The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal

8/14/2019 The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal

1/32

eu ope

The Rushto Ethanol:

Not All Biofuels AreCreated Equal


2/32

About Food & Water EuropeFood & Water Europe is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We chal-lenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and bytransforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink. Food & Water Europe works with grassroots orga-nizations around the world to create an economically and environmentally viable future. Through research, public andpolicymaker education, media, and lobbying, we advocate policies that guarantee safe, wholesome food produced ina humane and sustainable manner and public, rather than private, control of water resources including oceans, riversand groundwater.

Food & Water Europe1616 P St. NW, Suite 300Washington, DC 20036tel: (202) 683-2500

fax: (202) [email protected]

Copyright 2007, 2008 by Food & Water Europe. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded atwww.foodandwaterwatch.org.

eu ope

Cover photo: A crop of switchgrass, which can yield almost twice asmuch ethanol as corn. Photo courtesty USDA.


3/32


4/32

June 2008

Dear Reader,

When this report was released in the United States in 2007, the impact of biofuel promotion on globalagriculture prices was speculative. Skyrocketing global food prices over the past year has convertedthis theoretical question into a practical and immediate concern for the survival of millions of peoplein the developing world.

Between March 2007 and March 2008, the Food and Agriculture Organization cereal price indexjumped by 88 percent. The high cost of food imports in the developing world is projected to drive anadditional 100 million people into hunger and severe poverty.

There is no question that increased interest in biofuels by governments, investors and farmers has

contributed to the increased demand for corn and soybeans. In the United States, the emphasis incorn ethanol has tightened demand for corn and land to produce corn, which has rippled through theentire farm sector increasing prices for all commodity crops.

While there is widespread agreement that ethanol demand is adding fuel to global food price escala-tion, estimations of the size of the impact vary widely. The World Bank estimates 70 percent of foodprice hikes are the result of biofuel; the White House Council of Economic Advisors estimates thatcorn-based ethanol is responsible for a third of the increase in corn prices. Regardless of the estimate,the growth of corn-based ethanol is projected to rise for the foreseeable future and continue to driveup food prices. In 2008, about 4 billion bushels and a third of the U.S. corn crop will be diverted toethanol refineries.

This report documents the significant shortcomings of relying on corn-based ethanol as a policypanacea to fight global warming or reduce dependence on imported petroleum. Corn-based ethanoladds to the agrochemical burden on the land and water, fails to reduce greenhouse gas emissions anddiverts water resources to ethanol refineries. With millions of lives in the balance, now is not the timeto divert more corn from forks to fuel tanks.

Sincerely,

Wenonah HauterExecutive Director, Food & Water Europe

eu ope


5/32

Introduction

Rising oil prices, energy security, and global warmingconcerns have all contributed to the current hype overbiofuels. With both prices and demand for oil likely tocontinue to increase, biofuels are being presented as theway to curb greenhouse gas emissions and to develophomegrown energy that reduces our dependence on for-eign oil.

In this context, corn-based ethanol has emerged as aleading contender to reduce dependence on fossil fuelbased gasoline. At first glance, corn-based ethanol seemssimple, even patriotic: take the sugar from corn that U.S.farmers grow and ferment it with yeast to distill basicallythe same stuff found in alcoholic beverages. Byproducts,such as distillers grain and corn gluten, serve as livestockfeed and help offset refining costs. The industry claimsthat ethanol blends will lower tailpipe emissions, promoteenergy independence, and revitalize rural America.

Farmers and investors envision a new gold rush. Etha-nol production is registering record growth rates, and

reached nearly five billion gallons in 2006. Dozens of newethanol refineries are being constructed, with productioncapacity forecast to double as early as 2008.1 PresidentBush intensified this momentum in his 2007 State of theUnion address with a call to produce 35 billion gallonsof alternative fuels by 2017a fivefold increase from thecurrently established goals.

Amidst the current ethanol boom, important questionspersist:

Do biofuels have a positive net energy bal-

ance?

That is, do they provide more energy (in the form of fueland byproducts, such as livestock feed) than the fossil fu-els and other energy sources used to produce them? Thisincludes the energy required to make corn and soybean

fertilizer, the diesel that fuels tractors, the coal and natu-ral gas that power refineries, and the fuel to transportethanol to the market. While there is some debate overthe numbers, it is clear that corn-based ethanol has one ofthe least promising energy ratios of all biofuels.

Do biofuels ultimately reduce harmful emis-sions, particularly when considering thatbiofuel refineries themselves emit pollutantsthat biofuels are designed to reduce?

These include greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide(CO2), precursors of ground-level ozone including volatileorganic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), andnitrogen oxides (NOX), as well as toxic chemicals such asthe carcinogen benzene. This important point deservesfurther attention from the scientific community. As ofnow, research indicates that corn-based ethanol showsthe lowest potential for emissions reductions, and thatusing coal to power refineries can actually increase emis-sions relative to the gasoline fuel replaced.

Can biofuels actually decrease our reliance

on gasolineparticularly from foreign sourc-es, which make up two-thirds of the U.S.supply?

Namely, can enough biofuels be produced and sold tomeasurably reduce consumption of petroleum fuel? Andwhat would be the consequences of producing ethanol onsuch a large scale? Despite hopeful projections, biofuelswill not be able to meaningfully displace soaring fossilfuel demand in the future.

How will the economics of biofuels play out?

Supporters of biofuels often underline that the new bio-fuel economy will benefit rural America by raising com-modity prices, farm incomes, and rural employment. Butwill family farmers benefit from the ethanol boom, or willethanol further increase the industrialization and con-

A sugarcane plantation in Brazil.


6/32

The Rush to Ethanoleu ope

2

centration of the agribusiness corporations that controlagriculture? In the latter case, well see the wealth andwell-being of rural America continue to erode. Past expe-

rience teaches us that an ethanol boom could exacerbateagricultural consolidation and the imbalance betweenlarge and small producers.

Should the $2.5-billion-plus-a-year taxpayersubsidies to the ethanol industry be contin-ued?

Illinois-based agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland(ADM), the nations top ethanol producer, is a lightningrod for critics who claim that such subsidiesover $10billion from 1980 to 1997are in fact corporate welfare

that do not benefit family farmers.

2

Even pro-ethanol U.S.Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has said that Congressshould consider ending the program when it expires in2010.

What are the worldwide implications ofethanol expansion on scarce land and waterresources?

Seventy percent of the worlds fresh water already goesto farming.3,4 Fragile ecosystems are being decimated by

clear-cutting and the overplanting of monoculture crops.Can the world afford to devote more land to fuel produc-tion? Full life-cycle analysis demonstrates that uncheckedindustrial ethanol expansion would result in unacceptableconsequences for human health and the environment.

A deeper look into the answers to these questions willclarify the extent to which biofuels in general, and corn-based ethanol in particular, provide a viable energyalternative and help to build a more sustainable trans-portation model. On the downside, we already know thatthe proposed transition to biofuels would require theconstruction of hundreds of fossil fuelburning refiner-ies that emit many of the same pollutants biofuels aredesigned to reduce.

Almost completely unknown are the economic and foodsecurity repercussions, both national and global, ofdiverting massive amounts of corn and other agricultural

products into gas tanks. Moreover, the limited availabilityof the worlds arable land means that biofuel feedstocksmay take priority over food crops. In addition, conven-tionally grown crops depend heavily on pesticides andpetroleum-based fertilizers. Among other problems,fertilizer used to grow corn causes overgrowth of algae inrivers and lakes and destroys habitats of fish and otheraquatic life. Expanding industrialized agricultural pro-cesses for biofuels would exacerbate this problem.

While some view ethanol as the silver bullet to addressboth the issues of energy independence and greenhouse

gas emissions, others consider it to be only a transitionfuel until more sustainable transportation technolo-gies are available, and still others view it as a diversionfrom existing sustainable options for public and privatetransportation practices and policies. Therefore, to betterstimulate debate on these issues, this report examines thestate of technology and issues relevant to the discussionon the future of transportation and the role of ethanoland other biofuels.


