In terms of alternative fuels, ethanol is known as what’s called a mixed bag. There’s active debate over the pros and cons of the largely corn-based fuel, including whether or not it really has significant net energy gain over gasoline, and the infamous “food versus fuel” debacle. And now a new study says ethanol may actually be worse for us than gasoline.
In the study, Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson concludes that ethanol poses equal or greater risks to the public health than gasoline, by producing more ground-level ozone. He says, “The question is, if we’re not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol?”
If the models and conclusions are correct, it would seem like there’s a common-sense answer to this. But the government has thrown its weight behind the agriculture industry, and that complicates things. The White House rebukes the study by sticking to the ethanol line and invoking the Clean Air Act. Lobbying groups such as 25×25 have been pushing renewables, particularly ethanol, for years and are now gaining widespread support. Plants are being built and pumps are being installed, and ethanol continues to gain momentum. What will it take for us to think twice about our energy?
What about the health benefits of not dropping bombs all over the middle east, surely that’s somewhat of a health risk?
Ann,
That’s a tough question, I’ll be sure to ask. If we were using ethanol, the health risks of ethanol would combine with the health risks of gasoline which we would still be using to power production of ethanol as well as to combine into the final product. Surely that’s called a “double doozy health risk”.
I’m beginning to fear that - like carbon offsets and the purchase of “green” products - ethanol is just a way to delay an inevitable fact … the fact that we live on a finite planet … that we have overpopulated it … and that we will not be able to maintain our “standard of living” in the west … EXCEPT at the expense of billions in the developing world.
The harsh reality may be that we consume too much.
Deborah
The only thing “green” about ethanol is $$$$$$$.
I say we burn the corn and eat the rich. Or is it, eat the corn and burn the . . . I’m not going to leave the house tomorrow.
The problem with corn ethanol is it receives a huge subsidy — between 85 cents and well over $1/barrel of oil displaced depending on how you count all the various investment credits, say IISD. That’s a formula for a cash cow, but not not sustainable transport or low carbon fuels, and no way to achieve an overall more sustainable world.
We have an oil problem and we have a tax problem. The ethanol subsidies imply a huge “value” of not consuming oil; IISD calculates that from the small savings in
carbon emissions today’s corn ethanol yields (roughly 15-20% compared with that of the
oil replaced), a ton of carbon saved this way costs well over $300.
If those are the real values to society of less oil imported and fewer greenhouse gas
emissions, lets tax all oil and greenhouse emissions and those rates, rather than
give ethanol a tax earmark, which is what the US has done. Boy things would really be poppin’ if we did that!
Oops. that should be 85 cents/GALLON and $1/GALLON in my previous post
By saying “ethanol” instead of ethyl alcohol (or high-proof vodka, much of the public thinks it is something special or different. It is just a fairly expensive, marginal fuel, part of which is imported from Brazil (distilled from cane sugar).
A PC, green idea, not well analyzed before being pushed via laws and regulations, by politicians and lobbyists.
I have used ethenol (10%) for a good many years. It was all you could buy, and it worked just fine. I now buy 20% ethenol when I can get it. I find little or no difference in mileage, and the car runs great. One plus of using corn is that what is left after making ethenol can still be used a cattle feed, (which is what the corn was planted for in the first place) then if you use the output of the cows (no description needed) in a digester, you can create electric current. (how conveniant)There are other advantages of using Ethenol, but I won’t go into that now. No it is not the perfect answer to the energy problem, but it is a start. We do have to start somewhere, then improve on it as we go. It’s what we have done for years. I also do not believe there is one answer to solve all our energy problems, but many answers, the sum of all of them will make a difference.
Walt,
Yes, ethanol is a start - it has the idea of moving away from our dependence on oil. But we should also be asking if there’s a better place to start, and this study says that there is. We should ask why we consider ethanol to be a better option than the other alternatives which are less resource intensive, less expensive, and don’t confront us with many of the same problems as gasoline.
