing ethanol production
> would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil in an
> environmentally sound manner.
>
> "The ethanol production process consumes more fossil fuel energy
> than ethanol's actual calorific value," says University of
> California civil and environmental engineering professor Tad
> Patzek, who spent two years studying the environmental impacts
> of ethanol.
>
> "The energy cost of restoring the environmental damage caused by
> corn-based ethanol production takes seven times more energy than
> the amount of energy obtained from the ethanol itself," Patzek
> told BushGreenwatch.
>
> Increasing production from 5 billion to as much as 8 billion
> gallons of corn-based ethanol per year, as the Bush energy bill
> calls for, "will further deplete fossil fuels, and damage soil,
> water, and air with no benefit to the country, other than the
> few recipients of big government subsidies" said Patzek.
>
> Frank O'Donnell, President of Clean Air Watch, supports Patzek's
> conclusion: "Increasing ethanol production has been oversold as
> a pro-environmental policy," O'Donnell told BushGreenwatch,
> pointing out that "ethanol, particularly when used in the
> summer, can create high levels of smog and fine particle soot."
>
> A California Air Resources Board report states that the federal
> government's move to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline
> will add 70 tons of smog per day to the air in summer -- the
> equivalent of adding two million cars to the road. <1>
>
> Given the environmental risks associated with ethanol production
> and its lack of impact in creating an energy independent
> America, O'Donnell asserts that, "the driving force behind the
> Administration's desire to boost corn-based ethanol is to help
> the farm industry."
>
> The U.S. Department of Agriculture allocated $37 billion
> --repeat, $37 billion -- in corn subsidies from 1995 through
> 2003. <2>
>
> O'Donnell adds that alternative ethanol types, derived from
> different forms of biomass including agricultural waste, are
> worth looking into. But in its effort to prop up corn prices,
> the Bush Administration prefers to invest the lion's share of
> research and development funding for renewable energy toward
> corn-based ethanol. In his speech, President Bush proposed $84
> million for ongoing research on biofuel and ethanol.
>
> Patzek warns against this allocation, saying that an increase in
> corn-based ethanol use will actually "make us more dependent on
> foreign oil and natural gas, and cause us to divert our
> attention from the more important improvements in energy
> efficiency for our economy."
>
> In contrast, Brazil, a country hit hard by the sudden surge in
> oil prices in 1979, has been very successful in reducing its
> dependence on foreign oil. By increasing production of
> sugar-based ethanol and flex-fuel cars designed to use a
> combination of ethanol and gasoline, Brazil's oil imports have
> dropped from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to 10
> percent in 2002. <3>
>
> Many have suggested that the U.S. follow Brazil's model.
> Brazilian government officials have recommended that the U.S.
> increase imports of Brazilian sugar-based ethanol, and export
> its corn for human consumption. <4>
>
> Professor Patzek notes, however, that while "producing
> sugar-based ethanol is significantly more efficient than
> corn-based ethanol, we still have to live with the gradual
> depletion of soil and large-scale water contamination."
>
> Patzek recommends more efficient measures to reduce energy
> consumption, for example "doubling the mileage of the U.S. car
> fleet with existing technologies (hybrid cars, clean diesel
> cars). This would cut gasoline consumption by 50 percent and
> crude oil consumption by 20 percent."
>
> ###
>
> SOURCES:
> <1> "Dirty Prices," LA Weekly, Apr. 15, 2005,
> http://ga3.org/ct/e7acV7S1RR3p/.
> <2> "Bush's pick to head the USDA is a big ethanol booster,"
> Grist Magazine, Dec. 9, 2004, http://ga3.org/ct/epacV7S1RR3P/.
> <3> "Brazil's alternative-fuel strategy is a model for U.S.,"
> The Sun Herald, Apr. 3, 2005, http://ga3.org/ct/d1acV7S1RR3Q/.
>
> <4>Ibid.
>
> ***************************************
> :: TELL A FRIEND ABOUT BUSHGREENWATCH
> http://ga3.org/ct/3pacV7S1RR3o/
>
> :: READ BACK ISSUES
> http://ga3.org/ct/edacV7S1RR30/
> ***************************************
>
> BushGreenwatch
> 1320 18th Street NW 5th Floor
> Washington, DC 20036
> [phone]
> Web site comments: [e-mail]
>
> Copyright (c) 2003 Environmental Media Services
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for
> BushGreenwatch at:
>
> http://ga3.org/bushgreenwatch/join.html?r=k1acV7S13X3YE
>

[DU9598]

1. Some flaws

I am not an expert, but living in Iowa I hear some of the arguments for ethanol. Part of the flawed science here is that the tractors, power plants, and distribution system for ethanol still run on fossil fuels. However, if government would fully back ethanol and convert our transportation and power generation to more sustainable products - like ethanol - then it would be a more environmentally friendly product.

The anti-ethanol argument is like claiming fuel efficient cars harm the environment because the semi's that deliver them to the dealership get poor gas mileage.

[zipplewrath]

3. Now calculate the amount of biomass required to accomplish that

Yer talking alot of compost there don't ya know. Most energy technologies look better if we convert over completely to their use. Of course it can be difficult to actually accomplish that kind of volume with most of them. Bush talks up hydrogen for one reason, the most likely place to get the hydrogen is from HYDROcarbons, i.e. oil.

[etherealtruth]

2. This administration has NO interest in mainstream scientific opinion

... to them science is whatever "they" say it is; fact and truth have no place. These concerns and opinions about ethanol have been around for a decade (?), as usual the scientific consensus is that we need to increase fuel efficiency ... an idea this administration won't even consider.

