Earlier this month a group of senators including Barack Obama (D-IL), Joe Biden (D-DE), and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation, titled
the BioFuels Security Act, to increase the use of corn-based ethanol production in the U.S. (here). Though the proposed legislation was ostensibly introduced to reduce dependence on foreign oil, biofuels are often cited within the clean energy community as a solution to global warming. Just a reminder, but as much greenhouse gas is released in producing corn ethanol as is saved in replacing gasoline by ethanol (here). Not only does ethanol not reduce GHG emissions, but its production introduces a host of problems. Currently, the U.S. is on the path to use over half of next year’s corn harvest for fuel ethanol. This would lead to an unprecidented rise in global grain prices. While those of us living in the industrialized world may not notice a 10% increase in the price of a loaf of bread, the world’s 2 billion poorest people struggling to survive most certainly will.
The proponants of large-scale corn-to-ethanol production are guilty of using the rhetoric of fighting global warming to push legislation that will do no such thing. We in the clean energy community community should not let them speak in our name. For more on this topic, check out a recent NY Times article (here) and directly to the report they reference, one I helped write, (here).
word joe.
it looks to me as though the clean and just energy movement is building a big push for just that, clean and just energy, but other forces are quickly acting to subvert that energy into promotion for bio-energy which is anything but. be on the lookout! fight it fight it fight it!!
Check Energy Justice’s ethanol page for the low down on this dirty fuel.
As an environmentalist I am disappointed by how ardently other environmentalists dismiss ethanol. I do not believe that anyone in bio-energy sector, be it ethanol or biodiesel, believes that corn ethanol is the be all end all of alternative fuels. It is however what we have to work with right now, and will help to build the infrastructure to move away from gasoline and diesel and build infrastructure for other better fuels.
But my more substantial concern with your post is what I consider to be a gross misrepresentation of Michael McElroy’s study on ethanol. He states:
“we conclude that the energy balance for corn produced ethanol is marginally positive: the energy captured in the ethanol is greater than the fossil energy employed in its production by about 20-30%”
This means that the amount of fossil fuel energy that goes into producing ethanol is greater than the amount that it removes from the atmosphere by 20-30%, ie there is a GHG reduction, or offset, occuring.
Moreover, he closes with the following:
“Creative public policy initiatives may be required to ensure a level playing field for ethanol and may be justified ultimately by considerations of the implications for global security and for the health of the global environment”
I am not trying to dismiss the drawbacks of using a food staple to produce fuel, there are obvious concerns surrounding that issue, but in my opinion it is as irresponsible to dismiss ethanol altogether as it is to call it a cure all.
I misspoke…I meant to say that the fossil fuel energy that goes into producing ethanol less than the amount it removes from the atmosphere, creating a positive net energy balace as is supported by the quote above.
I should proofread.
Professors from Cornell and UC Berkeley state that ethanol is not a realistic replacement for our oil addiction. Even if the entire corn crop were used, ethanol would replace only 6% of US petro consumption. Furthermore, their information contradicts the affirmation that ethanol production yields a positive energy balance: 29% more fossil fuel energy is necessary to produce one gallon of corn ethanol than is actually contained in the fuel.
(see the editorial from The American Institute of Biological Sciences: http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-editorials/editorial_2006_11.html)
I’ll reiterate Joe’s comment that ethanol has baggage: the externalities that come part and parcel with government-subsidized chemically-intensive agriculture in monoculture format, including topsoil erosion and use of scarce freshwater. Matt’s link provides more insight (thanks!).
One may say that ethanol is an option and it should be included in a transition from oil. But why lay the groundwork for an industry plagued by numerous negative side effects? Sounds like a mis-use of research, development, time and money. And as Mother Earth is illustrating to us, time is not our side. I’d rather see government and industry put eggs into developing infrastruture and technology for renewable clean energy that can sustain us for the long haul.
I hope my governor, Schwarzenegger, is reading this! He’s supposed to “ask regulators to require the state’s petroleum refiners and gasoline sellers to cut by 10 percent the emissions of heat-trapping gases associated with the production and use of their products” but that “The 10 percent cut in emissions would be accomplished, experts said, largely through the use of alternative fuels, like ethanol …”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/us/10calif.html?ex=1169442000&en=30fd86791789aa15&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Nina, I appreciate your response.
My concern now, however, stems from the study you refer to by Pimentel and Patzek. Although it is the most often reffered to by the media it is by no means the only one to consider (although it is the only one that concludes ethanol has a negative net energy balance); moreover, the article that Joe links to above actually refutes their study, pointing out their almost laughable inclusion of the food farm laborers consumed while working into the “net energy balance” of corn ethanol. Also, I am pretty sure that Tad Patzek used to work for Shell Oil.
My point about creating infrastructure has to do with advances that are being made in the bio-fuel sector, not that the infrastructure should be completely obsolete once we make technological advances, but that it would be the framework for better fuels as they become available.
None of the renewable technologies we have right now could erradicate our addiction to oil completely, but used together, along with conservation efforts, they absolutly will make a dent.
Why is there this short-sightedness regarding ethanol and biofuels? Why aren’t we holding ourselves to rigourous and thorough research, esp from people who do it for a living?
Why close the door on ethanol before really understanding it?
As young people we are responsible for setting standards within this movement.
Thanks for your responses to the post I published last week. I just wanted to take a moment to respond to some comments and clarify some things.
First, for a comprehensive literature review on the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of ethanol, I’d recommend a study by NRDC: http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/ethanol/ethanol.asp. They conclude that the average EROI for corn ethanol is between 1.3-1.6. Also, they discuss the Pimental & Patzek studies and explain why their conclusions are so different from the general conclusion within the literature (different, more comprehensive but somewhat questionable energy inputs). Though the EROI for ethanol is positive, it’s only relevant compared to the EROI of the fuels it replaces.
Cutler Clevend, who’s an expert on energy economics addressed the EROI issue saying, “The litmus test is not energy break-even, but what the EROI of ethanol is compared to the conventional fuels that have powered the evolution of human society for the past two centuries. The EROI for conventional oil and gas extraction is at least 10-15…An economy supported by such energy system would be all together different than today’s economy—many of us would be growing corn or working in an Archer Daniels Midland ethanol plant.” (at his blog, http://www.energybrowser.com/).
Also, as Murphy mentioned and McElroy touches on in his article, EROI is not interchangeable with GHG emissions.
Though in general, I agree that few people are advocating ethanol as a be-all, end-all fuel, it must be judged in relation to other technologies that exist to shift our global economy off of fossil fuels. Our investments and government subsidies would be better spent on bringing cellulosic ethanol technology online or in developing an infrastructure for hybrid-electric vehicles powered by renewable energies like wind and solar power – real solutions rather than approximations of one.