Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Email This Story
Share This Story
Reader Comments (39)
Image Gallery (1)
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
Growth of the corn ethanol industry in California is fraught with unintended consequences, none of which are beneficial to the economy or the environment of the state. They include impacts on our overcommitted water resources, on our air quality, on the price of food, and on the financial burden to citizens while private investors profit.
Already there are 235 ethanol plants under construction or in planning stages across the county, in addition to 111 operating plants. And there just isn't enough corn to go around. If all the scores of factories under construction or planned go into operation, they will gobble up no less than half of the entire corn harvest by 2008.
All of the water systems upon which the state depends, to serve both agriculture and the urban sector, are oversubscribed. Ethanol requires large amounts of water both to grow the corn and to process it, putting corn into direct competition with our agricultural industry that feeds half the nation with all of its fruits, vegetables and nuts.
Corn ethanol requires 3.7 to 5 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol just in the manufacturing process. Cellulosic ethanol from other plant materials is far in the future and will require 6 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol to manufacture, though the energy output is 4-5 times greater than for corn ethanol.
States such as water rich Minnesota and Iowa complain that the ethanol industry is mining their groundwater, causing some plants to be closed because the groundwater supply has been so depleted. In many places in California, especially in the San Joaquin Valley, the ground has already subsided many feet because of groundwater mining.
Approximately 14 percent of the U.S. corn crop is irrigated and this irrigated acreage consumes almost 18 million acre-feet per year of water—much of which is overdrafted from the Ogallala aquifer in the Great Plains. To put this water requirement in perspective, the average annual flow of the Colorado River at Lee's Ferry is only about 14 million acre-feet per year.
Almost all of California's agriculture is dependent on irrigation. Diverting millions of gallons of water from California farms to ethanol will disrupt the nation's food supply for growing since corn is a very water intensive crop, and it will also add to the problem of pesticide and fossil fuel fertilizer run-off polluting our waterways. Shifting our valuable farmland from vegetables to mono-cropping corn is already happening in Kern County.
If all the vehicles in California operated on E85 [the policy of the Governor and Legislature], the ethanol required would consume 70 percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, but only 13.6 percent of the energy in the fuel would be renewable because of the heavy use of fossil fuel.
In Iowa and Indiana, the Sierra Club has sued because ethanol plants have made neighbors ill from toxics in the air and the water. Biofuels are not as clean as they would have us believe. Ethanol molecules are microscopically small and escape from gas tanks and hoses. Its use increases NOX by 5%, and for every 18 degrees fahrenheit increase in temperature over baseline, evaporative emissions double. Ground level ozone is also increased. While the ARB is required by state law to ensure that emissions do not increase, plans for mitigation are years away from being implemented. And corn is not the best raw material for fuel. It takes 10 gallons of ethanol to produce the energy equivalent of about 7 gallons of gasoline, and greenhouse gas reductions are minuscule.
Very much like the original backers of MTBE, both from industry and major environmental groups, who adamantly ignored the warnings regarding MTBE's ability to contaminate drinking water, many of these same people are avoiding the unintended consequences of diverting millions of gallons of water into ethanol plants. They fought to preserve the oxygenate mandate so that ethanol could replace MTBE, which delayed MTBE's removal from California's gasoline by several years. Only after many wells in California were contaminated, did they support its removal.
Already there are 235 ethanol plants under construction or in planning stages across the county, in addition to 111 operating plants. And there just isn't enough corn to go around. If all the scores of factories under construction or planned go into operation, they will gobble up no less than half of the entire corn harvest by 2008.
Even though last year's corn harvest was the third largest crop ever, food prices are rising in the supermarkets. Hog and cattle farmers are already bringing their animals to market early in an effort to save money on feed because the cost of a bushel of corn has doubled since September of 2006. As the price of grain goes up, people will go hungry. There were riots in Mexico in June because people were not able to afford corn for tortillas.
State Senator Tom McClintock (R) summed it up as follows: "The CARB regulations [to enforce the low carbon fuel standard] will undoubtedly hit Californians hard—but they will hit starving third world populations even harder. Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries."
The Federal Government subsidizes major agribusinesses, such as ADM and Cargill, to grow corn. It also provides funds to build plants, and the refiners are given $0.51 cents a gallon for blending ethanol into our gasoline. Now these same agribusinesses want California's citizens to also pay more at the pump and supermarket by legislating additional subsidies in AB118.
A gallon of ethanol is less expensive than gasoline because of its subsidies, but we pay exactly the same amount for it at the pump. The oil companies profit by selling us a gallon of less expensive fuel for the same amount per gallon that we are now paying for gasoline. And we get less gas mileage from that gallon of ethanol, so we have to purchase more gasoline to drive the same number of miles. Everywhere the money flows out of our pockets into theirs.