7/32

Food & Water Europe eu ope

3

Part I:

Climate Change, Oil Addiction,Biofuels, and the Future ofTransportation

The magnitude of the challenges posed by large-scalesystemic changes to energy production, distribution, andconsumption processes are daunting. That the environ-mental effects of the current global energy system areunsustainable is beyond debate. Indeed, climate changeis now understood as a planetary phenomenon of poten-tially catastrophic consequences. The scientific evidenceis overwhelming, as recently confirmed by the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC): Human activities, particularlythose associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, arechanging the Earths climate at an unprecedented scale

and pace.5 In fact, science does not doubt that the amountof greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere (includ-ing CO2, NOX, and methane) is rising as a consequence ofhuman activity, and that these anthropogenic emissionsare resulting in increased global temperatures. The IPCC,an organization of the leading climate scientists workingunder the auspices of the United Nations, has concludedthat by the end of the century the planets temperaturescould increase up to 6.4 degrees Celsius (11.5 degreesFahrenheit).6

Temperature increases of this magnitude will have irre-

versible and catastrophic consequences:Melting ice sheets will raise sea levels, which in turnwill submerge many costal areas, permanently dis-placing some 200 million people;

The intensity and frequency of storms, hurricanes,floods, and droughts will increase; and

Forty percent of all of the worlds species will faceextinction; infectious disease patterns are likely tochange dramatically, and heat-related deaths willincrease exponentially.7

The economic consequences of global warming are co-lossal. To wit, one report, authored by the former chiefeconomist of the World Bank and current senior advisorto the UK government, warned that the costs of extremeweather alone could reach one percent of the worlds an-nual GDP by the middle of this century.8

The need for urgent action is clear. In finding a solution,we must make the best choices possible with the bestinformation available. According to NASAs Head ClimateScientist, James Hansen, the world has a brief ten-yearwindow of opportunity to take decisive measures on

global warming and avert a weather catastrophe.9

Swiftand decisive action to prevent the most severe impacts ofglobal climate change is one of the most pressing chal-

lenges that humanity faces today, of which addressingemissions from the transportation sector is a key compo-nent.

Biofuels: What Exactly Are They?

Biomass is defined as recently living matter that can beused to produce workable energy as fuel or power pro-duction. Biofuels are one type of biomass, and refer torecently living material that has been converted to fuel foruses such as cooking and heating (wood, the simplest andlargest biomass energy resource) and for transportation(converted into liquid fuels to be used in cars and trucks).

Biomass can also be used to produce electricity, either bydirect combustion (burning of biomass to create heat thatgenerates steam to drive turbines) or by converting it intoa gas that will then be used to produce electrical power.As commonly defined, biomass includes organic wastes

(animal manure and residues, industrial residues frombreweries and paper mills, and forestry wastes), energycrops (corn, sugarcane, soy, and oily plants), and munici-pal and industrial wastes.10

These different types of biomass present varying environ-mental benefits and limitations. Using waste to generateenergy can create more waste and/or divert materi-als that would otherwise be recycled. Moreover, usinganimal manure to produce energy turns a huge liabilityfor factory farms into an asset, thereby promoting unsus-tainable animal production processes. This definition of

biomass excludes coal and petroleum fuels, as they resultfrom geological processes that transformed the remainsof plant and animal matter from hundreds of millions ofyears ago. Such fuels are non-renewable resourcesoncethey are burned, they cannot be replaced. While similarcarbon deposits could eventually be accumulated againover millions of years, such a time scale is irrelevant forhuman needs. Contrary to fossil fuels, biomass can, atleast in principle, be replaced in a somewhat brief timeperiod.

Biofuels are used primarily to fuel cars, trucks, and buses.The two most common types of biofuels are ethanol and

biodiesel. Ethanol is an alcohol made by fermentingbiomass through a process similar to brewing beer. Cur-rently, ethanol is made from starches (such as corn-basedethanol) and sugars (such as sugarcane-based ethanol).Researchers are also looking into making ethanol fromcellulose, the fibrous material that makes up the bulk ofmost plant matter. Ethanol is mostly used as a blendingagent with gasoline to increase octane and reduce vehicleemissions. Corn constitutes 95 percent of U.S. ethanolfeedstocks.11

Biodiesel is made by combining alcohol (usually metha-

nol or ethanol) with vegetable oil (mostly soy oil), animalfat, or used cooking grease. Other vegetable oils, includ-ing rapeseed, mustard, canola, and sunflower can also be


8/32


4

used to produce biodiesel. Like ethanol, biodiesel can beused as an additive to reduce vehicle emissions, or in itspure form as an alternative fuel for diesel engines.

History of Biofuels: From Peanuts toSwitchgrass

The hype surrounding ethanol, biodiesel, and other biofu-els has reached a peak of its own. News stories fawn overbiofuels as though they were discovered yesterday. But fu-eling up with ethanol is not new. It was used decades agoto power early automobiles, only to fade when plentifulsupplies of cheaper gasoline became readily available.

The history of biofuels is indeed as old as the history ofcivilization. Humans have been drinking ethyl alcohol forits intoxicating effects since before the written word. Priorto the Civil War, this same alcohol was used as a lamp

fuel. Ethanols popularity became its downfall when, dur-ing the war, Congress imposed a stiff tax on liquor. Thepopular lighting fluid, which happened to be drinkable,was taxed out of the energy market to raise funds for thewar effort. Ethanol remained in economic exile until thetaxs repeal in 1906.

Rudolf Diesel, the inventor of the compression-ignitionengine, used peanut oil in his engine at the 1900 WorldsFair in Paris. The French government was interested inexploring the possibilities of using peanut oil as fuel be-cause it could be easily cultivated in its African colonies.

According to Diesel, peanut oil is almost as effective asthe natural mineral oils.12

Henry Ford, thinking far ahead into the future and seeingfossil fuels obvious drawback of being limited in supply,made his first automobiles with ethanol in mind as themain fuel. In 1916, Ford said, Gasoline is goingalcoholis coming. And its coming to stay, too, for its in unlim-ited supply. And we might as well get ready for it now.13Long before there was a term for it, the Model T was aflex-fuel vehicle, able to run on ethanol, gasoline, or a mixof the two, often called gasahol. Indeed, ethanol poweredsome of the first internal combustion engines in the 19th

century. Ethanol was known as an octane booster thatprevented engine knock, and ethanol-gas blends werecommon in Europe and parts of the United States in the19th century.

Ethanols initial setback during the Civil War made thestruggle for market share a difficult one. It was hobbledonce again by the government in 1919. This time it wasnot a tax, but Prohibition. Ethanol could not be sold un-less it was mixed with gasoline to make it undrinkable.Moreover, ethanol suffered the competition of tetraethyllead, another component used to remove engine knock.

Unfortunately for public health, tetraethyl lead was dead-ly, but also slightly cheaper. Leaded gas ended up pushing

out gasahol, which was relegated to the Corn Belt.

Ethanol saw a minor resurgence with World War II, whenthe military needed to stretch its fuel supply. Ethanol wasalso used to make synthetic rubber. But it wasnt until theenergy crisis of the 1970s that ethanol got a second glanceas a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Searching for ways tocreate an energy economy independent of foreign nations,Congress passed the Energy Tax Act of 1978, providingeconomic incentives and subsidies for the developmentof ethanol. Leaded fuel was then banned in 1986, furtherexpanding ethanols market potential.14

While the federal government effectively crippled theethanol industry at the turn of the century, it has provedquite generous in recent decades. The Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992mandate the use of alternative fuels in regulated truckand bus fleets. Ethanol became popular once again as a

fuel additive, not to prevent knocking but as an oxygen-ate, making the fuel burn more efficiently and thus reduc-ing tailpipe emissions. Amendments to the Energy PolicyAct in 1998 provide credits for biofuel use. These lawsare major reasons for the expansion of the popularity ofbiofuels.

Biofuels Today

Ethanol, as a fuel additive, has two main functions: as agasoline replacement and an oxygenate, helping gas burnmore completely and thereby reducing harmful emis-

sions. To a very small extent, biofuels are already a part oftodays American transportation system. Few drivers mayrealize it, but ethanol has supplanted about 3.5 percentof the U.S. gasoline supply.15 And the federal governmentwants to raise biofuels share of the market to 30 percentby 2030.16 Biofuel is already being sold in thousands ofgas stations throughout the United States, and most of itis corn-based ethanol. In fact, Americans burned morethan five billion gallons of it in 2006.17

While interest in ethanol was stimulated by the oil crisesof 1973 and 1979, and again with the 1990 amendmentsto the Clean Air Act, two ongoing developments have now

brought it to the fore. Groundwater contamination fromleaking storage tanks caused a swift crackdown on theoxygenate MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), nowbanned in 25 states and subject to a multi-billion-dollarnationwide cleanup. Much more significantly, war in theMiddle East and elsewhere has stoked intense interest inreducing dependence on foreign oil.

U.S. ethanol consumption more than doubled from 2002to 2006.18 Nearly all of the ethanol consumed in the Unit-ed States is a 90/10 percent gas/ethanol mix, called E10,

but higher concentration blends like E85 (a 15/85 percentgas/ethanol mix) are on the rise. Self-imposed govern-


9/32


5

ment requirements to use alternative fuel vehicles andgrowing production of flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), whichcan run both on gasoline and on gas/ethanol blends, arespurring the trend forward.

