The food and fuel debate to date has been too simplistic, focusing on biofuels, rather than recognizing the significant impacts of fast rising petroleum prices, increasing Asian demand for protein and grains, and weather-related events like Australian and European droughts. All commodity prices are on the rise—biofuels are a bit player.
The corn kernel is composed of starch, fiber, oil and protein. The highest value for feed is the protein. Ethanol production, on the other hand, converts the starch into fuel and in the process concentrates 100 percent of the fiber and protein into a higher value feed product called distiller’s grain. Ethanol producers sell the high-protein distiller’s grains as animal feed.
As a result, there is no diversion of the most important food component of corn (protein). Rather, it is processed and sold back into the market as a value-added feed product.
A new study by researchers from Texas A&M University concluded that the underlying force driving price changes in the agricultural industry, along with the economy as a whole, is overall higher energy costs, evidenced by $100 per barrel oil and not the price of corn or ethanol’s effect on the corn prices. The study noted that eliminating the recently passed Renewable Fuels standard would not result in significantly lower corn prices.
The price for crude oil was $20 to $25 per barrel five years ago, according to U.S. Department of Energy. Today it is above $112 a barrel. Price increases for food have less to do with ethanol or biodiesel production than they do with the nearly five-fold increase in petroleum price over the past five years. Several studies have shown that record petroleum prices, which permeate the entire food system for all types of food, have three times the food price impact as biofuels.
There is less than a nickel’s worth of corn in a box of Cornflakes, and less than two cents worth of corn syrup in a can of soda.
80 percent of the average retail price of food is added after it leaves the farm, and the foods with the highest price increases in 2007 were fruits and vegetables which have little to do with biofuels.
Corn is not the only commodity rising in price -- all farm product prices are higher. Loek Boonekamp, with the Agro-Food Trade and Markets Division of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), said in January 2008 that the surge in farm product prices would have happened without the increase in biofuel production.
An increasing standard of living in China and India, droughts in Australia and Europe, regional natural disasters/pest/diseases, increasing labor and fuel costs globally, a declining US dollar driving exports, and corporate profits at retail have all contributed to higher food costs.
The rise in corn price has reduced farmers’ dependence on federal farm programs, saving taxpayers $8 billion in farm payments.
U.S. corn acreage is no greater than it was in 1944, while corn yield has increased nearly five-fold.
2006-07 – ethanol accounted for about 17 percent of the corn supply, equal the amount exported, and there was still an 8 percent surplus.
According to the USDA Economic Research Service, the inflation-adjusted price of corn today is still cheaper than it was in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s.
Biofuels account for 4 percent or less of total worldwide coarse grains.
World food experts agree that a major key to improving world hunger is expanding local production around the world. According to the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy, “Higher commodity prices do not necessarily translate into higher food prices in developing countries. In fact, higher commodity prices could actually increase food security in developing countries by reducing agricultural dumping.”
A recent Wall Street Journal story about agricultural revival in sub-Saharan Africa states: "The rural boom has been brought about by rising global prices for farm products and low labor and land costs. Exports of vegetables, fruits and flowers, largely from eastern and southern Africa, exceed $2 billion a year, up from virtually zero 25 years ago."
Surge in Food Production Aids Millions, WSJ, January 9, 2008
As a fuel additive, ethanol changes the emissions profile of gasoline, creating a cleaner, safer motor fuel. Real-world evidence demonstrates that ethanol blending reduces municipal smog levels and cuts down on atmospheric concentrations of harmful toxins. As new technology reduces overall emissions from the US car fleet, the benefits of ethanol will become even clearer.
