NEWS: Hungry? Let Them Eat Ethanol!

CULTURE: Hungry? Let Them Eat Ethanol!

Is there anyone left who doesn’t think it’s a good idea for America to use less oil?

You could be a dirty hippy who’s just watched An Inconvenient Truth and has inspired your entire dorm to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or a hard-typing patriot who wants to reduce America’s dependence on oil imported from those Islamo-whatever places that hate us for our freedom, or an oil company executive who just wants to get in on the profitable ground floor of whatever the heck America is going to fuel our beloved SUV’s with now that gasoline isn’t hip with the kids anymore, but unless you get your kicks huffing gas fumes, the idea of replacing oil with something a little closer to home and a little less prone to cause Al Gore to load up PowerPoint seems to have caught on pretty much across the board.

The follow-up question is harder to answer: So, what do we replace oil with?

The biggest contenders for America’s Next Top Fuel Source have been biofuels. For those of you who aren’t big Willie Nelson fans, the basic concept behind biofuels is that rather than turning a finite supply of petroleum into gasoline, we take a renewable supply of plant crops such as corn, sugar cane or switchgrass and turn it into a gasoline substitute such as ethanol.

For the past 30 years or so, corn-based ethanol has been the big daddy of biofuels in the United States. The production of corn-based ethanol has been subsidized by the federal government and many state governments since the 1970s, and despite vocal protests from libertarian types and people who run companies that produce other types of alternative fuels, those subsidies have grown to around $5 billion dollars a year. This includes a rather steep tariff on ethanol imported from other countries as well as tax credits for the farmers that produce ethanol.

And when I say “farmers”, I mean “Iowa caucus voters who make Presidential candidates change their minds about ethanol subsidies” and “agribusiness corporations like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), who as the largest producer of corn-based ethanol are the largest beneficiary of federal ethanol production subsidies and spend a lot of money lobbying Congress to keep that hot, buttery subsidy money flowing”.

Most of the corn-based ethanol that’s produced in the United States is blended with gasoline to make a 90% gasoline/10% ethanol blend that used to be called gasohol and is now called “E10” because apparently you can’t actually get drunk off of it. E10 can be used to fuel standard automobile engines, and new federal fuel standards have set a production benchmark of 7.6 billion gallons of biofuels such as ethanol by 2012, so if you hate the current ethanol subsidy, gird your loins to hate it even more over the next few years.

Some of you are probably saying “Okay, fine, the government can turn corn into fake gasoline or something, but can’t you, you know, eat corn? Aren’t there hungry people out there who might want to cut in line in front of your Hummer to get in on that whole ‘corn is edible’ action?”

According to a recent survey, 47% of Americans feel that increased production of corn-based ethanol has driven up food prices and thus increased the number of Americans who face going hungry.

Of course, this survey was sponsored by the Hormel Foods Corporation, a major producer of meat-based products (and since they make Spam, I use the phrase “meat-based” about as loosely as one can). Not to imply that just because ethanol demand has increased corn prices and thus the cost of animal feed that Hormel would have any economic motives for pointing out the downsides of corn-based ethanol.

Not all of the opposition to biofuels like corn-based ethanol is based on Spam or a subscription to Reason magazine. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, called the conversion of food crops like corn and sugar into biofuels a “crime against humanity” due to the impact it could have on the world’s food supply. Ziegler suggested a 5-year moratorium on turning edible crops into biofuels, during which scientists could develop or perfect ways to turn inedible agricultural waste into fuel.

Of course, since nobody loves a cranky dispute more than scientists, the ecological benefits of biofuels are being challenged as well.

Some scientific studies, primarily those conducted by David Pimental of Cornell University, suggest that the production of biofuels such as ethanol from food crops results in a net loss of energy, meaning that it takes more energy to make the biofuels than those fuels can produce. Several other studies contradict Pimental’s findings, claiming that biofuel production is a net energy gain. The difference between the two results seems to hinge on how many factors are included in the cost of production.

