About six months after I started at NBR, the president signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law. Among other things, the bill created a renewable fuels standard that would require a certain amount of ethanol be produced each year, peaking at 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels in 2012. Bush then upped the ante in 2007, raising the peak to 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 (15 billion of that being corn-based fuel).
That's a lot of ethanol.
There was boom in companies willing to produce it. But as it turns out, producing corn-based ethanol isn't the problem. Being able to use it is.
In a classic case of "too much, too fast," the industry ramped up rapidly, only to get whacked with a spike in commodity prices, a flailing economy and falling oil prices that made ethanol uneconomic for many producers and uncompetitive for most consumers.
So we have a lot of corn-based ethanol -- more than is even required by the federal mandate -- and not enough to do with it.
And remember how ethanol was being sold as an eco-friendly alternative to oil? Well...now information is coming to light that casts doubt on that argument. Whether it's the coal used in the distillation process at some ethanol plants or the indirect effects on global warming by repurposing land for corn growth, corn-based ethanol may not be the environmental winner we once thought it was.
So is the industry doomed? Not necessarily. We still have a renewable fuels mandate that, unless repealed, requires us to produce about 10 billion gallons of renewable fuel (e.g. ethanol) this year. Scientists are also still working furiously to develop cellulosic ethanol (that is, ethanol made from wood chips, switchgrass and other plant sources), and if they are able to do so, the corn ethanol producers already in business are in a plum position to transition their plants.
But with oil still hovering around $60 a barrel, it's unclear when ethanol will be competitive in the marketplace. Perhaps biofuels will be a part of solving the energy problem, but I think we're going to have to look at a broader range of options if we're going to crack this nut.
Comments
Dear Dana Bate, there have been very advanced projects in cellulosic ethanol already up and running. Three of those include the York, Nebraska pilot plant designed by SunOpta BioProcess as well as the Verenium pilot and demonstration-scale plants in Louisiana. Those facilities also use SunOpta BioProcess' process. Quite clearly, industry professional have realized that biomass pretreatment is a major key to unlocking the value streams in cellulose and that is where the profitability lies. With $15 billion per year coming over the next ten years, the first 200+ cellulosic biorefineries will need to come on line as federally mandated levels of advanced fuels need to be met. Most critical are the three federally funded BioEnergy Centers in California, Tennessee and Wisconsin. These are the facilities that will work with major blue chip companies to bring down costs even more and establish the industrial partnerships that will move this industry forward. While there are a lot of projects getting a lot of press right now, the projects using industrially proven processes and those that have key partnserhips and funding will be the ones that succeed. Above all, the technological factor behind techniques is where the profitability lies and the smartest investors will only fund those projects that can offer economically competitive production when compared to subsidized fossil fuels.
“Indirect Land Use Change”, is an unproven theory riddled with false assumptions, introduced by an attorney. Thousands of scientists have scoffed at it.
Apparently, it’s OK to clear-cut domestic forests for lumber and paper pulp, and to consume forests and farmland for urban sprawl, interstate highways, copper mines, coal strip mines, huge oil sands pits, etc. – because nobody is blaming these activities for deforestation. Indirect Land Use Change theory falsely blames biofuels, because they threaten the replacement of petroleum based fuels and the lucrative oil monopoly.
Indirect Land Use Change theory is defective. What was omitted is that every acre of U.S. field corn, used to make ethanol, also produces roughly 50 bushels of high-protein distillers grain animal feed. This is used to produce food. On the other end, in Brazil, if an acre of land is used to produce soybeans, only 20% of that acre of soybeans would be the oil pressed from the bean. And the use of that oil would be pro-rated 2 to 1 between cooking oil and biodiesel. The remaining 80% of that soy crop goes to high-protein animal feed that produces food. Searchinger followers falsely claim that the entire acre of corn or soybeans goes to biofuel.
Nobody is starving because we’re taking only the starch from 1 out of 4 bushels of the feed corn crop, which is not suitable for human consumption. We have a surplus of corn and soybeans. You can buy corn for example anywhere in the world for 7 cents a pound. That is, if you can afford the shipping cost, which fluctuates with commodities speculation and the price of crude oil. Next time oil goes over $120 a barrel, ship a ton of corn from Iowa to South Africa, and see what happens to the price. Even if the price of corn doubles, compare that to the long-distance shipping cost, which could triple or quadruple the original cost of the grain.