Walt
Lindsay,
I agree to a point. Ethanol has been made and added to gasoline for many years. We used to call it “gasahol”. One positive point at this time is that for the first time in many years, the farmers are getting a decent price for their product, and land that been set idle is being planted in corn. Some are even planting corn after corn. (unheard of in the corn belt)Over the last several years the efficiency of converting to ethonol has increased alot to where it can really stand on it’s own. (according to local producers in our area). However I believe the next big help on the market is “Bio-Desiel” Our country is way behind the rest of the world in the use of desiel and bio-desiel engines. This becomes another answer to the puzzel. Also the use of other products to make Ethanol, such as grasses etc. (Methenol is not an option, although it is used in products such as “Heat” a gasoline aditive). I really look forward to the plug in electric hybred car,(one of the many varieties) of which detroit is finally becomming serious about. What’s your thoughts about plug in cars?
Walt,
I’m glad that things are looking up for farmers. But I don’t believe that ethanol can stand on its own… it’s receiving lots and lots of support. As Lee Schipper mentioned above, corn is a very heavily subsidized crop, almost $9.5 billion in 2005, and even if we were at maximum production the United States would still not be able to support its current energy needs with ethanol.
From what I’ve read, I don’t know if corn-on-corn planting is such a positive thing. It’s been shown that an increase in corn will also increase nitrogen runoff and soil erosion (as you can hear in a radio show from Earth & Sky), which is not so great for the land.
The bottom line is I don’t see enough benefits to outweigh the costs of ethanol - the benefits I see are economic and go to the agriculture industry. And yet it’s being promoted as an environmental solution, which is what this study is about.
As for hybrid electric cars, I’d like to see more research go there, and for the public to find out exactly what our other alternatives are.
Lindsay
Just a quick note. Nitrogen run off, at least in our area is almost a thing of the past, according to the extention agr. agent. Fertilizer is just too expensive to waste. Farmers are also required to control run off by the DNR. (and they do) I have a radio talk show, that gives several hours of time per month to farm related concerns. I do agree with you that the use of Ethenol is not the total answer, as I have mentioned before, and we must move on to better and cleaner answers to our problems or we won’t have a world worth living in for our decendents. I am happy to hear many youth (of all ages) are concerned with finding workable solutions to these problems. A state senator drove up to show me his Prius, and how it works. It too is not the total answer, but again it’s part of the solution. Thank you for your concern, and I will keep an eye on this column.
Walt
Walt,
Is there a way that we can listen to your radio show?
Our radio show with Mark Jacobson, the author of this study, airs today.
Lindsay,
No not easily. It is on a small am/fm combo, and it is not on the internet yet. It’s an hour long (less time for news etc) Thursday I interviewed two young head librarians who are turning libraries “upside down”. (not really) and are atracting not only more youth, but all ages. Friday a university extention agent for two counties, dealing with farm crops etc. Every day mon thru fri is a different subject. From politics to medical, entertaners. It not only is fun but you learn alot in the process. (and I have to do my homework too) It is not scripted, we sit at a table either here at the station (not in the studio, but in our front room) or at a local resterant, and just talk (over a cup of coffee). I start with a blank piece of paper and work from there. We deal alot with the elderly in the area, so we talk about medicare problems and how to handle them with experts in the area. the phone line is open for comments or questions. My schedule is near filled to the end of the year. Let me say that alot of discussion has been about the good and bad of Ethenol, from about every direction possible, including how the engine handles the mix etc.
Ops, sorry, I just meant to say a little of the show, not to fill the page.
I do listen as we air the shows “Earth and Sky”, and I enjoy them and learn from them as well.
Hope to talk to you again. were all learning arn’t we.
Walt
Just say what it is! Ethenol is yet another billion dollar handout to farmers! What about supply and demand economics? the Current subsidy systems benefits only the well to do farmers, it is a travesty that so much of out taxes are going to Large so called family farms. In my area of MN the farmers are FAR from hurting fianacially, maybe only on vacation all inclusive to Mexico or the Bahama’s should be enough for them. The farmers Lobby is one of the most influential in Washington why do you think no one brings up the TRUTH!
It is government supplementation of the bio-fuel industry that is the problem Rick. The framers are making less money now because they have to pay more for the use (lease) of their land. Due to the government intervention in bio-fuel delivery to the consumer, prices of everything from food (especially food) to clothing and back to fuel has sky-rocketed. That includes everything the farmer needs to produce a crop. The land-owners want their piece of the government pie so they raise the lease/rent on the land the farmer uses.
By the way, as of today (May 10, 2007) the Iowa interior elevator price for corn is $3.21 per bushel while the farmers’ cost to produce and transport it is about $3.00. He works all year to get yield a 6.5% net profit. You wouldn’t work and invest all your money for that kind of a return - would you?
So, what I’m trying to tell you, Rick, is that you’re full of crap when you say the farmers are getting fat on America’s fuel woes.
Come on Mr. Truelove heres the scenerio. So called family farm 1,500 - 3,000 acres (hundreds) in my area. Farmers average up to $85,000 per year Federal subsides( Go look on EWG.org farm subsidy data base) please read the link attached 71% of ALL farm subsides go to only 10% of the farms http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1340
Now these farmers also have extra money per their subsides to invest in Ethanol plants at $10,000 - 50,000 a share. Buy buying these shares they get a kick back on their pricing when they take their corn to the Ethanol plant. Ethanol plants in MN
received State subsidy’s of over $23,000,000 alone in 2003,also many of these plants were bulit in TAX- FREE JOBZ zones,these zones give the plants complete Tax immunity for 10 whole years!!That means no income genrated for local town taxes, or state taxes! which in turn made ethanol profitable for those SAME farmer’s who invested and the ethanol business owners.So in turn farmers are backdooring another susidy payment from state government and getting profit check!! what a scam!
Now for the REAL cost of Ethanol the next link attached is from Finacial Sense Magazine, http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2007/0202.html they factor in ALL the prduction costs and the cost associated to the non farmer taxpayer, you will see a figure of $6.89 per gallon of ethanol produced!! how is that good economics???
Please Mr. Truelove, I believe in the Family farm, but those RARELY exist in Iowa, Illinois or MN, yes the name may be family, but they are a corperation getting lots of free money form the Government. All’s the susidies due is make it harder for the real small farmer to get a fair shake, because he can’t get bigger because the big farmers pay more for farmland than the REAL small farmer could possibly afford. Lets cut off subsidies for farms over 1,500 acres and give it to the small guys 500-1,000 acres. One less trip for the big guy’s to the Bahamas or all-inclusive to Mexico, One less new SUV or four wheeler for the kids. Lets get serious and stop listening to the Farm Lobby, which is one of the nations strongest financially backed lobby’s in America. Let’s get down to business and help who really needs it the small REAL family farm!!
Here’s another scenerio Mr. Truelove
That leaves us with the remaining rationale for farm subsidies, the real reason we still have them, and they cost so much.
That is the profound export dependency of the crops we subsidize. We grow far more than we need for domestic purposes. So we depend on exports to market the rest. It can be 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent of production or much more, depending on the crop and the year.
But those markets aren’t very dependable, and our domestic production is continually increasing.
Which brings me to the new policy framework for debating farm subsidies: it is the context not of saving the family farm, or rural America, or feeding the world–a myth I presume I needn’t address in this audience.
The context is globalization. And the proper policy framework, domestically, is trade adjustment assistance.
And internationally, it is the dispute resolution and negotiation processes of the WTO. Brazil’s challenges to the U.S. cotton program–in which EWG played an important role–and its separate challenge to the European Union’s sugar program, introduce the other major new pressure factor for reform. (Budget crunches, of course, have been with us, and gamed, since time immemorial.)
Over the past few decades, farm policy makers have made a series of political decisions that obligate U.S. taxpayers to insulate some farmers from discontinuities in export markets. We insulate them, that is to say, from a globalized market that the entire subsidy crop sector is largely built around.
Crop export dependency should be thought of as the opposite side of the same globalization coin as import vulnerability. It is a reality of globalization, and we have known about it, and paid dearly for it through crop subsidies, since Earl Butz told farmers to plant fencerow to fencerow in the 1970s.
But instead of talking about this central problem within the narrow confines of farm subsidy program history and rhetoric, we should step back and think of it as another problem of trade adjustment. Specifically, trade adjustment assistance. And we should rethink and redesign farm subsidies accordingly.
Which brings me to those three people waiting in your office back home. All three want a loan, and because time is short, you meet with all three of them at once.
One is a large-scale commodity producer. You know just how large scale because you’ve gone on our database. You explain to the group how this farmer, and perhaps his wife and other relatives, received hundreds of thousands of subsidy dollars every year for a decade, with basically no limit. You explain how he’ll get those subsidies into the future, and how they’ve boosted his land values and net worth. You explain, in fact, how he’ll get tens of thousands every year no matter what happens to prices, income or trade.
The second customer takes this in. He is a small to mid-size farmer, maybe just starting out growing a commodity crop, maybe someone who grows something else. Not much to see on the farm subsidy database. Maybe, you say, the Farmers Home Administration would be a better place to look for help.
Finally, there’s a man–or a woman–who has worked hard all his or her life and supported the family at a factory, or a software firm, or a textile mill. He made $50,000 a year until he lost his job to imports.
You tell him that in addition to his unemployment insurance, which will pay a fraction of his salary, he can petition the Labor Dept. (in groups of three or more workers) for trade adjustment assistance. If he qualifies, he can receive training, limited income support amounting to a few thousand dollars on average, a job search allowance, and maybe a relocation allowance.
He’s one of hundreds of thousand of workers to apply for trade adjustment assistance. Including, recently, some farmers and aquaculture operations under a new trade adjustment assistance program for agriculture. But we are talking about a small amount of money and modest additional assistance for most workers who lose a job through trade.
Now as a banker, you know which one of these prospective customers you’re most likely to do business with. So do they.
But is it fair, is it right, for that big agribusiness operator to get so much trade-related adjustment assistance, for so many years, when those other hard working people get so little?
Does it not make sense, in the interest of fairness to all workers and to taxpayers, to combine trade-triggered commodity subsidy payments with trade adjustment assistance programs for all other workers including the new one added for agriculture, and create a single pot?
Does it make sense to then scale commodity programs back, target them and limit them to working farms, and limit the duration for which a recipient could receive support–like we do with everyone else?
And might other forms of assistance, such as conservation payments, and actuarially sound crop or income insurance expand to fill part of the gap for all farmers, not just the subsidized, dependent few at the top?
Lastley Mr Truelove from an actual alternate fuels scientist:
Ethanol: The Political Joke
Posted By: James the Older
Date: Sun 4 Jun 2006 9:15 am
Been seeing the cute ethanol ads lately? Did you see the Primetime piece on ethanol? Sounds great, doesn’t it? Fuel independence coming from farmers to boot. Less pollution, lower cost, Smokey the Bear smiling again, the ducks landing in clean water and the kids breathing fresh air. Absolutely wonderful.
Too bad it is all BS. Ethanol is a political joke, wasting billions of dollars of our money on something that doesn’t work, and never will. Is this blasphemy? Maybe political blasphemy, but physical truth. First of all, I work in the area of alternative fuels research, and I have to compete with the ethanol boys for dollars, both from the commercial sector and the government sector. Before you jump in and start accusing me of sour grapes, be advised that I could make a very nice living making ethanol if I so chose; but most knowledgeable people, including the Cato Institute and the Sierra Club agree with what I am about to present. That’s right, the Sierra Club and the Cato Institute, the most radical GREEN organizations on Earth are AGAINST ethanol.
Now why would anyone be against a fuel that is made by farmers, reduces emissions (from cars), and gives us independence from people we hate? Simply because it creates more emissions (manufacturing) and makes us more dependent on the people we hate, as well as making the oil companies richer than ever. It does make the farmers happy, and I live on a farm.
First of all, it cost $2.24/gallon to make ethanol and only $0.63/gallon to make gasoline (the difference in the $2.74/gallon current price and the $0.63 is a lot of state and federal taxes, and, believe it or not, a small profit for the explorer, the driller, the producer, the raw transporter, the refinery, the pipeline, the distributor, and the retailer). Since the feds and state don’t tax ethanol, and ethanol doesn’t have the intense infrastructure of gasoline, it appears to be price competitive because of the government subsidy. That will change once the infrastructure is in place. and your fuel cost will skyrocket.
