Minnesota Study
Don’t think I have been ignoring the University of Minnesota study out this week that has given ethanol some bad press. I have just been playing catch up after being out of the office for a couple of days.
Fact is, the study is actually positive in many ways. For one thing, the report finds that ethanol from corn produces roughly 25 percent more energy than is consumed in growing the corn and producing and delivering the fuel, which refutes some studies that have claimed a net loss.
More importantly, the main point of the study is that ethanol could only replace about 12 percent of the gasoline used in this country, even if we used all of the corn grown to produce ethanol. That is very true. The point is, NObody in the ethanol industry has EVER claimed that ethanol is the end all and be all for the US becoming energy independent. BUT, it can REDUCE our dependence on foreign oil. That is the key – and it is already doing that.
Here is a good story about the Minnesota study that puts it in perspective, from the Lincoln Journal-Star.
Also, it is important to note the positives about biodiesel in the report, but comparing it to ethanol is kind of like comparing apples to oranges. Most passenger vehicles in the US do not run on diesel fuel, but lots of big trucks, buses, and boats do – so that is where biodiesel will help lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Here’s another good point, direct from the press release from the University. According to Douglas Tiffany, research fellow, department of applied economics and another co-author of the study, ethanol and biodiesel plants are early biorefineries that in the future will be capable of using different kinds of biomass and conversion technologies to produce a variety of biofuels and other products, depending upon market demands.
And .. both ethanol and biodiesel have a long-term value as additives because they oxygenate fossil fuels, which allows them to burn cleaner. Biodiesel also protects engine parts when blended with diesel.
So there are really lots of positives in the report, while many of the media reports have dwelled too much on the negatives.
4 Comments »
Darin Grimm
I think the Ethanol industry needs to focus on three areas in the upcoming energy debate:
1) No alternative fuel will replace 100% of the oil we use. Energy will come from a variety of sources, of that mix, ethanol will be a significant part, but only a part.
2) The positive energy balance — that has happened by default with low priced energy, high energy prices will cause everyone to re-examine and optimize energy intensive things like tillage, irrigation, and ethanol plant design. The results of this effort will make for an even more positive energy balance. Compared to gasoline refining, the ethanol industry is very young and in a state of continuous improvement.
3) The food vs. fuel debate should be addressed head on by the industry. We have never been concerened about eating steak, corn-starch enhanced snack foods, or wearing cotten b/c others in the world might starve. Biofuels is no different… (And in reality the issue is not starvation b/c of cost but repressive governments and lack of individual opportunity).
Cindy
Good points, Darin. I might add that food vs. fuel is really not an issue. The vast majority of corn goes into animal feed, not human consumption, and it is likely that will continue as long as we are a meat-eating country. Beef, pork, poultry and even fish are fed with both corn and soybean meal.
Chuck Easton
I might add that food vs. fuel is really not an issue. The vast majority of corn goes into animal feed, not human consumption, and it is likely that will continue as long as we are a meat-eating country.
Are you saying that the corn that goes to animal feed is NOT part of the human food chain?
We wouldn’t be feeding corn to hogs, cattle, and poultry if the ultimate goal weren’t for humans to eat pork, beef, chicken and eggs.
Just looked up the data and ADM uses about 40% of the yearly corn crop to make high-fructose corn syrup. 50% goes for animal feed to make hamburger, bacon, pork chops, and eggs for us to eat. The rest goes to making ethanol, corn meal, masa harina, corn flakes, cornstarch, etc.
It appears to me that close to all the annual corn crop goes to food. In particular, making ethanol will compete directly with HFCS since both depend on sugars made from the starch in corn. (Reducing the amount of HFCS may not be that much of a loss though, especially when you see what it does to all the teenagers in Rolla.)
Don’t gloss over the food v. fuel issue so cavalierly. It will become a real issue with serious ethical questions.
Cindy
Chuck,
First off, the main by-product of ethanol production is animal feed in the form of DDGs – dried distillers grains.
Second, you are looking at the wrong stats. Consult USDA for accurate corn usage statistics. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains/StandardReports/YBtable4.htm
Currently, the stats for food and industrial use are combined. In 2005, the total for both was 2.9 billion bushels, or 22 percent of the total supply. Feed was 6.1 billion or 46 percent. Now, bear in mind that at this point there are no stats yet figuring out the usage of DDGs as animal feed. Corn usage is only counted once.
I would also add that every year there are ending stock for the US corn crop. Last year it was 2 billion bushels, or 15 percent of the total supply.
Point being – we have LOTS of corn right now. At whatever point production of ethanol gets to be so great that it impacts our corn supply, we will be using other feedstocks to make it.
cz
Comments RSS feed — TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment