We've been reporting on the insanity of growing crops to feed SUVs since the ethanol industry first appeared on the media radar. Aside from the fact that developing nations are cutting down rain forests to plant crops to provide fuel for western nations obsessed with global warming, there's GM Car Czar Maximum Bob's whole "taco riot" conundrum. Why use food crops for fuel when people need food more than fuel? The Economist analyzes the issue in their usual dry, authoritative manner, and it's scary stuff. "The demands of America's ethanol programme alone account for over half the world's unmet need for cereals. Without that programme, food prices would not be rising anything like as quickly as they have been. According to the World Bank, the grain needed to fill up an SUV would feed a person for a year… According to IFPRI [International Food Policy Research Institute], the expansion of ethanol and other biofuels could reduce calorie intake by another 4-8% in Africa and 2-5% in Asia by 2020. For some countries, such as Afghanistan and Nigeria, which are only just above subsistence levels, such a fall in living standards could be catastrophic." It's time for the fruited plain to stop. [Thanks to starlightmica for the link.]
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Well, if you invested in wheat a year ago you would have doubled your money by now. Which is another way of saying that there’s trouble up ahead.
Ethanol is a huge agricultural subsidies scam. A relentless, inexcusable attempt at diverting funds outside the limits imposed by the WTO to farmers who never tire of growing the wrong crop, as long as it comes with some government moolah attached.
And it’s not even efficient. If growing ethanol resulted in a fuel that returned a few factors over the base used to grow it, then we’d be cheering. But in a fairly conservative scenario we’re looking at 1:1! And being kind, we’re looking at 1:1,38.
Strange. And potentially cataclysmic.
I predicted this in 1979, in an essay in Solar Age Magazine.
Supposedly, in Brazil, where they make ethanol from sugar cane, the climate is such that they are able to create ethanol with less energy use than in the U.S. where we distill it from corn, but I wonder. I’d like to know more about it.
And what’s the deal with “switch grass”? Does that also use less energy than corn? Why can’t they make it from lawn clippings and dead leaves and stuff like that?
“Why can’t they make it from lawn clippings and dead leaves and stuff like that?”
Because current ethanol production methods are nothing but old fashioned distillation just like is used to make whiskey, vodka and the like. You can read a how-to here:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/ht/ethanol.htm
All in all this is an incredibly inefficient process if the goal is to make fuel. The vast majority of the corn plant is useless, only the seeds (corn kernels) pulled off the cobs are of value. They you have a long, energy intensive process to convert a small amount of the energy in said kernels into alcohol, which alcohol isn’t a very good fuel in the first place as it is already partly reacted with oxygen. The combination of CnHn molecules with Oxygen molecules releases a significant amount of energy. Alcohols are CnHnOn molecules to begin with and contain less energy than do CnHn molecules.
People have been taking about Cellulosic ethanol which is a process which in theory allows for the production of alcohol from low sugar content cellulose feedstock. You can read all about it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
Hopefully the billions of dollars which have been poured into Cellulosic ethanol will bear fruit, because the corn fermentation and distillation road is dumb, dumb, dumb. As others have said, corn ethanol is really a WTO immune way to hand out massive farm subsidies on the backs of taxpayers and consumers everywhere.
Even if switchgrass, sugar cane, algae, etc could be used for ethanol instead of corn or wheat, this problem would continue. If it is far more profitable to grow fuel than food, farmers will convert their land. And if the world switched to ethanol as a primary fuel source many farms would have to switch to keep that part of the economy moving.
There’s an ethanol plant adjacent to a feedlot in Mead,NE that’s going broke.
The owners envisioned a so-called closed loop where the mash left over from the ethanol plant
fed the cows, whose manure would be placed in a digester to provide methane to run the plant.
When I first read of the concept, I said “Why not skip the ethanol plant and feed the methane into the existing natural gas system?”
Apparently the plant’s backers should have asked that question themselves.
Another concern is that feeding too much mash to cows results in higher eColi levels in the cows’ digestive tracts.