Alternative energy for transportation does not have to be liquid fuels. PV panels will supply energy for 25 or more years with very little maintenance for plug-in hybrid vehicles. Any crop that is grown for ethanol requires energy inputs annually, for growing, processing and distribution. Rather than subsidizing corn ethanol, we should have programs to place solar panels on the top open air layer of parking garages for plug-ins, and devote more funds to public transportation. Let the Venture Capitalists who are seeking subsidies risk their own funds to research better non-food crop solutions and bring them to market when they are ready.
After a laid-back career as a University research librarian (Harvard, University of Virginia, UCLA), Juliette Anthony chose seventeen years ago to begin work as environmental research consultant and activist. Starting at Heal The Bay in Santa Monica and Save Open Space in Northern Los Angeles County, she was instrumental in helping to save the 3,000 acres of Ahmanson Ranch and Soka University from development. She served as a twelve year Board Member of The Coalition for Clean Air, and research consultant on MTBE for Communities for a Better Environment. For the past six years, she has been a Legislative and Regulatory Consultant working on implementation of California's Solar Initiative.
The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.
A gallon of ethanol (75,000 BTUs) also requires 25,000 BTUs of natural gas used in its production. Hint: Drive an NGV.
The same quantity of biomass can produce twice the quantity of biomethane (energetically) compared with ethanol. Hint: Drive and NGV.
Ethanol is great as an additive for gasoline to replace MTBE, but it makes no sense as a fuel in its own right.
The author of this article is a little off based with her figures. There are actually 130 ethanol plants in operation, not 111.
Also it is projected that only 20% of the corn crop for 2008 will be used for ethanol production. That is a long way from 50%.
It is sure funny how the anti-ethanol crowd will skew the real facts and figures.
We will use about 3 billion bushels of this years corn crop to make ethanol and the other 10 billion bushels will be used to fill all other commitments, which is more than we had last year.
The authors of the comments are right on. Corn will never become a major player in the ethanol industry in California.
Cellulosic ethanol from agriculture wastes are much more likely. In California alone there is potential for over 2 billion gallons of ethanol on a annual basis just from waste products.
Much of the article focus's on why not to grow corn in California and it is correct. Corn for the ethanol to be used in California needs to be grown where it has a comparative advantage and that is in the corn belt. California is generally much better off growing the fruits and vegetables and specialty crops that California has a comparative advantage in and that do require more water.
As the article correctly states, more than 85% of the corn produced in the U.S. is not irrigated and corn and ethanol flow freely and in abundance to California via our very efficient railroad system.
This year the US will produce the largest crop on record by far and we will once again add to surplus and carryover showing that we have tremendous capability to continue to expand corn production. Yields are increasing at an increasing rate and being produced in an environmentally friendly manner because of the science and technology going into corn production - some of it coming from the science and biotechnology industries in California.
The article misses badly in its comments on subsidies. The Federal Government does not subsidize major agribusiness to grow corn. In fact the companies She lists do not grow corn.
Ethanol has brought down the price of gasoline. Come out to the midwest and look. E-85 is running 40-60 cents a gallon less than regular unleaded in most locations.
Regarding the increase in the cost of food being the result of an increase in the price of corn, recent studies have shown that of the 3% increase in food prices in the last year, 1% is due to the increase in corn price and 2% is due to increased energy prices. Without the use of ethanol, energy prices would be higher and food prices would have increased even more.
I also believe that the increase in the price of corn in poor countries will allow the farmers in these contries to have a better chance to sell their crops for a fair price and therefore feed their families. This means they may not have to come to the U. S. and take jobs away from our own workers.
Depends, it's only 3.5-6 gallons of water for process water, per gallon of ethanol.
It's 1000-5000 gallons of water for irrigation, per gallon of ethanol.
http://media.cleantech.com/node/1311
Much of the irrigation in Iowa for instances comes from rainwater.
However that still means that the fresh water is neccisary, and that that fresh water is not being used for other purposes, or that it needs considerable filtration to make it usable again.
When commodity prices were low enough that programs to provide government assistance to farmers kicked in, people complained -- our subsidized grain kept world prices low and farmers in other countries could not get a fair price for their crops. Now that commodity prices are higher and exceed the qualifying threshold for those government programs, this author, and others, are complaining -- our high grain prices are causing poor people to starve because they can not afford to buy such high cost food. I think the market does a pretty good job of establishing the value for commodities.