Ethanol is an oxygenate - a fuel additive that raises the octane level of gasoline, producing a motor fuel that burns more cleanly and completely and cutting down on emissions of carbon monoxide and other air pollutants. CO, in particular, is a major contributor to ground-level ozone (smog) formation,1 and in 1990, the federal Clean Air Act was amended to mandate that certain areas not meeting air quality standards blend oxygenates such as ethanol with gasoline in order to reduce wintertime levels of atmospheric CO. Ethanol has a proven success record on this front - according to the California Air Resources Board, blending ethanol with gasoline at a rate of 5.7% by volume reduces CO emissions by about 7.8g/vehicle/day.2 And unlike MTBE, an additive used as an oxygenate until the late 1990s when evidence emerged linking it to surface and groundwater pollution, ethanol decomposes rapidly in water and soil.3
As an oxygenate, ethanol also displaces high-octane aromatics in conventional gasoline, resulting in a reduction in soot and particulate emissions. The Renewable Fuels Association reports that ethanol can reduce tailpipe soot and particulate emissions by as much as 50% overall, with the greatest reductions being achieved in the highest-emitting vehicles.4 Given that the American Lung Association links these emissions to cancer, asthma, and heart attacks, ethanol blending can play an important role in improving public health.5
Similarly, ethanol replaces many of the toxic components of gasoline. Ethanol use decreases emissions of benzene, a hydrocarbon classified by the EPA as a known human carcinogen. Benzene accounts for about 70% of the total toxic emissions from vehicles running on conventional gasoline.6 According to the EPA's hazard summary, exposure to benzene can lead to blood disorders, including anemia, and higher instances of leukemia, as well as short-term impacts such as headache and respiratory irritation.7 Studies have indicated that blending ethanol with gasoline at a 10% rate can reduce benzene emissions by as much as 25%.8 Replacing gasoline with ethanol also reduces emissions of butadiene, a probable human carcinogen,9 and formaldehyde, a toxic air contaminant.10
Replacing conventional gasoline with ethanol blends also reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40% with current production technology, and by about 86% once production of cellulosic ethanol becomes viable.11 Given the proven link between rising temperatures in increased smog levels, reducing greenhouse gasses is an important step to improving air quality.12
Because blending ethanol with gasoline may result in increased emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx) and some hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), some critics have proposed a link between ethanol-blended fuel and increased levels of ground-level ozone (smog). Higher NOx emissions are attributable to the higher oxygen content of ethanol blends relative to conventional gasoline, while VOC emissions are generally a result of the higher rate at which ethanol-blended gasoline permeates the soft components of a vehicle's fuel system.13 Both NOx and VOCs may contribute to ground-level ozone. However, evidence linking NOx and VOC emissions directly to smog formation is inconclusive.14 Smog formation depends heavily on local weather conditions and atmospheric composition, making it difficult to establish a clear connection between the emissions profile of ethanol and deterioration of air quality.15
Additionally, modern vehicles are equipped with technology to reduce NOx emissions by automatically adjusting the oxygen content of fuels as they are burned.16 And the hydrocarbons emitted in ethanol combustion, such as acetaldehyde, are far less toxic than substances such as benzene.17 In fact, the EPA terms studies linking acetaldehyde to human health risks as "inadequate."18 The estimated increase in these VOC emissions from burning ethanol, about 1.1g/vehicle/day, is offset by a reduction in CO emissions that is seven times greater in magnitude,19 and by substantial reductions in benzene, butadiene, and formaldehyde emissions.
Studies that depict ethanol as having a negative impact on air quality are based on computer modeling of hypothetical scenarios, and are consistently out of sync with on-the-ground results of ethanol blending mandates in states and cities across the US. Recently, a study by Stanford University' Mark Jacobson sparked debate about ethanol's air quality impact. Jacobson claims that "Due to [ethanol's] ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline."20 However, Jacobson's study has been criticized by the Renewable Fuels Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council for making unrealistic assumptions and omitting crucial factors that affect real-world outcomes. For example, Jacobson assumes that all vehicles will run on ethanol in 2020, failing to account for the fact that the oldest, highest-emitting vehicles won't be capable of accepting an higher-concentration ethanol blend.21 Additionally, he focuses on the few potential emissions increases from ethanol and does not acknowledge the substantial air quality benefits, including reductions in emissions of CO, particulate matter, and many toxins.
Most importantly, Jacobson's concerns simply aren't reflected in the real-world data. For example, ozone exceedance days dropped 16% in Wisconsin after adoption of a 10% ethanol blend. California's South Coast Air Management District, one of the most polluted areas in the country, saw a 22% reduction in ozone levels after statewide introduction of E6 (a 6% ethanol blend) in 2004. Impacts have been even more dramatic in New York and Connecticut, which reduced their ozone exceedance days 68% and 48% respectively by switching from conventional gasoline to an E10 blend.22
While both critics and proponents have made much of the air quality impact of ethanol, the outcome of switching from conventional gasoline to alternative fuels may in fact be relatively minimal, considering the range of other forces that affect vehicular emissions. Chief among those forces are improvements in the overall emissions performance of the US car fleet. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter from on-road vehicles have all fallen by at least one-half between 1970, when emissions standards were first enacted, and are projected to be at least 20 times less than 1970 levels by 2020.23 As vehicular emissions contribute a smaller and smaller share to overall air pollution, the question of whether ethanol reduces or increases emissions becomes more and more irrelevant.
Weather and climate conditions can also alter the equation when it comes to air quality and automotive fuel. For example, evaporative emissions of any fuel increase in warmer temperatures, compounding the effect of a slight increase in base evaporative emissions with ethanol fuel. However, evaporation of ethanol-based fuel releases fewer ozone-forming hydrocarbons - an important consideration on hot days when ozone forms more rapidly.24 In cold temperatures, when vehicles tend to emit more CO, and concentrations of CO near ground level increase, the pollution-reduction effect of ethanol blending is all the more important.25 Fluctuations in weather and temperature render the impact of any one fuel source on air quality relatively ambiguous, and this effect illustrates the importance of continuing to develop emissions-control technology that will reduce pollution under any conditions.
Vehicles operating on ethanol-based fuel have to meet the same air quality standards as conventional gasoline vehicles, so ethanol-fueled vehicles will have to keep up with the steady overall improvements in the automotive technology. However, evidence suggests that ethanol blends will in fact remain a step ahead of gasoline when it comes to air quality. Newer vehicles, equipped with modern pollution-control technologies, will minimize evaporative emissions and maximize the air quality benefits of ethanol.26
1 Gary Whitten, "Air Quality and Ethanol in Gasoline," Smog Reyes, December 2004.
2 California Air Resources Board, "The Ozone Impact of Permeation VOC Relative to Carbon Monoxide," March 2006.
3 Renewable Fuels Association, "Ethanol Facts - Environment"
4 Renewable Fuels Association, "Ethanol Facts."
5 Brett Husley and Brook Coleman, "Clearing the Air with Ethanol," Better Environmental Solutions and Renewable Energy Action Project, March 2006.
6 Gary Whitten, "Air Quality and Ethanol in Gasoline," December 2004.
7 Environmental Protection Agency, "Benzene Hazard Summary," revised January 2000.
8 Whitten, "Air Quality and Ethanol in Gasoline."
9 Environmental Protection Agency, "Benzene Hazard Summary," revised January 2000.
10 Renewable Fuels Association, "Ethanol Facts - Environment."
11 Renewable Fuels Association, "Talking Ethanol."
12 Natural Resources Defense Council, "Statement on New Study."
13 Natural Resource Defense Council, "Unlocking the Promise of Ethanol," February 2006.
14 R. Brooke Coleman, "A Northeast Regional Biofuels Action Plan," Renewable Energy Action Project, March 2007.
15 Brett Husley and Brook Coleman, "Clearing the Air with Ethanol," Better Environmental Solutions and Renewable Energy Action Project, March 2006.
16 Natural Resources Defense Council, "Unlocking the Promise of Ethanol."
17 Renewable Fuels Association, "Talking Ethanol," April 2007.
18 Environmental Protection Agency, "Acetaldehyde Hazard Summary," revised January 2000.
19 California Air Resources Board, "The Ozone Impact of Permeation VOC Relative to Carbon Monoxide," March 2006.
20 Mark Jacobson, "Effects of Ethanol (E85) versus Gasoline Vehicles on Cancer and Mortality in the United States," Environmental Science and Technology, April 18, 2007.