We use 174 million gallons of gasoline a day in the US. We produce about 75 million tons of corn a year in the US, and that is 39% of the world’s production, of which we consume 26% internally in this country on things other than ethanol. It requires 99,119 BTU’s to produce one gallon of ethanol which contains 77,000 BTU’s. That’s 1 1/3 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, which is approximately 50% less efficient than gasoline in your engine due to BTU content and other restraints. That is just in the distillation process. One acre of U.S. corn field yields about 9,400 pounds of corn, which in turn produces 362 gallons of ethanol. Setting aside the environmental implications (which are substantial), the financial costs already begin to mount. To plant, grow, and harvest the corn takes about 140 gallons of fossil fuel and costs about $347 per acre. Even before the corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock alone costs $0.69 per gallon of ethanol, be it corn or corn stalks.
To produce the 261,000,000 gallons of ethanol it takes to replace the 174,000,000 gallons of gasoline we currently use, we will need about 260 million acres of corn harvested annually, instead of the current 73 million acres. But 19 million acres is consumed internally, and we know we aren’t going on a diet, so in reality, we will need an additional 361 million acres if we cease all exports of corn, 333 million acres if we don’t. That’s a 4.5 fold increase. Since the Farm Bureau is proclaiming the ever decreasing number of farmers, and lessening acreage available for farmland due to housing development, that just isn’t going to happen.
To grow all that corn, we will need fertilizer and weed control. At 137 lbs/acre of ammonia and 1 lb/acre of atrazine, we will need almost 13 million tons more fertilizer, and dump more than 93.5 million tons of atrazine into the environment every year. (The potential health effects of atrazine read like the small print in a drug ad: congestion of the heart, lungs, and kidneys; low blood pressure; muscle spasms; weight loss; damage to adrenal glands. And that’s in the short term.) Ammonia releases into the atmosphere would increase enormously, and in states like North Carolina, where ammonia levels on the East Coast are already dangerously high, the effect would be unpleasant to say the least. Eutrophication of our rivers would be a catastrophic problem.
The Environmental Protection Agency discovered in May 2002 that factories converting corn to ethanol were releasing carbon monoxide, methanol, and some carcinogens — formaldehyde and acetic acid, to name a couple — into the atmosphere in much greater amounts than anyone expected. it isn’t a clean fuel after all.
By the way, did I mention that we will have to increase our oil imports substantially to produce all that ethanol? Remember that it takes 1 1/3 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, not counting the fuel required to plant and harvest the corn. Does this sound insane to anyone but me, the Sirra Club, and the Cato Institute? Or do they plan on burning 2 gallons of old ethanol to produce 1 gallon of new ethnaol?
So what is the answer? How about fuels like biodiesel and methanol? Biodiesel appears to have little or no downside except supply, and is one of my personal favorites. On the other hand, methanol can be made by thermophilically digesting animal manures and other organic wastes, converting it to methane, and converting the methane to methanol using atmospheric plasma generators. Either way, both are better alternatives than ethanol.
STOP the ETHANOL DRAIN!! It is a waste of money and resources. Researchers typically go where the money is, with only a few privately funded mavericks going off on their own. As long as ethanol is the “toast of the day”, the money will go into ethanol research, and unless someone re-invents chemistry and physics, ethanol will NEVER be the answer to our problems, and the ethanol effort actually makes our energy problem worse day by day, while draining mine and your pockets of our hard earned cash, and lots of it.
It is better, and wiser, to drink ethanol than to burn it in your vehicle.
Semper Fi
Jim
Did anyone happen to see this article?
Edwards launches plan to boost US ethanol use
This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title ol’s benefits not appearing any time soon at Lindsay Patterson. Thanks for informative article
Corn Ethanol is a scam, all agree.
Here is how to make lots of biofuel; a solar concentrator in summer attains temperatures that break cellulose to fuels like methanol. In effect, we can store the hot summer sun in a chemical.
We can get biomass from the oceans. That is where the CO2, heat, and nutrients are. We need to save our farm lands and clean the oceans. Insurance companies might appreciate cooler oceans.
Methanol has been seen as the fuel base of the future for over 50 years.
ethanol, and other alternative fuels, are just the beginning. as many have said, you have to start somewhere. But, I’m really interested in leap-frogging to something much more feasible. i think the rocky mountain institute and their concentration on composite fibers is on the right track. lighten the heck out of the vehicle and you can achieve tremendous gains.