The Mid Missouri Energy ethanol plant rises out of the cornfields near Malta Bend, Mo. The plant takes about 20 percent of the 90 million bushels of corn grown in the surrounding area to produce ethanol (AP Photo/Southeast Missourian, Aaron Eisenhauer)
Media survey: Politicians rethink food-based ethanol
Drawbacks appear in a process once touted as an answer to global warming.
By Brad Knickerbocker | May 6, 2008 edition
Reporter Brad Knickerbocker talks about Americans trying to be more energy efficient when it comes to transportation.
Reporter Brad Knickerbocker
Not too long ago, corn ethanol was being touted as the energy wave of the future for fighting global warming. It was said to be much better than coal and oil, those carbon-based sources of greenhouse-gas emissions.But lately the drawbacks to this form of energy production have become more obvious, its critics more vocal, its supporters on the defensive.For one thing, there’s evidence that the rush to produce ethanol made from corn is contributing to the recent rise in domestic food prices.Late last week, two dozen Republican senators said they wanted to ease the congressionally mandated requirement that more ethanol be blended into the gasoline supply. Among those GOP lawmakers is presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who’s been critical of ethanol subsidies. A Wall Street Journal article noted that:
“The move by the Republican Senate group is the latest sign that Washington’s support for turning corn into motor fuel is wavering in the face of soaring food prices, despite the popularity of ethanol subsidies in farm states critical to the November election…. There are also signs of anti-ethanol backlash at the state level. The governors of Texas and Connecticut have requested that the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] issue waivers from the mandate, arguing that the ethanol impact on food prices is too onerous.”
Such concern has become global. The World Bank has estimated that corn prices rose by more than 60 percent from 2005 to 2007, largely because of the US ethanol program, combined with market forces. The United States is the world’s biggest biofuel producer, overall.Looking at the food situation more broadly, several top international food scientists have recommended that the use of food-based biofuels, including ethanol, be halted. Said the AP:
“The three senior scientists with an international research consortium pushing a biofuel moratorium said nations need to rethink programs that divert food such as corn and soybeans into fuel, given the burgeoning worldwide food crisis. The group, CGIAR, is a global network that uses science to fight hunger. It is funded by dozens of countries and private foundations…. ‘We need to feed the stomach before we need to feed our cars,’ said Rattan Lal, an Ohio State University soil sciences professor…. ‘We have 1 billion people who are food insecure. We can’t afford the luxury of not taking care of them and taking care of gasoline.’ “
The Bush administration acknowledges that corn ethanol may have something to do with food prices, says a report from the Saudi Press Agency:
” ‘There has been apparently some effect, unintended consequence, from the alternative fuels effort,’ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a meeting of the Peace Corps in Washington when asked for the US government’s view on the spike in world food prices.”
But at a recent press conference, President George W. Bush played down the connection between food ethanol and food prices. As reported by Reuters:
“[Bush] said the rise in food prices has been caused by weather, increased demand and energy prices, while only a small part is due to the production of corn-based ethanol. ‘And the truth of the matter is, it’s in our national interest that we – our farmers – grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us.’ “
Meanwhile, questions are being raised as well about the environmental impact of biofuel farming. A story in The Washington Post said that:
“[A] study published in Science magazine Feb. 29 concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn and even cellulosic ethanol ‘exceed or match those from fossil fuels and therefore produce no greenhouse benefits.’ By encouraging an expansion of acreage, the study added, the use of US cropland for ethanol could make climate conditions dramatically worse. And the runoff from increased use of fertilizers on expanded acreage would compound damage to waterways….”
A comprehensive method of study, developed by the Empa Research Institute in Switzerland, takes into account total environmental impacts, such as loss of forests and farmland and effects on biodiversity. The result is not good news for corn ethanol producers. A story in Britain’s The Guardian says that:
“In a study of 26 biofuels the Swiss method showed that 21 fuels reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 30 percent compared with gasoline when burned. But almost half of the biofuels, a total of 12, had greater total environmental impacts than fossil fuels. These included economically-significant fuels such as US corn ethanol, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel. Biofuels that fared best were those produced from waste products such as recycled cooking oil, as well as ethanol from grass or wood.
These are early days in that effort, however, and the full environmental, economic, and social impact is not fully known – as was the case when corn-based ethanol first came on the scene.
Comments
3. r. sauer | 05.11.08
Mr. Michaelis, to blame all emvironmentalists is tarring with too broad a brush. Environmentalists locally and even some local politicians have voiced muted concerns about the efficacy of corn based ethanol. I live less than a half a mile from one such plant in a rural corn growing area. We are waiting for irrefutable proof of corn based ethanols poor environmental and economic performance. Just controversay will not convince either the politicians or the farmers this is not a great idea. Use of corn stover and other cellulosic materials will eventually just be another stop gap measure but probably a better one than the present. We need to add carbons to the chain to develope total substitutes for oil if we are going to continue to rely on the internal combustion engine, to say nothing of fertilizers and other products.
4. Don Heichel | 05.12.08
Watched a CNBC panel discuss corn feedstock ethanol and the worst they could claim was “UP TO” one-third of price increase in food is from ethanol. Seems to me the focus of the panel should have been on the other two-thirds of the problem.
Perhaps a search on the internet for the feedlot at Mead, Nebraska will show you something you’ve not considered…after distilling the ethanol the mash contains all nutrients except sugar and is fed to the cows; the cow **** is decomposed in a manner that produces organic fertilizer and methane; the methane is used to distill the ethanol. I’m very impressed by this use of the obvious, why can’t others figure this out?
By the way, more than 80% of corn grown in this country is fed to livestock; grow up and stop whining about the affects of a growing middle class in India, China and other places, rising fuel prices and crop failures, etc. on food prices. Do YOU feel secure importing 60% of your oil needs?
Re non-food feedstock ethanol, visit rangefuels.com and click on the ethanol 101 tab: you’ll find a very different set of numbers from the U.S. Dept. of Energy and also debunk ethanol myths currently promoted by mass media.
All the other players in non-food ethanol are doing pilot plants; Range Fuels is doing the actual plant!!
Check it out and remember, in the oil markets just shifting the direction of the supply/demand trend will have a big impact on prices; YOU would do well to search the history of failed cartels and realize the way to kill OPEC is by using less petrol.
My flex-fuel vehicle is just waiting until an E-85 station opens in Santa Cruz; funding both sides of the war on terror is just not my style! YOU may continue to send the Sheiks your money, but I’m supporting American fortunes and jobs with all the ethanol I need ASAP.
5. teri | 05.23.08
Priority #1 is conservation (Dick Cheney notwithstanding, but when was he right about anything?) The only energy source that is as energy-dense as oil is nuclear, and although pebble bed reactors are a huge improvement, there’s still the serious health and environmental problems of mining, refining, and waste storage.
We really need to re-think our oil-dependent culture. There are so many ways to save energy, but they require behavioral change, some minor, like turning off lights, not using disposables, and consolidating shopping trips rather than running out every time you need something. Some will be mid-sized: buying a more fuel efficent car, looking at the solar orientation of your house and making modifications to insulation, windows, and eaves. Some of them will be big: How far do I want to live from the nearest store? Can I make a living without commuting? How much of my own food can I, or do I want to, grow?
Some will be on the national level: Are local rail and trolly lines an efficient way to go? Should they be private or publicly owned? What about regional lines? Which types of alt energy should be funded with grants or supported with tax credits? Should suburban farmers receive incentives to farm, rather than sell to developers, in order to reduce transportation costs for food for the cities?
1. Paul Michaelis | 05.09.08
This situation is once again the product of environmental extremists who push concepts without doing their homework. They are aided and abetted by the pandering politicians who fire off “solutions” once again without doing their homework. Anyone with one ounce of intelligence would question the process of converting food based commodities into fuel. And, our legislators rub salt in the wound by placing a government subsidy on top of the situation.
Just when are our “intelligent” lawmakers going to apply life cycle considerations before committing our nation to massive programs or any programs for that matter? The intellectual conceit of our lawmakers is beyond belief, to think that they because of their positions of power they possess all the answers is incomprehensible. Their staffs, who in all likelihood write these bills, are equally as guilty of not seeking verifiable intelligent information from relevant sources. Asking just one commodities broker about the implications of using food stock for fuel would have raised red flags all over Washington. A pox on all their houses for setting this nation on another fool’s errand, this is worse than the addition of MTBE to the fuels in order to eliminate lead compounds.