[Squeech]

4. Ambiguity

We had a thread about this just yesterday.

The jury is still out about the energy cost of ethanol. There are a bunch of studies, and they disagree. My belief (I don't understand the arguments well enough to be certain) is that you can get ethanol production to deliver at least twice the caloric output you put into it, if you follow some reasonable efficiency measures. The variables include how much treatment the farm itself needs-- and remember that in modern agriculture, fertilizer is a petrochemical-- and how much time and effort and energy it takes to deliver the biomass to the distillery.

Brazil has an active ethanol industry-- at every gas station, there are three pumps, for conventional gasoline, diesel, and alcohol. I don't think they'd do this if it was a net loss in energy-- but of course I could be wrong. I think further that they don't use corn as their feedstock, but sugar cane-- something they know how to grow efficiently, since they've done it for 400 years, and I also believe that as a crop, it depletes soil less than corn, and requires fewer resources. But then, Brazil is also the world leader in chopping down rain forests, so I don't know how much I want to emulate them.

The bottom line for me is, let's do it if it's a net gain in BTU's. Otherwise let's not. It seems to depend on our ability to run efficiently and follow best practices. How many businesses that depend on government subsidies run efficiently?

[cprise]

5. Bush is just shilling for the corn lobby

Patzek is right. However he seems to overlook the potential of ethanol from cellulose: Crops like switchgrass can produce huge yields with high water and nutrient efficiency.

You may find this report interesting, particularly around page 29, it compares the efficiency and impact of different biofuel crops:

http://www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/NRDC-Growing-Energy-Final.3.pdf

[htuttle]

6. They're all thinking about it all wrong

First, you can't expect to get the same amount of energy out of ethanol production as we get out of oil. Not possible, and probably not even desireable. Conservation HAS TO be a large part of any future energy strategy. There's simply no way to replace the practically free energy we get from petroleum, so we're going to need to learn to live with far less energy. In the article above, Patzek seems to acknowledge this.

Second, forget generating the massive crop yields can get using petroleum intensive farming methods. We won't be able to do that for much longer. We're going to need to accept smaller, but more efficiently-grown, crop yields. That's efficient in terms of gross energy input, not necessarily in terms of yield/input.

Third, we need to start using all of our wastes more efficiently. Crop wastes, human and animal wastes, and food waste -- all need to have every last calorie of energy extracted (if possible) before they go into the landfill (or more likely, back onto the farm fields as fertilizer).

Finally, name one other type of fuel you can generate with nothing to invest but a few acres of land, some water and some scrap metal. While that may not be important to US citizens now, it is important to less technologically developed societies now (and perhaps to us in the future).

If we combine all of these things, biofuels looks as good as any other fuel -- as long as you aren't under the illusion that we are going to be able to live in the future just like we do today.

[jwirr]

7. I like what you are saying. This article and

the whole thread brought some questions to mind. One, most of those subsidies to corn farmers has been to keep a food product affordable for human consumption, right? Two, is not ethanol used to produce itself, thus cutting down on the use of fossil fuels for production? Three, doesn't ethanol come from the corn waste and not the fruit - first the kernels are used for human consumption and then the stalks, etc. are used to produce ethanol? And four, sugar is not extensively grown in the USA so here we go again making ourselves dependent on another import?

[Squeech]

8. No, I think this is how it works

The current process used by ADM is that we use the edible part of the corn, diverting it out of the food chain. Essentially ADM makes moonshine whiskey and adds it to gasoline. Yes, this encourages more production, but my understanding is that it also raises the price of groceries.

You're right to suppose that we use corn because we have an anemic domestic sugar industry, as a result of which most of our prepared foods are sweetened with corn syrup instead. As I said in my previous post, I believe Brazil's ethanol producers use sugar cane, but that's because they have tons of it.

There is a process under development-- I think there are pilot plants-- that uses the waste products instead. I was told yesterday that that's not such a good idea, that sustainable agriculture would prefer you to plow under the old cornstalks to both aerate the soil and replace nutrients. I wouldn't advise using cornstalks anyway, and the proposal I was looking at involved waste from lumber mills, much of which is now just slowly composting in big piles. As with most such schemes, the major problem is getting the necessary tonnage of feedstock to the plant in an energy-efficient manner.

My own preference, if I could rule by fiat, would be to grow hemp, which is a really hardy weed that thrives in marginal soils where *nothing* else of any known use will grow. After removing a small part of the plant for, um, research purposes, the rest of it could be feedstock for cellulose-derived ethanol. I believe it's a nitrogen fixer too, and would therefore leave the soil better off.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cprise]

10. ..posting a link to this in the Environment forum..

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amandabeech]

13. Back when soft drinks were sweetened with real sugar,

we drank many fewer soft drinks. We drank milk, if a kid, or water. Southerners still drank a lot of iced tea, though. We also ate less junk food and prepared food. Kids went outside to play all the time instead of watching TV or playing video games. More people performed physical labor at work, and housework took more effort, too. It was a totally different world.

[XemaSab]

12. Corn is not a benign plant

Corn requires a HUGE amount of nitrogen fertilizer (which requires energy to produce), and it's not good for the soil.

The above posters are right that the corn lobby is the Great Satan. What isn't mentioned is that in addition to corn on the cob, corn chips, corn meal, and corn sugar, most corn in the US goes to feed animals, so the corn subsidies keep the cost of meat low. It's the whole food industry that's part of the game here.

Sugar cane's an awful crop too.... Everglades destroyers.

Beets are a better (but still not perfect) source of sugar, at least as far as domestic sources go.

http://www.rotten.com/library/medicine/corn/