BTW - The government’s Economic Research Service points out that farmers get less than 20¢ of the food dollar while labor contributes nearly 40¢.
Whats amazing is how you have people saying "OMG LOOK E85 costs less per gallon"
When they don't factor in that E85 only maintains 70.3% of the mileage of gasoline.
When you do, you find that the wholesale price of E85 has never dropped below gasoline.
And that in reality, less than 1% of Ethanol in the US was sold as E85, because ethanol sellers lose too much profit margin on it, because it has to be marked so far down from the wholesale price to actually sell.
Or atleast thats what the Government Accountability Office has to say.
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-07-713
Saying that E85 is a good idea from an economics standpoint is just stupid.
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png
Mr. Tolman (comment #2) observes that ethanol (E85 blend) has reduced the price of gasoline in the midwest by as much as 40-60 cents/gallon.
Factor in the lower gas mileage (ethanol approx 65-70% of gasoline, and you'll realize that ethanol is ultimately not less expensive. You're buying more of it to travel the same distance.
Lets put things this way:
Diesel > Corn Ethanol
Gasoline Hybrid > Diesel
Coal-Electric > Gasoline Hybrid
Therefore:
Coal-Electric > Corn Ethanol
Solar panel powered cars would be nice.
Wind probably works better because it's cheaper, and peaks during the night.
However it's not neccisary to be automatically superior to corn ethanol.
_
In the short term, 2008+ model diesels, and hybrids are also better than corn ethanol.
Electricity would be better, and Renewable Electricity would be best.
As far as people getting sick from Ethanol plant emmisions, I live a half mile from an operating plant and am very healthy.
You might wanna check the recent 2007 law on the books
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol5
_
Ethanol plants are now allowed to emit 2.5x as much criteria air pollutants.
_
Then you mix in the fact that it's becoming more "economical" to use coal onsite instead of natural gas. (Since the price of natural gas has gone way up)
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol4
Which is largely what this increased criteria air pollutant law was designed to allow for.
_
Then you factor in, by ANY assessment, if coal is used, the atmospheric emissions are worse than gasoline.
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
There are clearly a lot of interesting points in this article about possible issues with ethanol. However, I fear that this is another case of "change is bad".
There is no comparison here between benefits from of reduced oil usage versus the problems of ethanol. We are left with the idea that ethanol is bad and should be abandoned, which means more oil usage. This is one renewable energy program that the government is supporting. Thank goodness they are doing something, we should try to get it moving forward.
Is the idea of PV panels to power cars serious? I have been a huge fan of electric vehicles for years and own a Prius. The fact is that it would take a huge solar array to power even one of my cars, never mind 2 of them. Also, plug-in hybrids are not commercially available yet. This can be contrasted with the fact that we can immediately add more ethanol to the current fuel system and have an immediate impact. Solar panels are a much longer and more costly proposition (however one I do find attractive when the technology becomes more economical). Perhaps an NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vechicle) with a daily range of 35 miles and a top speed of 35 MPH, could be powered this way, but not a real car at this time.
Thanks
John C. Briggs
Since we have a farm(Plafkin Farms View on Webshots.com and Photobucket.com), I can appreciate the work that Juliette Anthony has done as far as keeping large tracts of land open and intact. I am also concerned about water being extracted by companies who are in the business of selling "Bottled Water". In Michigan this is being done by the Nestle Company, and this is not going to benefit the citizens of Michigan in the long run. Our water supply is being depleted. I also like the idea of placing solar panels on rooftops so that hybrid vehicles can derive their energy from the sun once they are plugged in. I believe that every home and building across America should have solar panels installed, along with wind turbines if possible. We could take a lesson from the Amish in Indiana, who do not have electricity in their homes and barns, but they have the initiative to use wind turbines to power their tools and other essentials. I would also like to add, that to use food stuffs to create fuel may not be the wisest thing to do. I cannot help but think of the story of Joseph in the Bible, and how he was appointed as overseer of the grain stocks in Egypt. He was wise enough to store enough grain in the good years, so that the population would have food during the lean years. We should not take our good fortune for granted in the fact that we have a farming community that can produce the amount of food that we need. We cannot drink gasoline, or pour it on our breakfast cereal, so perhaps we should take a step back, and assess where we are, and where we are going.
Roger Plafkin--Plafkin Farms--1-616-676-0590--plafkin@juno.com
This article was one of the worst and misleading articles I've read about the negative affect of Ethanol production and use. I read them every day as there are no shortage of over educated, under knowledged people out there with computers regurgitating the same old and outdated information, as well as making useless arguments.
All Ethanol plants go under a tedious review of water use and it's affects on the local resources by the local regualtory agencies such as the DNR. I can assure you that they will not allow a plant to operate if it will have such a negative impact on the environment. As far as people getting sick from Ethanol plant emmisions, I live a half mile from an operating plant and am very healthy. I also have a wife, a two year old son and a 6 week old baby whom are doing quite well also. You will have people that complain no matter what you do. I was involved in the building of an Ethanol plant in Wisconsin and we had complaints about odor about a week before we every started the plant up.
This article was a disappointment and I will stop reading this newsletter. It seems as if they will print any unsubstainiated article that is written as long as they have plenty of initials after their name.
Ms. Anthony's assumptions are old and need updated to be accurate. Why do these credentialed researchers use the trash that is listed on the internet with little research of their own? It is frustrating that the internet has no trash receptacle for old and baseless information.
sorry about the spelling but for some reason the previous text was so tiny I can't even read it!
Given that Ethanol Corn producers are going to continue doing what they do no matter what happens to the land base water supply, or soil condition, or stream pollution, or cost to food, there is a better less expensive way. Corn is a starch, that alone takes energy for conversion to sugar, to make ethanol. Corn in my opinion is not the best crop for ethanol production. The best crop is sugarcane, because you plant it once every 6-8 harvests saving planting costs, and it is already sugar when cut, skipping the starch process.
We need to think of our energy production as a worldwide endeavor instead of only meeting needs for the USA. No one mentioned the loss of wildlife habitat by converting fields for corn production. Our answer is Ocean Growing. But people are afraid of that. It is something no one has ever attempted. So people shrug it off as being crazy, untried, and too dangerous. Really the costs will be lower than land production methods.
The Ocean has the greatest space area, with the most water resources in the world. I think we should grow sugarcane on floating platforms an acre in size connected in series like a train. The floating aqrafts would be like a moveable assembly line when harvest time came, being cut by a stationary dock that instantly rolls the juice out and pumps directly to landbase fermentation distilleries. The cane would get its nutrients hydroponically so pollution runoff would never occur. In fact the cruiseship that pulls the aqrafts could be a solar operated electric ship, with sideon ocean wave electric generators always cranking electricity to the batteries.
Farfetched or not..I think this idea would mushroom into the new renewable energy economy. Think of the new jobs created, and the impact it would have across the Global economy. Ethanol is by far a better and cleaner fuel than gasoline, and its use and focus is not meant to only stop global warming. In fact it will be the worlds Oil replacement. Someday the earth is going to run out of Oil, then what? How many years do we have? Why aren't we discussing this? Will Oil someday be a protected resource?
Other questions also come to mind...and the fact is we do not know if Oil has an environment purpose in remaining in the ground! What if its chemical properties contribute to the earths gravitational pull, or the earths rotational solar axis seasonal balance, or some other inner earth core dynamic that we have never witnessed before? What happens when it is gone? Isn't it better to have high gas prices to slow the use of oil to preserve our people on earth. And while the population continues to explode, what are we doing? We are playing midwest farmer growing corn? It is not solving our problem.
I propose we need to consider the Ocean as our life line in producing energy. Use the land to grow our food, use the ocean to grow our Ethanol. Did you know that on the Equator there are no hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, or tornados? Why because the N and S areas of the equator 0 line have opposing winds, so these storms never materialize. This great knowledge for mankind, proves that the equator has the very climate needed to grow sugarcane, without the threat of losing our crops due to storms. What could be better than that. It is safer to live on the equator than in many parts on land in the USA.
Yet we stumble over ourselves in doing what we should do. Another great thing about growing sugarcane on the ocean is that the large acre size aqrafts will last for years on end, and be paid back relatively quickly. Those same rafts provide fish sanctuaries underneath that prevent giant fish trawlers from gobbling up all our ocean fish which continue to deplete our ocean fish stock supply. Growing Ethanol on the Ocean will do more than provide fuel for the world, but provide clean air, green jobs, eat tons of C02, and also be a breeding sanctuary for the oceans fish.
Fresh water can be procured by solar domes. The domes capture the evaporating water and the water decends along its side to be stored in storage tanks for use. On the ocean there is more rainfall than on the land. With this knowledge sugarcane will grow very quickly. So fast in fact, that I predict 2 harvest per growing cycle. Growing on the ocean; light bounces off the ocean water back underneath and surrounding the aqrafts providing more photosynthesis and excelling plant growth, and since it is on the equator dark times are miniscule.