There are now 119 ethanol refineries operating in theUnited States, with a total capacity of 6.1 billion gallons.19

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, there are77 ethanol refineries under construction (eight of whichare expansion projects and the rest are new plants) witha combined annual capacity of over six billion gallons.20When construction and expansion are complete, esti-mated to occur in 20082009, the total capacity willreach over 12 billion gallons per year. This huge push hasalready made the United States the worlds top ethanoldistiller, surpassing Brazil.21 With such rapid expansion,the U.S. ethanol market is now slated to surpass the cur-rent targets under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).The 2007 energy bill set the ethanol production target

for 4.7 billion gallons of ethanol, which is lower than the2006 level of ethanol production in the United States.The targets rise every year, eventually to reach 15 billion

gallons of corn ethanol every year by 2015.

Additionally, ethanol is garnering far more public atten-tion than ever before. Cars racing in the Indianapolis 500in 2007 ran on pure ethanol. However, this enthusiasmhas also been tempered by recent skepticism on WallStreet, as investors have expressed a wariness that the

ethanol bubble will burst sometime soon.

Biofuels Globally

Worldwide production of ethanol in 2005 (some 12.2 bil-lion gallons) displaced nearly two percent of global gaso-line demand.22 After the United States and Brazil, Europeranks third in ethanol production. In Europe, where themain producers are France, Spain, and Sweden,23 ethanolis mainly produced from wheat, and to a lesser extent,sugar beets. Europe leads the world in biodiesel, account-ing for more than 90 percent of world production, with

Germany in the forefront, where pure biodiesel (B100) istotally exempt from fuel taxes and is offered at over 1,500of the countrys fueling stations.24 Most German biodiesel

U.S. Ethanol Production, Actual 1980-2006 and Projected 2007-2022

Source: Changing the Climate: Ethanol Industry Outlook 2008. Renewable Fuels Association.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

B

illion

gallons

Years

Actual, 1980-2006

Projected, 2007-2022


10/32


6

is produced from rapeseed, and the government plans to

greatly expand its production in the next few years. Othermain biodiesel producers are France and Italy.25

In the European Union (EU), biofuels have doubled their

market share in two years, from 0.5 percent in 2003 toone percent in 2005.26 This growth, however, fell short ofthe EUs two percent biofuels target, and was comprised

The Ethanol Samba: Is Brazil a Model to Follow?Brazil is often held up as a model for ethanol production. With an aggressive program that dates back to the 1970s, ethanolhas now replaced 40 percent of Brazils total fuels used by nondiesel-powered vehicles. FFVs were introduced in the Brazilianmarket in 2003, and because of a very positive consumer response, almost all car models are now available in ex-fuel ver-sions, with the number of vehicles that can run on biofuels surpassing conventional gas-only models.44

In addition, Brazil is a strong ethanol exporter and hopes to double its exports by 2010 to meet growing demand, largelyfrom Japan and Sweden.45 This has stirred immense interest around the world and particularly in the United States. As ob-served by Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho, president of So Paulos Sugarcane Producers Union: We receive visiting politiciansfrom the United States, and we get invitations to speak to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to leaders of invest-ment funds.46

The Brazilian ethanol sector is based on sugarcane, a feedstock that, because of climate conditions and agricultural produc-tivity, presents very different potential than U.S. feedstocks. Sugarcane-based ethanol production in Brazil is much more ef-cient, and thus yields higher energy ratios than are achievable with corn-based ethanol. (For an explanation of energy ratiossee page 15.) Bioreneries in Brazil are generally self-sufcient because bagassethe brous material that is left behindwhen sucrose is separated from the caneis used to generate both heat (to boil off the water in the cane juice) and electric-ity (to power reneries and even to be sold to the national power grid). This use of bagasse for cogenerationthe processof producing heat and power concurrentlygreatly impacts the net energy balance of sugarcane ethanol, with energy ratios

calculated to be as high as ten.47

Corn-based ethanol production is much less efcient than sugarcane, with energy ratios around 1.3. Even if cellulosic ethanolbecomes a reality in the United States in the near future, its energy balance is still estimated to be much less than that ofsugarcane. As one researcher put it, for net energy yield, ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil is in a class all by itself.48 Otherfactors also make the Brazilian experience nonreplicable in the United States. While Brazils ethanol production of 4.4 billiongallons displaces 40 percent of gasoline consumption, the 4.8 billion gallons that the United States produced in 2006 dis-placed a mere 3.5 percent of gasoline use. This disparity can largely be explained by different energy consumption levels percapita. Americans use some 25.4 barrels of oil per capita annually, many times more the average 4.2 per capita consump-tion in Brazil.49 Moreover, the average automobile running on Brazilian roads is much smaller, and a large number of vehiclesreach as high as 40 miles per gallon.50 The lesson from this southern neighbor, therefore, seems to be that reducing energydemand is crucial for homegrown fuels to make a dent in oil consumption and imports.

Brazils ethanol sector, however, is tainted by numerous environmental and human rights violations. Sugarcane is planted in

monoculture regimes on huge properties. Among its most serious environmental impacts are deforestation (in order to makespace for new plantations), contamination of soil and water (from the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides), and air pol-lution (from the burning of the elds to facilitate the harvesting of the cane).51 These queimadasas the burning of the eldsis calledare carried out as a way to eliminate straw, debris, and animals that complicate manual harvesting. Annual burn-ings are responsible for soil depletion and wildlife loss as well as considerable emissions of greenhouse gases. The negativehealth impacts of the queimadas have been extensively documented, and include widespread respiratory problems. A studyby the So Paulo University, for instance, concluded that hospital admissions for respiratory complications increased by morethan 20 percent during the annual cane-burning periods.52

The expansion of sugarcane production, fueled by the development of ethanol, has been associated with agrant humanrights violations and rural conict. The sector employs approximately one million people, and some 80 percent of the produc-tion is manual.53 Expansion of sugarcane cultivation has resulted in further concentration of land ownership and expulsionof small farmers from their properties, sometimes through the use of violence. The Pastoral Land Commission registered 16

assassinations connected to the sugarcane industry between 1990 and 2002.54

Only 20 percent of the cane produced in Brazilcomes from medium- or small-sized properties, and the trend to close down small reneries is on the rise.55 Moreover, manycane cutters are reduced to slavery through a system of bound work.56 The Second Conference on Slavery and Work Exploi-tation held recently in Brazil indicated that more than 16,000 cane eld workers had been freed in the last four years, butmany thousands more continue to be submitted to slavery conditions.57 In June 2005, for instance, more than a thousand ofthese workers were freed by inspection teams in the Gameleira renery, in the state of Mato Grosso.58

Therefore, the competitive price of sugarcane ethanol and much of the success of Brazils ethanol sector is based on a feed-stock production with serious environmental impacts, labor exploitation, and a record of agrant human rights abuse hardlyan example to follow.


11/32


7

of mainly biodiesel. But expansion is still expected in theEuropean zone, as most member states have introducedtax exemptions for biofuels and some have introducedproduction targets. The EU energy ministers have agreedto increase the share of biofuels used in transportationto ten percent by 2020.27 This target is likely to be linkedto sustainability criteria, a requirement that may ruleout U.S. ethanol imports.28 An EU official stated that theCommission is developing a certification system to en-sure that biofuels that are imported or the raw materialsare taken from sustainable production.29 The Commis-sion has also proposed stricter fuel standards, which willrequire suppliers to reduce the greenhouse gases causedby the production, transport, and use of their fuels byten percent between 2011 and 2020 to help ensure thatthe fuel sector contributes to achieving the EUs emis-sions reduction goals.30 Moreover, to compensate for anincrease in emissions of polluting vapors that will resultfrom greater use of ethanol, the Commission plans to put

forward a proposal for the mandatory introduction ofvapor-recovery equipment at filling stations.31

China is another significant ethanol producer, reachingmore than one billion gallons of output in 2005.32 Chineseethanol is made mostly from corn, cassava, and sweetpotatoes. Mandatory ten percent blends are in place ineight provinces, and the government plans to increase in-centives for biofuels production.33 In fact, Beijing alreadysubsidizes the production of ethanol at about 1,300 yuan($167) a ton and has committed to support the devel-opment of more biorefineries.34 Guangxi province, for

instance, is set to produce as much as one million tons ofcassava ethanol per year, a target that is already rais-ing concerns about the availability of homegrown feed-stocks.35 But the Chinese government has also called forrestrictions on developing ethanol because of its effectson food markets. Chinas Renewable Energy Plan wouldrestrict the countrys ethanol industry to producing fuelfrom non-grain sources (such as grasses, corn stalks, orother plant byproducts) as a way to reserve cropland forfood production.36

In India, a nationwide ethanol program is currently be-ing launched that aims to reach five percent ethanol in

transportation fuel throughout the country, attracting theattention of domestic and international investors.37 Thereare about 125 ethanol producers in the country, with a to-tal capacity of 1.25 billion liters of ethanol, most of themconcentrated in sugarcane states.38 India is also lookinginto the development of biodiesel based on Jatropha, anordinary shrub that is common in the country. IndianRailways, the largest owner of land in India, is growingthe shrub on thousands of acres of land along the sides ofthe railway tracks, and hopes to cut a significant part ofits fuel bill by blending Jatropha oil with diesel.39

In South America, Colombia is among the countriesleading the way with a ten percent ethanol requirementset for 2009 and some 27 ethanol plants being planned

to process sugarcane feedstocks.40 Colombia also plansto expand biodiesel production to five percent of the fuelused in regular diesel engines, and intends to greatlyincrease the areas planted with palm trees, the feedstockfrom which their biodiesel is derived. But the expansionof feedstock crops here has been tied to deforestation,easing money laundering from drug trafficking, andforcefully removing indigenous and peasant populationsfrom their lands.41 Other countries considering ethanolprograms include Bolivia, Costa Rica, and Guatemala,mainly based on sugarcane feedstocks.

Elsewhere around the globe, the Canadian governmenthas set a 4.5 percent target for ethanol consumption by2010.42 In Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Malaysia, majorproducers of palm oil, are set to use their feedstock sourcefor the production of biodiesel, while Thailand just beganto implement a ten percent ethanol blend based on itssugar and cassava production.43 Production of biodiesel

in these countries has been associated with increaseddeforestation, as forest lands are cleared for growingfeedstocks.

Biofuels and Transportation

The Role of TransportationTodays world economy is heavily dependent on fossilfuels. Oil is now consumed at a rate of 80 million barrelsa day (Mbd), compared to just eight Mbd in the middleof the twentieth century, an amazing tenfold increase injust five decades.59 The top consumer of oil in the world

is the United States; with only five percent of the worldspopulation, it consumes 25 percent of global oil. The U.S.fleet of approximately 210 million automobiles and lighttrucks (vans, pick-ups, and SUVs) accounts for about two-thirds of the countrys oil use, roughly 14 Mbd.60

Almost all transportation vehicles in the world run on oil.Worldwide, vehicles burn more than 40 million barrels ofoil every day.61 Growth in passenger travel, mainly by carand plane, has been the biggest contributor to increasesin oil demand.62 Currently, transportation is responsiblefor 14 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide,making fossil fuelbased transportation a significant

contributor to climate change.63,64 The United States isalso the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, contributingalmost 40 percent of the worlds anthropogenic green-house gas emissions.65 Transportation is responsible for27 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.66

Not only is transportation one of the most polluting sec-tors, its technology is based on substantial inefficiencies.This means that in addition to emitting high quantitiesof greenhouse gases in order to move goods and peoplearound the world, a lot of energy is wasted doing it. Cur-rent internal combustion engines are highly inefficient

most of the energy content in the gas fuel is lost in noise,heat, useless vibration, and wasted braking energy. Onlyone percent of the fuel energy is actually used to move


12/32


8

the driver.67 Indeed, the United States has the loweststandards in fleet average fuel efficiency and also themost permissible standards for greenhouse gas emissionscompared to the European Union, Japan, China, Austra-lia, and Canada.68

Furthermore, fuel efficiency and conservation consider-ations have been largely absent from urban planning andpublic transportation models, dimensions of public policythat can greatly affect fuel consumption. Comparatively

low oil prices in the United States contribute to this situ-ation. The oil shocks of the 1970s and 80s were followedby great reductions in oil consumption and fuel efficiencyimprovements, but these gains were diluted as oil pricesfell. More cars per family and new suburbs engulfingopen space and farmland have also factored into the U.S.oil consumption and waste model. Indeed, traffic conges-tion is responsible for tremendous fuel waste. In 2003,U.S. drivers in the 85 most congested urban areas of thecountry experienced 3.7 billion hours of travel delay andwasted 2.3 billion gallons of fuel, with a total cost of $63billion.69

A heavily subsidized sector, oil is estimated to have beenthe recipient of some $149 billion in taxpayer moneyfrom 1968 to 2000.70 Now a century-old industry, oil wasnevertheless granted subsidies in the range of $6 billionin the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), plusroyalty waivers totaling $7 billion to companies extract-ing oil from public lands.71 The industry has posted recordprofits as fuel prices have risen, and has done so withoutabsorbing any costs associated with the environmentaland health impacts of oil production and consumption.72

The urgent need to address climate change coupled withrising oil prices, as well as concerns over energy inde-pendence, have accelerated the need to find alternativefuels for transportation. With a renewed vigor in the raceto find a substitute for gasoline, biofuels have emergedfrom decades of marginalization to become the darling ofelected officials, academics, the media, family and corpo-rate farmers, and even some mainstream environmentalgroups.


13/32


9

Part II:

Corn-Based Ethanol Americas Energy Panacea?

Limitations of Corn-Based Ethanol

Energy Ratios

How do we measure whether or not biofuels provide moreenergy than the fossil-fuel energy consumed to producethem? To do this, researchers consider the entire fuelcycle, factoring in energy content of all inputs for produc-tion and processing. The total energy produced by thebiofuel is then divided by the nonrenewable energy need-ed to produce it. The result is a net energy balance ratio.If the ratio is higher than one, the balance is positive,meaning that more usable energy is yielded than was putinto producing the fuel; if its less than one, the balance is

negative, and the fuel took more energy to produce than itwill yield.

There have been conflicting studies and much rhetoricsurrounding the debate about ethanols energy content.In an effort to harmonize the parameters and resultsreached by different researchers, several comparativestudies have been conducted. The most comprehensiveanalysis to date was conducted in 2006 by the Institutefor Lifecycle Environmental Assessment (ILEA), whichcompared ten recent net energy balance studiessix forcorn-based ethanol and four for cellulosic.74 For corn-

based ethanol, energy inputs included the fuel neededto manufacture fertilizer, run farm machinery, transportand distill corn, and distribute ethanol.

The ILEA reports findings speak to the difficulty in com-ing up with objective, consistent assessments of ethanols

energy and environmental benefits. There are many fac-tors that determine net energy balance ratios, and thereare not standardized criteria for calculating relevant val-ues. The main reason for disparities between the teamsratio calculations was that the input sets they consideredwere not uniform across studies. One example is howmuch energy credit should be attributed to byproductsof ethanol processing, such as animal feed. The energysaved by producing these byproducts would be sub-tracted from energy inputs to determine net energy input.

Of the six corn-based ethanol studies ILEA examined,five showed positive ratios. The only exception was theresearch team of Pimentel and Patzek. However, ILEAattributed the Pimentel and Patzek negative ratio to theirrelatively high estimates of energy needed to manufacturenitrogen fertilizer and operate farm equipment, as wellas the studys consideration of two inputs not consideredby any other teampersonal energy consumption of farmlaborers and the energy costs of manufacturing capitalequipment. These same researchers were also the onlyteam to calculate a negative energy ratio for cellulosic eth-anol, estimating that switchgrass ethanol takes 45 percentmore fossil energy than the fuel yielded. In this case, their

model included fossil fuel to power refineries instead oflignin, a component of woody plants that is envisioned asa plentiful energy source for these facilities.75

This debate on the energy ratios of ethanol is, however, alargely academic discussion that has been decontextual-ized from its actual significance. It is important to keep inmind that energy is not lost or created, but transformedinto forms in which it can be more or less useful. In thiscontext, it is also important to remember that gasolinehas a negative energy ratio, as more fossil-fuel energy isneeded to produce a gallon of gasoline than the energy

content that gallon yields.76

Therefore, the ethanol energyratio debate should be put into perspective, as it repre-sents an improvement over oil.

Energy ContentEthanols energy content is about one-third less than thatof gasoline. For E10 fuel, this lowers miles-per-gallon ef-ciency by two to three percent, so more fuel is neededto go the same distance. This also affects the price com-

petitiveness of ethanol relative to gas, as a gallon of pureethanol contains only 70 percent of the energy containedin a gallon of oil-based fuel. For consumers in Brazil, forinstance, where pure ethanol is commonly available, thismeans that ethanol is preferable to gasoline as long asthe price of the ethanol is at least 30 percent less thanthat of gasoline. This has sharpened the math skills ofBrazilian drivers who learned to do quick calculations atthe pump to determine what the best buy is. Pure ethanolis usually cheaper53 cents per liter (approximately $2per gallon), compared with 99 cents per liter of gasoline(about $3.74 per gallon) in Sao Paulo the summer of2006.73

The idea of U.S. energyindependence is now a myth,but could become a reality

if U.S. lawmakers find waysto expand demand for fuelsblended from homegrownsources like corn and giveautomakers incentives to makecars that burn on them.

Monte Shaw, president of the Iowa

Renewable Fuels Association77


14/32


10

The overall conclusion regarding the energy ratios ofbiofuels makes clear three main points:

The net energy balance of biofuels has improved overtime as efficiencies in both feedstock and fuel produc-tion have increased.

Biofuels represent a clear gain when compared to fos-sil fuelbased gasoline and diesel.

Corn-based ethanol has one of the lowest energyratios of all biofuels.

Potential to Displace Fossil Fuels

Proponents of biofuels claim to have the answer to energyindependence and U.S. addiction to foreign oil. Corngrowers and ethanol producers talk enthusiastically aboutreplacing the oil fields of the Middle East with the cornfields of the Midwest. In a report prepared for the Ger-

man government, the Worldwatch Institute concludedthat The recent pace of advancement in technology,policy, and investment suggest [that] these fuels havethe potential to displace a significant share of the oilnow consumed in many countries.78 The Natural Re-sources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that a highlyaggressive research, development, demonstration, anddeployment program could result in biofuels contribut-ing 25 percent of projected U.S. transportation-related oilconsumption by the middle of the century.79

However, the promising figures in the NRDC and other

reports are based on massive changes and complex anduncertain developments. For example, the NRDCs pro-jection that biofuels could supplant 25 percent of petro-leum for the transportation sector assumes that, amongother modifications, vehicle fuel efficiency will reach 50miles per gallon, switchgrass yields will increase by 50percent, ten to 15 million acres will be removed fromconservation programs that restrict what can be grownon it, and smart growth policies will be enacted to reducefuel demand.80

Other estimates regarding the potential of ethanol todisplace the demand for fossil fuel are less favorable. For

one, researchers at the University of Minnesota foundthat converting every corn and soybean field in the UnitedStates to biofuel production, a highly unlikely scenario,would reduce gasoline demand by just 18 percent.81Furthermore, because of the huge energy inputs thatwould be required, overall energy consumption would bereduced by only 5.3 percent.82

In a similar vein, the Congressional Research Service(CRS) has estimated that even if the entire U.S. corn cropwas dedicated to ethanol, it would displace less than 15percent of national gasoline use.83 Replacing 30 percent

of total U.S. oil consumption would require nearly 140million acres of land for corn production and would re-quire that the entire crop be dedicated to ethanol produc-

tion. Yet only 78.4 million acres of corn were planted in2006, and in 2007 corn acreage is expected to reach 93million.84 Therefore, the CRS concludes that barring a

drastic realignment of U.S. field crop production patterns,corn-based ethanols potential as a petroleum import sub-stitute appears to be limited by a crop area constraint.85

Therefore, the potential of ethanol to displace fossil fuels,and thus to reduce imports of foreign oil, is limited. Themost favorable estimates point out that fuel made frombiomass can replace between a fourth and a third oftransportation-related oil demand. As demand for oil inthe transportation sector is projected to increase fromthe current 14 Mbd to 20 Mbd by 2030, even the mostaggressive projections for biofuel production would notbe able to meaningfully address the critical questions of

energy independence and fossil fuel replacement.86

Environmental Effects of Corn-Based Ethanol

Ethanol is being widely promoted as a renewable, home-grown alternative to gasoline, naming corn as the fuelsource for a cleaner future. There has been a concertedeffort to portray corn-based ethanol as a clean, environ-mentally responsible energy source. According to the Re-newable Fuels Association, the national trade association

that represents the U.S. ethanol industry, ethanol dra-matically reduces tailpipe emissions and is one of thebest tools we have to fight air pollution from vehicles.87

DeforestationSignicant expansion of biofuel feedstock productionmay cause widespread deforestation as land is cleared tomake room for these crops. It is well known that destruc-tion of the worlds rainforests poses a major threat to theearths capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, as well as

to the survival of a large percentage of global biodiversity.What is less known is that the worlds largest rainforest,the Amazon, is being clear-cut to make way for expandingcrop production. In fact, soy production in Brazil has beena major force behind recent destruction of the Amazon.94As demand for soy increases with the promotion ofbiodiesel, and as Brazils ethanol industry continues to putpressure on sugarcane supplies, it is likely that even moreof the Amazon will be cut to make room for these crops.

Biofuel-driven deforestation is also already advancing inregions of Southeast Asia. The Malaysian government, forexample, intends to develop three million hectares of newoil-palm plantations by 2011 to meet the increasing globaldemand for biofuels,95 even though oil-palm produc-tion was responsible for an estimated 87 percent of thedeforestation in Malaysia from 1985 to 2000.96 In additionto decreasing biodiversity, deforestation limits the planetsability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, underminingone of the main justications for using biofuels in the rstplace.9


15/32


11

The reality, however, is not this simple. A study by theWorld Resources Institute concluded that the develop-ment of a corn-based ethanol market will negativelyimpact the environmental problems already degradingsoil and water quality in the United States.88 The studyestimates that expected incentives for corn production,resulting from its increased market value, will lowerenrollments in the Conservation Reserve Program,increase soil erosion, contribute to the eutrophication(algae blooms resulting from excessive nitrogen) of riversand lakes, reduce fish habitat, and expand hypoxic zones(low-oxygen dead zones where life cannot flourish).

In addition to the environmental concerns stemmingfrom the cultivation of corn for ethanol, the processingof ethanol itself, as well as burning it as fuel, also hasadverse effects on air and water quality. The followingsections will explore the various ways in which all phasesof ethanols life-cyclefrom the farm to the tail pipecan

be harmful to the environment.

Conventional Corn Production

Conventional corn production in the United States ischaracterized by intensive soil tillage, heavy applicationof chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and cultivation ofgenetically engineered crop varieties, all of which take asignificant toll on soil, water, and environmental qual-ity. Much of the intensity of corn farming is related to thefailure of federal farm policy and the domination of cor-porate agribusiness. Since 1996, federal farm policy has

promoted commodity overproduction that has loweredthe price of corn below the cost of production for much ofthe last decade. Agribusiness consolidation of suppliersand corn buyers has further disadvantaged corn farmers.Corn farmers buy expensive inputs from a consolidatedindustrytwo firms control 58 percent of the corn seedmarket, for example.89 To compensate for these pres-sures, corn farmers have pushed to get higher yields andgenerate additional bushels to sell at the low prices thathave been the norm until recently. Most farmers plantcorn because it is a commodity desired by the food andfeed industry. Corn is not only the most common feedat livestock processing operations, it is a basic building

block throughout the food processing industry.

Land Use

In 2006, 78.4 million U.S. acres were planted with corn.90In 2007, corn fields were expected to expand by 15percent to meet higher demand caused by the growth ofthe ethanol industry.91 This represents a planted area of93 million acres of corn, the largest increase since early1944.92

As corn prices continue to rise and government subsi-

dies continue to flood the ethanol industry, there will bepressure to use a greater percentage of the corn harvestfor ethanol production and to plant additional land with

corn. There are only two ways to do this: by switchingfrom other crops to corn, or by appropriating currentlyidle lands for crop production.

Pressure on farmers to switch from soybeans or othercrops to corn will contribute to the environmental prob-lems already affecting industrial corn cultivation. Aban-doning crop rotation to raise corn year after year willnecessitate more fertilizer and pesticide use, becauseof increasing resistance of weeds and insects to chemi-

cals meant to contain them, and further soil depletion.Moreover, as ethanol technology develops toward usingcrop residues as an additional feedstock, there will be lessorganic matter left on the fields after each harvest, dimin-ishing soil fertility and speeding erosion.

Some experts have expressed concerns about the possi-bility that demand for feedstocks, or energy crops, willdissuade farmers from participating in the ConservationReserve Program (CRP), the largest program that encour-ages conservation of private lands in the country. TheU.S. Farm Service Agency (FSA) oversees the CRP, whichwas set up more than 20 years ago as a voluntary pro-

gram for farmers to set aside highly erodible and depletedlands for conservation. Under CRP contracts, landownersreceive rental payments to establish long-term vegetativecover on eligible farmland. High demand for corn coulddeter farmers from putting acres into the CRP and couldencourage farmers participating in the CRP to bring thoseacres back into production. As CRP contracts covering26 million acres of land are due to expire at end of thedecade,93 there is concern for the long-term conservationof these lands.

Soil Fertility and Erosion

A major problem with the expansion of corn productionis that it is an input-intensive crop that puts enormous

Atrazine is known to stimulate enzymes that can alterhormonal development in wildlife. In fact, this herbicidehas been linked to sh in the Detroit River having bothmale and female sex organs,114 and has been known toturn frogs into bizarre creatures bearing both male andfemale sex organs.115

Atrazine is toxic to sh and aquatic invertebrates.116 Italso poses risks to aquatic and terrestrial plants,117 andthe environmental group NRDC has actually sued the EPAover its failure to protect endangered species from it.118

In humans, atrazine may pose risks to endocrinal devel-opment.119 The EPA warns consumers that acute exposureto atrazine can cause congestion of the heart, lungs andkidneys; low blood pressure; muscle spasms; weight loss,[and] damage to adrenal glands.120 It also notes thatlong-term exposure can result in weight-loss, cardiovas-cular damage, retinal and some muscle degeneration;[and] cancer.121


16/32


12

pressure on soils. Traditionally, most corn farmers havepracticed crop rotation, which involves planting one crop(usually soybeans) one season, and another crop (corn)the next season on the same field.98 This practice allowsfor the soil to regenerate fertility because each crop vari-ety draws different nutrients from the soil while leavingdifferent nutrients behind.

