A false choice between food or fuel? Many states mandate the use of ethanol in their gasoline. What happens during a year of poor crop yield? While the effects may be muted during times of good harvests, what will the world do when harvests are poor?
Grain used to feed more cars than people
By Dan Jones | 01/25/10 - 16:49
In the US last year enough grain to feed 330 million people for one year, at average world consumption levels, was instead turned into ethanol to fuel cars, according to new data from the US Department of Agriculture.
This figure accounts for 25 percent of the total US grain crop and with 200 ethanol distilleries in the country set up to transform food into fuel, the amount of grain processed has tripled since 2004.
The new data has led to accusations that the biofuel revolution that began under the Bush administration in 2007 is starting to damage world food supplies. Under President Bush, ethanol production was increased through farm subsidies and laws as he challenged farmers to increase production by 500 percent by 2017 to cut oil imports and reduce carbon emissions.
But in a globalized food economy, increased demand for food to fuel American vehicles puts additional pressure on world food supplies.
America looms large
Whereas the development of biofuels is important as we try and move away from traditional energy sources, America looms so large in the world food economy that the fact it comes at the expense of food production makes it relatively dangerous. The US is far and away the world's leading grain exporter, exporting more than Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Russia combined.
One of the most worrying findings is that because the wheels of this revolution are so ferociously in motion, it is almost impossible to wind down biofuel production. Since 2007, 80 new ethanol plants have been built with more expected by 2015, by which time the US will need to produce a further 5 billion gallons of ethanol if it is to meet its renewable fuel standard.
Also, even if the entire US grain crop were converted to ethanol (leaving no domestic crop to make bread, rice, pasta, or feed the animals from which we get meat, milk, and eggs), it would satisfy at the very most 18 percent of US automotive fuel needs, as reported by Environmental-Expert.com.
World grain prices at record highs
According to Lester Brown, the director of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington think tank that conducted the analysis, the growing demand for corn for ethanol helped to push world grain prices to record highs between late 2006 and 2008, people in low-income grain-importing countries were hit the hardest.
This unprecedented spike in food prices drove up the number of hungry people in the world to over 1 billion for the first time in 2009.
"Continuing to divert more food to fuel, as is now mandated by the US federal government in its renewable fuel standard, will likely only reinforce the disturbing rise in world hunger. By subsidising the production of ethanol to the tune of some $6 billion each year, US taxpayers are in effect subsidising rising food bills at home and around the world," said Brown.
Choosing between food and fuel
Even thought the global recession helped to drive food prices back down, they still remain well above their long-term average levels.
Ethanol producers deny that their record production means less food, arguing that innovations and development in technology mean they no longer have to a "false choice between food and fuel", so says Tom Buis, the chief executive of industry group Growth Energy.
The US taxpayer is still funding the subsidization of ethanol production to the tune of $6 billion every year, so the transformation of food to fuel under the federal government's Renewable Fuel Standard will continuing to increase. But at a time when pressures on the earth's land, water and food resources is at record levels we may have to realign our priorities in order to avoid putting large numbers of people at risk and to also avoid potential sources of conflict.
27 Comments
JohnLounsbury
Jenn - - -
Great article.
You didn't mention it but I believe that ethanol produced from crops the way it is done in the U.S. is energy negative. I can't put my finger on the reference at the moment, but I think I have read that it takes more energy to produce a quantity of energy from burning ethanol than is recovered from the combustion.
If I am off base with my recollection, I'm sure someone will correct me.
TLaCour
Plenty of references showing the idiocy of making EtOH for fuel from corn, here's one:
Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as 'Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning'Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what Cornell University agricultural scientist, David Pimentel, calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell’s David Pimentel, one of the world’s leading experts in issues relating to energy and agriculture, takes a longer range view.
"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning", says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings are published in the September, 2001 issue of the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .
Among his findings are:TLaCour
The USDA and the Department of Energy disagree, and claim a net positive gain in energy (1.24 units in final EtOH per unit of energy required to make it [grow corn, harvest, ferment and distill]):
a US Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol. "Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol", by Hosein Shapouri et al., US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Office of Energy and New Uses, Agricultural Economic Report No. 721, July 1995 -- "Studies conducted since the late 1970s have estimated the net energy value of corn ethanol. However, variations in data and assumptions used among the studies have resulted in a wide range of estimates. This study identifies the factors causing this wide variation and develops a more consistent estimate... We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24."
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
TLaCour
Quite a few others also disagree with Pimental, and have cast some strong doubt on his figures. A detailed summary of the various studies available, who made them etc. is at the link below.
Is ethanol energy-efficient?: Journey to ForeverExcerpts:
Ethanol under fire: David Pimentel et alActually it's Big Ethanol and Big Corn that are under fire by Big Oil, though Big Corn and Big Agriculture are a major client of Big Oil. We tend to think they might all deserve each other. Small is beautiful, especially with food and biofuels, and we don't support Big Ethanol producers like Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill or Monsanto any more than we support ExxonMobil or Shell.
But we don't like disinformation either. The Biofuel mailing list has been outing Cornell University Prof. David Pimentel for five years -- see:
http://snipurl.com/g33b
biofuel - Search results for 'pimentel'
And more recently his new ally Tad Patzek of Berkeley:
http://snipurl.com/qfi1
biofuel - Search results for 'Patzek'
See Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol Results -- six charts that show the picture at a glance (Acrobat file, 140 kb)
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
----------------
Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals, Alexander E. Farrell, Richard J. Plevin, Brian T. Turner, Andrew D. Jones, Michael O’Hare, Daniel M. Kammen, SCIENCE, Vol. 311, 27 Jan. 2006: "Studies that reported negative net energy incorrectly ignored coproducts and used some obsolete data. All studies indicated that current corn ethanol technologies are much less petroleum-intensive than gasoline but have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of gasoline." 180kb Acrobat file:
http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ScienceJournalJanuary2006_000.pdf
---------------
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.
---------
TLaCour
Sugar beets and sugar cane are both far more rewarding sources of ethanol, with energy ratios of 8 to 11. Brazil uses mainly sugarcane and has been doing so with increasing energy ratios for 30 years.
Ethanol from organic sugar beets versus refined cane sugar ...
Ethanol fuel in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cellulosic ethanol holds great promise, since no "food" is used as feedstock (our bodies can not metabolize cellulose), and some methods have obtained an energy ratio of 36 (three to four times better than sugar cane):
Ethanol fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JennJohnson
Thanks Tom for all the added research. I pulled some info from an article I wrote several months ago...
The Dirty Secret of Ethanol
Ethanol has the dirtiest secrets of all green energy. While it has been used as a source of fuel for cars as early as 1905, it was not until the Clean Air Amendments in 1990 that ethanol took front and center stage. Like hydroelectric power, it provides diversification away from fossil fuels. However, the unintended consequences of its mandated use are huge and given the enormous amount of special interest money attached to ethanol, its dirty little secret rarely gets exposed.
Corn and sugar based ethanol are the most popular forms of the fuel. Production of both is causing destructive and devastating changes to the very parts of the planet green supporters claim to want to protect. As Michael Grunwald reports,
[Ethanol] is wiping out such gigantic swaths of jungle that scientists now debate the "savannization" of the Amazon. Brazil just announced that deforestation is on track to double this year; Carter, a Texas cowboy with all the subtlety of a chainsaw, says it's going to get worse fast. "It gives me goose bumps," says Carter, who founded a nonprofit to promote sustainable ranching on the Amazon frontier. "It's like witnessing a rape." (Time, March 2008)
Proponents of ethanol claim that the deforestation is not as severe as it seems as only a small portion of rain forest has been cut down for the growth of sugar cane or corn. However, what they are not telling us is the incremental effects of diverting so much corn and sugar production to the production of ethanol. The negative effects may be indirect, but they are still a part of the picture no matter how much the advocates want to hide them. Michael Grunwald goes on to report that:
More deforestation results from a chain reaction so vast it's subtle: U.S. farmers are selling one-fifth of their corn to ethanol production, so U.S. soybean farmers are switching to corn, so Brazilian soybean farmers are expanding into cattle pastures, so Brazilian cattlemen are displaced to the Amazon. It's the remorseless economics of commodities markets. "The price of soybeans goes up," laments Sandro Menezes, a biologist with Conservation International in Brazil, "and the forest comes down."
