Ozark Sierran index  

White Lightning and Other Fuel Ideas
by Alan Journet, Conservation Chair, Trail of Tears Group

Corn fermentation and distillation have been with us for centuries; in the backwoods they produce white lightning—in the commercial distillery they produce bourbon legally required to comprise 51 percent corn. But is it a good way to solve our liquid fuel crisis? In this article, I will explore the questions that have been raised regarding this and related biofuel issues.

Most of us are concerned about our families and our future, about the lives that we, our children and our grandchildren will enjoy. We would like future generations at least to enjoy the standard of living that we enjoy. We would also like them to be able to enjoy a planet that is as rich and diverse as ours, one that is rich in biodiversity and rich in natural resources. Maybe we’d even like their planet to be richer than is ours. If this is the case, we need to focus our attention on activities that do not threaten the ecological life support system that is the source of both our standard of living (in terms of food, fiber, and ecosystem services such as the wetlands, watersheds, and forested carbon dioxide sinks) and the natural resources we enjoy when we recreate in the great outdoors.

Similarly, if we could generate clean, environmentally friendly and energetically efficient gasoline from agricultural crops where the benefits clearly outweigh the costs, we would all be delighted. Since agricultural crops are renewable they are an attractive potential source of liquid fuel if the production process can be demonstrated as environmentally sound and the environmental costs are minimal. Regrettably, however, many questions concerning fuel production from crops remain unresolved. Like many promising developments the cost/benefit analysis for ethanol from corn and biofuel from other crops have been difficult to nail down with confidence. Before we develop programs and policies that promote these products, we should be convinced that they represent a positive rather than a negative development.

Dr. David Pimentel, Emeritus Professor of Agriculture at Cornell University and Dr. Tad Patzek, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Berkeley (henceforth P&P) have offered a series of warnings regarding these fuels, questions that cannot be easily or lightly dismissed by those with a commitment to or a vested interest in one or other biofuel product. In “Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower” (Natural Resources Research Vol 14 No 1: 65–76) P&P raise a series of critical concerns that should be resolved if any of these potential energy sources are to be considered and developed. This is especially important if development is to depend, as it now does, on vast subsidies from taxpayer dollars.

Ethanol from Corn
Ethanol concerns fall into three general categories: the energetic efficiency of the production process, the environmental impact, and the ethical issue of turning cropland over to fuel production.

Energetics
This issue deals with the cost to produce ethanol balanced against the energy it releases when combusted. It makes sound common sense that a fuel is only worth developing if it releases more energy when burned that is used in producing it. If we use more energy to produce fuel than we get, the fuel product is an energy drain. In considering this equation, it is necessary to assess the energy consumed in crop production, shipping the crop to the distilling plant, and then fermenting and distilling the product. When comparing subsequent distribution to the consumer (i.e. the pump) ethanol and oil products probably balance out.

Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture suggested ethanol production provides a positive net energy, P&P cite numerous studies over two decades finding otherwise: First, the corn crop itself consumes considerable energy in labor, machinery, fuel, fertilizer, irrigation, pesticides, electricity and transport. Then, following shipment to the plant, the energy consumption again occurs in the capital energy costs of the fermentation/distillation plant and the costs of driving the process itself. In particular the steam and electricity needs of the triple distillation process required to produce the needed 99.5 percent pure ethanol and the processing of plant waste consumes considerable fossil fuel energy. The P&P analysis indicates that producing a liter of ethanol requires 6,597 kcals of energy, yet it has an energy value upon combustion of only 5,130 kcals. This amounts to a deficit of 1,467 kcal. The mathematics is simple: 28.6 percent more energy is used in generating a gallon of ethanol than is released when it is combusted. In summary: producing and using ethanol constitutes a net energetic drain on the nation.