Industrial monoculturesincluding corn, sugarcane, andsoybeansrely increasingly on just a few genetic variet-ies, which are displacing thousands of locally adaptedvarieties. Farmers raise these few varietiesthere aretwo primary seed corn varieties grown in the UnitedStatesbecause that is what the corporate food proces-sors, livestock operators, and granaries demand. Alongwith deforestation resulting from expansion of industrialmonocultures, this homogenization of the gene pool foragricultural crops, plus the widespread use of chemicalpesticides and fertilizers, is slowly undermining global

and local biodiversity. This will have immense negativeimpacts on global food security, ecological stability, andthe environment.

Commercial Fertilizers

Corn is very nutrient-intensive and growers turn tocommercial fertilizers to maintain crop yields, especiallyduring periods of persistently low prices. As a result,corn production consumes 40 percent of all commercialfertilizers used on crops in the United States; commercialnitrogen is applied to 98 percent of corn fields and com-

mercial phosphate to 87 percent.

101

The extensive use of commercial fertilizers in cornproduction is problematic because nutrients from thesechemicals are known to run off of fields and contaminatewater systems. Excess nutrients in water systems causeeutrophicationan increase in plant growth in waterwaysthat depletes oxygen levels in the water, making it impos-sible for most other aquatic life forms to survive.102

According to the Cornell University Center for Envi-ronmental Research, most farmers apply over twice theamount of nitrogen fertilizers that their crops can put to

use, allowing the excess nitrogen to leach into the ground-water and contaminate drinking water supplies.103 Whennitrogen fertilizer leaches into groundwater, it takes theform of nitrate.104 Excess nitrate in drinking water hasbeen linked to a number of adverse human health effects,including methemoglobinemia (Blue-Baby Syndrome),cancers (ovarian, uterine, and bladder cancer), goiters,spontaneous abortion, and birth defects.105

Pesticides and Herbicides

Corn farmers rely on various methods to control pests

in their fields, including crop rotation, scouting, tillage,planting herbicide resistant biotech crops, and the ap-plication of pesticides.106 Some corn farmers use insecti-

cides to ward off unwanted insects, however their usageis relatively low and varies depending on geographic loca-tion and weather. Herbicides, which are used to kill andcontrol weeds, are by far the most commonly used agro-chemicals in corn farming, applied to about 96 percent ofU.S. corn acreage.107 U.S. corn farmers rely primarily onone herbicide, atrazine.108

Atrazine is applied to roughly 75 percent of the U.S. corncrop,109 and is consequently one of the most widely usedherbicides in the world. The human and environmental

health risks associated with this herbicide are many,although there is a good deal of controversy surroundingthe validity of its risk assessments. The EU has bannedthe use of atrazine since 2004,110 and U.S. consumergroups have called for its restriction by the EPA.111

The EPA acknowledges that there is significant, wide-spread exposure to atrazine and its metabolites in drink-ing water.112 In order to combat water contaminationfrom herbicides, the EPA has promoted the use of less-toxic varieties that may bring down overall herbicide us-age in the United States. One such herbicide is acetochlor,

which was approved by the EPA in 1994 under theconditional that this herbicide would reduce total cornherbicide use (replacing usage of herbicides like alachlor,metolachlor, atrazine, 2,4-D, butylate, and EPTC).113

Although acetochlor has been instrumental in reducingtotal herbicide use and is considered to be less toxic thanatrazine and other pesticides,122 this herbicide also poseshealth and environmental risks. The EPA has classifiedacetochlor as likely to be carcinogenic to humans,123 andin lab tests it has proven to have adverse effects on mam-mals reproductive systems, development, body weight,testes, and blood chemistry.124 Acetochlor is also consid-

ered to be particularly risky for human females ages 13and older.125 Furthermore, the EPA has acknowledgedthat there is relatively high potential for acetochlorresidues to reach ground and surface water.126 Whenreleased into the environment, the herbicide is slightlytoxic to mammals and birds, and highly toxic to fish, aswell as some aquatic and terrestrial plants.127

Corn herbicides are the most prevalent (both in terms offrequency and concentration) agricultural pesticides pres-ent in surface and drinking waters throughout the UnitedStates.128 Given current knowledge of the potential carci-

nogenicity and other adverse health effects of herbicidesused in corn production, it is clear that increases in theselevels could pose a serious threat to human health.

In the spring time, when corn farmers apply the largestquantities of herbicides to their elds, rains wash thesechemicals into the drinking water of nearly 12 millionpeople throughout the central United States, and about18,000 pounds of corn herbicides are carried into the Mis-sissippi river every day.129


17/32


13

Ethanol Processing and Water Use

As with the production of feedstocks to fuel the ethanolindustry, the processing and burning of ethanol also

have significant negative effects on the environment andhuman health. Ethanol plants are known to use mas-sive quantities of water, a scarce and valuable resource inmany U.S.

farming regions. The emissions released when ethanol isburned are an equally important concern, particularly inthe context of global climate change.

A recent study by the Institute for Agriculture and TradePolicy estimates average water consumption for ethanolplants at about four gallons of water consumed per gallon

of ethanol produced, indicating that water availability willbe a major limitation to the potential of the ethanol sec-tor, particularly west of the Missouri River.130 Although

ethanol plants have become more efficient in terms of wa-ter use, water conservation technology is limited. Even iftechnological innovation meets the Renewable Energy As-sociations estimate of three gallons of water to produce

one gallon of ethanol, the construction of new plants willput significant pressure on water supplies, consuming anestimated 30 billion gallons in 2008.131

Ethanol refineries are significant sources of greenhousegases and other polluting emissions. Coal and natural gasare commonly burned in order to generate the enormousamounts of energy and heat needed to run biofuel refiner-ies. These facilities discharge many of the same pollutantsethanol is intended to reduce, including CO2, CO, NOX,volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide, andparticulate matter.132 Emissions from coal-fired ethanol

plants are notably higher than those from plants runningon natural gas. In fact, according to the Department ofEnergy, ethanol produced using coal results in greater

Eutrophication caused by farm runoff has resulted in the formation of a 6,600 square mile dead zone along the coast in the Gulf of Mexico. Thedead zone is about the size of the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined, with extremely low oxygen levels that cannot support sh andother aquatic animals, resulting in empty nets for local shermen.1 A 1995 ood aggravated this situation, increasing the size of the dead zone asmore agricultural chemicals poured into the Gulf, leading the federal government to provide $15 million in disaster relief for sherman affected bythe catastrophe.2 Photo courtesy NASA.


18/32


14

overall greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline.133 Anestimated 85 percent of ethanol plants currently run onnatural gas, but because it is becoming more expensive,more refiners are expected to turn to coal as their fuelsource.134

In 2002, the EPA cracked down on emissions violationsfrom ethanol plants, finding that many plants were inviolation of the Clean Air Acts New Source Review stan-dards. Subsequently, many plants were forced to reducetheir emissions, preventing the release of hundreds ofthousands of tons of greenhouse gases and other gasesinto the atmosphere.135

More recently, however, the EPA made a U-turn on etha-nol plant emissions. The regulatory body actually pro-posed new permit requirements for ethanol plants thatwould effectively increase the emissions threshold forfacilities by 150 percent (from 100 tons per year to 250tons per year).136 The EPAs proposal has garnered criti-

cism from environmental groups, who claim the agencyis cutting corners now so the new wave of ethanol plantscan be bigger, cheaper, and dirtier.137 Because hun-dreds of refineries may be built, the potential for seriousenvironmental damage caused by these plants cannot beoverlooked.


19/32


15

PART III:Second GenerationBiofuels

Cellulosic Ethanol: Alternative to

the AlternativeBetter Than Corn

At this point in time, virtually all domestically producedethanol comes from corn. But as the negative impacts ofcorn-based ethanol draw increasing criticism, cellulosicethanol is being regarded as a more favorable alternative.Instead of using corn and soybeans, researchers are turn-ing to non-food plants in hopes of meeting rising ethanoldemands and finding a more sustainable gasoline re-placement solution. Theyre already being called energycrops, and they include tall grasses, such as switchgrass

and miscanthus, and fast-growing trees, including pop-lars, willows, and eucalyptus. Also being studied are farmbyproducts such as rice hulls and straw, sugarcane waste(bagasse), corn stover (the leaves and stalks remainingafter harvest), and wood chips, sawdust, paper pulp, andother agricultural wastes and forest residues.

Ethanol produced from these sources is called cellulosicbecause the sugar is pulled from their cellulosethewoody, structural part of the plantrather than thestarch, as is the case with corn. This cellulose can beextracted through various processes from the fibrous,

photosynthetic part of the plant and then fermented intoethanol. Cellulosic ethanol has never been produced onan industrial scale and technological breakthroughs arenecessary before it can be produced in a cost-competitiveway. Most experts estimate that commercial productionof cellulosic fuel is still some five to ten years away.138

What exactly are the advantages of switchgrass, willow,poplars, and other potential sources of cellulosic ethanol?What makes cellulosic ethanol more appealing as a fuelover current corn-based ethanol?

Cellulosic ethanol production shows higher energy ra-

tios than corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel.Cellulosic ethanol can be produced with a net energygain of 80 percent. Cellulosic ethanol energy ratiosare more favorable than those of corn because whenthe feedstock is converted into ethanol, about a thirdof its biomass remains unused. This material, calledlignin, can be burned to supply all of the energy needsof the refinery.139

Near-term efficiency gains in cellulosic ethanol pro-duction are expected to greatly increase the numberof gallons produced per ton of dry biomass, with

some estimates suggesting that it can eventuallyreach 117 gallons of ethanol per ton of dry switch-grass.

Because of their wide range and tolerance for degrad-ed soils, cellulosic feedstocks can grow on marginallands not suitable for agricultural crops, greatly ex-panding their potential growing area relative to cornand soy. Because cellulosic crops can be grown onmarginal land that cannot support food crops, they donot affect food supplies or food crop economics.

Native species, such as switchgrass, have a naturalresistance to pests and disease, resulting in higher,more dependable yields than domesticated corn.

Cellulosic crops require far fewer inputs to grow thancorn and, therefore, cause less environmental dam-age. In general, they require significantly less farmequipment, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, andwater.

If managed properly, tall grasses and trees can

provide habitat for birds, small mammals, and otherwildlife.

The root structures of perennial grasses efficientlyabsorb water, nutrients, and fertilizer, reducingchemical runoff that leads to eutrophication down-stream and soil erosion, both major problems withcorn production. Over time, switchgrass can actuallyimprove soil quality and fertilityeven with regular,sustainable harvestingand allow for crop rotationwith corn and other food crops.

Rural economies could benefit from cellulosic ethanol

production. Because a variety of raw materials canbe used, smaller, specialized refineries will likely bebuilt. Cellulosic has the potential to be synergisticallyintegrated into local agricultural systems, comparedto the corn-based ethanol industry that is shifting to alarger-scale, corporate-owned model.

Cellulosic ethanol results in higher reductions ofgreenhouse gases and other polluting emissions thancorn-based ethanol.140

The advantages of cellulosic ethanol have been high-

lighted in a recent study by the University of Minnesota,which found that biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennialscan provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gasreductions, and less agrichemical pollution per hectarethan can corn-based ethanol or soy-based biodiesel. Thestudy found that high-diversity grasslands have increas-ingly higher yields238 percent greater than monocul-ture yields after a decade.141

So far, the main barrier to the commercial developmentof cellulosic ethanol has been reducing the cost and

improving the efficiency of enzymes used in the process.These enzymes break down cellulosic matter to yield sug-ars, which are then fermented to create ethanol.


20/32


16

With the Renewable Fuel Standard aiming at one billiongallons by 2013 and 10.5 billion gallons by 2020, the raceto develop commercially viable processes of producingcellulosic ethanol is well under way. Several researchprojects are being developed right now, as differentcompanies try to get ahead of the game in the upcomingcellulosic ethanol market.

How Much Better?

While the broad designation of cellulosic biomasspromises greater environmental benefits compared tostarches, such as corn or soy, the relative impacts of themany cellulosic feedstocks warrant closer investigation.There is much dialogue and study within the scientificcommunity concerning which biofuels hold the greatestpotential in terms of output, cost effectiveness, and envi-ronmental footprint.

The impacts of producing biomass for energy could insome cases degrade and in others improve environmentalintegrity, based on type of feedstock, cultivation methods,and land used.142 For example, removing agricultural resi-dues beyond what is needed to maintain and replenishsoil organic matter will exacerbate erosion vulnerabilitiesand negative environmental impacts from conventionalrow-crop production. On the other hand, transitioningvulnerable or low-yielding agricultural lands to energy-crop production would enhance soil, water, and wildlifehealth. However, turning protected lands, such as thoseenrolled in the USDA Conservation Reserve Program, to

energy crops will sacrifice ecological quality.The potential yields and impacts of widespread cellulosicproduction are, at this time, combinations of extrapola-tion, projections, and hope. Before cellulosic biofuels areadopted as the alternative fuel, federal, state, and localplanners must work in conjunction with farmers, envi-ronmental scientists, conservationists, and other stake-holders to ensure that the great potential of cellulosicethanol is not forsaken by flawed implementation and in-centivization. In real terms, only programs that prioritizeenvironmental protection, sustainability, and efficiencywill be cost-effective and long-lasting, and deployment of

a cellulosic biofuel economy should faithfully representthose imperatives.

Input Demands of Cellulosic Ethanol

Because no commercial cellulosic ethanol refineries arecurrently operating, there are no concrete models bywhich to determine what cellulosics water intake needswill be. However, there are concerns that the added pre-washing or pre-processing143 step necessary for break-ing down cellulose into ethanol will be a serious limitingfactor in determining where refineries can be built, possi-

bly excluding arid western states from production. Whileit is presumed that added water demand for processingwill not be greater than water use for row irrigation of

corn, the number and density of refineries slated for theMidwestern region alone are cause for concern. Fur-thermore, this additional step will add a suite of largelyuntested chemicals that would be treated and discharged.

Fertilizers and pesticides will still be applied to cellulosicfeedstocks, though in lesser quantity than for corn andsoy. According to NRDC projections, which account forhigher rates of uptake of chemicals through root mass,switchgrass yields 9.7 kg/hectare/year runoff of appliednitrogen (the chemical of utmost concern for eutrophica-tion, along with potassium and phosphorus) as compared

to 78.8 and 16.25 for corn and soybeans respectively.

144

But while the amounts of chemicals applied are lower andpercentage runoff is less, they are by no means negligible.Concerns about chemical runoff from cellulosic feedstockfields become very significant when one considers thescale of cellulosic ethanol production that the federal gov-ernment and environmental organizations are proposing.

Improving the cost of producing cellulosic ethanol (anenzymatic process) depends largely on transgenic andprecision breedingprocesses that involve genetic modi-fication. Employing marker-assisted breeding would be amore sustainable method, with less potential for unin-

tended negative environmental or health consequences.145

One of the major reasons for the selection of poplar andwillow trees as energy crops is the ease with which theyare genetically manipulated to accentuate their alreadyfavorable characteristics.146 Poplars were the first treeto have their entire genome sequenced and researchersat various DOE labs are working to isolate the cellulosepolymers that can be manipulated to reduce the cellulosebarriers to fermentation.147

Legislative Loopholes

One of the much-touted efficiency and environmentalbenefits of cellulosic energy production is that the unfer-

Poplars are a fast-growing tree being explored as a prime source ofcellulosic ethanol.


21/32


17

mentable lignin component of cellulose can be burned tocreate ample energy to power the refining process. Butif this input is supplemented or substituted by anotherpower source, such as factory farm or industrial waste,then a large degree of greenhouse gas abatement andsustainability is also lost.

The boost provided to cellulosic ethanol by the 2005Energy Policy Act was dampened by the addition of asingle sentence in the eleventh hour before its passage(Title XV, section 1501). This sentence effectively nullifiesthe supposed environmental gains from cellulosic ethanolproduction by expanding the definition of cellulosic bystating, The term also includes any ethanol produced infacilities where animal wastes or other waste materialsare digested or otherwise used to displace 90 percent ormore of the fossil fuel normally used in the production ofethanol.148 According to David Morris of the Institute forLocal Self-Reliance, this sentence changes everything:

The average person reasonably would assumethat a cellulosic ethanol mandate requires theproduction of ethanol from cellulose. That wasclearly Congress objective. But the new defini-tion allows a corn-derived ethanol to be definedas producing cellulosic ethanol if waste materialssupply 90 percent of the ethanol facilitys en-ergy needs. Waste materials already fuel severalethanol plants. Several new plants may adopt asimilar strategy of substituting lower-cost cel-lulosic wastes like wood wastes for high-priced

natural gas. Indeed, it is quite possible that by2008 or 2009 at the latest, the nation will meetits Congressionally mandated 2013 deadline forproducing 250 million gallons of cellulosic etha-nol, without actually deriving a single gallon ofethanol from cellulose!149

In another sphere, the industry is paying close atten-tion to cost and efficiency benefits of co-firing cellulosicfeedstocks in coal plants. Co-firing coal and biomass canreduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve cost/efficiencyat up to 20 percent of plant input, and increase demandfor (and price of) cellulosic feedstocks.150 This, however,

is not necessarily sustainable when taken in conjunctionwith the millions of acres that are slated for cellulosicethanol cultivation.

