Opinions ___________________________________________
Ethanol as a biofuel - immoral, costly and stupid
Wednesday, 07 January 2009
By Ron Leng

The thrust towards biofuel development in nearly every country in the world has intensified in recent years with potentially devastating consequences for the sustainability of the planet - let alone our food supply.

The debate over developing biofuel is fierce as large amounts of taxpayer funds are inevitably involved in the heavy subsidies that accompany such developments, particularly when the feed stock is cereal grains.

Recently the NSW State Government mandated the inclusion of ethanol in transport fuel in a program that will cost the Australian taxpayer $200 million per year. The result will be no net gain in transport fuel, a massive increase in pollution and a huge demand on our critically scarce water supplies.

This echoes events in the USA where George Bush has mandated 15 billion gallons of ethanol for transportation purposes to be blended with petroleum by 2015 at a subsidy of some $US6 billion dollars each year. Within this is a subsidy of 46 cents per gallon and an import tariff of 51 cents per gallon to protect US farmers against ethanol from Brazil.

This will use up around 40 per cent of  US  maize  production  and will virtually dry up net grain exports,  inevitably forcing up the price of cereal  foods and food products dependent on grain such beef, poultry and pork worldwide.

The main victims of this will be the poor who spend a much greater proportion of their income on food. This means that to the subsidy the taxpayer pays to the biofuel industry must be added the great cost of increasing pensions, the dole and other social support measures so people can feed themselves adequately.

The development of biofuel from cereals is an extremely damaging development because it does not yield any more transport fuel then is used in producing the alcohol. It is not important here to go deeply into the technical aspects but clearly from unbiased studies in the USA by Professors Pimmentel and Patzek it takes more energy to produce ethanol from maize then the energy in the ethanol so produced. It is true that there is a net gain of 25 per cent more energy but that is locked up in the byproducts of dried distillers grains plus solubles which are not available for transport fuel. In addition the pollution created at a point source has to be dissipated and the same group has calculated that a distillery capable of meeting the needs of a town of 40,000 people creates pollution, in terms of biological oxygen demand, equal to that from a city of 1 million people. In the USA no costs are assigned to the down stream effects of increased fertilizer run off and the water demands of the distilleries. In this event untold losses occur annually to fisheries and other water-using industries from the huge dead zone that develops from anoxic conditions that extend over thousands of hectares of the Gulf of Mexico.

The misuse of water for biofuel crops alone should disqualify this particular use, given the location of Australia’s wheat growing areas and the critical water balance in these areas. The use of water to grow biofuel crops or to process the grain into alcohol has to be seriously questioned.

Wherever the distilleries are situated, they will compete for scarce water with irrigated agriculture, environmental river flows, drinking water or else they will deplete aquifers that could otherwise be used for food production . The NSW government should require all ethanol distilleries to develop a model of their water use (a water foot print) and their down stream release of water showing its quality and the impact on other ecosystems.

As Patzek has already demonstrated thermodynamically, biofuels made from starchy grains are energy negative when every aspect of their production and consequences of their development is considered. It will involve a huge cost to undo the blunder of cereal ethanol production schemes when the amount of biofuel produced is a fraction of a percent of our transport requirements and this amount could be saved by many other means such as increased engine efficiency. Sweden already imposes a sensible tax on 4WD vehicles to limit their use: why cannot Australia limit the use of 4WD for pleasure or simple transport on tar sealed roads and without detriment to those who have to have them in their daily working lives.

More information:

Pimmental D and Patzek T W(2005) Ethanol production using corn switch grass and wood: biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Natural Resource Research 14 65-76

Editor's Note: An opinion provided by Ron Leng. This article is under copyright; permission must be sought from This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it to reproduce it.
Comments
Add New
posted by: Bobby Fontaine 07-Jan-09 02:27:57
You can publish this article I wrote if you like.

bobbyfontaine@verizon.net

Will Obama make the right environmental/energy/health/climate choice?

If you scrutinize the information provided by the links at the end of the article, you
posted by: Bobby Fontaine 07-Jan-09 02:29:29
Sorry, I didn't know your comment sheet was so short. Email me if you want to read it. Its all about ethanol in the US
posted by: Ben 07-Jan-09 03:34:40
Check your sources. Pimmental and Patzek are funded by oil companies. Your suppositions are wrong on many levels. Go to alcoholcanbeagas.com to get the real story.
posted by: geoff 07-Jan-09 05:51:32
Australia is Australia!, a lot of misinformation here, The CSIRO has commented that there is no food/fuel argument in australia, or is there likely to be, they have also done a net energy balance on a prosed biorefinery plant to be constucted at Gunnedah NSW, a 11 to 1 net energy gain is possible, looking at all crop and mamufacturing imputs and the fuel itself in an overall caculation. This propsed Gunnedah plant will achieve most of its income from value adding wheat into food products for Australia and Asia, with the waste starch steam going into ethanol manufacture, also grain sorghum can be used, grain sorghum can yield 50% higher that the likes of wheat on the same moisure, a non human consumption grain, with a lacklustre market for this grain. The gunnedah plant it is proposed to also have a pilot lignocellullosic research and trial facility to advance stubbles and woody materials into alcohol. you have to crawl before you can walk in a fledgling industry, off track comments do not help. Maybe we should use and export more coal, import heaps oil, bring on climate change for us all
posted by: Ron leng 07-Jan-09 11:18:13
It's di8fficult to answer the points above For instance Patzek states explicitly in one of his papers that he received no funding what-so-ever for his research into the net energy value of grain based ethanol. The original work began as a student led project and was later refined by the senior author.

As for a net energy value for ethanol production of 11 units gained for each unit of energy input this is ridiculous. Even the scientists in the corn lobby only claim 1.25 return on 1 unit of energy input which is mostly biased by the energy content of the byproducts.
posted by: Corey 07-Jan-09 12:16:37
Considering his very long list of environmental science and energy conservation publications, I find it very hard to believe that Dave Pimentel is funded by oil interests.
posted by: Randall 07-Jan-09 14:56:37
Corey,

Do you homework then. That's like saying because Dick Cheney has been in government so long, we find it hard to believe he would purposefully lie to people.

In August 2001 Pimentel attacked the economics of corn-to-ethanol production in an article published in the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology. Pimentel asserted that ethanol production is uneconomic: "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. US drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

"Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist", August 6, 2001 -- "Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

In a detailed analysis of Pimentel's research, Dr. Michael S. Graboski of the Colorado School of Mines says Pimentel's findings are based on out-of-date statistics (22 year-old data) and are contradicted by a recent US Department of Agriculture (USDA) study.