Even if biofuel production does result in a net energy increase, they might wind up producing as much or even more greenhouse gasses than using gasoline. Growing crops such as the corn, canola and sugar cane used to make biofuels releases nitrous oxide (N2O) into the atmosphere, a process that’s increased through the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers and other modern agricultural methods. More nitrous oxide is released when plant-based biofuel is burned. Nitrous oxide is one of the six greenhouse gasses covered by the Kyoto Protocol as a contributor to global climate change.

The question is if replacing fossil fuels with biofuels, and thus reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions while increasing nitrous oxide emissions, would show a net benefit to our atmosphere and help curb global warming. Most scientists, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, say that switching to biofuels would reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40%. However, a recent study by chemist Paul Crutzen suggests that growing many biofuel crops actually releases up to twice as much nitrous oxide as originally estimated. This would mean replacing fossil fuels with biofuels derived from corn and canola (currently the two most popular biofuel crops in the U.S. and Europe), would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. Using sugar cane, the ethanol source of choice in Brazil, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall, but by less than some previous estimates. Since Crutzen’s conclusions are based not on studying biofuel plants but on studying the atmosphere and ice core records, some of his fellow scientists are disputing his methodology.

So while corporations try and figure out what crops to invest in, and the disparity between the wealthy and the starving continues to grow, we’ll wait for scientists to figure out what the fuck is going on and what’s the least environmentally damaging liquid to pour into an automobile to make it go vroom. I’m hoping it’ll turn out to be human blood, so I can help solve both global warming and overpopulation with my bitchin’ new vampire hot rod!

need i say more?

gimme fuel gimmee fire!

Sure. Where is the info about growing hemp for fuel? And we are working on algae as a biofuel. Cause corn is horrible for the soil.
I just don't dig the ethanol cause you get 30% less fuel mileage out of it.
Girlfriend laughed at me when I said I wanted the 'Save the planet: Kill yourself' bumper sticker.

Its is just super super stupid to have fuel and food competing for land space.

Corn is a lousy choice for ethanol production. The energy density of corn makes actual fuel yeilds much too low to be practical. Sugar cane is by far a better crop for ethanol production, but the politics of states like Iowa have us dumping billions into a process that is a net energy loss, and the import tarrifs on ethanol prevent us from getting cheap sugar cane ethanol from Brazil.

There is a lot of interesting work being done with biodiesel, especially with alge as mastererik mentioned and using agricultural waste as alluded to in the article. When we actually start growing our fuel, biodiesel seems to be a much better candidate than ethanol.

As far as the arguments against biofuels because of food concerns go, it seems kind of silly. We currently pay farmers subsidies to not grow crops to avoid depressing market values. There is more than enough food being produced to feed the world's population, the problem of hunger is one of poverty and distribution, not one of production.

the dirty, stinky hippies at Humboldt State have some ideas.

But food is fuel, we're just a little more energy efficient.

I'm all for helping out the environment, but in the end ethanol is going to be used to fuel cars right, but cars are 70% less efficient on ethanol in general causing you to buy more gas/mile driven. also you use fossil fuels to produce ethanol which make ethanol far from energy efficient. biofuels only advantage at this point is that you can regrow it whereas no one has figured out how to produce oil out of thin air. the problem is you can't make biofuels without fossil fuels so in the end you run out of one you run out of the other. get over it work on real solutions not bush's bandaids.

You mention corn and switchgrass in the same breath, as if they're basically the same thing, and they couldn't be more different.

CORN GRAIN
1. Ratio of fossil fuel inputs to ethanol energy output: 1 to 1.5 (at best)
2. Competes with food prices: yes
3. Requires high-quality, arable soil: yes
4. Requires, pesticides, fertilizer and lots of water: yes
5. Net CO-2 sequestration: negligible

SWITCHGRASS AND OTHER CELLULOSIC CROPS
1. Ratio of fossil fuel inputs to ethanol energy output: 1 to 11, and more as the process improves
2. Competes with food prices: no
3. Requires high-quality, arable soil: No. In fact, it can be used to replenish the nutrients in depleted soil. There are literally millions of acres of land on which it could thrive.
4. Requires, pesticides, fertilizer and irrigation: No. Native prairie grasses thrive over most of the continent without any help. They even serve as wildlife habitats for migratory birds.
5. Net CO-2 sequestration: significant. Unlike corn, these are perennial crops, so the roots keep the carbon in the soil even after the stalks have been harvested. Also, switchgrass can be harvested twice a year.

