All Biofuel Politics Are Global
Biofuel policy in Washington these days has gotten too far off course. Ethanol opponents are hard at work trying to shift focus to the alleged impacts of American ethanol use on the decisions of farmers, ranchers, loggers, developers and governments half the world away, despite scant evidence to suggest any relationship exists.
The flaws of this approach, which I have outlined numerous times in this space threaten to impede the development and evolution of America's clean-burning renewable fuels industry. But as is the case during any storm, there is a silver lining in these otherwise ominous clouds.
By focusing on international developments that may or may not have any relationship to American ethanol production, official Washington has created the opportunity for farmers and biofuel producers all over the world to stand up and speak with one powerful voice. Worldwide ethanol production has made a significant difference in the economic marketplace and the environmental arena. The OPEC oil cartel hates ethanol because it eats into their domination and excess profits. Every gallon of gasoline not consumed in favor of ethanol means 50% to 60% fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
In discussing ethanol, we need to remember that in a world economy dominated by oil, no country has been able to get an ethanol industry going without significant government assistance. The United States and Brazil are case studies in point.
Renewable fuels have only taken hold in countries such as the U.S. and Brazil that have created and sustained programs to encourage its production. These incentives have included tax advantages, tariffs, export enhancement, debt forgiveness, infrastructure development and outright subsidies. It is important that countries be allowed to create similar programs, and grow their own biofuels industries, using whatever indigenous raw materials are available to them.
The model that the U.S. and Brazil have utilized is now helping farmers and biofuel producers in Canada and countries all across Europe, Africa, and Asia. They are developing infrastructure and deploying biofuel technologies making them more energy secure while addressing economic and environmental concerns brought on by a dependence on imported oil. Sweden, for example, is shifting vodka distilleries to ethanol production and increasing its fleet of E-85 vehicles.
Many of these industries are at a vulnerable phase in their development. Even in more advanced industries in the U.S. and Brazil, unproven theories such as indirect land use change threaten to slow and even halt the development of next generation biofuel technologies that hold so much promise to reduce oil demand and mitigate climate challenges posed by oil dependence.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has stated biofuels are the only non-fossil fuels helping to reduce oil demand. Merrill Lynch has reported biofuels are keeping world oil prices 15 percent lower than they otherwise would be.
We know that the major cause of global warming is greenhouse gas emissions. And we know that the major source of carbon dioxide is fossil fuel combustion -- which mostly means running cars, trucks and other vehicles with petroleum products, such as gasoline. This is where biofuel shines.
Researchers from the University of Nebraska have reported, compared to gasoline, today's ethanol reduces direct greenhouse gas emissions between 48 percent to 59 percent. And while we may have some issues with EPA's recent assessment of ethanol's carbon footprint, even that Agency has acknowledged that ethanol produced from grain in the U.S. using natural gas to run the plant will have direct carbon benefits of more than 60%!
Biofuel production and environmental stewardship are directed at the same goal. Current technologies as well as future evolutions provide both a short term bridge as well as a long term foundation for the growth of a diverse biofuels industry. Such growth can and should be done in a manner consistent with stated environmental goals.
Likewise, similar technology improvements mean biofuel production and food production not only coexist, but are often one and the same. Ethanol production from grains yields a nutrient-rich livestock feed that when fed to cattle can actually help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Together with the growth potential of crop yields around the world, agriculture can continue to feed the world and help provide energy solutions.
The enemy of policymakers and environmental advocates ought not be industries trying to replace imported oil with its heavy carbon footprint. Our collective enemy is the status quo. The global biofuels community is committed to tackling the economic, environmental and energy challenges facing all of us.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
GASOLINE = FUNDING OUR ENEMIES, POLLUTING THE PLANET & NATIONAL INSECURITY
ETHANOL = RENEWABLE CLEAN ENERGY, SUSTAINABLE GROWTH & DOMESTIC JOBS
Why? use land for food clothing and wood,
Then BioChar it into green energy, fuel and carbon Soil Enhancement.
Waste BioChar can take the ENTIRE output of the land and the sea, let us use it, then reuse it.
We can have our cake and eat it to.
add rooftop solar, and can supply the world energy needs
Forever.
read my profile for details.
Okay lets keep it simple.
Ethanol=STARVING THE POOR
Correction:
Ethanol = Renewable, sustainable & clean burning fuel to run our vehicles - while at the same time providing superior animal feed (when made from corn) to help feed all people around the world.
If we put every single square in of cropland in America into ethanol production it would cover only a small fraction of our liquid fuels budget.
Renewable? Only if you leave out all the petroleum it takes to grow it.
Clean burning? We have known for decades how to burn any fuel worth burning cleanly if we want to.
Sustainable? Only to the extent that massive scale petro based monoculture agribusiness is sustainable, which is to say UNSUSTAINABLE.