Deforestation accounts for 20% of all current carbon emissions. So unless the world can eliminate emissions from all other sources--cars, power plants, factories, even flatulent cows--it needs to reduce deforestation or risk an environmental catastrophe. That means limiting the expansion of agriculture, a daunting task as the world's population keeps expanding. And saving forests is probably an impossibility so long as vast expanses of cropland are used to grow modest amounts of fuel.
The devastating effects of the move to rely on ethanol are only beginning to be felt. While the effects of deforestation are hidden and may take years to show, the devastating effects of corn being diverted from a food source to a fuel source are readily apparent and intuitive. As demand for corn grows, the price increases as supply is limited and cannot be quickly and easily increased. If supply is increased, it is at the expense of other food crops such as soybeans or wheat. As prices spiral upwards, the cost of all the food we eat increases, making it harder and harder to feed our family and hungry people around the world.
Ethanol’s dirty secret needs to be exposed. As our reliance on the fuel grows, so will the unintended consequences of its use. Grunwald continues:
One groundbreaking new study in Science concluded that when this deforestation effect is taken into account, corn ethanol and soy biodiesel produce about twice the emissions of gasoline. Sugarcane ethanol is much cleaner, and biofuels created from waste products that don't gobble up land have real potential, but even cellulosic ethanol increases overall emissions when its plant source is grown on good cropland. "People don't want to believe renewable fuels could be bad," says the lead author, Tim Searchinger, a Princeton scholar and former Environmental Defense attorney. "But when you realize we're tearing down rain forests that store loads of carbon to grow crops that store much less carbon, it becomes obvious."
“It turns out that the carbon lost when wilderness is razed overwhelms the gains from cleaner-burning fuels. A study by University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman concluded that it will take more than 400 years of biodiesel use to "pay back" the carbon emitted by directly clearing peat lands to grow palm oil; clearing grasslands to grow corn for ethanol has a payback period of 93 years. The result is that biofuels increase demand for crops, which boosts prices, which drives agricultural expansion, which eats forests. Searchinger's study concluded that overall, corn ethanol has a payback period of about 167 years because of the deforestation it triggers.”
We, the people, are the losers in this choice by special interest groups. The unintended consequences of ethanol’s dirty secrets are devastating to people around the globe searching for a source of food. And, according to the theory of global warming, they are perpetuating its causes. The same “problem” green advocates claim they are trying to solve. Ethanol is counterproductive.
Anonymous
10% ethanol in oregon equals 10%less milage.
Whippet
Great post, Jenn. The EROI of ethanol is a disaster, but I'd rather burn that trash GMO corn in my car than eat it (or the steer or hog it was intended for).
The biggest nutritional problems in this country are rooted in the overconsumption of corn-based foods and the malnutrition brought on by commercial "N-P-K" farming. This was created by the destruction of the family farm (due to the financial crisis of the Roaring Twenties, punitive estate taxation, monopolism, and uneducated consumers) and has no ready solution. Wow, am I off topic.
Back to the point- if you want to create an "agro-energy" economy, you need to have profitable EROIs and a sustainable business model (ecologically and economically). Like TLaCour says, cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass is one way. Algal oil is another.
underfire
Pimentel and others in their defense of oil leave out the costs, both in resources and monetarily, of military intervention to police the worlds oil structure. If those costs had been reflected at the pump over the last few decades rather than being lost in the general debt, than many alternative energy sources, and increased conservation, would have been proven by this time.
It's pretty sobering to think that corn ethanol even with at 1:3 is one of the best alternatives we have.
jmonroe
I'd like to know when they're going to subsidise home-brewers. We make a lot of ethanol for bio-fuel.