Food for thought

Biofuels: Fields Of Pipedreams

By Larry Bell

“Plant it and they will come.” Sure, but just when might we begin to expect those benefits; the ones promised with passage of costly federal legislation such as the Renewable Fuels Act (2005) and the Biofuels Security Act (2006)? We’re still waiting for some sign of taxpayer and consumer paybacks — or perhaps at least some hopelessly die-hard optimists are.

There is some indication that many members of Congress are beginning to join the pessimist camp. Last June the Senate sent a strong message to the U.S. ethanol industry in the form of an overwhelmingly bipartisan 73-27 vote as part of an economic development bill to eliminate its $6 billion of annual tax credit subsidies, along with foreign ethanol import tariffs. The House also voted 283-128 to bar public spending on special blender pumps and tanks necessary for higher ethanol concentrations — support the ethanol lobby has been seeking to replace tax credits and tariffs. Although bills providing such bans are unlikely to overcome White House vetoes, these sentiments may signal a different outcome when the current ethanol subsidy expires on December 31.

Ethanol refiners and other advocates typically cite energy independence as a compelling argument for the massive subsidies. Unfortunately, any notion that we can ever fuel our way towards energy security by planting waving fields of grain is seriously misguided.  Those who would have us believe otherwise grossly exaggerate potential capacities and ignore unpleasant consequences Both deceptions are prevalent in marketing hype that tells us what we might really wish to believe, namely that biofuels offer Earth-friendly, sustainable fossil alternatives that can wean us away from our “oil addiction.” Unfortunately, this is not the case.

For starters, let’s focus on corn ethanol (more commonly known as grain alcohol), since it is currently the only domestically-produced commercial biofuel. It really isn’t renewable at all when you consider that nearly as much fossil fuel-generated energy is required to produce it as it actually yields.

Then consider the land use requirements. An attempt to produce enough ethanol to replace gasoline altogether would require that about 71% of all U.S. farmland be dedicated to energy crops. By way of illustration, let’s just think about brewing all of our present U.S. corn production into 180-proof grain alcohol. That would displace, at most, about 14% of the gasoline we presently guzzle.

About 35% of the estimated 4.6 billion bushels of all U.S. corn grown this year will be consumed by the ethanol industry, producing nearly 14 billion gallons of alcohol. Congress has mandated that ethanol blended into U.S. gasoline will increase to 35 billion gallons per year by 2022. This will require that crop land dedicated for this purpose be expanded from 88 million acres now to about 233 million acres (slightly more than half of our 461 million acres total crop land to meet about 7% of our total automotive fuel needs).

Since U.S. farmland is scarce and expensive, each additional acre of corn used to produce ethanol is one less that is available for other crops such as soybeans and wheat, which have seen price increases of more than 240% over the past five years. This, in turn, produces a ripple effect that raises costs of meat, milk, eggs, and other foods with both national and international consequences. Since U.S. farmers provide about 70% of all global corn exports, even small diversions for ethanol production have produced high inflation levels in America and shortages abroad.

Cellulosic ethanol produced from switch grass and other low maintenance plant materials wouldn’t compete nearly as much for land needed for food crops, but has proven to be far more difficult to process than promoters have suggested. The generous government subsidies we have provided haven’t succeeded in nudging them anywhere close to commercial viability.

Ethanol also competes with people and livestock for water — lots and lots of water. It requires about 4 gallons of water to make one gallon of alcohol fuel. This is in addition to other water that production facilities typically recycle. Many Corn Belt regions where distillers are sited, particularly in the Midwest and the Great Plains, have already begun to experience significant water supply problems. Agricultural irrigation along with cattle feed lots located near the plants to take advantage of the co-product distillers grain add to local water demands. Consequently, aquifers in many areas are being depleted faster than they can recharge.

There’s also a big water pollution problem. Ethanol mandates are prompting more and more corn to be planted on land that is poorly suited for agriculture, causing erosion and pesticide runoff to infiltrate groundwater and aquifer resources. Rather than rotating corn planting with soybeans to replace soil nitrogen, many farmers are planting corn year after year and adding large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. On average, about 30 pounds/acre of each 140 pounds/acre of nitrogen fertilizer leaches away and runs off into creeks, lakes and aquifers.  Even more runoff occurs when corn isn’t rotated with other crops because the soil develops clumps requiring more tilling that loosens it, resulting in more erosion. Some of that polluted runoff winds up in drinking water, posing special health problems for children and pregnant women.

And, unlike fossil fuels, wasn’t biofuel supposed to be “green.” Actually, it’s a lot browner than advertised. Even though ethanol fuel may produce marginally less CO2 emissions than gasoline does (in case you really care about that), this doesn’t account for the CO2 emissions released during corn planting, fertilizing, harvesting and distilling, which on balance, pretty much nullifies any difference. Burning ethanol also releases large quantities of nitrogen oxide (smog) that causes respiratory disease.

In fact there is growing evidence that biofuels may actually release more CO2 emissions than conventional petroleum-based petroleum does.

As reported in the journal Science, “Corn-based ethanol…instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years.” This is because big biofuel markets encourage farmers to level forests and convert wilderness areas that serve as CO2 sinks into farmlands.

Ethanol transportation imposes additional difficulties and costs. Unlike oil and natural gas, it can’t be moved through existing pipelines because it readily absorbs water and various impurities. Instead, it must be transported by truck or rail, either of which is more expensive.

Then there’s an ultimate problem with E-10 and greater ethanol blends, namely that they are lousy fuel. In addition to absorbing water, eating up fiberglass boat fuel tanks and rubber fuel line gaskets, clogging up valves and totally destroying small two-cycle engines, they deliver poor efficiency. (Trust your mechanic on these matters, not what you here from the Renewable Fuels Association trade organization.) Since the energy density is about one-third less than that of gasoline, more must be burned to produce the same amount of power, translating into reduced gas mileage per gallon.

So what about those promised benefits for us taxpayers and consumers? You may have surmised by now that we’re being hosed at the pump. According to a January 2010 Rice University Baker Institute for Public Policy study , the government spent $4 billion of our money in subsidies during 2008 to “replace” about 2% of our gasoline supply at an average taxpayer cost of $82 per barrel. That amounted to $1.95 per gallon on top of the average gasoline retail price.

It is high time to realize that ethanol alcohol clearly isn’t the big renewable and clean energy solution it was brewed up to be.