This analysis suggests that ethanol costs more than it is worth, the cost being paid in conventional fossil fuel subsidies throughout the process. From an economic standpoint, if the cost of the $3 billion subsidy to ethanol production were added to the direct cost of production, ethanol would cost $1.24 per liter. But we must also remember that ethanol is relatively energy poor compared to gasoline: we need 1.6 liters of ethanol to equal 1 liter of gasoline. Thus, a liter of gasoline equivalent in ethanol terms would cost $1.88; which means it would cost about $7.12 a gasoline gallon equivalent to produce. If we then add profit margins respectively for the producer, distributor, and retail seller, currently ethanol fails to provide a cheap fuel alternative to gasoline.

Interestingly, P&P also point out that large corporations such as Archer, Daniels, Midland are strong proponents of the ethanol process. Is it a coincidence that these corporations are also the recipient of the huge subsidies delivered by state and federal governments? Many politicians also support the ethanol process thinking it an economic boon to farmers. However, farmer benefits are actually minimal. Calculations derived from data provided by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) indicate that the large corporations gain over $7 of taxpayer subsidy for each two cents that the family farmer gets (based on each bushel of crop processed). Could it be that politicians are receiving campaign support not only from large corporations, but also from sources such as (Corn Grower) Associations and the Farm Bureau Insurance Company that represent the interests of big agribusiness rather than the family farmer?

P&P note that since 70 percent of corn grain is currently fed to livestock, subsidizing and thus increasing ethanol production will result it enhanced competition between ethanol distillers and livestock feed processors for the corn crop; this will increase the price of corn and thus livestock products—meat, milk and egg prices will rise. As a consequence of the current subsidy and this competition, ethanol production has been estimated already to add $1 billion to the cost of beef production.

P&P also point out that ethanol currently represents only about 2 percent of the fuel utilized in the U.S. To fuel a single automobile (average 20,000 miles per year) approximately 1,000 gallons of gasoline are required. P&P used data from the ethanol proponents to calculate that replacing one third of this with ethanol would require 0.6 hectares per automobile. Since 0.5 hectares of cropland are currently required to feed each American, this means that feeding one automobile per person with ethanol, we would have to devote more cropland to ethanol corn than is currently devoted to feeding Americans—a somewhat unrealistic suggestion.

As a final note on the potential costs of relying on ethanol as a liquid fuel, it is worth noting that if 50 million hectares (approximately a third of the arable land in the country) were devoted to corn production for ethanol, only 11 percent of U.S. liquid fuel needs would be supplied.

It is worth noting that Brazil, the largest producer of ethanol in the world, primarily uses sugarcane as its source—though beets are also used. Even though sugarcane is a more efficient source for the fermentation/distillation process, in Brazil the energy balance was negative, and the industry only survived because the government subsidized ethanol by charging the public only $0.22 per liter while itself paying $0.33 per liter. Since the government no longer pays the subsidy, the consumer does through higher prices at the pump.

Environmental Impact
As P&P argue, the environmental costs of corn production are quite significant, amounting to some $0.06 per liter. Corn production causes more soil erosion than any other crop, and uses more herbicides, insecticides and nitrogen fertilizer. These, in turn, pollute groundwater, streams and rivers. Additionally, in some corn-growing areas (e.g. Arizona) groundwater is being pumped ten times faster than the aquifers recharge. These concerns lead to the conclusion that corn production is not, in some areas at least, even an ecologically sustainable agricultural crop.

Meanwhile, in the ethanol plant, environmental problems continue. The Environmental Protection Agency has already issued warnings to several ethanol plants that they must reduce air pollution emissions or be closed. Additionally, each liter of ethanol produces 13 liters of waste water; discharged into and polluting waterways with a high biological oxygen demand, the use of the public commons (waterways as sites for waste disposal) constitutes an additional public subsidy which, if controlled would increase cost to the ethanol producer.
Although ethanol is billed as a clean fuel because it releases fewer of the standard regulated pollutants such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons when compared with gasoline, both the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences report that at best it will have no effect on air quality. It could, however, make matters worse with increased emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds- major ingredients of smog.

Conflicting Studies
Although many studies have reported a negative energy balance for ethanol, some studies report a positive balance. In evaluating the discrepancies between their studies and those of ethanol proponents P&P note that other studies omit many critical energetic inputs into the process. As a result, those studies produce conclusions that are biased, and appear to favor ethanol.

The main difference is that the ethanol proponents fail to take into account significant energy costs in ethanol production. In particular, they omit the energy required to manufacture and maintain either equipment used on the farm or in the fermentation-distillation process. Even when allocated over the life cycle of the equipment, these costs are significant. Additionally, proponents assess corn production in only nine favorable states rather than all 50 as undertaken by P&P.

A by-product of ethanol production is a substance that can be used as livestock feed, (similar to Dry-distillers grains—DDG) though no one would produce feed from ethanol given that it contains a lower protein content than soybean feed, has high fossil energy costs and soil depletion consequences. While P&P estimate that the net energy from the by-product would theoretically reduce the negative energy balance of ethanol from 29 percent to 20 percent, they argue that this is a contrived unrealistic benefit. Ethanol proponents, however, eagerly add the energy composition of this by-product to the ledger to benefit their equation.

The Ethical Dilemma
At the turn of the millennium about 3.7 billion humans were malnourished, a condition that makes them susceptible to disease. Cereal grains, furthermore, comprise 80 percent of the world’s food consumption. Since 99.7 percent of the world’s food is supplied from agricultural land and global population increase has reduced per capita cropland 20 percent in a decade, a serious ethical dilemma is posed by the proposal to divert arable land from the food line to the fuel line.

Ethanol from Switchgrass and Wood
Applying similar analyses to switchgrass and wood cellulose as sources for ethanol, P&P calculate that the former provides a negative return of 50 percent and the latter a negative return of 57 percent. These values compare even more unfavorably than the 29 percent negative return of ethanol from corn.

Soybean and Sunflower Conversion to Biodiesel
Considerable attention has been given to the possibility of converting vegetable oil to a form usable in diesel engines. Indeed, the technology is sufficiently available that some enthusiasts have already made the conversion for their private automobiles. For mass production, both soybeans and sunflowers have been explored.

Although soybeans inherently contain less oil (18 percent) than sunflower seeds (26 percent), they have the energetic advantage that they do not require nitrogen fertilizer (one of the most energetically expensive inputs). Soybeans are also more productive per hectare. Additionally, the by-product of the soybean to diesel conversion is soy meal which can be used as livestock feed. Taking this credit into account, the 32 percent net loss from the conversion becomes only an 8 percent loss.

Sunflowers are less productive per hectare than either corn or soybeans. Even though the oil content is higher for sunflowers compared to soybeans, their yield is only about 50 percent. The resultant energetic cost for sunflower biodiesel is 118 percent of the energy it contains—a net loss of 18 percent.

Rainforests
Another issue associated with biofuels that receives little attention is the consequence for developing countries capable of producing usable crops (sugarcane, for example, but also palm and soy oil). This is especially problematic for those in the tropics. The Indonesian Government, for example, has already announced the development of the largest palm plantation in the world in the forested habitat of the already endangered orangutan among many other species. In short, the rush to biofuel has the potential to export environmental degradation to developing countries as they try to cash in on the ethanol fad by turning tropical forests into fuel crop zones.

Conclusion
Unlike corn, which captures and converts into usable energy (overall plants average just 0.1 percent), photovoltaic panels capture and convert some 10 percent—about 100 times more.

While it would be extremely helpful to find that the potentially renewable resource of agricultural crops could supply a significant proportion of our energy needs in an ethical and environmentally non-destructive manner, the evidence clearly argues that we need to pause and reflect. Before the promotion of ethanol or biodiesel production becomes a state or national policy and consumes yet more taxpayer funds, we should demand to learn if it is really beneficial or is it another non-solution to a serious problem. Is it merely another program that diverts taxpayer dollars to special interest groups that have bought and enjoy the ear of our politicians? Although occupants of the current White House have a profoundly depressing track record of ignoring sound science when it denies their political and philosophical views about military, environmental or human health questions, maybe an unbiased review of biofuel studies and data by the National Academy of Sciences would be a worthwhile first step—at least to educating the public.

Given the energetic and environmental questions about these products, rather than developing state and national policies that promote them, we should focus our attention on energy efficiency and conservation where vast energy savings are possible. If taxpayer subsidies are to be accorded farmers and ethanol corporations, they should be in the form of promoting greater efficiency in the corn production and ethanol processing stages, and encouraging a less environmentally damaging corn production process.

Rather than blindly jumping on the biofuels bandwagon because it suits the profit margin of a few corporations, we should focus our attention on a serious analysis and public debate of the costs, benefits, global consequences, and ethical implications. In the meantime, it is clearly appropriate that government programs and subsidies should be devoted to greater energy efficiency, greater energy conservation, and the energy sources that are genuinely renewable and sustainable, and have limited and known environmental costs. Regrettably and prematurely the Missouri Department of Agriculture will appropriate $2,700,000 from General Revenue (i.e. taxpayer) and “other” funds for the Ethanol Producer Incentive Program—a program designed solely to benefit special interests that may be costing us energy rather than generating it.

Although the most vocal proponents of ethanol are representatives of various Corn Grower Associations, it seems that, like the Farm Bureau, these organizations are representing the huge agricultural megacorporations rather than the family farmer.

Coda:
After the first draft of this article was written, there appeared yet another article (Farrell et al. January 27th 2006, Science) lauding the benefits of ethanol, and criticizing the analyses of Pimentel and Petzak. In responding to this article, Tad Patzek (personal communication) pointed out a litany of concerns in the Farrell analysis that: ignore corn grain energy as in input into the process, artificially elevate the ethanol product by including non-ethanol components, similarly reduce the energetic costs of distillation, accord an energy benefit to low quality feedstock co-products that are irrelevant to the ethanol production equation, ignore and misrepresent important literature on the subject, and seem required to produce results consistent with non-reviewed publications orchestrated by corn grower associations. Indeed, Patzek further suggests that the Farrell paper is yet another example of the new paradigm in which science become merely a tool to justify conclusions stemming from political ideology. {Pimental (personal communication), meanwhile, additionally pointed out that the Farrell paper ignores the energy costs of farm labor, reduces without documentation the energy costs of farm machinery, and ignores the environmental costs of soil erosion, water, pesticide, herbicide, and nitrogen fertilizer use. Pimentel also pointed out that lead author Farrell, speaking also in 2006, argued that while one can run a car on ethanol, producing ethanol under current technology is expensive and releases pollution and greenhouse gases, a comment that directly contradicts the message in the Science article.

It is also worth pointing out that Kevin Hassett, a resident scholar and director of economic policy at the American Enterprise Institute (one of the core neo-conservative think tanks that promotes business interests and free enterprise—and is hardly a tree-hugging liberal or progressive organization) recently posted an ethanol analysis to the AEI website entitled “Ethanol’s Big Scam, and Bush Has Fallen for It”—(http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23871,filter.all/pub_detail.asp).

Hassett noted that the Bush State of The Union Address recognized the U.S. addiction to oil by encouraging the development of more efficient alternative energy sources. But Hassett then identified the core elements of the pro-ethanol disinformation (also know as deception) lobby that ethanol: lowers our reliance on fossil fuels, helps clean the environment, and will save the family farm. Hassett also endorsed the notion that ethanol production consumes too much fossil fuel energy to justify its development, suggested that cars burning ethanol produce more pollution, and suggests that if it were as promising as proponents suggest it would be the subject of a competitive race among energy companies and would not require a subsidy. Hassett suggests, therefore, that the ongoing subsidy for ethanol production is all that is keeping it going.