"Comparison of USDA and Pimentel Net Energy Balances" -- "The USDA analysis clearly shows, contrary to the Pimentel paper, that US farming and ethanol manufacture are very energy efficient, and that the energy content of ethanol delivered to the consumer is significantly larger than the total fossil energy inputs required to produce it. USDA estimates that ethanol facilities produce at least 1.23 units of energy as ethanol for every fossil BTU included considering all energy inputs related to corn farming, corn transport, ethanol production, and distribution and transport of finished ethanol." Full report:
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01b.htm

"Pimentel clearly does not understand the economics of ethanol manufacture" -- a full rebuttal, from the US National Corn Growers Association.
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01a.htm

Another rebuttal: "Industry Argues That Ethanol Delivers"

In fact this isn't the first time Pimentel had published misinformation about ethanol, nor the first time critics had poked his analyses full of holes. He knows he's using outdated data, but that doesn't stop him. In 1998 he published this report:

"Energy and Dollar Costs of Ethanol Production with Corn" by David Pimentel, April 1998 -- "Ethanol does not provide energy security for the future. It is not a renewable energy source, is costly in terms of production and subsidies, and its production causes serious environmental degradation."
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n2/mkh-new7.html

This report was debunked by, among others, Michael Wang and Dan Santini of the Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, who conducted a series of detailed analyses on energy and emission impacts of corn ethanol from 1997 through 1999:

"Corn-Based Ethanol Does Indeed Achieve Energy Benefits" -- "Prof. David Pimentel's 1998 assessment of corn ethanol concluded that corn ethanol achieved a negative energy balance (which is usually defined as the energy in a product minus energy used to produce the product). Unfortunately, his assessment lacked timeliness in that it relied on data appropriate to conditions of the 1970s and early 1980s, but clearly not the 1990s... With up-to-date information on corn farming and ethanol production and treating ethanol co-products fairly, we have concluded that corn-based ethanol now has a positive energy balance of about 20,000 Btu per gallon."
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01c.htm

Wang and Santini found that Pimentel had been recycling his already-ancient data for at least 10 years.

In August 2002 a new report from the USDA found that not only is ethanol energy-efficient, it's efficiency is steadily improving.

"Only Dr. Pimentel disagrees with this analysis. But his outdated work has been refuted by experts from entities as diverse as the USDA, DOE, Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State University, and the Colorado School of Mines. While the opponents of ethanol will no doubt continue to peddle Pimentel's baseless charges, they are absolutely without credibility," the Renewable Fuels Association commented.
posted by: Ron Leng 07-Jan-09 15:29:44
Corey -discount the above and look at http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/Materials/RealFuelCycles-Web.pdf an article by Tad Patzec The real biofuels cycle.
Tad Patec is fully trained in advanced thermodynamics and has no axe to grind except the future we leave the next generation.
posted by: Mike 07-Jan-09 16:12:14
One of things that people that quote Patzek never tell you is that from a thermodynamic perspective there is no energy source which will ever be positive. Ever wonder why he didn't also evaluate oil using the same technique?
posted by: Ron Leng 07-Jan-09 17:07:35
I have to ask --why do some of the above have to attack the integrity of academics who have been acutely peer reviewed in the vast majority of their published work?
I think it would be a good move to ask any correspondent to declare their interests
posted by: Ron Steenblik 07-Jan-09 17:57:36
Interesting to see the old Pimentel & Patzek vs. The Rest of the World debate played out on an Australian stage.
There are new life-cycle analysis studies on biofuels appearing almost daily, so in the USA and Europe the debate has moved on. Most LCAs show that there is some net energy gain from grain ethanol (if one does not count the opportunity cost of using the energy in the grain itself; Patzek does, of course), better for fatty-acid methyl esters (i.e., biodiesel), and much better for sugarcane ethanol.

But the focus of the current international debate has moved on, beyond questions of net energy return, to the more sticky issues surrounding the estimation of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the effects of land conversion -- both direct and indirect -- on those GHG emissions and biodiversity. And, closer to home for Australia, the water demands of biofuel, particularly ethanol production, are also receiving increasing attention.

What Ron Leng is experiencing here, however, is an all-too-common phenomenon in public debates on biofuels: the vituperativeness of some biofuel boosters when somebody from the outside dares criticize the public policies that keep the industry in business. It is never enough for them to criticize just the data or studies of those who produce articles or studies with which they disagree. (Interesting to see, in this context, that many of the "authorities" cited by Randall are corn or ethanol industry associations.) No, they must fire a fusillade of ad hominem attacks at the individuals. The usual allegation is that the person MUST be in the employ of the petroleum industry. That critics of biofuel policies might be motivated by concerns about effects on the environment or on food security (as both Patzek and Pimentel are) never occurs to them, or is deemed irrelevant. That a scientist has written papers on petroleum geology is sufficient, in their world, to automatically disqualify him from contributing anything to the biofuels policy debate.

Ron Leng is on the right track, but it never hurts to read up more on this topic, as has been recommended by several commentators here. A good start, if I do say so myself, would be the in-depth study of Australian government support to its ethanol and biofuel industries, published last April by the Global Subsidies Initiative: http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/biofuel-subsidies-australia

Make no mistake about it. This is not a debate about the merits of biofuels per se (which have many fine qualities as fuels), but about whether governments should be supporting the industry in the way they do. Were it not for the subsidies, tax breaks and mandates provided to the industry
posted by: Ron Steenblik 07-Jan-09 17:59:34
For some reason my last sentence was truncated. It should read in full: "Were it not for the subsidies, tax breaks and mandates provided to the industry
posted by: Ron Steenblik 07-Jan-09 18:09:57
One more try: "Were it not for the subsidies, tax breaks and mandates provided to biofuels -- i.e., if the industry were simply meeting a market demand, rather than dependent on government policies to ensure its production and consumption -- than I doubt we would even be having this debate."
posted by: Ron Leng 07-Jan-09 18:27:44
Ron I couldn't agree more. My major concern has always been food security as I have first hand experience of just how critically balanced the developing countries are in this area. Second is contribution of biofuel crops to environmental degradation both atmospheric and water pollution and soil erosion. However most people only think in dollar balances without the cost of correction of environmental degradation.
A process that is subsidized to meet a level of inclusion of an additive to transport fuel that, in all the papers published varies from below to slightly above being equal to the cost of inputs is stupid because the net gain is four fifths of sweet nothing but carries penalties for a future generation
posted by: Ron Steenblik 07-Jan-09 19:43:46
Ron, may I suggest you have a look at the cost-effectiveness metrics (A$ per tonne of CO2 avoided, A$ per litre of gasoline and diesel avoided, etc.) in the above-referenced report by the GSI.
posted by: Anna 07-Jan-09 20:52:58
Could we get some sort of standard on ScienceAlert? This article is poorly written. It is sprinkled with emotive language and poor grammar. It's hard to follow what the author is saying.
They're presenting only one group's work believing they have a robust argument. Plenty of things are "immoral, costly, and stupid" and subsidised - farming livestock comes to mind at first. How many crops do we grow just to feed to livestock, how much land is eroded, etc etc?
Oil won't last forever, all new technologies start off unprofitable before they evolve into something more rewarding. Necessity is the mother of invention - according to the cost-analysis, we just haven't become needy enough yet.
posted by: Cornholer 07-Jan-09 21:43:40
It appears that the cheerleaders in the comment posts (Like Randall) are dependent (Like ethanol) on the survival of this totally ludicrus fuel. I have worked in the biofuels industry and the inside joke is "Biofools". When Dr. Pimentel did his study all the ethanol crowd were sure he would come back with the "wanted" results. When he didn't they try to disgrace him. Why do lobbyists wear neckties? To keep the foreskin from going over their head.
posted by: hpettit 08-Jan-09 09:20:27
We are in a profoundly disruptive phase of transition from fossil transportation fuels to their replacement. I do not beleive that the author nor any of the comments I have read would dispute this. No replacement will be developed that does not have its own set of drawbacks and weaknnnesses. All will need government support. Biofuels are a critical first stage replacement however imperfect to transition away from fossil fuels. In the US, biofuels represent 8% of the total gasoline market -- providing a significant beachhead for future alternative fuels and other non-fossil fuel alternatives. The use of terms like "immoral," and "stupid" to describe biofuels speaks more about the author than about biofuels. Everyone in this debate needs to take the moral indignation down a few levels. We need to focus on facts that lead to workable near term as well as long term solutions and not let this become a battle between different alternatives. That is exactly what the oil industry would like to see.
posted by: Chuckee 08-Jan-09 21:23:29
Hpettit,