Recommendations

Ethanol should not be seen as the solution to our pressingenergy crisis. Any plan to expand the use of biofuels mustbe part of a larger strategy to promote an overall transi-tion to a more sustainable transportation model thatfocuses on reducing total energy use. Instead of a silverbullet, we need a toolbox of measures that will reduce the

huge amount of oil we use every day to move people andgoods around. Ethanol, either from corn or from cel-lulosic feedstocks, is not the solution to green house gas

emissions, high oil prices, or dependency on foreign oil.The potential of ethanol to displace gasoline is limitedthere is just not enough land or water to produce ethanolin quantities that would significantly displace gasoline atprojected demand levels without tremendous impacts onthe environment and on food production.

Even cellulosic ethanol, a better alternative than corn-based ethanol, is limited by the environmental impactsof its large-scale production. Nevertheless, ethanol seemslike an attractive solution to everyone: farmers gain withhigher corn prices, agribusiness corporations and inves-tors make big profits with the ethanol hype, politiciansplease their constituencies, and the scientific communitygets funding for research and development projects.Ethanol indeed offers some advantages over oil and, ifproduced sustainably, can be an important contributionto mitigating the U.S. energy crisis. But there is legitimateconcern that the current political craze over ethanol is

merely an expedient way to please selected constituenciesand avoid tackling the real measures that will result ingenuine public benefits.

The crucial measures urgently needed to transition to asustainable transportation model can be grouped into twomain categories:

Measures related to the production of transportationfuels, and

Measures related to the demand for transportation

fuels.Recommendations for fuel production:

1. Sustainable Fuel Standard

Biofuel promotion policies should be tied to a Sustain-able Fuel Standard that requires sustainable productionmethods for both ethanol and its feedstocks.

Sustainable Production of Feedstocks

This includes sustainable management practices for land,water, and soil use, and measures to reduce impacts on

wildlife and natural ecosystems. Other criteria includebans on genetically modified crops and conversion ofprotected land to biofuel crops; maintenance and devel-opment of land preservation programs; incentives forsustainable agricultural practices such as crop rotation,minimal use of inputs; disincentives for monoculturecrops; and reduced tilling and replanting.

In particular, criteria for sustainable cellulosic feedstockproduction should include:

Establishment of maximum harvesting levels for

agriculture residues;

Use of designated cropland rather than conversion


22/32


18

of protected land, with a ban on converting highlyerodible land in the Conservation Reserve Program tocrop production;

Promotion of native species planted in diverse com-position;

Promotion of best-feedstock-production scenariosthat would involve mixed perennial grasses and treesthat can be harvested on a rotating basis;

Financial support for small farmers growing energycrops in establishment years before crops can beharvested; and

Development of woody crops and grasses in bufferareas between forest remnants and croplands that en-hance biodiversity and habitat protection for threat-ened interior forest wildlife.

Sustainable Production of Ethanol

In addition to curbing the negative effects of feedstockproduction for ethanol, policymakers must take accountof the environmental impacts that ethanol processingfacilities can have. These include water consumption,refining methods, and the types of fuel used to powerrefineries.

In terms of water use, plants should be required to usethe best technology available for filtering and using waste

water, as well as minimizing total water usage as muchas possible. Likewise, plants should be required to refinetheir product so that it is as clean as technologicallypossible in order to reduce ethanols contributions tosmog and other air pollutants. Coal-fired ethanol refiner-ies should no longer be eligible for ethanol productionsubsidies. Instead, small-scale cellulosic ethanol refiner-ies should be encouraged to use lignin as a fuel.

Sustainable Fuel Standard Applied to Im-ports

The Sustainable Fuel Standard should also cover imports

of biofuels and feedstocks, particularly regarding criteriaon wages and labor conditions of rural workers abroad.The standard should also ensure that rainforests andother habitats are not razed to make space for more crop-land for biofuel plantations, or for other crops displacedby biofuel crops. The best possible usage would be forlocal cultivation of biofuel feedstocks for local consump-tion, as each mile traveled by feedstocks lowers its energybalance ratio.

2. Protection of Small Farmers and LocalEconomies

Sustainable ethanol production should also be tied withmeasures to secure distribution of revenues that ben-

efit farmers and rural communities, by promoting localownership. By both growing feedstock and processing itfor ethanol, local communities can most fully reap theeconomic rewards of the ethanol industry. Locally ownedplants are also more likely to be responsible in terms ofminimizing plant emissions and responding to quality ofliferelated complaints made by neighbors.

Models for locally controlled ethanol plants have alreadybeen tested and lessons have been learned that caninform future initiatives in this arena. In Minnesota, forexample, legislation helped to establish several ethanolprocessing cooperatives in the late 1980s. A state pro-gram gave the cooperatives incentives to keep owner-ship in state, and the cooperatives have supported localeconomies by buying raw materials from local producersand keeping most of their profits and dividends in thestate.151 Whats more, the program led to the creation ofabout 1,400 well-paying jobs, and has kept as much as

$80 million per year in Minnesota rather than spending iton foreign oil.152

3. Oil subsidies phase-out

Oil has been a mature industry for decades and subsi-dies to oil and gas are now totally unjustified. While oilcompanies continue to make record profits, there is norationale for public monies to continue to be allocated tothe oil industry. The maintenance of subsidies to the oilindustry continues to drain taxpayer monies that could beredirected to more sustainable energy policies.

Recommendations on fuel demand:

The main goals of a sustainable energy policy must be toreduce energy consumption levels and increase efficiencyin energy use. There are a number of measures that couldhelp to achieve these goals in the transportation sector:

4. Create a comprehensive transportationprogram to drastically reduce fuel demandand limit the environmental impacts oftransportation

A comprehensive, adequately funded federal plan shouldbe implemented with the objective of radically reducingthe amount of projected fuel demand and limiting thenegative impacts of the transportation sector on humanhealth and the environment. Both at the federal andstate levels, all energy, environmental, and transporta-tion agencies should integrate these strategies into theirrespective programs.

5. Invest in public transportation

Public transportation should be adequately funded and

should be considered as the policy of choice over thosethat promote further individual vehicle use. Investmentin public transportation should be considered a top prior-


23/32


19

ity in areas where traffic congestion has become endemicas a fundamental measure to reduce travel delays, wastedfuel, and overall traffic jam costs.

6. Include external costs in the prices of fuel

Currently unaccounted externalities such as pollution,health problems, climate change, and other environ-mental costs should be assigned monetary values andreflected in fuel prices. Accounting for externalities wouldcreate a market mechanism that truly benefits cleanerfuels and penalizes more polluting options.

7. Promote the development of efficient cardesigns

Currently available technology allows for car designs thatare much lighter and efficient, without degrading pas-senger safety. The development of these designs should

be encouraged by appropriate incentives and tax policiesfocused on both the production side (that promote thedevelopment of efficient designs by carmakers) and thedemand side (that foster consumer demand for thesevehicles).

8. Increase fuel efficiency

Increasing fuel efficiency is a robust tool to reducegasoline demand and can be achieved through higherminimum-miles-per-gallon standards. Increasing fuelefficiency standards should be based on effective require-

ments that leave no room for loopholes.9. Create vehicle emissions limits for newvehicles

While reducing fuel consumption, it is also crucial tolimit the level of pollution allowed from new vehicles. TheSupreme Court has affirmed the authority of the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gasemissions, and the EPA should act to limit permissibleemissions for new vehicles. These regulations shouldinclude limits on motor vehicle exhaust and evaporativeemissions as well as improvements in the durability and

performance of emission systems.

10. Develop a sound methodology for mea-suring life-cycle emissions and pollution forthe different transportation fuels

There is an urgent need for a methodology to assess theentire life-cycle emissions associated with the use andproduction of the different transportation fuels. Thismethodology should consider not only tailpipe emissions,but also the emissions associated with the production offeedstocks and processing practices and include air pol-

lutants and toxics, greenhouse gases, and water pollut-ants.

11. Traffic restrictions

Restrictions on traffic should be imposed in congestedurban areas according to conditions relating to vehicleoccupancy, size, emissions, and fuel consumption. Thedetermination of these conditions and the levels of re-strictions should be considered as part of overall policies

to reduce transportation pollution.

12. Promote efficient urban planning

Urban planning and land-use regulations should priori-tize the need to reduce fuel use and curb transportation-based pollution. Urban sprawl expansion can be curbedby implementing land-use regulations, tax policies, andtransportation planning frameworks that promote mixed-use urban areas and encourage the revitalization of citycenters.

13. Plan and implement consumer educationcampaigns to promote efficient driving

Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration andbraking) wastes fuel. Driving more efficiently can signifi-cantly increase gas mileage, while offering many safetyadvantages to all drivers and passengers on the road.Maintaining constant speed avoids the huge losses of gasthat occur from rapid acceleration and braking. More-over, drivers can also be encouraged to use cruise controlon the highway, remove excess weight from their vehicles,and avoid excessive idling.

14. Promote cooperation between metropoli-tan planning organizations and local govern-ments

Decision-making r

Documents

The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal