x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
Is corn ethanol worth the trouble?
It can be better for the climate than gasoline, but this colorless liquid isn't always as green as it seems.

By

Russell McLendon
Tue, Jun 02 2009 at 5:30 AM
 5

Related Topics:

Alternative Energy, Biofuels, Ethanol
 
The corn has ears, and they're burning.
 
People talk about America's top crop a lot these days, mostly because its ears are also literally burning — in the form of ethanol, a fuel made by fermenting sugar. Corn ethanol has become popular in the United States recently because it's renewable, domestically produced and burns more cleanly than gasoline. What's not to love?
 
But this clear, colorless liquid may not be as green as it seems. Much like its alter ego moonshine, ethanol's benefits can hide a world of hurt.
 

What is ethanol?

Also known as ethyl alcohol, ethanol has been emboldening and embarrassing humans for thousands of years. It's the waste produced by yeasts as they eat sugar, mainly from sweet grains like corn and sugarcane. Moonshine is just homemade ethanol — 1920s bootleggers reportedly used it to fuel their cars as they fled police, a practice that gave rise to modern stock car racing.
 
Ethanol was first used as engine fuel in 1826, but a nationwide tax to fund the Civil War kept it mostly sidelined for 80 years. U.S. automobile pioneer Henry Ford was key to its comeback, building his first car, the quadricycle, and his legendary 1908 Model T to run on what he called the "fuel of the future." Congress repealed its tax and ethanol thrived until 1919, when it was outlawed by Prohibition. Gasoline soon took over as America's fuel of choice, and after WWII ethanol was virtually choked out of the market by powerful and plentiful American oil.
 
American oil peaked in 1973, however, just in time for U.S. relations with oil-rich Middle Eastern countries to plummet after the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 and Iranian Hostage Crisis. The world's biggest oil consumer was in a pickle, and it soon went crawling back to corn. Congress passed the first of many pro-ethanol bills in 1974, and federal subsidies grew during the next decade from 40 cents to 60 cents per gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline.
 
The booming ethanol industry was inevitably linked to gas prices, though, which led to its crash in 1985, despite the subsidies. Only 74 of the country's 163 commercial ethanol plants survived the year, but ethanol production still continued increasing every year since. Its use as fuel has grown by an annual average of 25 percent in recent years, largely because of oncoming climate change: It doesn't add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because its base crops absorb CO2, and it can fuel existing internal combustion engines.
 

Is corn ethanol better than gasoline?

A head-to-head matchup is complicated — ethanol is hardly worth the effort if its cultivation and production emit as much CO2 as the fossil fuel it's replacing. On the other hand, proponents of corn-based ethanol often argue that only the fuel's direct emissions should be taken into account, as gasoline's are, not the effects of clearing forests to grow fuel crops or powering distilleries to refine them.
 
But the urgency of climate change has nonetheless shined harsh light on a fuel that's lived in gasoline's shadow for nearly a century. The EPA and the Congressional Budget Office both issued reports on ethanol's eco-friendliness this year, and the results are mixed. It can be better than gas, but it can also be worse. That depends mainly on three factors:
 
• Where it's grown: Large areas of vegetation are known as "carbon sinks" because plants soak up CO2 from the air to use in photosynthesis. Cutting down dense forests and grasslands to plant corn replaces longstanding carbon sinks with rows of young crops. Ethanol can make up for this by displacing gasoline in fuel tanks, but that takes time. Depending on how much and what kind of vegetation was cleared, it can take ethanol more than 100 years to become carbon neutral. [See the graphic above for more info.]
 
• How it's produced: Unlike biopower — the process of burning biomass directly to generate electricity — ethanol is usually refined from its feedstock by hydrolysis and fermentation, consuming water, energy and further inflating the fuel's carbon footprint. Most U.S. ethanol distilleries are now powered by natural gas, which has the least carbon of any fossil fuel, but many also still rely on coal.
 
• What it's made from: Although other sources are gaining ground, 97 percent of U.S. ethanol is still made from corn. And because corn is already used to make so many things, cornfield space is getting tight. About a quarter of the country's crop is now used to make fuel, and with more corn on the job than on the cob, food prices have gone up: 2 percent in 2006, 4 percent in 2007 and more than 5 percent in 2008. The CBO estimates that ethanol accounted for 10 to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008. The only way around that is expanding cornfields, which often means destroying carbon sinks.
 
The EPA weighed in on ethanol in early May, proposing new national biofuel standards through 2023. Its background research highlights how severe the loss of carbon sinks can be in the short term: Over a 100-year time span, corn ethanol is 16 percent better for the climate than gasoline, but over a 30-year span, it's 5 percent worse, according to the EPA. The new regulations would grandfather in 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol, what the EPA calls the limit of sustainable production, but the proposal focuses heavily on alternative biofuel sources with less baggage than corn. 
 
"Corn-based ethanol is a bridge, an extremely important one, to the next generation of ethanol and biofuels," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said on May 5, the day the agency announced its proposed ethanol policy. Although the new standards would exempt corn ethanol distilleries that already exist or are under construction, they mark a major shift in U.S. energy policy, which has staunchly supported corn ethanol since the late '70s.
 
The "next generation" that Jackson mentioned refers to ethanol and other biofuels with much lower carbon footprints than their crop-based counterparts. While traditional ethanol is made from the parts of plants that people eat, cellulosic ethanol uses "lignocellulose" — the inedible, structural stuff that makes up much of plants' mass. By using native plants like switchgrass to make ethanol, we can harvest it and let it grow back each year without permanently removing any carbon sinks or displacing any food crops. Cellulosic ethanol hasn't been used commercially yet — its sinewy source material is harder, and thus more expensive, to break down than corn — but the U.S. Energy Department has set a goal of reducing its production cost to $1.07 per gallon by 2012, which it believes will make it more commercially viable.
 
As the EPA and CBO reports make clear, the United States will need a wide variety of biological fuel sources in the coming decades, and corn ethanol will undoubtedly be one of them. But there are acres and acres of alternatives, from switchgrass to wood chips to biodiesel made from soybeans or algae. Check out the links below from Uncle Sam for more info on ethanol and other biofuels.
 
Ethanol links
Other biofuel links

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 5
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
Guest Jul 17 2009 at 5:19 PM

just an FYI corn yields have nothing to do with the productin of ethanol!

|
anonymous
Guest Jun 03 2009 at 4:35 PM

The production of ethanol require a lot of oil... Fertilizer & pesticides are made using lots of petroleum products. Harvesting and preparation use energy as well. Add in the negative effect on food supply and the decision shouldn't be too hard: Ethanol is no good!