How do biofuels provide a "beach-head" for non-fossil fuel alternatives, like electric vehicles and rail transport, or bicycles, or fuel cells? How does the subsidization of biodiesel made from vegetable oils provide a "beach-head" for biodiesel made from Fischer-Tropsch plants, which use a technologically completely unrelated process? How does subsidizing the production of ethanol from grains support the development of ethanol from municipal waste? How does subsidizing infrastructure for storing, distributing and using ethanol support the development of a fuel like butanol, which does not even require special storage tanks, pumps or car engines?

You say that "Biofuels are a critical first stage replacement, however imperfect." However imperfect?! That is a pretty open-ended blank check. No matter how bad or inefficient subsidizing and mandating biofuels turns out to be, environmentalists are supposed to sit back and encourage governments to continue pouring money into the biofuels sector (and not just R&D money), in the name of oil-alternative solidarity ... even if it means that the system continues to thereby favour the internal combustion engine at the expense of non-combustion transport alternatives?!

And when is this great transformation from oil to biofuels all going to happen? The U.S. Energy Information Administrations predicts now that only 30 billion gallons of biofuels will be produced annually in the United States by 2022 -- 13 years from now. That 30 billion gallons a year represents less than 10% of total oil consumption for all uses (317 billion gallons) in 2007).

At the current rate of subsidization for cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel ($1.00 just for the federal tax credit alone, not to mention state-level subsidies), the country will be subsidizing that 10% petroleum displacement (ignorring any extra petroleum used to grow and harvest the feedstocks) at a rate of $22 billion a year. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to calculate what the cost would be for 10 times that amount.
posted by: GRJB 08-Jan-09 21:38:36
hpettit - the most balanced and sensible contribution on this web page. I'd like to point out that peak oil production may well be imminent given the inflated estimates of oil reserves by the main oil producing countries and quite simply, the world will have to ramp up the search for sustainable and economically/environmentally feasible replacement fuels. The sooner the better.
posted by: Chuckee 08-Jan-09 22:40:43
Ramping up the search for sustainable and economically and environmentally feasible replacement fuels is one thing. Governments already deciding they know the answer, by mandating huge volumes of biofuels out into the future (Obama and other U.S. politicos are talking of volume mandates for 2030), and commitments to subsidizing each gallon consumed, is quite another.

That is guaranteed to bust future budgets, so there is a good chance that the whole crazy policy will some day implode. (As it might in Australia.) And then where will our transport system be? Still just as dependent on liquid fuels as before. That is a gamble that a lot of sensible people feel is too expensive, and too risky to take.
posted by: Martin Mizera 09-Jan-09 14:02:27
Ron Leng, would you change your anti-biofuel attacks if food were to be subsidized ? Well, it is.
Don't attack biofuels which provide you with a freedom to drive - only pedestrians and bicycle riders are allowed to criticize biofuels.
Besides, your information is waaaay old and inaccurate, check your sources before you speak up in public.
The world would be a much better place without your misguided articles.
posted by: RAL 09-Jan-09 14:46:18
Martin, by chance I have just read Ethanol USA by Keeney 2009 Environmental Science and Technology 43,(1) pages 8-11 . I think you would find a very similar perspective to mine but not contracted by editorial mandate
posted by: STG 09-Jan-09 15:43:38
Gosh Ron, a lot of negative responses to your article and a lot of defending by you. People are not as dumb as you think they are. Try not going off half cocked. Funny how you never mention the immoral nature of the oil business, how the fight for oil has been stupid and costly both in terms of money and lives. How short and selective some people's memories are. What's that Ron? Just more "blah, blah, blah", balanced arguments is what is wanted, not stupid one sided pieces of crap.
posted by: Ron Steenblik 09-Jan-09 20:10:57
Thank you, RAL, for the link to the paper by Keeney. Here is the link:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es8016182

A couple paragraphs from page 9 of the article bear quoting.

"The ethanol sweep was promoted by policy abetted by lobbying from 'Corn Belt' state interests. These included grain handlers and processors, especially ADM, and the establishment of a lobbying and educational organization, the Renewable Fuels Association. Scientific, environmental, social, and economic concerns were, and still are, swept away in a barrage of criticism from established lobbying groups, abetted by those from federal and state agencies. There is little doubt that the first presidential caucus, always in Iowa, has played an important role. Any politician, be it dogcatcher or presidential candidate, speaking against ethanol in Corn Belt states has been doomed to denigrating letters, jeers from peers, and political obscurity. Some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) spoke out with the usual discordant voices due to myriad vested interests. Academia has for the most part remained silent. The one negative scientific voice has been Pimentel and Patzek, and they have not done a convincing job with their analyses.

"These dramatic policy actions have had numerous unintended consequences. Had ethanol expansion been subject to environmental assessment guidelines and or life cycle analyses, the ethanol support policies, in my opinion, would never have been adopted. However, as I have stated, money, not science, has driven ethanol fuel policy."

So, cheer up, Ron Leng. The "barrage of criticism from established lobbying groups" and "denigrating letters, jeers from peers" in response to your article puts you among good company.
posted by: Chuckee 09-Jan-09 21:38:15
"Don't attack biofuels, which provide you with a freedom to drive. Only pedestrians and bicycle riders are allowed to criticize biofuels."