Before you all try to point out that cellulosic ethanol technology is "years away," well, it's not. The breakthroughs in enzymes and fermentation are happening at a dizzying pace. Several cellulosic plants will go into production in 2008. Check out the cover story from October Wired magazine. All it needs is the same financial shot in the arm that the corn farmers are getting. Even the leading Democratic candidates have learned the phrase "cellulosic ethanol." You should too.

This article does get one thing right : the corn lobby is powerful and totally full of shit. However, with a bit of research, the whole "food vs. fuel" argument totally falls apart.

People have somehow got the idea that corn (or any other grain) used for producing ethanol is lost out of the food chain. The fact is that ethanol is produced by fermenting the sugar in the grain. What's left over (spent mash) actually has more food value. It doesn't just get thrown out, it goes to feedlots and breakfast cereal mills.

C'mon science, catch up!

Is that logo from Fallout?? If so then that is the most intensely appropriate logo possible for this comment and I would like to stick a little star on your forehead.

So once again the corn lobby in America sets up one more rack of dominoes to fall over if (when?) some unforeseen catastrophe ruins corn in the future.

Put it in your livestock, put it in practically everything you eat/drink, put it in your gas tank.

Put it in your ass, Congress!

My head hurts.
Regardless of what is best, why can't something just benefit society without profit and politics getting in the way?

"For kicks, sometimes I like to go back to the late 90s issues of Wired and check out what we should have right now according to them."

Your point is well taken. In fact, I'm not a big fan of Wired, for the most part. But cellulosic ethanol is way beyond the speculative stage that most Wired articles love to fetishize. In fact they're really several years behind in finally doing a high-profile story on it.

brazil runs thier country on sugar cane ethanol.

technology is the only thing that can save us now , we have gone to far.

What they said.

I was reading an article from the local Illinois paper about how the government is still buying or paying hobby farmers (you know the Ted Turners of America with way too much $ and land to know what to do with) for the crops or to pay to stop farming.

We're efficient enough to feed everyone with food left over, but again using fossil fuel to make ethanol is

Go see the documentary film "Who killed the electric car" very interesting.

It was the Stonecutters.

isn't nitrous oxide laughing gas though? Couldn't we all use a little more laughter?

Did I miss the part of this article where Uncognitive was saying that corn and switchgrass were the same? Did I miss where he said that corn was a better alternative?

Im from Iowa, so ive kept up just a bit. Im not going to say corn ethanol is the best. it simply isnt. but the food vs. fuel argument? if you know anything about corn, you know that what is used for fuel and what is used for eating are two different crops. its not the same type of corn. it simply is not. Actually, quite a few farmers who were having trouble selling feed corn or seed corn have found a good profit in using it for ethanol. It still doesnt make it the best alternative, but the editorial above would have you believe that its the politicians and the factory farms who want ethanol, when it is quite a large number of family farms too. Ethanol is good for Iowa, thus they want it. yes, its bad for the soil, but thats why we use crop rotation. I personally believe Iowa should use natural prairie grasses for fuel as we have perfect conditions for it, as a former prairie state. (settlers and farmers screwed that up good). But in Iowa farming and corn is king, and thus we want corn ethanol. oh well. welcome to our world.

The real problem here, as much as anything else, is that we are in love with cars.

A car costs about as much energy to produce as it uses in fuel for five years, and they're disposable - how many have frames and bodies that won't rust? Bear in mind here that aircraft have been made pretty much entirely of aluminium since 1938. Where are the aluminium cars?

And why is it that American engines are reported (by my petrolhead friends) to be substantially less efficient than European and (notably) Japanese engines? Could it be low American fuel costs, perhaps?

There are lots of other ways to reduce our oil consumption. But buying a smaller, slower car - next time you have to buy one - will definitely help.