Of course, this study was done in Kansas, so officials of Nebraska’s state government, fast becoming Big Ethanol’s biggest whore, denounce it as “flawed”.
Isn’t the WTO concerned about subsidies LOWERING the price of food, and INCREASING the supply?
Seems that ethanol production in the US should be good for farmers in developing countries who can now get more cash for their crops.
Still, it’s sort of like making a big ugly cloud just to get the silver lining.
Everyone who’s read my various rants on this issue knows my opinion – ethanol is worse than foolish. I’ve tried E10 (earlier known as “gasohol”) in every car I’ve owned in the US since 1979, and every one obtained approximately 7% to 20% fewer miles per gallon on 10% ethanol.
Then, you must also factor in the fact that it takes oil – and water – to make ethanol.
Butanol from sugar beets is a far more logical fuel since it is a drop-in substitute for gasoline. However, we must know in our heart of hearts, that our future is NOT going to be “one main source” (gasoline) for motoring and “one main source” (oil) for our energy needs.
In the future, we’ll be going to fuel stations and we’ll (hopefully) see fuel dispensers for gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, butanol, CNG and LPG, and quick charge electricity for electric cars.
thanks for bringing this one to our attention. It was a very interesting article.
I’m currently using E10 fuel in my 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer and have kept statistics on every refill since buying the car brand new. Fuel consumption is 2% higher on average with E10, when comparing the same months between 2006 and 2007 (to discount temperature effects). Slightly under inflated tires have a greater impact on fuel economy for me. It’s marginally cheaper here than normal unleaded, and is grown from sugar cane instead of corn so has an energy return of up to 1:8 (source: October 2007, National Geographic). Corn is up to 1:1.4 (the most generous statistic I’ve seen).
Ethanol from corn makes absolutely no economic or energy sense.
If you listen to balanced experts they say that ethanol will be dead as a car fuel if we don’t develop a new generation process that converts cellulose (“wood”) to ethanol.
Swedish text and radio show:
http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/p1/program/arkiv.asp?ProgramID=2116&formatID=116&Max=2008-08-22&Min=2004-03-30&PeriodStart=2007-11-01&Period=3&Artikel=1716344
@Michal
It’s marginally cheaper here than normal unleaded, and is grown from sugar cane instead of corn so has an energy return of up to 1:8 (source: October 2007, National Geographic). Corn is up to 1:1.4 (the most generous statistic I’ve seen).
Exactly. In Brazil whatever seed you stick into the ground takes flight and sprouts as you’re watching. And sugar cane has a higher carbon energy content than regular corn to begin with. There – ethanol makes some sense.
At our latitudes there’s absolutely no rhyme or reason to it. An acquaintance of mine is on the board of a large wood pulp plant, and he’s naturally up about the prospects of a no-holds-barred government policy on helping them out with subsidies – but even that solution holds little promise for any greater energy returns than that of corn, the only advantage being that you’re not pulling food out of the mouth of people in order to drive cars.
Hi!
May I butt in? I’m a long-time reader, but have only opined a few times. That is, ’cause most of what you discuss is not really within my range of experience. Discloser: I’ve got two car each of which have 65 hp (1.0L engines! yipee!!)…How’s that? hahhahah really
Anyway, one’s a Fiat and another is a Ford, so even if you’re reading this from South America you’ll recognize I try mightly to break the mold!
Well, there’s a guy (a respected auto journalist, our Mr. Farago hehehe)down here, whom I respect tremendously, who’s said he doesn’t believe in alcohol (ethanol) as long as the machines collecting it run on other fuels. No, really! think about it! The guys making money from this use diesel or gasoline tractors, cars, machines, fuel tanks to distribute their products..Hummm
As a side note, since Third World labor and living conditions are of no interest to you all, I’ve just read about the death of another worker on the sugar cane plantations. Must of been the 3rd or 4th this year. Of course this whole business models thing only works as these poor a-holes make about 200 USD a month for a 12 hour work day (of extrenously hard literally back-breaking labor ) for 2 months at harvest time.
Feel free! Fill’er up on Ewhatever. And feel the environment blessing you
I think the statement “ethanol is driving up the price of food” is a bit simplistic. After all, lots of commodities are rising in price.
The farm lobbyists say the rising price of oil contributes more to the rising price of food than anything. Biofuel will help to reduce the price of oil and therefore will help reduce the price of food…
And high food prices stimulate increasing food supply…
Luckily, the new energy bill promotes smarter biofuel than ethanol from corn. In particular by 2022 only a third of biofuel is supposed to come from corn ethanol. So, hopefully, this issue will go away over time.
@FromBrazil
Hope you didn’t take my comment about “In Brazil, ethanol makes some sense” as condoning what is going on in Brazil, in the name of ethanol? It’s just that if you are going to grow something, in order to turn it into fuel, then the best place to do so – as far as conditions go – is probably Brazil.
Ethanol in cars is still a very stupid idea – one should do something about the size of cars, their engines and their use — not just look for an alternative way to deplete natural resources.
@EJ
Nothing simplistic about it. Enormous landmass is being converted to crops for ethanol production, with particularly corn being used for this instead of being used for food. This means that the same amount of mouths are competing for the output from a lower amount of crops – prices rice.
The rising price of oil is also a factor, but not as much as you’d think. And to catch the farmers in a lie: has the cost of an airplane ticket doubled in six months? The price of food has.
@ Stein X
Don’t worry no offence taken of course. The thing is I agree with you. Growing sugarcane for fuel is stupid. Example: the state I live in was the 2nd largest in production of bananas. Now the lands where they planted bananas have been taken by sugarcane. Enough so that this state practically is not a banana producer anymore. Guess if the price of the fruit has gone up.
And on and on. Alcohol (ethanol) is just a stopgap. It has no future. Even in this country it’s only advantageous to fill up with alcohol rather than gasoline due to 1 simple thing: Tax breaks. And that is direspect to all here who have older gasoline powered cars, but who cares? The politicians and their fat cat masters (campaign donors) are all getting rich.
We are stuck with alcohol since MTBE was declared a ground contaminant and congress refused to protect the industry from lawsuits. So if anyone uses MTBE for oxygenation, they get slapped with a lawsuit for poisoning the land. Nice , eh? And the geniuses that thought all this up were dumb enough to fall for the scam.
So? Putting aluminum in mobile homes makes beer cans more expensive than they’d otherwise be — that doesn’t make it wrong. Some of you seem to be assuming a priori that anything that makes food more expensive is necessarily wrong. Where’s THAT written?
So you’re point is that the world depends on America for its food. If not for the fact that the U.S. exports a lot of grains, none of this would be an issue. (And yet they all hate us.)
But, we are not obligated to export any grains.
Money and prices serve a purpose. When consumers are competing for a mix of scarce resources — which they always are — money and prices serve to help us compute the amazingly complex problem of allocating those resources to where they are most needed.
The mere fact that grains are more expensive does not in itself make Ethanol wrong — mostly it serves to illustrate how people all over the world have been benefiting from American farmers in a way that not too many people lately seem to appreciate.
In reality what’s occurring now is a transition as the market reorganizes. There are a lot of possibilities. Maybe Ethanol won’t work out as a viable solution. Or maybe this initial stage will lead to an infrastructure to be built out just in time for the whole cellulosic/switchgrass era. Or maybe the higher food prices will induce farmers to plant more farmland for food crops. No need to get stupid and emotional about it.
FromBrazil:
The guys making money from this use diesel or gasoline tractors, cars, machines, fuel tanks to distribute their products
I see that criticism a lot and it means nothing. There’s a demand for ethanol, so you build a factory to make ethanol, you’ve got people throwing cash at you for ethanol — so when you finally make a gallon of ethanol you … put it into you’re own tractor instead? No, that would be stupid. And, Ethanol plants make ethanol, not farm implements, generators, and trucks. Are the companies making those things making them to run on Ethanol? It’s up to them to do that.
I’ve just read about the death of another worker on the sugar cane plantations. Must of been the 3rd or 4th this year. Of course this whole business models thing only works as these poor a-holes make about 200 USD a month for a 12 hour work day (of extrenously hard literally back-breaking labor ) for 2 months at harvest time.