Martin, I've heard a lot of lame defences of biofuel policies in my time, but that one wins the grand prize.
posted by: RTF 10-Jan-09 03:06:53
hpettit

U.S. replaced 4.8% of gas with alcohol in 2008, not 8%. One must account for the much lower mileage obtained from ethanol and use official sources of information for gasoline consumed and ethanol blended:

Sources:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist_xls/WGFUPUS2w.xls

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/m_epooxe_yop_nus_1m.htm

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm

The price of corn in the U.S. has increased 135% since legislation in 2005 mandated biofuel use. See the chart in this article:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11/30/221940/80

Biofuels grown on arable crop land are a bridge to nowhere and will not end human conflict over resources. The idea that biofuels will end war is naive. People will fight over sugarcane and palm oil fields if they are not fighting over oil fields.

Use less oil. Don't try to replace it by stuffing the biosphere into your gas tank.

In 2008 at least half a dozen peer reviewed studies came out showing that biofuels being mass produced today are worse for global warming than the fossil fuels they replace. None of them were sponsored by oil companies. It is simply new science replacing old science. People who cling to old science have their heads in the sand.
posted by: MikeO 10-Jan-09 08:25:24
The numbers in this piece are ridiculous. It is claimed that there is $60 billion in subsidies for biofuels at production levels of 15 billion gallons. Where do you get the $4/gallon number? It makes no sense. There is a 51 cent subsidy that is being reduced to 45 cents. Where is the other $3.50? Post some facts, please.

There is no correlation between ethanol and food prices. About 12 months ago oil was at $150 and corn was at $7, and food prices rose. Now oil is at $45 and corn is at $4, and food prices are the same or a little higher. There is no correlation there.

The US has exported record amounts of corn for the last 5 years despite rapid growth of the ethanol industry. Yields are increasing and compensating for increased demand from a range of sources.

Finally, it's important to note that the corn that is used for ethanol CANNOT be consumed by humans. It is field corn, not sweet corn. Humans consume only 4% of the corn crop. The vast majority is fed to cattle, pigs, and poultry. If that corn is converted into ethanol, the remnants from the process are excellent sources of feed for animals.

Get your facts straight before shooting off.
posted by: jkp 10-Jan-09 09:09:34
Having spent time visting several ethanol plants in the Midwest USA, I've seen it be a good thing for the US. I understand that a great deal of diligence goes into selecting plant sites and if you don't have it, don't build it. You have to have an ample water supply, railroad transportation, as well as a certain amount of corn available within a certain distance from the plant. The majority of these plants are in the middle of nowhere providing good jobs for local people. Yes, corn is stage one and does not product a great energy return on BTU's out vs in. I believe the best number is somewhere in the 2:1 ratio. However, don't forget several other by-products besides ethanol that are currently being obtained and researched such as the dry distillers grain for feedstock, oil extraction, and dry-fractionization. The goal is not for corn long-term..it got the ball rolling. The goal is utilizing cellulosic tenchology which is estimated to have a better than 4:1 ratio and use waste materials like wood and cornstalks/cobs, not to mention switchgrass. This may not work for Australia and I could see a concern over getting started with corn based ethanol plants as they are rapidly becoming the "old" technology. Once the cellulosic wave comes, those existing corn based plants will have to be expanded and upgraded. For those of us who have supplied electrical and mechanical equipment to ethanol plants, it has been very good to us.
posted by: jkp 10-Jan-09 09:15:00
Also, while it is true that a 10% blend and even E-85 blend of ethanol in gas doesn't produce as much mileage as regular gasoline, the less cost that has been paid simply means you are helping the environment and so maybe you have to fill up a little more frequently. And, it has been determined that a blend of 30% ethanol to gas actually improves gas mileage, even over regular gasoline. Stations in the US are beginning to install these pumps as well. Are you going to save a ton of money? No. Will you help the environment and reduce dependence on foreign oil? Every bit helps.
posted by: Ron Steenblik 10-Jan-09 19:00:48
MikeO is right about the subsidy level in the paper by Dennis Keeney. Unfortunately, there seems to be a typo in the paper. The number I presume Keeney meant to write was that subsidies to ethanol in the United States were estimated by Doug Koplow to be around $6 billion in 2006, not $60 billion. I suggest to MikeO that if he wants to know how that estimate was calculated he read the original study:

www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/biofuel-subsidies-united-states-2007-update

The author of that study, by the way, is the same person who wrote the definitive study on subsidies to the U.S. petroleum industry ... for Greenpeace, in 1998.

Ethanol in the United States is supported by more than just the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC), which in 2006 was $0.51/gallon and as MikeO points out was reduced to $0.45/gallon on January 1st. (At the time Koplow wrote his study, in October 2007, that policy decision, and the introduction of a $1.01/gallon producer tax credit for cellulosic ethanol, still lay in the future.) There is an additional, $0.10/gallon (paid on the first 15 million gallons produced by any one plant) federal producer credit paid to "small" producers. There are the blending mandates and the $0.54/gallon import tariff, which provide market price support. There are special accellerated depreciation and other income-tax benefits. And there are a whole myriad of capital grants for plants and infrastructure, and per-gallon subsidies, tax credits and fuel-tax and sales-tax exemptions provided by the individual states.

MikeO maintains that there is no correlation between ethanol and food prices. It depends on the point at which you are measure changes in food prices. Some analysts, including the USDA, look at the consumer price index (CPI) for food. That index includes a 45% weighting for meals eaten outside the home. And we all know how insensitive (and upwardly sticky) the prices of restaurant meals are. But -- because of contracting, and the fact that it takes time for livestock producers to rebuild their herds after reducing them in response to high feed prices -- there is also a lag in adjustments between the food-commodity prices and the retail prices of food.

That the demand for biofuel feedstocks has been an important factor in the prices of food commodities has been accepted and verified by every major international organization that works on food and agricultural policy (the FAO, IFPRI, OECD, World Bank). I recommend Donald Mitchell's study from last July as a good, concise explanation of price formation in the markets for food commodities, and the role of biofuels in those markets:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1233058

I would point out, too, that the U.S. ethanol industry takes full credit for driving up the price of corn beyond the reference prices below which marketing loan and counter-cyclical payments are triggered, and argues that the cost of the VEETC therefore is more than offst by the reduction in commodity subsidies caused by the rise in corn prices.

To many independent observers, it is inconsistent to argue that the demand for biofuel feedstocks has had no effect on the price of corn, and at the same time to take credit for reducing price-linked government commodity-support payments.

