RAPID CITY, S.D. -- Passage of the federal energy bill in December with its boost for the ethanol industry has renewed fire from critics who say ethanol doesn't deliver a net energy gain, is driving up prices for food and livestock feed, and will not lead to energy independence.
But ethanol's backers say ethanol now yields much more energy than is required to produce it, according to a report in the Rapid City Journal. They say enough corn can be grown to meet the requirements of the energy bill and that, in any case, cellulosic ethanol made from [image-nocss] wood and grasses is the wave of the future.
Backers say the five-fold increase in ethanol production required by 2022, combined with greater vehicle fuel-efficiency mandatesas outlined in the energy billwill indeed reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Currently, about 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol are being produced each year. The energy bill requires production to jump to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of that amount, 15 billion gallons must come from corn, and 21 billion must come from cellulosic sources, such as wood chips, grasses and paper waste.
Perry Rahn, professor emeritus of geology at South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, is one of those who question whether ethanol provides a net energy gain.
In a 2005 paper, Rahn said 7.5 billion gallons of ethanolroughly the amount now being produced per yearreduces demand for petroleum by only 5.6%, according to the newspaper.
Rahn cites the work of Cornell University professor David Pimentel, who argues that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it yields. Pimentel said pro-ethanol scientists omit the energy costs of manufacturing farm machinery and processing equipment needed to make ethanol, according to an article on EVworld.com, a Web site that advocates for electric and hybrid cars.
Critics such as Rahn and Pimentel say heavy fertilization and irrigation for corn also add energy costs. Pimentel calculates that it takes 25,000 kilocalories to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, which yields 19,400 kilocalories.
Rahn said even if ethanol shows a slight net energy gain, it won't eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Rahn suggests growth is the primary energy culprit. He said reducing consumption is the best way out of the energy crunch. "We keep building out in suburbs that require more gasoline and bigger cars. It's got to come to an end," Rahn told the newspaper. "Ethanol is just not going to do it."
But Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, said the net energy loss is an old and flawed criticism of ethanol, even corn-based ethanol. Jennings said the energy-loss argument was probably correct when the first plants began making ethanol in the late 1970s.
Now, the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture figures show that ethanol contains 77% more energy than the energy spent to make it, Jennings said.
Randy Kramer, president of KL Process Design Group of Rapid City, S.D., said his firm's corn-ethanol plant at Sutherland, Neb., is efficient, using 15,700 British Thermal Units of steam energy to make 1 gallon of ethanol. The gallon of ethanol yields 80,000 BTUs, Kramer said.
Jennings said the net energy argument breaks down further when compared with gasoline, which requires more energy to produce than even corn ethanol. "You can't take a barrel of crude and stick it in your fuel tank and run your car," Jennings said. "Energy must be transformed to make it usable."
Critics such as Rahn also say the increased production of corn-based ethanol has taken corn out of the food chain, driving up corn and food prices and putting pressure on consumers and livestock feeders. About 3 billion bushels of this year's record 13-billion-bushel corn crop went to make ethanol.
"Here is the wonderful food basket of the world," Rahn said. "We're filling up our gas tanks with it when there's millions of people starving to death."
Jennings agrees that the increased price of corn is one factor in higher food prices. But he said rising energy costs are the biggest factor driving food prices. "There's very little corn value in a box of cereal," Jennings said. Oil at $90 to $100 a barrel makes it more expensive to plant and harvest crops and transport them to the processing plants, he said.
With higher demand and prices for corn to feed ethanol plants, the cost has also gone up for corn to feed livestock.
Scott Jones, president of the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association, said some association members have concerns about the energy bill's requirement for more corn-based ethanol, although the organization has not taken an official position on the bill's higher renewable-fuels standard.
"Livestock producers in all segments of the industry are now entering into a new era where they will see increased volatility and much higher prices for livestock feed," Jones said.
But because of increased requirements for ethanol, drought will play an even bigger role in feed costs in the future, Jones said.
Even so, the association supports development of renewable fuels as a way to lessen dependence on foreign oil, Jones said.
Meanwhile, the Kansas Department of Agriculture is launching a pilot project that will allow customers to purchase gasoline containing different percentages of ethanol.
Fueling stations currently sell gas blended with either 10 percent or 85 percent ethanol, according to Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Adrian Polansky. The pilot project will allow stations to offer pumps that dispense ethanol fuel blends not currently offered, such as 20% or 30% ethanol.
The purpose, Polansky said in a news release, is "to allow consumers to decide for themselves which blend is best for them based on price and performance."
Polansky said research shows that 15% or 20% blends deliver the same environmental benefits without any adverse effect on vehicle engines
"It's very possible the Department of Transportation may one day endorse using these higher ethanol blends in non-flexible fuel vehicles," Polansky stated.
The higher ethanol blend pumps will have a bright orange label with the message "For use in flexible fuel vehicles only." The project allows blending on a trial basis until Jan. 1, 2009.
Also, as part of a law taking effect Tuesday, Missouri will become the third state in the U.S.behind Minnesota and Hawaiito implement a wide-ranging ethanol mandate. Most of Missouri's gas stations quietly made the switch months in advance, according to an Associated Press report.
Most consumers in the state of Missouri have been using E-10 for months and probably don't know it," Ron Leone, executive director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, told AP. "That's why we anticipate the January 1 transition to be a nonevent."
Ethanol-blended gasoline has become increasingly common nationwide.
Part of the reason rests with a federal standard for alternative-fuel production. More than half the states now also have joined the federal government in offering incentives to ethanol producers or retailers. And because it burns cleaner than petroleum, ethanol-blended gasoline now is the norm in numerous cities facing Environmental Protection Agency mandates to improve their air quality.
Yet 14 states have no requirement for gasoline pumps to be plastered with ethanol labels, according to the American Coalition for Ethanol. Missouri repealed its labeling requirement in 2002, four years before passing the law that mandated ethanol in gasoline by 2008.
Break Time convenience stores in Missouri have voluntarily sold ethanol-blended gasoline for years and until recently had posted an ethanol label over its 89-octane gasoline. Many motorists thought that was the only grade of gas containing ethanol. In reality, all the pumps dispensed an ethanol blend, and even the 87-octane button likely supplied an 89-octane ethanol blend, according to the AP report. Break Time stores are owned by MFA Oil Co., a major distributor of ethanol.
"We have had no problems with ethanol," said MFA Oil President Jerry Taylor. "It's, in our judgment, actually a better product; it's higher octane, burns cleaner and helps engines last longer."
Fuels containing an 85% ethanol blend have been shown to result in lower gas mileage for vehicles. But a 10% blend should have only a negligible effect on gas mileage, said Chad Tharpe, a Break Time station manager.Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.