I’ve got news: Indirect Land Use Change theory has been invalidated. During the past few years, the rate of rain forest deforestation has actually gone down, while biofuels production has gone up. The ravenous paper pulp industry in Indonesia, and the illegal hit and run timber taking in the Amazon Rainforest are the origins of deforestation, not biofuels. Palm plantations are another factor in Indonesia, however, over 70% of palm oil is used for human consumption, not biofuels. The majority of rainforest that has been destroyed in the Amazon, is being used for cattle ranching and subsistence farming, not biofuels. This has been going on for decades, long before biofuels expanded. See “Deforestation Debunked”, by Jackie Helling. Green Peace reports the same findings.
The vast majority of corn ethanol plants are run on natural gas, not coal. And the trend is to replace natural gas with renewables. Several plants have already done this. They’re using biogas, biomass, and wind. Corn ethanol production is evolving rapidly. It is now about a 2 to 1 return on energy in vs energy out. And a lot of new cutting edge technology is in the works. We will have a second generation corn ethanol that will rival cellulosic ethanol. “Framer’s Ethanol” has an advanced system of integration that is going to change the way ethanol is produced. Algae production may also be integrated into corn ethanol refineries, mitigating the corn ethanol waste stream: CO2 waste, waste heat, and nutrient-rich waste water effluent.
Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are derived from “recycled CO2” which is already in the air. That’s what sets them apart from petroleum based fuels. Biofuels also release far less particulate soot.
In contrast, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, heating oil, kerosene, and bunker fuel – all extracted from crude oil – are constantly bringing-up new CO2 from deep underground. Thus, fossil fuels are causing additional CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere. Biofuels are not. We fail to credit the footprint of biofuels for replacing “newly mined CO2” with “recycled CO2”. These two types of CO2 belong in two different categories.
Ethanol will become more useful as more vehicles are on the road that can use it. We need only look to Brazil to see how domestic ethanol can be used to achieve liquid fuel independence. All new vehicles may soon be required to be flex-fuel. However, there are “Ethanol Optimized” engines in the works that go well beyond the performance of flexi-fuel. Ricardo has an “ethanol optimized” engine with all the torque of a diesel, that gets better gas mileage on ethanol than it gets on gasoline. This is made possible because ethanol has 25% higher octane than regular gasoline and a much faster flame speed, eventhough it has about 30% less btu’s. In Stockholm Sweden, Scandia is replacing diesel busses with ethanol optimized busses, because they’re cleaner, more powerful, and capable of running on localized renewable fuel.
Did you know that ethanol is still combustable when mixed 50-50 with water? “MicroFueler” has a grid-buster generator-set that converts 3 kilowatts worth of ethanol - mixed half and half with water - into 23 kilowatts worth of electric power – from $1 a gallon automated ethanol in your back yard.
We also have reformers that convert ethanol-water into hydrogen, and direct ethanol fuel cells being developed that are twice as efficient as diesel.
One of the bloggers above makes a false claim about the cause of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Corn may be a contributing factor, but certainly Not totally to blame. Nitrate Fertilizers are applied to many many other crops, besides corn. It’s also applied to the corn we eat, but I suppose that’s OK. Dead zones also cause algae blooms in rivers and streams, even where corn is not grown. That’s because there are numerous other sources of Nitrogen-Phosphorus run-off, such as sewage disposal plants and septic systems, hog farms, dairy farms, poultry farms, feed lots, and industrial factories to name a few. Ethanol is being falsely blamed by a lot of mis-informed people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
In my opinion there are several steps to be made to get energy independent:
1) Decrease the energy usage/quality of life quotient. This can be done by insulation, usage of A class white goods, energy saving lamps, use the bike to go to school or work. Why can Europe use less energy for the same quality of life ?
2) Investment for newer technologies, which are already there, like converting all traffic light to LED technology, even here in Turkey all traffic lights are converted to LED technology. Production of flex fuel only vehicles as the alternative for plug in hybrids.
3) Promoting of all alternative fuels (which is already done), especially wind, since it is the cheapest one and also solar thermal electricity production, since the is the most sustainable (it uses raw materials, which are found everywhere), but also photovoltaic cells knowing that this cannot last forever (due to rare elements used for their production)
4) Investments for research, especially for fusion, LED technology, more efficient engines, more efficient solar cells, usage of methan hydrates, saltwater algea to biofuel etc.