21 Natural Resources Defense Council, "Statement on New Study of Ethanol (E85) Impact on Air Quality," April 26, 2007.
22 Husley and Coleman, "Clearing the Air with Ethanol"
23 Environmental Protection Agency, "Mobile Source Emissions - Past, Present, and Future," July 2007
24 Environmental Protection Agency, "Automobiles and Ozone," 1997.
25 Environmental Protection Agency, "Air Quality Effects of the Winter Oxyfuel Program," 1997.
26 Natural Resources Defense Council, "Unlocking the Promise of Ethanol," February 2006.
There is now a strong consensus among scientists: the energy output from burning ethanol as a fuel source exceeds the energy input required for ethanol production. Studies that suggest that corn ethanol has a negative net energy balance rely on outdated data, and fail to consider coproduct generation and other factors that improve ethanol’s energy efficiency. Furthermore, the energy balance of corn ethanol is steadily increasing as corn farmers and ethanol producers embrace new technologies.
In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of ethanol production and determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1.1 For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced. In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1. The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory. These figures take into account the energy required to plant, grow and harvest the corn—as well as the energy required to manufacture and distribute the ethanol.
Ethanol opponents frequently cite studies by Cornell University’s Dr. David Pimentel and Tad W. Padzek, who concluded that ethanol returns only about 70% of the energy used in its production (a net energy balance of -29%). Pimentel’s findings have been consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his methodology uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound. In a detailed analysis of Pimentel’s research, Dr. Michael S. Graboski of Colorado School of Mines says Pimentel’s findings are based on out-of-date statistics (22 year-old data) and are contradicted by USDA.2 Pimentel’s reports have also been debunked by Michael Wang and Dan Santini of the Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, who conducted a series of detailed analyses on energy and emission impacts of corn ethanol from 1997 through 1999.3 A recent study by UC scientists, published in the January, 2006 edition of Science magazine, also acknowledges a positive net energy balance for ethanol, placing the energy return at between 4 and 9 MJ/L.4
Furthermore, even the most pessimistic assessments of ethanol’s energy balance acknowledge that ethanol is an improvement over petroleum-based fuels. Using the same analytical methods employed by some ethanol critics, Michigan State University’s Bruce Dale calculates the net energy of petroleum to be -45%, compared to the -29% that Pimentel and Patzek find for ethanol. In the worst-case scenario, burning ethanol is still more energy-efficient than burning gasoline.5
“Unfortunately, his (Pimentel’s) assessment lacked timeliness in that it relied on data appropriate to conditions in the 1970’s and early 1980s, but clearly not the 1990s…With up-to-date information on corn farming and ethanol production and treating ethanol co-products fairly, we have concluded that corn-based ethanol now has a positive energy balance of about 20,000 BTU per gallon.”
- Michael Wang and Dan Santini
Two of the studies stand out from the others because they report negative net energy values and imply relatively high GHG emissions and petroleum inputs…these two studies also stand apart from the others by incorrectly assuming that ethanol coproducts…should not be credited with any of the input energy and by including some input data that are old and unrepresentative of current processes, or so poorly documented that their quality cannot be evaluated
- Farrell, et al, “Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals,” in Science 311 (January 2006).
Corn ethanol is energy efficient…Moreover, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy supplies of coal and natural gas to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel that can replace petroleum imports by a factor of 7 to 1.
- Shapouri, Duffield, and Graboski, “Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol,” 1995
Pimentel’s findings are at odds with the overwhelming majority of researchers:
Energy from ethanol is not the only result of ethanol production. Coproducts, such as distillers’ grains, gluten feed, carbon dioxide and corn sweeteners, are also created in ethanol production. This means that not all of the energy used by an ethanol plant is directed at manufacturing ethanol, and the energy output from ethanol combustion is not the only positive factor to be considered in determining the net energy balance of the ethanol production process. Because distillers grains can be burned as an energy source, there may even be opportunities for the plant to be self-powered or to export energy, resulting in an energy return of over 100%.
