Ethanol: Food Versus Fuel Debate

Green Education Network has reached a conclusion that the “Food Versus Fuel Debate” has been settled AND IN FACT STANDS IN THE WAY. Neither land nor crops grown for consumption as food by humans should be converted to ethanol fuel production on a massive monoculture scale. However, we are persuaded by the work of Dave Blume and the non-profit I.I.E.A. that ethanol produced by sustainable perma-culture has the potential to have a greater and more favorable environmental and economic impact than ANY alternative-energy technology at hand or on the immediate horizon.

http://www.permaculture.com/

GEN is in process of obtaining permissions enabling a major article introducing Dave Blume, the IIEA and permaculture to its users and those of another website in development in collaboration with the USA Exec Director of  Greenhouse Neutral Foundation.

In the interim below we have bold-faced Wikipedia information confirming certain of the practices associated with PERMACULTURE ETHANOL, ie that (1) there are significant benefits growing cellulosic crops for bioethanol fuel on a large scale on land not suitable for human food crops, (2) that farmers producing corn or other crops for consumption by livestock SHOULD first produce ethanol for fuel AND then feed the by-product of protein-rich distillers grains to their livestock so as to reduce their production of methane gas, and further that (3) direct-ethanol fuel cells have already been documented to yield 6,388 miles per gallon in an experimental vehicle!  Further below we have posted a guest editorial by Mark May, who brought the work of permaculturist Dave Bloom and the IIEA to GEN’s attention. We commend Mark and his friends for their efforts to make a difference.

“It is disputed whether corn ethanol as an automotive fuel results in a net energy gain or loss. As reported in “The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: an Update,” the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for ethanol made from corn in the U.S. is 1.34 (it yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it). Input energy includes natural gas-based fertilizers, farm equipment, transformation from corn or other materials, and transportation. However, other researchers report that the production of ethanol consumes more energy than it yields. In comparison, sugar cane ethanol EROEI is at around 8 (it yields 8 joules for each joule used to produce it). Recent research suggests that cellulosic crops such as switchgrass and Miscanthus grass provide a much better net energy production than corn, producing over five times as much energy as the total used to produce the crop and convert it to fuel. If this research is confirmed, cellulosic crops will most likely displace corn as the main fuel crop for producing bioethanol.

Michael Grunwald reports that one person could be fed for one year “on the corn needed to fill an ethanol-fueled SUV”. He further reports that though “hyped as an eco-friendly fuel, ethanol increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates food prices”. Environmentalists, livestock farmers, and opponents of subsidies say increased ethanol production will not meet energy goals and may damage the environment, while at the same time causing worldwide food prices to soar. Some of the subsidies in the past have included more than $10 billion to Archer-Daniels-Midland since 1980. Critics speculate that as ethanol is more widely used, changing irrigation practices could greatly increase pressure on water resources. In October 2007, 28 environmental groups decried the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), a legislative effort intended to increase ethanol production, and said that the measure will “lead to substantial environmental damage and a system of biofuels production that will not benefit family farmers…will not promote sustainable agriculture and will not mitigate global climate change.”

Some have blamed subsidized ethanol production for the nearly 200% increase in milk prices since 2004, since the price of fuel has driven up the costs to cultivate, grow, harvest, ship, refine, bring to market, etc., all commodities including, but not limited to, milk, although that is disputed by some. Some blame the presence of speculators, and the recent growing interest in the commodities market by investors who have been scared away from a falling stock market.

Ethanol production uses the starch portion of corn, but the leftover protein can be used to create a high-nutrient, low-cost animal feed.

In 2007 the United Nations’ independent expert on the right to food called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production from food crops, to allow time for development of non-food sources. He called recent increases in food costs because of fuel production, such as the quadrupling of world corn price in one year, a growing “catastrophe” for the poor. In February 2007, riots occurred in Mexico because of the skyrocketing price of tortillas. Ethanol has been credited as the reason for this increase in food prices. The demand for corn has had a rippling effect on many corn-based products, like tortillas. The effects of ethanol and the increasing cost of food have been felt in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Egypt.