5) Promoting decentralized energy production for home owners, especially solar hot water generation for houses, which is very cheap and which can also be used for heating; but also very small wind generators or solar cells for houses.
6) Investment on the oceans, since more than 70% of the earth surface are the oceans. That means much more offshore wind energy, but also biofuels from saltwater algea technology on seafarms and also natural gas from methan hydrates. But why not also saltwater resistant genetically modificated sugercane ?
7) Using cheap production technologies from other countries, like ethanol from brazil or cheap wind turbines and PV modules from China.
Best Regards.
Great story. Invention is clearly needed for the transportation sector - be it batteries - cellulosic ethanol, algae or my dream - liquid fuel from air water and energy - to get us to renewable transportation fuel. And we should be funding these approaches heavily. But in the meantime, to cut our import of foreign oil from unfriendly places, we should drill responsibly and use coal-to-liquid as a bridge - while we also study and probably deploy geoengineering to put climate change on hold and give us the time to reach Nirvana. The National Academy of Sciences under congressional mandate will probably be calling for significant funding of geoengineering. Write to me for links to the Academy activity. Somarl@msn.com
This story does not mention the environmental problems associated with the intensive use of nitrate fertilizer that is necessary to cultivate corn commercially. The nitrate use results in the release of nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than CO2) in to the atmosphere, and excess nitrate runoff has resulted in a large and growing apoxic "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.
Corn ethanol is an atrocious idea economically and environmentally, and is simply a very expensive and environmentally devastating welfare program.
Similarly, defending corn ethanol as a "bridge" to cellulosic ethanol is dishonest and a classic example of bait-and-switch. The fact is that there is no known method of producing corn ethanol commercially. If such a method is developed, then it can be implemented. Producing corn ethanol in the interim does nothing to accelerate this process.
Bio Fuels are just another way of use of Solar energy. It is inefficient and wasteful in use of land, financial and technical resources. We must remove the subsidies and watch it vanish and focus our efforts viable alternates.
Don't forget to add in the hidden cost of less miles per gallon delivered with ethanol. Nor the extra cost of your morning corn flakes. Nor the extra cost of producing ethanol, mostly good old dirty coal is used, or the oil we are trying to save. Why not approach the problem from the top down and convince people that everyone cannot drive a large SUV. And the Diesel starts at around 30% better fuel mileage, but yet we have no small diesels produced in America. Why?
We can solve the problem, but we have got to bite the bullet and quit riding around in luxury. Transportation should be to go from point A to point B, not show the world how successfull you are, or we are all going to be riding bicycles. Hey! I have four of those.
Cellulosic ethanol research is progressing rapidly with more than two dozen demonstration plants under construction or operating as July 2009. It's not a matter of if but when and if you think there is too much ethanol now just wait. The mandate for cellulosic ethanol production should be accompanied by an e-85 compatible mandate for cars sold in the US--by US companies and foreign makers too. If we (the US) are serious about reducing consumption of foreign oil then we should make sure we've got a way to use the alternative fuel we make.
Interesting story. I was just in the Heartland (Nebraska) and talked personally to a few of the corn growers. I wonder what their thoughts on this information is. They talk as if they are VERY secure growing corn for this Ethanol process, but do admit there are some interesting requirements on the horizon.
I think what strikes me the most is this idea of 're-purposing' land for ethanol based corn growing. The truth is, and I know many will want to argue with this, that the farmers in the Heartland ARE taking excellent care of this land. They grow on it year after year, and are able to sustain that effort ONLY because of what they are doing to be good stewards of the land.
If we REALLY want to get worried about something regarding the land use, we should be turning our vision towards the Organic push. AS it turns out, the carbon footprint utilized to first certify, then farm an Organic crop is nearly ten times that of the traditional farming.
Now I would ask....is THIS what we are trying to accomplish? I am a fan of Organic farming, but having BEEN to the Heartland and talked to the farmers, they tell a COMPLETELY different story about Organic farming that the one that we on the 'outer coasts' dont quite understand.
In closing - I would say that we need to invest in education ABOUT the land use, the corn growing, and the processes that are used to GET the food that feeds the US, and the world.
Just my 2 centavos....
Akiba