Ethanol producers can enhance the energy payoff from coproduct utilization by making smart business decisions. For example, some ethanol production facilities are strategically located adjacent to cattle feeders and dairies. These sites enable local marketing of distillers’ grains, thus avoiding energy intensive drying processes and reducing fuel use for transportation. As a result, these processes use significantly less energy than the industry standard, and can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40 percent compared to conventional gasoline.
The distillers grains complex represents valuable coproducts of ethanol production from corn grain. Distillers grains can provide from 35 to 40% of the total diet for feedlot cattle…With increased ethanol production, more coproducts may be generated than cattle feedlots and dairies can use. If this situation occurs, coproducts can be burned as energy sources for ethanol plant operation or exported to foreign markets.
- Cassman, et al, “Convergence of Agriculture and Energy: Implications for Research and Policy,” College of Agricultural Science and Technology, November 2006.
…the energy requirements for drying coproducts for transport as DDGS represents roughly one-third the total energy used in a typical ethanol plant. Thus, a trend toward using WDGS [wet distillers’ grains] as cattle feed is emerging because of the lower energy requirements…Transportation costs are a critical factor in considering plant location. In addition to optimizing plant location, a move toward “closed loop” ethanol plants is feasible. In this scenario, cattle are fed larger volumes of the coproducts, and cattle waste products and excess coproducts are used as fuel sources to replace a portion of the natural gas used to power the biorefinery.
- Cassman, et al, “Convergence of Agriculture and Energy: Implications for Research and Policy,” College of Agricultural Science and Technology, November 2006.
The net energy balance of ethanol production continues to improve as ethanol production becomes more efficient. One bushel of corn now yields 2.8 gallons of ethanol—up from 2.5 gallons just a few years ago. Today’s ethanol plants produce 15 percent more ethanol from a bushel of corn—and use 20 percent less energy in the process – than those of five years ago.
The energy efficiency of American farmers is also contributing to improvements in the energy efficiency of ethanol production. According to USDA statistics, U.S. agriculture uses about half the energy to produce a unit of output today than in 1950. Better corn varieties, improved production practices and conservation measures also figure into the equation. A one percent increase in corn yield raises the net energy value of ethanol by 0.37 percent.6
The future for ethanol is even brighter. Ethanol derived from cellulosic sources will offer even greater energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions. Not only are the energy inputs to grow cellulosic biomass relatively minimal, but cellulosic feedstocks will generate energy to power ethanol plants as a coproduct of production, and may even reduce energy consumption as compared to gasoline by more than 100 percent by generating excess energy to export to the power grid.7
When it comes to the benefits of ethanol production, energy balance alone doesn’t tell the entire story. Energy used to produce ethanol represents an investment in displacing nonrenewable fuels with renewable alternatives – whereas energy used to produce gasoline, for example, goes toward perpetuating the problems associated with petroleum-based fuel sources. Comparisons between ethanol and gasoline, or between any two fuel sources, are meaningless unless the important implications of petroleum substitution are considered.
For every barrel of crude oil that enters the refining process, about 0.85 barrel of liquid fuel reaches the market as gasoline. By contrast, investing a barrel’s worth of petroleum to generate energy for ethanol production yields about 20 barrels of energy-equivalent liquid fuel. Thus, by switching from gasoline to ethanol, we can extend our supplies of petroleum and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.8 Additionally, an April, 2007 report from the Environmental Protection Agency found that life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn ethanol are 21.8 percent lower than those from gasoline.9 In order to make responsible use of our energy resources, we need to calculate our return on investment not only in terms of energy in versus energy out, but also in terms of improvements in our long-term energy and climate security. Using those metrics, ethanol is a clear winner.
1 http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/files/net_energy_balance_2004.pdf
2 http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/EthanolfFuelsRebuttal.pdf
3 http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/80/31961.pdf
5 Bruce E. Dale, “Thinking Clearly About Biofuels: Ending the Silly Net Energy Controversy,” 05 February 2007.
6 http://www.eesi.org/programs/Agriculture/Energy%20Balance%20update.htm
7 http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/docs/FORUM/EthanolEnergyBalance.pdf
8 http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/020607ThinkingClearlyAboutBiofuels.pdf