The problem with ethanol
Bill Hartman
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
HERE IS HOW I see the ethanol prospects for our nation. I have followed the energy front for years with great interest, but this ethanol issue is beginning to border on the “fleecing of Americans.”
Here is the reason why.
The first problem is that you have to think about how much energy that is going into something and then compare that to what is coming out. The prospects of getting ahead in producing ethanol are akin to attempting to invent the perpetual motion machine. Here is why.
Does it make any degree of logic to think that we will become energy independent by producing ethanol from corn, or for that matter other cellulose when one just thinks about it for a moment? Here is the problem. Let’s say that it takes one unit of fossil energy to make fertilizer, one unit of fossil energy to produce seed corn, one unit of fossil energy to plant the seed, one unit of fossil energy to harvest the seed, one unit of energy to transport the seed to market, one unit of fossil energy to store the seed, another unit to take the seed to the still, then a huge amount of fossil energy to convert the seed to take the seed to the still, then a huge amount of fossil energy to convert the seed to ethanol. Does anyone really think that this in any stretch of the imagination represent energy independence? I think that the only ones that do are those with a special interest in grain who have spent millions on campaign contributions to spread this propaganda.
The following are just a few of the reasons that many are questioning this proposal. I would reference you to the June 27, 2006, of the Land Institute who brings out these concerns:
“The United States consumes more fossil and nuclear energy than all the energy produced in a year by the country’s plant life, including forests and that used for food and fiber, from the U.S. Department of Energy and David Pimentel, a Cornell researcher.”
One might reference Kenneth Deffeyes’s book (copyright 2005), “Beyond Oil,” where on page 6 he states that, “A measure of the importance of oil and gas: 80 percent of an Iowa corn farmer’s costs is, directly and indirectly, the cost of fuel.” In addition, Deffeyes of Princeton University, states on page 8, “Concerns over ethanol and hydrogen as NET LOSERS: technologies that consume more energy than they produce,” will be of great concern in just a few years.”
“To produce enough corn based ethanol to meet the current U.S. demand for automotive gasoline, we would need to nearly double the amount of land used for harvested crops, plant all of it in corn, year after year and not eat any of it.”
“The corn and soybeans that make ethanol and bio diesel take huge quantities of fossil fuel for farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizer.”
Here is one that my friend and colleague, Tom Peterson, who works at Emporia State with me, shared: “Don’t forget to add that there is less stored energy in ethanol (I think about 80 percent) as there is in gasoline. Consequently, it takes more ethanol to do the same amount of work. This means you have to invest even more petroleum in the production of ethanol to do a given amount of work.”
Doesn’t it stand to common reason that if the prospects of ethanol were bright and that this produced more energy than it took to make it, then it would stand strong as a good program. But the fact is that it must be subsidized by you and I. Would not other nations be going for this ethanol deal? The fact is that brazil is about the only other nation doing ethanol at a break even point, and it is using sugar cane stocks as a fuel to power the still. How long will they have top soil to keep doing this?
Here is an interesting (fact). The Netherlands wanted to use ethanol because it was the ‘Green Solution,” but they needed the plant matter to do it. So they imported the plant matter. Then they found out that they were removing large areas of the rain forest for the material that they needed. Boy, that kind of was a set back for them for sure. Pitch the “save the rain forest” goal.
Has anyone mentioned to us the prospects of “mining” our top soil with this ethanol deal? Once it is gone, we will really be in a fix, and that is just what we are doing with this ethanol scheme.
How about the huge amount of new fertilizer that will be needed? Has anyone thought about the big dead spot now in the ocean that is thought to come from the fertilizer that is used now? What about all the new fertilizer that is made by using natural gas?
If anyone is interest in an up and coming country that has fairly well solved their energy problem, then one should look to France. They took our technology, standardized it and are now only importing about 15 percent of their energy in fossil fuel from non-OPEC areas. They use nuclear and have well solved their problem, while using what was originally an American designed plant. How about China that just announced that they will build 40 new nuclear plants in the next five years! How about India that is going nuclear in a big way, too?
I strongly believe that we are just as capable, if not a lot more so, than the French, Chinese and Indians to solve this energy problem.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by noel_stanton (anonymous) on April 4, 2007 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The French cannot drive their cars, trucks and agricultural equipment nor fly their airplanes with nuclear energy. And the French have not solved the 20,000 year problem of how to protect their citizens from nuclear waste.
What they do have are cars that get double the mileage of those in America and most of the car engines emit only 120-160 grams of CO2 per kilometer vs. American motors averaging 200-300 grams/km.