Oil has historically had a much higher EROEI than corn-produced ethanol, according to some.  However, oil must be refined into gasoline before it can be used for automobile fuel. Refining, as well as exploration and drilling, consumes energy. The difference between the energy in the fuel (output energy) and the energy needed to produce it (input energy) is often expressed as a percent of the input energy and called net energy gain (or loss). Several studies released in 2002 estimated that the net energy gain for corn ethanol is between 21 and 34 percent. The net energy loss for MTBE is about 33 percent. When added to gasoline, ethanol can replace MTBE as an anti-knock agent without poisoning drinking water as MTBE does. In Brazil, where the broadest and longest ethanol producing experiment took place, improvements in agricultural practices and ethanol production improvements led to an increase in ethanol net energy gain from 300% to over 800% in recent years. Brazil produces ethanol more efficiently because its primary input is the sugar from sugar cane rather than starches from corn. Consuming known oil reserves is increasing oil exploration and drilling energy consumption, which is reducing oil EROEI (and energy balance) further.

Opponents claim that corn ethanol production does not result in a net energy gain or that the consequences of large-scale ethanol production to the food industry and environment offset any potential gains from ethanol. It has been estimated that “if every bushel of U.S. corn, wheat, rice and soybean were used to produce ethanol, it would only cover about 4% of U.S. energy needs on a net basis.” Many of the issues raised could likely be fixed by techniques now in development that produce ethanol from agricultural waste, such as paper waste, switchgrass, and other materials, but EIA Forecasts Significant Shortfall in Cellulosic Biofuel Production Compared to Target Set by Renewable Fuel Standard.

Proponents cite the potential gains to the U.S. economy both from domestic fuel production and increased demand for corn. Optimistic calculations project that the United States is capable of producing enough ethanol to completely replace gasoline consumption. In comparison, Brazil’s ethanol consumption today covers more than 50% of all energy used by vehicles in that country.

In the United States, preferential regulatory and tax treatment of ethanol automotive fuels introduces complexities beyond its energy economics alone. North American automakers have in 2006 and 2007 promoted a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, marketed as E85, and their flex-fuel vehicles, e.g. GM’s “Live Green, Go Yellow” campaign. The apparent motivation is the nature of U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which give an effective 54% fuel efficiency bonus to vehicles capable of running on 85% alcohol blends over vehicles not adapted to run on 85% alcohol blends. In addition to this auto manufacturer-driven impetus for 85% alcohol blends, the United States Environmental Protection Agency had authority to mandate that minimum proportions of oxygenates be added to automotive gasoline on regional and seasonal bases from 1992 until 2006 in an attempt to reduce air pollution, in particular ground-level ozone and smog. In the United States, incidents of methyl tert(iary)-butyl ether (MTBE) groundwater contamination have been recorded in the majority of the 50 states, and the State of California’s ban on the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive has further driven the more widespread use of ethanol as the most common fuel oxygenate.

A February 7, 2008 Associated Press article stated, “The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.” The article does not take into account that even when grown in an industrial, soil-depleting manner, corn still sequesters carbon through its unharvested root and stalk tissues, which form soils, while gasoline production does not have a carbon-sequestration component in its production cycle.

One acre of land can yield about 7,110 pounds of corn (797 kg/ha), which can be processed into 328 US gallons of ethanol (307 l/ha). That is about 26.1 pounds of corn per US gallon (3.13 kg/l).

Much overlooked in most discussions about ethanol from corn are the by-products from the production of ethanol. In general, the waste product from corn distillation is DDGS, distillers grains, a protein-rich food. The vast majority of corn produced in the US and the world goes to feed not people, but livestock, which in turn feed people. The main result of feeding corn to a ruminant is excessive flatulence (production of methane gas, being a greenhouse gas), but the same animals can readily digest DDGS. Seen in this light, all corn destined for livestock feeding should probably be distilled to harvest the ethanol fuel potential while simultaneously making the feed more nutritious to the livestock and avoiding unnecessary methane pollution. Wherever corn is used to feed livestock, farmers can take advantage of this process to make a profit on both food and fuel from the same bushel of corn.

However, there are supporters of the switch to ethanol fuel. A federal government-sponsored study found a gallon of ethanol makes almost twice as much energy as it consumes, while it has the potential to cut greenhouse gases by 54% if cars ran on ethanol, rather than gasoline.