Finally, U.S. exports of corn have kept pace, but domestic consumption of corn for livestock has declined, as have exports of grains displaced by corn. The high-protein remnants from the ethanol process (1/3 of the original volume) are indeed sold as feed (DDGS), but mainly to cattle fattened in concentrated feedlots. Hogs and poultry cannot tolerate high levels of DDGS in their diets, and their producers were hit hard by the rising cost of feed.
posted by: Bruce Dale 13-Jan-09 00:58:41
Colleagues:
Mr. Leng's article contains too many errors of fact and interpretation to answer them all concisely. I would just point out that "net energy" as used by Drs. Pimentel and Patzek is both irrelevant and misleading. Net energy as used by them is irrelevant because it assumes that the energy content of all energy carriers (coal, natural gas, petroleum) is equally valuable. That simply is untrue. We pay much more for a megajoule (MJ, unit of energy content) of petroleum than we do for a MJ of coal because the energy content of oil is so much more useful, and therefore more valuable, than that of coal.

Net energy is misleading because Drs. Pimentel and Patzek never compare ethanol's "net energy" with that of petroleum. Combining their definition of net energy with data from Figure 2 of the late Dr. Alex Farrell's paper in Science (27 January 2006 "Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals"), it is easy to calculate that gasoline's net energy is actually worse than that of ethanol. Details of these and other calculations and a more in depth critique of net energy can be found at our website www.everythingbiomass.org.

It is too bad that in over 25 years of writing about ethanol's net energy, Dr. Pimentel has never compared it with that of gasoline. Relevant comparisons are absolutely vital if we are to make sound choices for our energy future.

A much more relevant comparison than net energy is the amount of petroleum required to make fuel. Once again using the data from Figure 2 of Dr. Farrell's article, as far as petroleum use is concerned, only about 0.04 MJ of petroleum are consumed to produce 1.0 MJ of ethanol, while about 1.2 MJ of petroleum are needed to produce 1.0 MJ of ethanol. In other words, we get well over 20 times as much fuel for our tanks if we use petroleum to support the production of ethanol from corn or cellulosic materials, than if we simply convert all petroleum to gasoline.

Mr. Leng states that Professors Pimentel and Patzek are "unbiased". I do not know whether they are unbiased or not, since that would require me to judge their hearts, which I cannot do. However, Dr. Farrell's (who is neither a biofuel advocate nor detractor) has characterized Dr. Pimentel's and Dr. Patzek's work (see Table S2 in the Supporting Information of the Farrell paper in Science) as being replete with "double counting", "invalid assumptions, as well as data that are "obsolete", "misreported", "inconsistent", "unverifiable", and "inconsistently used". Those are Dr. Farrell's words, not mine.

Mr. Leng: our society is at a critical crossroads regarding our energy future. We need sound information on which to make choices. I am sorry to say that your piece was full of errors that could have and should have been corrected or at least balanced by more thorough research on your part. I also am sorry that you chose to interject such emotional words as "immoral" and "stupid" in what ought to be a calm, reasoned exchange of ideas. Your readers deserve better.

Bruce E. Dale, Ph. D.
University Distinguished Professor
Michigan State University
posted by: Bruce Dale 13-Jan-09 00:58:49
Colleagues:
Mr. Leng's article contains too many errors of fact and interpretation to answer them all concisely. I would just point out that "net energy" as used by Drs. Pimentel and Patzek is both irrelevant and misleading. Net energy as used by them is irrelevant because it assumes that the energy content of all energy carriers (coal, natural gas, petroleum) is equally valuable. That simply is untrue. We pay much more for a megajoule (MJ, unit of energy content) of petroleum than we do for a MJ of coal because the energy content of oil is so much more useful, and therefore more valuable, than that of coal.

Net energy is misleading because Drs. Pimentel and Patzek never compare ethanol's "net energy" with that of petroleum. Combining their definition of net energy with data from Figure 2 of the late Dr. Alex Farrell's paper in Science (27 January 2006 "Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals"), it is easy to calculate that gasoline's net energy is actually worse than that of ethanol. Details of these and other calculations and a more in depth critique of net energy can be found at our website www.everythingbiomass.org.

It is too bad that in over 25 years of writing about ethanol's net energy, Dr. Pimentel has never compared it with that of gasoline. Relevant comparisons are absolutely vital if we are to make sound choices for our energy future.

A much more relevant comparison than net energy is the amount of petroleum required to make fuel. Once again using the data from Figure 2 of Dr. Farrell's article, as far as petroleum use is concerned, only about 0.04 MJ of petroleum are consumed to produce 1.0 MJ of ethanol, while about 1.2 MJ of petroleum are needed to produce 1.0 MJ of ethanol. In other words, we get well over 20 times as much fuel for our tanks if we use petroleum to support the production of ethanol from corn or cellulosic materials, than if we simply convert all petroleum to gasoline.

Mr. Leng states that Professors Pimentel and Patzek are "unbiased". I do not know whether they are unbiased or not, since that would require me to judge their hearts, which I cannot do. However, Dr. Farrell's (who is neither a biofuel advocate nor detractor) has characterized Dr. Pimentel's and Dr. Patzek's work (see Table S2 in the Supporting Information of the Farrell paper in Science) as being replete with "double counting", "invalid assumptions, as well as data that are "obsolete", "misreported", "inconsistent", "unverifiable", and "inconsistently used". Those are Dr. Farrell's words, not mine.

Mr. Leng: our society is at a critical crossroads regarding our energy future. We need sound information on which to make choices. I am sorry to say that your piece was full of errors that could have and should have been corrected or at least balanced by more thorough research on your part. I also am sorry that you chose to interject such emotional words as "immoral" and "stupid" in what ought to be a calm, reasoned exchange of ideas. Your readers deserve better.

Bruce E. Dale, Ph. D.
University Distinguished Professor
Michigan State University
posted by: Chuckee 13-Jan-09 04:20:36
Professor Dale writes, "1.2 MJ of petroleum are needed to produce 1.0 MJ of ethanol." Methinks there is a typo there. What Professor Dale meant to say, I assume, was that "1.2 MJ of petroleum are needed to produce 1.0 MJ of GASOLINE."

But that is not exactly what Farrell et al. said.

http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/summary.html

A more accurate way to express the relationship is "if you want 1.0 MJ of gasoline, you have to start out with 1.1 MJ of crude petroleum, and then use 0.1 MJ of that plus another 0.09 MJ of some other fossil fuel, to produce and refine it."

In other words, the accounting is to show how much FOSSIL FUELS are consumed over the whole life cycle of producing AND CONSUMING gasoline.

Expressing the relationship as "1.2 MJ of petroleum are needed to produce 1.0 MJ of gasoline" suggests a highly inefficient production process indeed, and counts the 1.0 MJ that is consumed on the production side as well.

A more accurate picture of the energy balance is give by the "Net Fossil Ratio", which expresses the MJ of fuel produced for each MJ of fossil input. Farrell et al. showed that to be 0.84 for oil and 1.30 for ethanol -- i.e., for any given amount of fossil-fuel input (expressed as MJ), you get 55% more ethanol than gasoline (not 20 times more).