If Americans were as thrifty with energy use as they think they are with money, the American Midwest has the constant sun, the wind and the biomass to replace the Arabic Mideast to supply the Americans' remaining energy needs.
You are right, ethanol from corn is not the solution. It is being pushed because many people can make a lot of money without having to change the way they do business. America should get over its greed and laziness.
Noel Stanton
Am Wellenberg 9
69509 Moerlenbach
Germany
telf. -49-6209-3613, fax -49-6209-796 538
email: stanton@planet-interkom.de
Posted by songhaidoc (anonymous) on April 4, 2007 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Hartman needs to learn to separate out fossil fuel for use in vehicles and for use in generating electricity. Most of power generation comes from coal, natural gas, steam, and nuclear. Less than 5% comes from fossil fuel. Furthermore, this poorly written article did not mention that corn based ethanol is only a stopgap measure to produce from other sources such as organic wastes and swithgrass that actually protects the vital top soil and is self replenishing.
Finally, Herr Stanton, has no facts other than his emotional "greed and laziness" statement. Many ethanol plants are 50% owned by farmers who work 18 hours a day..hardly lazy people. This has also cut out farm subsidies by 7 billion dollars this year alone unlike European farmers who could not compete internationally without subsidies and have pitifully low crop yields compared to U.S. corn production using genetically modified corn.
You are right about one thing, we could save alot of money in the U.S. by pulling out of European bases in Germany and Italy and protecting yourselves and quit buying gas guzzling Mercedes.
Posted by MelissaE (anonymous) on April 4, 2007 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL at the article! It sounds to me like Hartman either has lots of money in the oil industry, is some sort of Republican lobbyist (you know the type: They don't think global warming is "real") or has family members (or himself) driving huge SUVs.
I'd be happy to purchase ethanol--knowing that it came from the farmers, not the oil pigs.
Melissa
Posted by Media_Critic (anonymous) on April 5, 2007 at 1:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As songhaidoc observed, no one is suggesting that the U.S. must "produce enough corn based ethanol to meet the [entire] current U.S. demand for automotive gasoline." Nor, given the anti-nuclear energy sentiment and long-term, adverse regulatory climate in this country, can nuclear power be the answer ala France. And, like MelissaE, I believe we should not ignore the economic benefit of increased domestic ethanol production to American farmers, who are, in fact, much more economically efficient than their European counterparts. Finally, while Herr Stanton evidently believes that a combination of solar power, wind farms, and biomass (but not nuclear, which is off-limits to him because of waste disposal issues) could "replace the Arabic Mideast to supply the Americans' remaining energy needs," I do not share his sanguine enthusiasm about those alternatives, particularly in the short term. I also do not take kindly to Herr Stanton's finger-wagging line, from across the Atlantic, that "America should get over its greed and laziness" when it comes to excessive energy use by automobiles, as Germany's autobahns are energy hogs of the highest order (and will continue to be even if maximum speed limits are eventually imposed on a system-wide basis).
One also needs to keep in mind that, contrary to what you might think after reading Mr. Hartman's piece, there is a great deal of scientific disagreement over whether ethanol is a "net loser." Here is just one recent illustration of this: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx... ("Recent study says ethanol makes net gain for energy")
There are other conflicting studies as well. For example, visit http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtm... ("New study confronts old thinking on ethanol's net energy value") and http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=1... ("Ethanol Does Yield Net Energy Gain")
Of course, if Hill, Wang, and the others are correct, the arguments of Mr. Hartman and Herr Stanton collapse.
Furthermore, the research Mr. Hartman cites has been heavily criticized by both ethanol proponents and other scientists -- visit http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/dis... for example. And here is an interesting discussion of Pimintel's research, in which he admits that using his model, practically ALL forms of fuel, including gasoline itself, are net energy losers: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/fe...
(Continued in next post.)