Ethanol fuel cells

Ethanol may be used as a fuel to power Direct-ethanol fuel cells (DEFC) in order to produce electricity and the by-products of water and carbon dioxide. Platinum is commonly used as an anode in such fuel cells in order to achieve a power density that is comparable to competing technologies. Until recently the high price of platinum has been cost prohibitive. A company called Acta Nanotech has created platinum free nanostructured anodes using more common and therefore less expensive metals. A vehicle using a DEFC and non-platinum nanostructured anodes was used in the Shell Eco-Marathon 2007 by a team from Offenburg Germany which achieved an efficiency of 2716 kilometers per liter (6388 miles per gallon). Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301USA. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. See complete article and bibliography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

BELOW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS A GUEST EDITORIAL BY MARK MAY OF SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN

“BUSTING THE MYTHS ABOUT ETHANOL: Turn on the television news on any given day and it seems that you can’t help but hear another news snippet concerning peak oil, climate change or the economic melt- down.  The causes for the woes as well as the solutions to positively address these major concerns are many, and seem daunting if not impossible to undertake. There is no one way to easily tackle this three headed monster.  Experts agree that by unleashing our financial resources and scientific technology on producing renewable energy, a very positive cascading effect is possible.  That is while cleaning up our environment, producing renewable energy will create millions of new jobs, which will pump billions of dollars back into our economy.  Plus the more renewable energy we produce here at home means less dependence on foreign oil.

Ethanol should be a key component in a plan to bail us out of this situation.  What makes ethanol a poor choice isn’t ethanol itself, but the mountain of negative misinformation force fed to us for almost the last 100 years. 

Ethanol, with both of its black eyes must be picked back up, dusted off and reintroduced to the world in the positive light that it so richly deserves.  In fact let’s look at ethanol as a savior.  If we could dispel all of the lies and myths that have been created to keep big oil in the driver seat of our energy choices, we will see that ethanol truly could be the savior that will help deliver us from this trifecta of horrors which is climate change, unemployment and dependence on foreign oil.

One of the biggest myths is “Ethanol will harm your engine”  Contrary to all of the oil industries’ time honored myths and lies, ethanol should be the fuel of choice for every internal combustion engine in the world. After all, when internal combustion engines were invented gas stations didn’t exist. These new engines ran on ethanol.  And when Henry Ford invented the Models A and T, he introduced to the world the first flex fuel cars that could run on ethanol or gasoline.  That’s because at that time gas stations were few and far between, especially when traveling in the country.  But in those early days Ford new that most farming communities had stills to produce their own energy and light.  And that if low on gas a traveler could buy some ethanol from a farmer and get back on the road.  If the early model Ford engines could run on any combination of gasoline and farmer’s hootch, why should we believe big oil’s claim that burning ethanol in your car will destroy your engine?

For more proof fast forward to today.  All one has to do is visit IndyCar.com. Here you can read about the IndyCar series’ ground breaking use of 100% fuel-grade ethanol in it’s Honda V-8 engines.  Here is a direct quote gleaned from the ethanol fuel program page posted on their official web site.  “ The long term message is clear: If 650 horse power IndyCar series cars that cover the length of a football field in one second can run safely and effectively on 100 percent fuel-grade ethanol, so can your vehicle”.

Finally we cannot ignore the living example of Brazil.  After the OPEC oil embargo that caused world- wide  gas shortages in the 1970’s, Brazil’s military dictatorship of the era ordered the major manufacturers of cars in Brazil to produce dedicated alcohol-fueled vehicles, and ordered sugar producers to shift away from table sugar to fuel production.  In 1980, less than six months after the car companies told the government it was impossible to make a car run on ethanol, 60% of all cars coming off Brazilian assembly lines were specialized alcohol only vehicles.  After some minor engine modifications proved the cars ran fine, by 1984 94.4% of all cars produced ran on Ethanol.  Today 85% of the cars in Brazil run on 100% alcohol (available at the pump.) All the rest of the gasoline cars (so old they are not fuel injected) there run on 24% alcohol and have for DECADES. 

 Other classic myths are “You get poorer gas mileage with ethanol” and “There isn’t enough land to grow crops for both food and fuel” and “Ethanol is a ecological nightmare” and “Ethanol doesn’t substantially improve global warming” and the ever popular -drum roll please- “It takes more energy to produce ethanol then you get out of it”  Oh the hits just keep on coming!!!  All of this B.S. is what has been shoved down our throats for decades by those with a vested interest in the oil industry, even our own auto industry.  It can safely be said that any, and I mean ANY negative view that ANYBODY has about ethanol and it’s proven positive effects on the internal combustion engine has  been influenced and backed by junk science. This science is cooked up and brought to you by crack pot scientists employed by big oil who would rather line their pockets with cash rather then tell the truth about ethanol.  And sad to say, armed with such misinformation, money, power, and influence we find our own lawmakers residing in the hip pockets of those with incredibly deep pockets. They in turn make policy that forces the rest of us lemmings run our cars on a substance that is extremely harmful to us and the entire planet.

So what are we going to do? It’s obvious that if we wait for the right decisions to come down from Chevron, Mobil, BP and their subsidiaries the U.S. Congress and Senate, we’ll be waiting for a long, long time.  ( O.K. here’s where you start humming the Mighty-mouse cartoon theme song –Here I come to save the day–) 

Alcohol fuel pioneer Dave Blume taught his first ecology class in 1970.  After majoring in    Ecological Biology and Biosystematics at San Francisco State University, he worked on experimental projects, first for NASA, and then as a member of the Mother Earth News Eco Village alternative building and alternative energy teams. When the energy crisis of 1978-79 struck, Dave started the American Homegrown Fuel Co., an educational organization that taught upwards of 7000 people how to produce and use low-cost alcohol fuel at home or on the farm and how to convert their vehicles and equipment to use it.  At least 97 fuel-making cooperatives formed out of his workshops.  He is the executive director of The International Institute For Ecological Agriculture, and has consulted for a wide array of clients, including governments, farmers, and companies interested in turning waste into valuable and profitable products. In 2007 he published his book Alcohol Can Be A Gas. Twenty five years in the making, this book is a practical roadmap for supplying all of our energy needs without drilling, strip mining, and or depleting the soil.  In fact, following Blume’s model, soil fertility would actually increase worldwide; energy production would not only be sustainable, but democratic and highly profitable on a small scale.  In his book he debunks all of the above myths and explains the truth backed by scientific research and scientific evidence.  Learn the truth at his link.  Then get the book.  Alcohol Can Be A Gas

Before reading Dave’s book, I was one of the millions us convinced of ethanol’s problems as a fuel choice. I didn’t realize how many myths there were about the stuff, but I’d heard a couple of them–and unknowingly, like most of us believed them for lack of proof otherwise.  Since reading the book I’ve joined the 192 million people of Brazil and have been splash blending E85 with gas, running a 50/50 blend in my non-flex fueled car (2003 P.T. Cruiser) for a year and a half now.  The car runs just fine with no engine damage or lost mpg.  And E85 sells for twenty to twenty five cents per gallon less then gasoline.

Researchers estimated that if all of our fuel injected cars–and thats almost all of them since the late 1980’s–ran on just 40% ethanol, we probably wouldn’t need any foreign oil.  That is, we can be energy independent with current technology–and simultaneously be slashing co2 output–if we just start producing alcohol.  No massive multimillion dollar research project would be necessary just to get the cars running, as is the case of hydrogen.  Just make the alcohol, put it in the cars we have on the road right now, and stop the cause for much of the conflict in the Middle East. End of discussion.

So where is the key to sustainability?  Where is the key to avoid climate change?  And what about the key to solve unemployment, and our insane dependence on foreign oil?  The key to all of these answers is in our pockets and it starts our cars.  Every time we use E85 we unleash the savior one gallon at a time.

As you can see getting the word out and telling the truth about ethanol is daunting when you look at the gauntlet laid down by the oil industry.  Competing against their money and influence in Washington has proven to be a waste of time.  The most powerful way to stand up to them is to not give them any of our money.  100% of the alcohol in every gallon of E85 ethanol is produced here in the U.S.A.. Your money for that fuel pays our farmers, and related ethanol industry workers for their efforts. That money stays here, and is spent locally.  It’s not sent via the oil conglomerates to some sheik who wants to add another private jet to his collection.  Using ethanol will give the power back to the people where it belongs. Look, we all switched to compact fluorescent light-bulbs!  When you consider the benefits of Splash blending e85 at the pump it should be a no brainer.” — Mark May

Mark’s Postscript: “Since writing this letter I have converted that PT Cruiser to burn E85 without having to splash blend at the pump.  It can also burn 100% ethanol which I plan to make myself.  I belong to a group of forward thinkers here in southeastern Wisconsin who have developed a working gasifier that produces syngas from biomass.  This syngas powers any common internal combustion engine generator which is used for electricity production as well as heat.  These gasifiers were common in WWII all over Europe when oil was being used for killing folks.  This gasifier will power our ethanol still, which will produce gas for our cars as well as gas for cogen plants hooked up to our homes.”