If those people have a better job alternative in Brazil than they should do that instead. If they DON’T have a better job alternative in Brazil, you don’t have much to complain about. Least of all in a place like Brazil which has been granted a tremendous head start over most countries of the world with its abundance of natural resources.
E85 will reduce our dependence on foriegn oil. Vote for me.
“So? Putting aluminum in mobile homes makes beer cans more expensive than they’d otherwise be — that doesn’t make it wrong”
People need food to live. People do not need beer to live… except in Milwaukee.
Kevin said:
Money and prices serve a purpose. When consumers are competing for a mix of scarce resources — which they always are — money and prices serve to help us compute the amazingly complex problem of allocating those resources to where they are most needed.
That all works great in a free market. But when you have the government subsidising an industry, it is no longer a free market.
Not quite, Kevin.
mostly it serves to illustrate how people all over the world have been benefiting from American farmers in a way that not too many people lately seem to appreciate.
Third world farmers can no longer make a living, thanks to cheapsubsidized American grains being dumped on these countries. So, farm subsidies prevent these countries from developing even the most basic economies.
On top of that, when the US decides it will no make ethanol and substantially cut its grain exports, the Third World is left with no grain and no local agricultural industry to fill the gap.
Now why would they hate America?
And what’s the deal with “switch grass”? Does that also use less energy than corn? Why can’t they make it from lawn clippings and dead leaves and stuff like that?
The lobbyists would have you believe cellulosic ethanol is just around the corner, as in just a few more $millions… The reality is we that research into this has been going on for decades, and break-troughs are few and far between.
But, hey, leave it to our leaders politicians to test just how many sacrifices we are willing to make for those loyal campaign donors…
No matter how you look at it, FOOD->FUEL is a dumb proposal, and only supported by those who stand to benefit from it.
A much simpler solution would be WASTE->FUEL. Get rid of a few environmental head-aches and make renewable fuel without affecting the price of food. Unfortunately, the WASTE lobby is not very strong in Washington, DC.
Cavendal — I absolutely agree that the subsidies are bad and if I were Boss I’d eliminate them. It is still a free market though (which means multiple producers competing for business, multiple consumers competing for products, and prices that move with supply and demand) — it is not correct to respond to all government interference by saying that makes it not free market. It is — it’s just an inefficient and somewhat distorted free market.
Engineer — well take your pick. Are US crops harmfully cheap because of subsidies, or harmfully expensive because of ethanol? Or did you intend satire of how anti-Americans think?
I’ll help you. US farm subsidies do not steal domestic markets from 3rd world farmers. They only steal the *US* market from them (same with Europe). Their local farmers are put out of business when their own governments CAP the local prices of food. They engage in just the opposite kind of government interference that we do — instead of helping farmers at the expense of consumers, they help consumers at the expense of farmers (until they cannot import food for some reason, at which time consumers starve).
One advantage to Ethanol raising food prices is that it does in fact give farmers in the developing world a chance to make money, if their own governments do not manage to kill the opportunity.
Are US crops harmfully cheap because of subsidies, or harmfully expensive because of ethanol?
As I was trying to point out, the problem is when #1 is followed by #2 that you get a knock out punch.
Their local farmers are put out of business when their own governments CAP the local prices of food.
Ah, yes, the Mugabe regime. Even in the Third World that old fool is a bit of an extreme case, won’t you say? Capping food prices is not a regular occurence in the Third World.
But you are right on the broader point: if Third World dictators were less interested in their Swiss bank accounts, we’d all be much better off.
One advantage to Ethanol raising food prices is that it does in fact give farmers in the developing world a chance to make money, if their own governments do not manage to kill the opportunity.
Well yes, the farmers that are left. And that’s the problem I see…
It seems to me rising food prices are an opportunity for the rural poor of the world, not a threat. That’s a big reason why it’s so popular in rural states of the USA.
I think over time farmers will manage to produce food AND fuel, especially if we switch to smarter biofuel, that uses a lot less land and resources than are needed for corn.