Posted by Media_Critic (anonymous) on April 5, 2007 at 1:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As correctly observed by songhaidoc, Mr. Hartman's analysis is also extremely simplistic, and does not take into account a myriad of critical factors. As one online commentator recently argued:
"Corn ethanol used to be a net loser up until about 10 years ago. Corn yields have improved. When the negative corn ethanol studies were done, the Cornell professor low-balled the yield. He said 2.5 gallons per bushel, when corn is 2.8 to 3 gallons per bushel. He also low balled the bushels of corn per acre. He said you only get 120 bushels per acre, when in the real world, you get 200 or more bushels per acre. He said that what throws corn ethanol off is the cost of irrigation and the fossil fuels to grow the corn and process it into fuel. That is misleading. Most corn for ethanol is not irrigated. Not all corn is grown the same. Some corn is grown specifically for food, some for feed, and some for ethanol production. Not all farms are the same. Some farmers use biodiesel and ethanol to power their equipment and/or to generate their own electricity. All ethanol plants are not the same. Some plants have windmills and solar panels. Others use a portion of the fuel for power or co-generate energy from biomass. Some plants are now converting the corn stover into ethanol as well. Now you have about ten new cellulose ethanol plants coming on line which use waste wood, agricultural bi-products, and other forms of organic waste, and they all co-generate their own energy to run the conversion process. The negative ethanol studies did not evaluate converting waste, and they did not account for ethanol plants that co-generate their own production power or farmers that use bio-fuels. They also did not evaluate miscanthus grass, municipal waste, or algae -- which can generate over 10,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year. Also, DuPont said that it will double corn ethanol efficiency in the next few years. Ethanol is used to replace toxic MTBE and enhances gasoline as an oxygenator. Also we don't go to war over ethanol. . . . Ethanol is creating jobs and stimulating the economy right here at home. When you buy ethanol, you are paying American farmers and American companies, and you're putting money in your pocket. E-85, biodiesel, and pure ethanol will be our transition fuels. Watch Honda's pure ethanol Indy cars. Technology will solve the mileage deficit. If you still think that ethanol is a net loser -- sorry -- that is based on out of date and misleading information."
So the ethanol issue is far more complex than Mr. Hartman and Herr Stanton would have us believe. The fact is that there are no simple answers.
Posted by CO2 (anonymous) on April 5, 2007 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Even though the majority of US corn is not irrigated, this does not take into account water required to distill ethanol:
Granite Falls Energy (MN) has drained its aquifer by nearly half in less than a year. It takes 4 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol.
If ethanol is a net energy winner, why do we have to subsidize it $.50/gal. How is that putting money in my pocket?
Ethanol is a auto-agribusiness (GM/Ford/ADM/Cargill) sideshow which allows gas guzzler car cos. to avoid paying CAFE penalties and continue to make Chevy Suburbans and Ford Expeditions for brain dead soccer moms & dads.
"Technology will solve the mileage deficit"
And won't it will probably come in a convenient colorful wrapped package like an IPOD?
Who needs topsoil and clean aquifers-
American Idol 2010 can probably fix that, too.
The reality is there is probably no good substitute for cheap oil, and there are too many people for this planet to sustain, and too many of them are greedy and lazy people (predominantly in the US) aspiring to live in a bigger McMansion with big SUVs, with no sense of conservation or efficiencies- the next dinosaurs!
Father of 2,
Chicago, IL
Posted by CO2 (anonymous) on April 5, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And how is paying higher prices for groceries because of the doubling cost of corn feed "putting money in my pocket"?
Posted by Media_Critic (anonymous) on April 5, 2007 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CO2, I agree with you that irrigation is only part of the water equation for ethanol production from corn, that most U.S. corn is not irrigated, and that it takes 4 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. However, Granite Falls Energy is well aware of this. That is why it recently completed a Minnesota River water intake, pipeline, and water treatment project in February 2007, which should substantially reduce demand from the underground aquifer it had been using to excess. See http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/10... and http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRm.u3yj.d.htm
The fact that ethanol is subsidized at present does not, in any way, disprove the scientific research showing that it yields a net energy gain. As the technology matures, corn yields continue to increase, and political pressures subside, I think it's entirely possible that even the current moderate subsidies may be reduced or eliminated. You are also overlooking the history of the corn market, which demonstrates that when market prices rise, subsidies fall.
I do not agree with you that ethanol is strictly a auto-agribusiness dictated by large corporate concerns. There are already tens of thousands of family farmers and local cooperatives directly involved in its production -- unlike the highly concentrated, multinational oil companies (or "oil pigs," as MelissaE colorfully put it), at whose behest and for whose benefit many believe we went to war in Iraq at a staggering cost of more than $600 billion to date. Are you willing to pay that sort of price in the continued quest for "cheap oil," for which you conclude there is "probably no good substitute"? I'm not.
If the real problem is, as you argue, that there are too many people for the planet to sustain and too many greedy and lazy Americans who don't care about conservation or energy efficiency, how do you propose to attack the problem, CO2? Forced birth control ala China? Summary execution of anyone whose home is not sufficiently energy-efficient or refuses to conserve? Sitting around and waiting for them to eventually suffer the fate of the dinosaurs (along with the rest of humanity)? Any solution that relies primarily on permanently changing the behavior of "brain dead soccer moms & dads" is DOA by definition, since those who are brain-dead don't think -- they just act. Forget about harping on five words ("putting money in your pocket") -- isn't trying a promising alternative to exclusive dependence on cheap oil worth at least considering over the status quo ante?
Posted by Media_Critic (anonymous) on April 5, 2007 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As to the higher grocery costs to which you referred in your followup post, CO2, I believe they will be offset by other major benefits to the economy, public health, and to the environment:
"Who gains from a fair price for corn? Certainly farmers do. Corn's increased value raised prices across other major commodities too, including wheat and soybeans.
Taxpayers also win. When market prices rise, subsidies paid by taxpayers fall. We've already seen a $7 billion drop in agriculture subsidies from 2005 to 2006, with more expected in 2007.
Public health stands to gain too. Consumer research shows that price plays a significant role in the food we purchase. If soft drinks and greasy burgers start to cost more, healthier food including grass-fed beef and fruits and vegetables, become more competitive.
The environment stands to gain from higher priced corn. Higher feed cost makes industrial mega meat and poultry farms much less competitive. The environmental community has fought against these operations because of concerns about antibiotic use, animal welfare, manure spills and resulting water contamination.
Higher price is also a necessary step to shifting the biofuels industry beyond corn. Most believe corn is just the first wave of biofuels feedstock, and other environmentally friendly crops like switchgrass represent the next wave.
The eventual shift to perennial crops that use fewer or no pesticides and fertilizers will represent a huge gain for the environment. Not to mention reductions in greenhouse gases as we shift away from fossil fuels.
Higher corn prices accelerate the shift by making environmentally friendly crops more competitive.
Any time the status quo is rattled, people get nervous. In the case of corn, a small group of big grain companies reaped tremendous rewards during the last few decades. This new era of high-priced corn gives the rest of us a chance to benefit from a new kind of bounty."
http://www.agobservatory.org/headlines.c... ("Pricier corn is good for the nation")
Posted by gary399 (anonymous) on April 6, 2007 at 4:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The actual number of acres planted in corn in the U. S. has decreased from approximately 100 million acres in the early 1940’s to 78 million acres in 2006 because the demand for corn at a price where farmers could earn enough profit to plant more corn has not been present. Corn farmers have increased productivity to a level where growing corn has been unprofitable for the most inefficient farmers, and the acreage planted in corn has declined.
Using corn for ethanol production has introduced a new use for corn, and as a result, there has been much publicity about the possible impact of this new demand corn production and the price of corn. In early 2007, corn futures rose to well over $4.00 per bushel. This futures market price increase has lead to speculation that the growing number of ethanol plants will drive the price of corn so high that the profit margins for ethanol plants will be reduced or disappear. Speculation and discussion about corn prices being driven higher by demand for ethanol can be best addressed by reviewing these speculations in the light of basic economic analysis of price, supply, and demand.
The answer to the question of possible higher demand leading to higher corn prices can be best understood using the following economic framework.
1. Increased demand for ethanol leads to higher demand for corn which leads to higher corn prices.
2. Higher corn prices lead to increased production of corn which exceeds demand at the high price, resulting in significant surpluses and as a result, corn prices fall back to their long term average This pattern has repeated itself consistently for the last 50 years, regardless of the reason for the increase in demand or the increase in price. It is economic law in any relatively free market that high prices for any renewable commodity will create a surplus of that commodity, baring any unusual weather patterns.
As mentioned above, this pattern of price, supply and demand applied to corn has repeated itself consistently regardless of the cause of the fluctuation in corn price.
Gary Schwendiman, Ph.D.
Chairman, Ethanol Capital Management
www.ethanolinvestments.com
Posted by songhaidoc (anonymous) on April 6, 2007 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks to mediacritic and gary399 for their very insightful comments. It is always interesting to see those who complain about the 50 cent ethanol subsidy when gasoline has increased over $1.50 in 5 years! Where would your subsidy like to go? Petrodictators hostile to the U.S. or to developing a renewable fuel industry here with American farmers who put food on our tables daily? Let's not wring our hands over the "sky is falling stuff" with too many people on the planet that is not in our control. What we can do is to continue to develop varied sources of renewable fuels for our children that is better for the environment. Ethanol is only ONE option but a reasonable start.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)