Are you serious? you cannot have the cow eat the corn and still use it for ethanol.
With BioChar BioOil you can.
1. energy conversion ratio is questionable
It takes a lot of oil to make corn ethanol. -oil to run the tractor, oil to heat the distillery, etc.--- the green side says that it takes almost as much energy to make the ethanol as we end up getting from it. Supporters claim much higher conversion ratios.
2. subsidies
Ethanol requires subsidies because it is not as cheap as oil -- this suggests that the environmentalists are right about the conversion ratio. The stuff is not cheap because you have to use so much oil to make it.
3. collateral damage
Row crops like corn permit much higher topsoil loss thru erosion than pastures or forest. Silt, pesticides, and fertilizer wash off the fields and cause problems in rivers and estuaries. The "dead zone" off the Mississippi is growing, thanks to more row crops. In the last 50 years some estuaries along the Gulf Coast have been silted over, covering eel grass with 10 inches of mud, as timber land was converted to corn and soy.
4. externalized cost, private profits
The collateral damage is not repaired by the producers. They have externalized some of the cost of their production, just like any other polluter.
If you think oil don't get tax breaks, or subsidies, dream on. You won't see ethanol plants with off shore company to filter money thru so they won't have to pay taxes. It only takes 3 gallons of water pre gallon of ethanol produced. Unless you are counting what mother nature has dropped. Biomass is not cost effective right now, but with technology it will be. If you look back, they sure did not make moon shine out of wood, it was corn. To me they broke the ground for what is today, just more finely tuned.
Good article. Corn ethanol has a 1:1.7 or better return on energy invested (Argonne National Lab study & others). Gasoline has a negative return on energy invested. I don't know about you, but if someone could give me $1.70 back for every dollar I gave them - I would be extremely happy with that arrangement.
Indirect land use theories are the last bit of mythology thrown out there by oil interests with deep pockets...
The fact is we use almost 90% of our corn crop to feed cattle & other livestock. Cattle do not process the starch of corn since they do not have the enzymes to break it down. Remove the starch (ferment into alcohol) and feed the left over mash (distiller grain) to the cattle - the cattle use the proteins and fats of the distiller grain efficiently. The cattle get a superior feed and we get a much superior fuel to use in our vehicles.
These claims are, again, not correct. Corn ethanol does not have a "1:1.7 or better return on energy invested", it has a positive return on FOSSIL FUELS invested (and 1:1.7 only in the most favorable cases). If one counted the (renewable) energy in the feedstock -- just as the life-cycle analyses count the energy in the feedstock" (crude oil) in making gasoline -- corn ethanol would have a worse return on energy than gasoline. That is an important distinction, because other studies have shown that, in terms of energy return, it would be much more efficient to burn the corn directly (not that I am necessarily advocating that) -- for direct heat or for electricity -- than to turn it into ethanol.
Out in NM and CO sometimes you can run into people burning feed-grade corn in a pellet stove for home heat.
It feeds down into the stove just like the pellets and in some areas it can be cheaper per ton. There is probably more heat in the corn because it has more oil than the sawdust-based wood pellets.
So you want to count the solar energy stored in the plants (and contained in the alcohol) and say that it takes more energy to make it than you get out of it. Again, that is the whole point! We are harnessing the FREE energy from the sun when you burn alcohol. The CO2 & H2O that was combined during photosynthesis using the power of the sun to make the starch...t
Ethanol = Liquid Solar Energy...c
Gasoline = Poison, NonRenewable & Unsustainable
Who let this piece of propaganda into print?
The EROI on corn ethanol is barely 1.1, before factoring in the costs of transportation. Biofuels are a feasible alternative to gasoline, but corn ethanol is not. Period. The only reason it has any traction in the US is because of the power of the agribusiness lobby.
My thoughts exactly.
BS PR!
Ethanol is terribly inefficient versus BioChar.
The huge advantage of BioChar is that you can use WASTE, not crop land.
Use land for Food, clothing, wood. Recycle it. then
When it is beyond usefulness: Convert it to fuel, energy and carbon negative charcoal.
See my profile for details.
Utter BS. Ethanol is a product that only a corporate lobbyist could love. Displacing food production is only part of the problem; a more urgent (though long term) problem is the water resources diverted to raising fuel crops. Seems to me it's something in excess of 500 gallons of water needed to produce a single gallon of corn ethanol.
Over 85% of the nation's corn crops are irrigated by RAIN and ethanol plants use about 2-3 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol produced.
Over 85% of the corn crop goes into the inefficient process of being fed directly to cattle...t
Got a source for that figure that "over 85% of the corn crop goes into the inefficient process of being fed directly to cattle", GoldEnergy? My guess is that you made up that figure. According to USDA data http://www
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