|
anonymous
BillUSA Jun 01 2009 at 5:41 PM
Before addressing the Indirect Land Use changes "issue" let me first address your distortion, by ommission, of what the CBO concluded. You stated: "The CBO estimates that ethanol accounted for 10 to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008" Here is the full quote from the CBO report: . "CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008, the rise in the price of corn resulting from expanded production of ethanol contributed between 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points of
.... More
the 5.1 percent increase in food prices measured by the consumer price index (CPI). Over the same period, certain other factors—for example, higher energy costs—had a greater effect on food prices than did the use of ethanol as a motor fuel." Notice that you left out" "Over the same period, certain other factors—for example, higher energy costs—had a greater effect on food prices than did the use of ethanol as a motor fuel." In fact, energy costs are a larger component in retail food prices than the cost of farm commodities. The fact that ethanol held down the price of gasoline in 2008 about 15% (according to Francisco Blanch, Commodities Strategist, Merrill Lynch) means the presence of ethnol held down the cost of food more than it raised it by creating extra demand for corn. In other words without ethanol the rise in the price of oil/gasoline would have caused an even greater rise in the price for food items. All open-minded reviews of the causes for the rise in food prices from 2007 to 2008 have concluded that fuel prices had a bigger impact than ethanol's demand for corn. Another very important factor was unprecendented speculation in commodiities markets. Michael Masters, hedge fund manager, in testimony before Congress pointed out that between 2002 and spring of 2008 the amount of money in play in commodities futures contracts increased 23 times. A major factor in this was the use of Credit Default Swaps sold by banks to hedge funds and institutional investors which allowed unregulated trading in Commodity Futures contracts. Masters warned that such unregulated trading in commodities would lead to further price increases in food and energy completely out of line with actual market demand for these commodities from actual consumers. Now, regarding Indirect Land Use Changes, over 100 PhDs signed a letter to California Governor, Arnold Schwarzennegar, advising him that the study of indirect land use changes was a nascent science and that any conclusions made so far are not certain enough to be used in framing regulatory policy. The "study" that most affected the Calif Air Resources board, was that of Searchinger, et al, and which has recieved severe criticsm for not making enough information available to others so their conclusions could be tested, as well as using questionable assumptions. Not providing enough information on assumptions and methodology is not consistent with legitimate scientific enquiry which requires theories to be tested by others. One of the very questionable assumptions used in the Searchinger, et al, "study" was that every acre of extra land needed (should it be needed) for crops would necessarily come from rainforests. This completley ignores the fact that there is considerable under utilized agricultural lands world-wide that would be used before anybody started cutting down rainforest.. This assumption also ignores the recognized fact that the major cause of deforestation is illegal lumber operations and the use of trees by locals for fuel and to make charcoal.
|
anonymous
BillUSA Jun 01 2009 at 5:39 PM
Before addressing the Indirect Land Use changes "issue" let me first address your distortion, by ommission, of what the CBO concluded. You stated: "The CBO estimates that ethanol accounted for 10 to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008" Here is the full quote from the CBO report: . "CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008, the rise in the price of corn resulting from expanded production of ethanol contributed between 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points of
.... More
the 5.1 percent increase in food prices measured by the consumer price index (CPI). Over the same period, certain other factors—for example, higher energy costs—had a greater effect on food prices than did the use of ethanol as a motor fuel." Notice that you left out" "Over the same period, certain other factors—for example, higher energy costs—had a greater effect on food prices than did the use of ethanol as a motor fuel." In fact, energy costs are a larger component in retail food prices than the cost of farm commodities. The fact that ethanol held down the price of gasoline in 2008 about 15% (according to Francisco Blanch, Commodities Strategist, Merrill Lynch) means the presence of ethnol held down the cost of food more than it raised it by creating extra demand for corn. In other words without ethanol the rise in the price of oil/gasoline would have caused an even greater rise in the price for food items. All open-minded reviews of the causes for the rise in food prices from 2007 to 2008 have concluded that fuel prices had a bigger impact than ethanol's demand for corn. Another very important factor was unprecendented speculation in commodiities markets. Michael Masters, hedge fund manager, in testimony before Congress pointed out that between 2002 and spring of 2008 the amount of money in play in commodities futures contracts increased 23 times. A major factor in this was the use of Credit Default Swaps sold by banks to hedge funds and institutional investors which allowed unregulated trading in Commodity Futures contracts. Masters warned that such unregulated trading in commodities would lead to further price increases in food and energy completely out of line with actual market demand for these commodities from actual consumers. Now, regarding Indirect Land Use Changes, over 100 PhDs signed a letter to California Governor, Arnold Schwarzennegar, advising him that the study of indirect land use changes was a nascent science and that any conclusions made so far are not certain enough to be used in framing regulatory policy. The "study" that most affected the Calif Air Resources board, was that of Searchinger, et al, and which has recieved severe criticsm for not making enough information available to others so their conclusions could be tested, as well as using questionable assumptions. Not providing enough information on assumptions and methodology is not consistent with legitimate scientific enquiry which requires theories to be tested by others. One of the very questionable assumptions used in the Searchinger, et al, "study" was that every acre of extra land needed (should it be needed) for crops would necessarily come from rainforests. This completley ignores the fact that there is considerable under utilized agricultural lands world-wide that would be used before anybody started cutting down rainforest.. This assumption also ignores the recognized fact that the major cause of deforestation is illegal lumber operations and the use of trees by locals for fuel and to make charcoal.
|
anonymous
PeteS Jun 01 2009 at 5:23 PM
Corn acreage in the USA peaked decades ago. Less acreage will be used this year than last. As ethanol production increases, corn yields increase. Where does this insane theory that forests, jungles and grasslands are being plowed under to plant more corn? The byproduct of ethanol production is dried distillers, an animal feed. For each 3 bushels of corn sent to an ethanol plant, one bushel of animal feed is produced. Better yet, this animal feed is better than corn feeds it also displaces some of
.... More
the soy bean meal previously used. Therefore at least a third of the acres of corn plus some of the acres of soybeans actually are not diverted form food to ethanol but just borrowed for a few days by the ethanol plant. When these two factors are considered, the land use issue fades away. Diversion of corn now is blamed for (only) 5-15% of the food price increases in the last few years. Where are the media comments about the other 85-95% of the food price rise? Is it oil? Is it price gouging? I guess the media doesn't care unless it can be blamed on the farmers and ethanol plants. California apparently wants to use Brazilian ethanol to penalize the Midwest for being so successful at getting more subsidies for agriculture than they do. Diverting sugar to fuel. When did sugar stop being a food? Is it better to repress cane cutters than to provide good jobs and better income to ethanol workers and corn farmers here? We are Americans. Don't we owe a better living to our own citizens first before sending our money to people who would prefer to kill us?
|

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Log in or register to post comments

EDITORS' PICKS

tease drones

line

tease book cars

line

tease sunscreen

Advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement