ethanol discussion

[lumpy]

a while back we were chatting about ethanol on here, and just read this great blog entry by Michael Pollan and wanted to post it here for others to enjoy:

more entries may be read at http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=79#view

May 24
10:00 pm
The Great Yellow Hope
Categories: Ethanol, Environment

I've been traveling in the American Corn Belt this past week, and wherever I go, people are talking about the promise of ethanol. Corn-distillation plants are popping up across the country like dandelions, and local ethanol boosters in Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa and even Washington State (where Bill Gates is jumping into the business) are giddy at the prospect of supplanting OPEC with a homegrown, America-first corn cartel. But as much as I'd like to have a greener fuel to power my car, I'm afraid corn-based ethanol is not that fuel.

In principle, making fuel from plants makes good sense. Instead of spewing fossilized carbon into the atmosphere, you're burning the same carbon that a plant removed from the air only a few months earlier -- so, theoretically, you've added no additional carbon. Sounds pretty green -- and would be, if the plant you proposed to make the ethanol from were grown in a green way. But corn is not.

The way we grow corn in this country consumes tremendous quantities of fossil fuel. Corn receives more synthetic fertilizer than any other crop, and that fertilizer is made from fossil fuels -- mostly natural gas. Corn also receives more pesticide than any other crop, and most of that pesticide is made from petroleum. To plow or disc the cornfields, plant the seed, spray the corn and harvest it takes large amounts of diesel fuel, and to dry the corn after harvest requires natural gas. So by the time your "green" raw material arrives at the ethanol plant, it is already drenched in fossil fuel. Every bushel of corn grown in America has consumed the equivalent of between a third and a half gallon of gasoline.

And that's before you distill the corn into ethanol, an energy-intensive process that requires still more fossil fuel. Estimates vary, but they range from two-thirds to nine-tenths of a gallon of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol. (The more generous number does not count all the energy costs of growing the corn.) Some estimates are still more dismal, suggesting it may actually take more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of our putative alternative to fossil fuel.

Making ethanol from corn makes no more sense from an economic point of view. The federal government offers a tax break of 54 cents for every gallon of ethanol produced, and this incentive is what has generated the enthusiasm for ethanol refining: the spigot of public money is open and the pigs are rushing to the trough. (At the same time, the government protects domestic ethanol producers by imposing a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imported ethanol.) According to the Wall Street Journal, it will cost U.S. taxpayers $120 for every barrel of oil saved by making ethanol. Some "savings." This is very good news indeed for Archer Daniels Midland, the agricultural processing company that controls about 30 percent of the ethanol market. (And, it would seem, a comparable percentage of the U.S. Congress, which has been showering the company with ethanol subsidies since the days when Bob Dole of Kansas was known as the senator from A.D.M.)

Absurd as it is, the rush to turn our corn surplus into ethanol appears unstoppable, and the corn belt, laboring under the weight of falling corn prices for the past several years, is celebrating the great good fortune of $3-a-gallon gas prices. We're desperate for alternatives, and all that corn is waiting to be distilled. As corn prices rise (and the giddiness has already given them a bump), farmers will be tempted to produce yet more corn, which is not good news for the environment this whole deal is supposed to help. Why not? Because farmers will apply more nitrogen to boost yields (leading to more nitrogen pollution) and, since soy bean prices are down, they will be tempted to return to a "corn-on-corn" rotation. That is, rather than rotate their corn crops with soy beans (a legume that builds nitrogen in he soil), farmers will plant corn year after year, requiring still more synthetic nitrogen and doing long-term damage to the land.

It's not easy being green.

But just because making ethanol from corn is an environmentally and economically absurd proposition doesn't mean ethanol made from other plants is a bad idea. If you can make ethanol from a plant that doesn't take so much energy to grow in the first place, the economics and energetics begin look a lot better. The Brazilians make ethanol from sugar cane, a perennial crop that doesn't require nearly as much fossil fuel to grow. Switch grass, too, is a perennial crop that grows just about anywhere, requires little or no fertilizer and needs no plowing or annual replanting. And although the technology for making ethanol from grasses (cellulosic ethanol -- distilled from plant cellulose rather than starch) is not quite there yet, it holds real potential.

So why the stampede to make ethanol from corn? Because we have so much of it, and such a powerful lobby promoting its consumption. Ethanol is just the latest chapter in a long, sorry history of clever and profitable schemes to dispose of surplus corn: there was corn liquor in the 19th century; feedlot meat starting in the 1950's and, since 1980, high fructose corn syrup. We grow more than 10 billion bushels of corn a year in this country, far more than we can possibly eat -- though God knows we're doing our best, bingeing on corn-based fast food and high fructose corn syrup till we're fat and diabetic. We probably can't eat much more of the stuff without exploding, so the corn lobby is targeting the next unsuspecting beast that might help chomp through the surplus: your car.

[Phrazz]

In recent years, soybean planting has surpassed cattle ranching as the leading threat to the Amazon.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I'd like to see the source of how much diesel it takes to grow corn, I'm not so sure and the stats look pretty "fuzzy" from his discussion. Still, it's a step in the right direction if we can expand to other plant form fuel sources. Changing all the fuel mechanisms won't happen overnight. It's a first step, and of course it's going to be incredibly expensive, but sooner or later we need a clean liquid fuel. Hydrogen is the way to go, but not as cheap as alcohol, either (right now).

Even though I have a hybrid, I switch to the Metro because I live walking distance to the rail now. This saves a ton of gas...I haven't even used my Escape in about a week. Got the bike on the road, too, but hard to take it to work w/o a shower (I sweat lots when I ride ;-}). Even though the new rent is a bit more, it still works out cheaper in the long run. That's where we will see the biggest change--if people can live near work (or work from home). No matter what fuel you use, travelling 50 miles each way to work is absolutely ridiculous (poor urban planning).

At least people are starting to learn a little chemistry, so this is also a good thing.

-Phrazz

[lumpy]

I'd say you can trust his fuzzy discussion of petroleum usage in the growth of corn. Michael Pollan's latest book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" focuses on the production and consumption of corn in a very serious way....so while he didn't note the source on his blog, I'd put big money on the idea that he has several. He's also a UC Berkeley professor of journalism - so while this piece is written in a casual, blog-style prose, Pollan is not one to stretch estimates.

If you haven't read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" yet, add it to your must read list....he is just such a captivating, intelligent, and humorous writer.

[Dan]

didnt people say that that 5-7 leaved plant that is outlawed in the US grows 3 to 4 times faster then corn and yeilds more material to create fuel and other uses?

[Pstehley]

check this out!! (don't know if I posted it...)
http://www.wimp.com/fuelwater/

[gabe]

or we could just not drive

horses work

and humans were designed to run long distances

[etahn]

That's where we will see the biggest change--if people can live near work (or work from home).

This is not as hard as it may seem. In my entire adult life, I've only had to commute by car at three different times: once when I was too young to know any better, and twice when I was in transition between lives. When you know where you'regoing to work before you move, you can plan your new digs around yur new job, and relish that sweet car-free commute! It makes all the difference in the world.

I'm reaaly glad to see this thread, and my suspicions (somewhat) confirmed. The energy in that ethanol has to come from somewhere. A lot of it comes from the sun, but not nearly enough.
That thing about soy bugs the hell out of me.

5 need to not read this shit so late at night.

fritters.

[Pstehley]

That's where we will see the biggest change--if people can live near work (or work from home).

This is not as hard as it may seem. In my entire adult life, I've only had to commute by car at three different times: once when I was too young to know any better, and twice when I was in transition between lives. When you know where you'regoing to work before you move, you can plan your new digs around yur new job, and relish that sweet car-free commute! It makes all the difference in the world.

I'm reaaly glad to see this thread, and my suspicions (somewhat) confirmed. The energy in that ethanol has to come from somewhere. A lot of it comes from the sun, but not nearly enough.
That thing about soy bugs the hell out of me.

5 need to not read this shit so late at night.

fritters.

Well unfortunately for me.. I have to commute... but my wife is able to just walk around the corner... so that's at least 1/2 the battle... the upside is that it's easy to get around pittsburgh... when we wanna go to a show or something down at the point.. we can just take the T (that's the train)... that's what's nice... but to get to work, public transportation is out of the question... but it's only a 15 min. commute and a tank of gas will last me 2 weeks.. which is good (I do a lot of running around on the weekends, with gigs and what not...)

[etahn]

I'll admit that PGH is a little on the hilly side for bike commuting - you will definitely sweat - but my experience has been that anyplace you can drive in fifteen minutes you can ride to in about 30 minutes. And if it's fifteen minutes at rush hour, you're going to be more like fifteen minutes on a bike, feel a lot healthier when you arrive, and enjoy the feeling of coasting past gridlock on your gasoline-free, traffic-proof, incredibly-cheap-to-maintain vehicle. And you should really try riding to work in the snow sometime. On a day when you've got fresh snow, and it hasn't been plowed, and lots of people are staying in, so the roads are nice and empty, and there's still some snow falling, and everything's really quiet....

There are certainly drawbacks to not having a car. Like shopping is a pain, Ultimate Frisbee is all the way in friggin Seekonk (~12 mi from home, which is an estimable ride when you think about sandwiching it around a full game of Ultimate), you're sweaty when you show up for dates, it's hard to haul your drum kit around, the list goes on....

But it's a great feeling to let that car go. And designing some excercise into each and every day just plain makes sense. I will accpet "I'm choosing a different path", or "it's a bigger time/excercise commitment than I'm willing to make", but I have a real hard time with "I can't".

[Pstehley]

I'll admit that PGH is a little on the hilly side for bike commuting - you will definitely sweat - but my experience has been that anyplace you can drive in fifteen minutes you can ride to in about 30 minutes. And if it's fifteen minutes at rush hour, you're going to be more like fifteen minutes on a bike, feel a lot healthier when you arrive, and enjoy the feeling of coasting past gridlock on your gasoline-free, traffic-proof, incredibly-cheap-to-maintain vehicle. And you should really try riding to work in the snow sometime. On a day when you've got fresh snow, and it hasn't been plowed, and lots of people are staying in, so the roads are nice and empty, and there's still some snow falling, and everything's really quiet....

There are certainly drawbacks to not having a car. Like shopping is a pain, Ultimate Frisbee is all the way in friggin Seekonk (~12 mi from home, which is an estimable ride when you think about sandwiching it around a full game of Ultimate), you're sweaty when you show up for dates, it's hard to haul your drum kit around, the list goes on....

But it's a great feeling to let that car go. And designing some excercise into each and every day just plain makes sense. I will accpet "I'm choosing a different path", or "it's a bigger time/excercise commitment than I'm willing to make", but I have a real hard time with "I can't".

well.. unfortunately... I can't ride to work.. I have to take 376 (Interstate) to get there... to be able to take the back way it would take me like an hr.. which is way too long, considering I gotta be in at like 7 in the morning...

But.. the little trips to the southside and what not are nice for biking.. and really easy too.. although the only pain with that is you have to go over the hill through mt. wash to get to the other side.. or sometimes we'll just drive through the tunnel and park in the southside and ride all over the place.. that's nice...

anyway...