It is important to remember that these ratios stress the fossil-fuel inputs. They ignore the energy value of the biomass itself (even though the energy value of the distillers grains is taken as a credit). Yet there is not a zero opportunity cost to that biomass. At the very least, it has an alternative value in direct combustion:

http://thekernelburner.com/
posted by: Ron Leng 13-Jan-09 08:17:39
The subsidy on corn ethanol appears to be about $6 billion not $60 billion as stated in the article. I apologize for the error, which was a typing error on my behalf. I have requested the editor to correct this serious mistake.
posted by: Ron Leng 14-Jan-09 10:39:06
My article has drawn a considerable amount of attention and criticism. I am not the first to suggest that biofuel made from cereal grain is costly, immoral and stupid. Dr. Jean Ziegler, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, labeled biofuel development as ‘A crime against humanity’. Quote: “The amount of corn that is needed to be burned to make enough ethanol to fill a single car's fuel tank could fill a child for an entire year. The effect of transforming hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tons of maize, of wheat, of beans, of palm oil, into agricultural fuel is absolutely catastrophic for the hungry people.” (see also the publication of How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor by C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html)
I agree strongly with the thrust of the above opinions. and having assessed a considerable amount of the literature I believe Patzek has answered his critics.
These are my opinions, which I was required to state within 700-800 words.

The conflict between land for biofuels and land for food production will increase if crop yields (particularly in the tropics) decline because of global warming, as predicted. Crop yields are also predicted to decline in some of the most densely populated areas of the world as water resources are depleted, such as the Ghengetic plains where river flows and glacial melt are starting to be out of tune with irrigation requirements. The decline in cheap deposits of fertilizer minerals (particularly phosphate), and the loss of topsoil to erosion, all point to reduced land fertility and availability and reduced crop production and therefore world food production. There will be some compensation for such food losses where global warming has positive effects, but these will be in areas that lie well away from the centers of population.

The statistics of the numbers of poor and under- and malnourished people in the world vary depending on the authority. But from any perspective the number is large: 800 million to 3 billion. Can we take the moral high ground when and if food becomes scarce or costly because of the perfect storm welded by biofuel production?

My concern is very much with the development of biofuels in developing countries in Africa and Asia based on traditional food resources. Recently, the Cambodian government announced a major ethanol project based on cassava.

I do not question Jatropha as a biofuel stock (it produces an oil rather then ethanol) but I fear that its development will quickly spill over from non agricultural land into food-producing land.

It is also my opinion that animal protein production in the future will be based on the use of biomass rather then grain. Most developing countries already utilize their crop residues for essential animal protein production (mainly milk but also ruminant meat) — protein that is critical in the diets of the poor who, depend largely on cereals. With the return of expensive petroleum in the future, I believe animal traction will increasingly be needed for crop production in the developing countries. Again, it is my opinion that, because of its poor thermodynamic efficiency, cellulosic ethanol will not play a major role in providing transportation fuel.

Besides this, biomass as an ethanol feedstock places extraordinary demands on infrastructure. About 320 million tons of biomass would have to be harvested and transported in order to replace just 10% of US annual oil consumption with ethanol — enough material to fill 21.44 million semi trailers (see Robert Bryce, “Obama, Vilsack and Salazar: The Ethanol Scammers’ Dream Team”http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1150).

In finishing I would like to suggest that a more up to date assessment of the subsidies for maize based ethanol production suggests that the figure of $6 billion annually may be underestimated by at least 30%. Perhaps an economist might like to provide a more in depth statement of the subsidies (For a schedule of the mandates, see: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/standard/. For an explanation of the new blenders credit (which is 45 not 46 cents), see http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/04/28/ethanol-tax-credit-to-drop-to-45-cents-per-gallon-in-farm-bill-compromise/
posted by: Ron Steenblik 14-Jan-09 16:51:08
Ron Leng's correction of his original article (which said that subsidies to ethanol in the United States were running at US$ 60 billion per year) is an improvement, but the new text is still not entirely correct. An alternative description, if one is talking about subsidies in the future, might be as follows:

"The U.S. Congress has mandated that 20.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels for transportation purposes be blended with petroleum fuels by 2015, of which 15 billion is expected to be ethanol derived from corn kernels. The blender
posted by: Ron Steenblik 14-Jan-09 17:16:45
Apparently the software for comments chokes on particular punctuation marks. Here (I hope) is the full text:

Ron Leng's correction of his original article (which said that subsidies to ethanol in the United States were running at US$ 60 billion per year) is an improvement, but the new text is still not entirely correct. An alternative description, if one is talking about subsidies in the future, might be as follows:

"The U.S. Congress has mandated that 20.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels for transportation purposes be blended with petroleum fuels by 2015, of which 15 billion is expected to be ethanol derived from corn kernels. Payment of the US$ 0.45 per gallon blender's credit -- formally, the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC) -- alone on that corn ethanol will cost the U.S. Treasury some US$ 6.75 billion dollars each year by 2015, assuming that the VEETC continues to be extended (as it has been on several occassions, albeit reduced by US$ 0.06 per gallon during the latest round). There will likely be an additional loss to the Treasury of US$ 5.5 billion associated with the 5.5 billion gallons of "advanced biofuels" (mainly biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol) mandated for 2015, bringing the total to US$ 12.25 billion per year -- again, assuming that the tax credits are extended. This value will continue to increase thereafter, in line with the mandated volumes. These numbers do not include the value of state-level subsidies, which could be worth an additional several billion dollars to the industry by 2015."

The United States' MFN (most favored nation) tariff on imports of fuel ethanol is 2.5% of f.o.b. value plus US$ 0.54 per gallon, not US$ 0.51 per gallon. This tariff mainly affects imports of fuel ethanol from Brazil. Imports from countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement (e.g., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico) enter duty free.

Finally, one often sees references in the press stating that subsidies benefitting the U.S. ethanol industry are in the neighborhood of US$ 6 billion per year. This number refers to 2006 and comes from the 2007 update of the report prepared by Doug Koplow for the Global Subsidies Initiative:

www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/biofuel-subsidies-united-states-2007-update

In that report, Koplow also provides projections of government support for ethanol and biodiesel out to 2016. For this coming year (2009), he estimates that total support for ethanol will be in the range of US$ 11.1-13.5 billion, and for biodiesel US$ 1.4-1.6 billion. I must stress, these estimates include much more than just the VEETC (and its biodiesel equivalent).
posted by: Bruce Dale 20-Jan-09 05:48:21
My thanks to Mike for catching my typo. The Farrell data can indeed be viewed the way he viewed them, as total fossil fuels required to produce a MJ of ethanol or gasoline. That is actually the way to estimate the "Net Energy" as defined by Prof. Pimentel. My point was to compare the petroleum efficiency of ethanol production, which is a key national security metric.

It appears that activity around this article has died down. At the risk of reigniting the fire, I invite everyone, but particularly Mr. Leng, to consider some rather lengthy remarks below on the food vs. fuel issue.

About 75% of corn consumed is fed to animals, not directly to people. Around 10% of corn goes to human consumption, mostly in the form of high-fructose corn syrup in soft drinks. (Perhaps we get too much of that kind of “food” anyway.) It is true that pork and poultry prices will increase somewhat as a consequence of increased corn prices; most estimates are that the cost to the consumer will increase about 5–10% due to higher corn prices. We are probably in a new era of corn prices—in the $4-5 a bushel region. I think that is a generally a good thing, not the disaster that has been portrayed by some who seem almost hysterical about the issue.
At the end of World War II, corn cost $1.83 a bushel. Does anyone want to go back to the wage rates of that era? Does anyone realistically expect that we should be able to buy a car now for what we were paying in 1946—or in 1980, when corn was also $2 per bushel? Then why should corn forever be around $2 per bushel? Largely because of subsidies (“counter cyclical payments”), we had very low-priced corn for a long time. That was good for certain segments of society (primarily agribusiness concerns and animal feeders), but it was not good for much of rural America. Nor was it good for poor agricultural societies around the world.
So will people go hungry because of biofuels? There are no simple sound bites here: it is complicated. However, it helps to do some basic math to look at the underlying realities. If we were eating properly, we would consume about 2000 calories and 50 g of protein per person per day. At 300 million people in the country, we require about 205 trillion calories and about 5 trillion grams of protein per year. The three major U.S. crops alone—corn, soy, and wheat—produce 1300 trillion calories and 51 trillion grams of protein per year. This is about 6 times as much as our basic calorie needs, and about 10 times as much as our basic protein needs. (Americans tend to be overweight, but not by that much!)
So what are we doing with the rest of these crops? The answer is that they are going to feed animals. Even most of our grain exports, particularly corn, go to feed animals. Our animal population is consuming about six times as many calories as our human population, and about ten times as much protein. Therefore, our land resources or crop acreage go predominantly to produce animal feeds rather than human food. Thus, the issue in biofuels is not so much competition with human food, at least in the U.S. context, but rather with animal feed. This analysis would hold, more or less, throughout the developed world. Wealthy societies use land to grow animal feed and then consume animal products: meat, milk, eggs, cheese, etc.
I also believe that a careful, unemotional examination of the facts would lead one to conclude that somewhat higher grain prices as a result of biofuels demand is largely a good thing for the world’s poor. The United States is always challenged in international trade talks to stop subsidizing our agricultural production, to stop exporting artificially cheap grain. If low grain prices are so great for the world’s poor, why do their governments ask us to stop making grain cheap? The answer is that by subsidizing grain for so many years to make it artificially less expensive, we have undermined their rural economies: we have helped to keep poor people poor. About 80% of those who are “food insecure” (at risk for loss of food supplies) in the world live in rural areas. If the value of agricultural products rises (for example, because of increased biofuel demand), then more wealth will flow to rural areas around the world. Thus, these areas will be less at risk of starvation and a host of other problems. Bluntly put, they will have more money to enable them to deal with their problems.
In contrast, the urban poor (perhaps 20% of the world’s total of food-insecure people) are probably somewhat endangered by rising grain prices. However, as their overall society becomes wealthier, it is probably easier for those societies to care for the urban poor or for those poor to find employment. In short, we need to be careful and thoughtful about these “food versus fuel” issues, and not just react with blind emotionalism. Most of us rejoice when we get a raise. Why should we react with near hysteria when the world’s farmers get a raise because of increased biofuel demand?
Mr. Leng: If it is truly “immoral” to use “food” to produce biofuels, then it is also immoral to produce high value meats and other foods from grains that could go to human beings instead. Producing fuel for my SUV from corn is no more or less moral than is producing steak for my barbeque from corn. It is likewise immoral to leave a single acre of forest uncleared if the only moral use of land is to provide food for human beings. I do NOT advocate this, but I believe it to be the logical extension of your train of thought.

In actual fact, we have around 400 million hectare of land around the world that was in agriculture but which has been abandoned. We are not short of land. The persistent problem in agriculture over the last 50 years or so has been overproduction in the U.S., Canada, the EU and Australia (among others), not underproduction. Persistent overproduction has politically forced the subsidies that have undermined investment in agriculture and has contributed to Third World poverty, as I mentioned above. There are many reasons for hunger around the world, but lack of agricultural production capacity is not one of them. I believe that by providing an additional demand for agricultural output, biofuels, including limited amounts of corn and other grains, will actually help rather than hurt the world’s poor.
posted by: Chuckee 21-Jan-09 08:29:48
Um, I think it was me who caught your typo, Professor Dale, not MikeO.

If you want to talk about "petroleum efficiency" as the only metric relevant to energy security, Prof. Dale, I would beg to differ. Natural gas -- a major input to corn-ethanol plants -- is also a depletable resource. The sooner the United States uses that up, the sooner it is going to have to find alternative sources of energy, or import more piped natural gas from Canada or Mexico, or CNG from further afield.

To dismiss the effect of ethanol on grain prices (wheat prices have also increased, partly as a result of competition from corn) as a trivial matter is callous. If you measure it as the increment in the price of a box of Corn Flakes, the effect is indeed small. If you measure the recent high prices as a percentage of the price of tortillas (yes, the markets for white corn and yellow corn are linked), or of corn meal -- forms of corn more typically eaten in developing countries -- it was significant.

Moreover, it is not relevant to look at average price increases. A large increase over a few months is enough to push many people into poverty and hunger. I presume you are familiar with the news that many Haitians last year were forced back into the practice of eating dirt cookies?

Yes, somewhat higher prices for grain will help developing-country farmers. But the original plan -- to obtain gradual reforms through conclusion of the Doha Round -- would have allowed international commodity prices to rise gradually (trade models suggested on the order of 15% over 10 years), allowing developing-country farmers, and the vast majority of people who are net food buyers (notably, the urban poor), time to adjust. Nobody was advocating for the kind of market volatility we saw over the last three years.

Yes, much corn goes to feed animals. But their demand is largely driven by the market: subsidies to livestock production are small, especially compared with subsidies to corn production and ethanol production. If ethanol was not being subsidized or mandated, and was competing with other users for the same grain, few people (except livestock producers) would complain.

So, your equating of the use of grains to make biofuels as equally immoral (or moral) as producing meats and other livestock products would be valid only if the subsidy levels for both were the same. They are not.

Try writing your sentence again, sticking the word "subsidized" before biofuels, and ask yourself how it would sound to a poor mother trying to provide milk for her children. Let's try:

"If it is truly 'immoral' to use 'food' to produce SUBSIDIZED biofuels, then it is also immoral to produce UNSUBSIDIZED high-value meats and other foods from grains that could go to human beings instead." I don't think so.

Finally, claims that the world has around 400 million hectares of land that once was in agriculture but which has been abandoned may be true. But why was that land abandoned? Just look at the United States. Large areas of the dust bowl (high plains) were at one time farmed (disastrously), as were steep-sided, erodible hills in Appalachia. Are you advocating plowing up those lands again?
posted by: Chuckee 21-Jan-09 08:43:55
"Producing fuel for my SUV from corn is no more or less moral than is producing steak for my barbeque from corn." -- Professor Bruce Dale.

Let's see, the producer of the SUV (e.g., GM)benefitted from a loophole giving it generous CAFE credits for making the vehicle able to consume high percentages of ethanol (even if the purchaser never uses ethanol); the (relatively well-to-do) buyer of the SUV may have benefitted from tax credits or state subsidies for buying an "alternative fuel" vehicle, and perhaps tax credits if the SUV was used for "professional use"; the blenders got subsidies for blending ethanol with gasoline to produce the E85; and the producer of the ethanol benefitted from State development grants and local tax abatements, perhaps free utility hook-ups ...

Nah, sound like the two choices are morally equivalent to me!
posted by: Ron Leng 22-Jan-09 08:31:35
Dear Professor Bruce Dale,
Let me start by thanking you for bringing your view-point to the conference table in a non abusive and also with your personal constructive approach. I understand from your web site that you are a balanced family-loving person with a major desire to make the future of your family as safe and secure as feasibly possible and you are dedicated to research in economic biofuel production. We have things in common. I have a smaller garden but I am a good gardener and I am in a small way contributing to the potential to produce biofuel from aquatic weeds and at the same time reducing water pollution

It was when I was a Mid-American State University Distinguished Visiting Professor at Iowa State University in 1982 that I became aware of the problems with corn monoculture. I was appalled at the soil losses associated with the cultivation practices at the time. It’s difficult to remember back so far but I was shown models of soil depletion on the Prairies following the busting of the first sod. It was one of the areas with the worst soil erosion from destructive cropping practices, but the loss of topsoil was measured in meters at this particular site. Recently it has been suggested that the average soil depth in Illinois (one of your best agricultural soils) has reduced from 18 inches to 10 inches, even though it has slowed in the last few years with conservation agriculture. It is an incredible concept that the last few inches of fertile soil may be eroded to provide transportation fuel, which is often used in a conspicuous and extravagant way, for example the transport of kids to school in an SUV instead of using a smaller car, bicycle or walking and the transport of CEO's,sports people and entertainers in private or hired jets.

I was going to attempt to answer your recent comments one by one but many of the points I would have made have been put forward rather elegantly by Chuckee, who seems to be a like thinker (to me that is).

However,this discussion should acknowledge that the development of biofuel borrows from future generations in many ways. One is the future food requirements of the next generation of people. What sort of world will that beautiful bunch of grandchildren you so proudly and rightly display on your web site inherit? Merely by instituting energy efficiency and perhaps enacting some of the recommendations made in an Open Letter to Mr Obama (Unsustainable Biofuels: Fueling Climate Change, Poverty and Environmental Devastation http://climateimc.org/fi/press-releases/2009/01/16/open-letter-challenges-biofuels-dangerous-green-bubble%E2%80%8F) can we guard against a world of depreciating standards of living in the near future.
posted by: Peter 22-Jan-09 19:46:05
"This will use up around 40 per cent of US maize production and will virtually dry up net grain exports, inevitably forcing up the price of cereal foods and food products dependent on grain such beef, poultry and pork worldwide."

US exports subsidized corn. The US of A makes money with this. Using corn for ethanol will hurt the US of A income.

It will not cause shortage in the world. On the contrary, because of the entry of subsidized US Corn, local corn production in South America becomes not profitable and makes local production lower, therefore causing shortage.
posted by: Chuckee 23-Jan-09 00:06:26
Peter writes that using corn for ethanol will hurt U.S. export earnings, but not contribute to grain shortages.

That is rather simplistic assessment. The problem for grain markets that has been created by corn ethanol is twofold. First, increased corn plantings are often at the expense of other grains (wheat, oats, barley) and soybeans. Some of the displaced production can take place elsewhere, of course ... and it will, if commodity prices are forced up, and stay up long enough. (Of course, that may mean more forest land or grasslands will be put to the plough.)

But commodity prices have, if anything, become more volatile, as the prices of corn, soybeans and canola are now to varying degrees tied to volatile petroleum prices, not to mention the unpredictable whims of politicians. That means that grain prices can run up very quickly -- too quickly for there to be an adequate supply response from producers in countries that are themselves not diverting their grains into biofuels. It is the urban poor in places like Africa and Haiti that suffer, not American consumers of corn flakes.

World grain stocks were not growing during the big upswing in corn ethanol, they were shrinking.

Yes, subsidized U.S. exports undercut farmers elsewhere. But the answer to that was being worked out at the WTO: end export subsidies. To use biofuel policy instead as your preferred instrument for driving up prices to some "normal" level is like trying to steer a bicycle with your knees.
posted by: michael angel 29-Jan-09 11:29:20
This is NOT Science; it is opinion.
Opinion based on the American experience not the Australian or Brazilian.

How about a science based assessment of sugar cane ethanol from Queensland?
or
any other Australian purpose-grown bio-fuel crop?
(Of which there are hundreds)
posted by: Chuckee 29-Jan-09 15:58:51
Michael Angel, you ask "How about a science-based assessment of any other Australian purpose-grown bio-fuel crop?
(Of which there are hundreds)"

The last time I checked, Australia was making ethanol for commercial use from waste wheat starch, C-molasses and sorghum, and biodiesel from animal fats (tallow), waste cooking oils and greases, and a few vegetable oils (canola and imported palm oil). What are the other hundreds? Or are you referring to POTENTIAL biofuel crops?
posted by: Rob Smallwood 09-Feb-09 14:21:42
http://www.agrifuels.com.au

As this thread shows, the generalised label "biofuels" is complex and there is no easy way to analyze "rightness" or "wrongness". The answer is: "It depends on how it's made and what it's made from". Pimentel's work highlights some important considerations but does not exhaustively consider all aspects of all biofuel production. Professor Dale's comments above more closely reflect the real world. Some crops are better than others: for example, sweet sorghum and sugar cane are far better than corn or wheat as an input feedstock but only if there is an efficient transport network nearby; and only if there is an adequate source of rainfall; and only if the biomass/sugar produced originates from a productive growing season; and a dozen or more other factors. Sweet sorghum overcomes a great deal of the controversies by providing both fuel from its cane and food from its grain; it requires a fraction of the water and fertiliser of corn or sugar cane and all of its waste products can be used to produce valuable by-products such as green electricity, building materials, natural sweeteners, gluten-free beer, bread, and more. For more information, refer to http://www.agrifuels.com.au, a Queenland-base renewable energy and agribusiness project.
posted by: john 24-Feb-09 02:53:00
when can we describe ethanol as a biofuel

wgere doe the energy in biodiesel come from
Write comment
Name:

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."
 
Add this
Email this
Related Stories ____________________________________________