Really I hope we as a people realize these things, and pursue them. I have no great expectations that it will happen soon, because so many are into this ethanol business on land, and you are discovering the major problems with it. Hopefully you will all see the greater picture, the greater rewards and benefits when we treat our energy as big business and all the people play a significant role in its development. I just cringe and cry when things like Enron happen, and we go to war over Oil basically, and we have not come to see that there is another and better way to do things.
90-110 octane corn ethanol is more efficient in high compression engines. High compression NASCAR cars run on corn ethanol. Regular 85-90 octane gasoline is more efficient in low compression engines. Any fuel is less efficient in an engine designed for a different octane. Only an idiot would mention that corn ethanol is not at maximum efficiency in an engine designed to run on 85-90 octane. The rudolph diesel engine was designed to run on gawha peanut oil but no one declines the less efficient but more available OPEC $80/barrel big oil diesel fuel. Not that many fuel stations offer peanut oil. Big oil refused to switch from MTBE as an additive to high octane corn ethanol until MTBE became illegal.
A corn stove runs more efficiently on whole kernel shelled corn. Rapid combusiton of corn ethanol would explode a corn stove. www.msnusers.com/cornstoves
David, Please add electrical grid power at 25% efficiency. A scam is Electricity advertised at 100% efficiency or ten times return for 10EER. Free coal is no bargin except for the taxes generated, jobs created (labor taxes), utility taxes, grid taxes, eminent domain.
The power plant is 40-60% efficient. Grid losses are 10-25%. Coal, wood, oil at 40-60% combustion efficiency looses 40-80% heat transfer effeciency less line losses of 10-25% averages about 25% efficiency as delivered.
Each and every electric generating plant of any type uses more electricity than it sells. The largest customer of any utility is the utility itself.
Corn is king. To feed mules, Horsepower cultivation in the 1800's occupied three times (300 million acres) the corn acreage planted today (70-100 million acres) by tractor. Corn cost $0.50/gal in 1817. In 2006 USDA support price for corn was $0.20/gal. With the tremendous demand for corn ethanol, on 9/5/07 farms in Louisiana sold corn for $0.25/gal. The six million farms in 1980 have dropped to 2 million family farms in 2007.
The US sells corn to China for less than $2/bu. China bags the corn, shipps ithe corn back to Walmart, and sell Turkey corn at Walmart for $6/bu.
Hauling and road Taxes on coal per ton exceed the cost of farm corn.
Big oil uses one gallon of gasoline to ship each gallon of gasoline or oil delivered to market. No new petroleum refineries have been built in over 30 years. Congress recently passed New source EPA requirements for oil refineries that apply only to the new corn ethanol refineries. Existing petroleum refineries do not comply with new source EPA regulations.
Those that hate local renewable corn squeezings should consider local renewable whole kernel shelled corn energy. Refineries are not required. Combustion is 98.6% complete. Corn stalks, shucks, ears growing convert a net positive amount of carbon dioxide to oxygen. Humans consume oxygen. Corn plants consume carbon dioxide.
This is the fight against Ethanol in New Castle Indiana USA blueriverNA.com. Their Concerns are, Pollution emissions, Loss of residential property values, Effect on the local water table, including depletion of private wells, Odor, light, and noise pollution from 24 hour production operations, Substantially increased truck & train traffic, Potential for fire at both at plant and on railroad cars.
The place chosen is where nuclear waste railcars roll through the area, cars, and trucks, collide excessively. This town is ill equipped to handle a major fire the towns fire department do the best they can we have the best volunteer Fire department in the state but I fear how they will handle this type of fire the first time. Ethanol is nothing new Ford's Model T ran on it in 1903. The American farmer then was not equipped to produce the amount of ethanol needed for a fleet of cars. The 70's Hit Ethanol came and went. Only saw one car a Chrysler K car running it. In new castle and the nearest Pump for it was Muncie at a gas station, Not practical then either. Ethanol needs a rethink and folks need to reduce consumption of all resources. D~W
Put it this way, a chemical manufacturing plant is limited to 100 tons.
And anything above 100 tons is considered a "major source" of air pollution.
250 TPY of air pollution is quite a lot.
100 is "more than fair" if you compare it to virtually any other sort of chemical manufacturing facility.
Especially with a substance which has the dubious claim of "cleaning the air".
http://www.in.gov/idem/permits/air/catalog/threshold.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/defn.html
Is the $17 tax for food ethanol audited in the ethanol industry?
It's been reported that fuel ethanol can be processed to drinking quality for about $..50 per gallon
The fed wants $17 per gallon tax but is anyone auditing?
A 10,000 gal. tank of ethanol would have a $170.000.00 tax advantage in the drinking alcohol market.
Does ATF check?
Clean Air Perrformance Professionals
Previous Article
