2008 Woodie Awards
Ethanol production might actually hurt climate, economy
Andrea Vasquez
Issue date: 2/19/08 Section: News
The use of ethanol for fuel has exploded in recent years as gas prices and concern over global warming rises.
All eyes turn to Nebraska, where 1.3 billion gallons of ethanol are produced each year.
Ethanol - created mostly from corn and sugar cane - was initially estimated to reduce greenhouse gases by at least 20 percent compared to gasoline. However, a recent study concluded that the production of ethanol from corn in the United States would almost double greenhouse gases more than 30 years.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb and trap heat from the sun, warming the earth's surface and contributing to global warming. These gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
The new study found that corn producers, feeling pressure from the ethanol industry, are likely to overproduce their crop and ultimately produce more greenhouse gases in the process.
Normally, trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen in its place. But plowing large amounts of plants for ethanol production would release the stored carbon dioxide into the air and leave fewer plants to absorb it.
Fertilizer is another greenhouse gas producer. Many corn producers use fertilizers containing nitrogen and can end up releasing nitrous oxide, another potent greenhouse gas. Increased corn production would only worsen this problem.
Ethanol production can be broken into three issues: carbon balance, energy balance and gasoline transportation energy, said Jean Knops, an associate biology professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Of the three, ethanol only succeeds in being efficient in transportation energy by limiting the importation of foreign oil, he said.
"If you think (ethanol) saves energy for the planet long term, it doesn't work," Knops said.
Tim Searchinger, a visiting research scholar at Princeton University and lead author of the study, said previous studies about the benefits of ethanol had failed to look at the whole issue.
"It's basically the same as if you looked at the economic benefit of using land to make biofuels without looking at the cost," Searchinger said. "There's an economic cost and a carbon cost."
A large problem with America's ethanol production is that it's being made of corn, said Jean Claude Zenklusen, an associate chemistry professor at George Washington University in Washington. Ethanol is made through a fermentation process - like that used to make beer, wine and other alcohol - in that it requires a supply of simple sugars. Corn is relatively low in simple sugars, so producers have to convert the large amounts of starch into simple sugars.
"If you start with corn, there's not enough sugar for the ferment to be happy with so now you have to put in that energy," Zenklusen said. "The problem is not with ethanol as a fuel or biofuel in general - the problem is that this country is not a tropical country so we cannot produce sugar cane," except in parts of Florida and Texas.
Brazil uses its abundance of sugar cane to make large quantities of ethanol. Zenklusen suggests importing Brazil's ethanol would be a more efficient option for the United States.
"Why are we so bent on producing our own ethanol when we have been buying oil for the past 70 years without even thinking about it?" Zenklusen said.
Contrary to the study and supporting evidence, there are still strong supporters of ethanol as a renewable fuel.
"By making corn ethanol here you're stimulating rural development (and) you're offsetting foreign imports of oil," said Adam Liska, a post-doctoral research associate in the department of agronomy and horticulture at UNL.
Liska has been involved in research about the energy value of ethanol. Through his research, he and his colleagues found that corn-ethanol productions reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 to 65 percent, depending on technology and crop production.
"(The) study makes all these assumptions where there's all this uncertainty involved," Liska said. "When we use more recent data which is more accurate, these numbers begin to look much better."
But there may be additional ripple effects that are not always considered.
If more focus is put on producing corn for ethanol, it could take away from using the crop for food and animal feed.
"When you are diverting food sources to fuel production, it's absolutely against what the principle of using a renewable source was in the beginning," Zenklusen said. "Normally you use a renewable source that has been untapped and unused."
If corn for feed is scarce, prices on beef and chicken could skyrocket, Knops said.
"It used to be you had energy and food ... Now they're linked," Knops said. "And they're never going to be separated."
A solution may be to make fuel from waste products, in which case the source is readily available. This kind of fuel could even be made from the leftover oil in restaurants.
"We should connect everything in McDonalds to a pipeline (to make fuel). ... That is totally logical," Zenklusen said. "(Saying) we'll make our own ethanol when we don't have the conditions to produce it - that makes no sense."
andreavasquez@dailynebraskan.com
All eyes turn to Nebraska, where 1.3 billion gallons of ethanol are produced each year.
Ethanol - created mostly from corn and sugar cane - was initially estimated to reduce greenhouse gases by at least 20 percent compared to gasoline. However, a recent study concluded that the production of ethanol from corn in the United States would almost double greenhouse gases more than 30 years.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb and trap heat from the sun, warming the earth's surface and contributing to global warming. These gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
The new study found that corn producers, feeling pressure from the ethanol industry, are likely to overproduce their crop and ultimately produce more greenhouse gases in the process.
Normally, trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen in its place. But plowing large amounts of plants for ethanol production would release the stored carbon dioxide into the air and leave fewer plants to absorb it.
Fertilizer is another greenhouse gas producer. Many corn producers use fertilizers containing nitrogen and can end up releasing nitrous oxide, another potent greenhouse gas. Increased corn production would only worsen this problem.
Ethanol production can be broken into three issues: carbon balance, energy balance and gasoline transportation energy, said Jean Knops, an associate biology professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Of the three, ethanol only succeeds in being efficient in transportation energy by limiting the importation of foreign oil, he said.
"If you think (ethanol) saves energy for the planet long term, it doesn't work," Knops said.
Tim Searchinger, a visiting research scholar at Princeton University and lead author of the study, said previous studies about the benefits of ethanol had failed to look at the whole issue.
"It's basically the same as if you looked at the economic benefit of using land to make biofuels without looking at the cost," Searchinger said. "There's an economic cost and a carbon cost."
A large problem with America's ethanol production is that it's being made of corn, said Jean Claude Zenklusen, an associate chemistry professor at George Washington University in Washington. Ethanol is made through a fermentation process - like that used to make beer, wine and other alcohol - in that it requires a supply of simple sugars. Corn is relatively low in simple sugars, so producers have to convert the large amounts of starch into simple sugars.
"If you start with corn, there's not enough sugar for the ferment to be happy with so now you have to put in that energy," Zenklusen said. "The problem is not with ethanol as a fuel or biofuel in general - the problem is that this country is not a tropical country so we cannot produce sugar cane," except in parts of Florida and Texas.
Brazil uses its abundance of sugar cane to make large quantities of ethanol. Zenklusen suggests importing Brazil's ethanol would be a more efficient option for the United States.
"Why are we so bent on producing our own ethanol when we have been buying oil for the past 70 years without even thinking about it?" Zenklusen said.
Contrary to the study and supporting evidence, there are still strong supporters of ethanol as a renewable fuel.
"By making corn ethanol here you're stimulating rural development (and) you're offsetting foreign imports of oil," said Adam Liska, a post-doctoral research associate in the department of agronomy and horticulture at UNL.
Liska has been involved in research about the energy value of ethanol. Through his research, he and his colleagues found that corn-ethanol productions reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 to 65 percent, depending on technology and crop production.
"(The) study makes all these assumptions where there's all this uncertainty involved," Liska said. "When we use more recent data which is more accurate, these numbers begin to look much better."
But there may be additional ripple effects that are not always considered.
If more focus is put on producing corn for ethanol, it could take away from using the crop for food and animal feed.
"When you are diverting food sources to fuel production, it's absolutely against what the principle of using a renewable source was in the beginning," Zenklusen said. "Normally you use a renewable source that has been untapped and unused."
If corn for feed is scarce, prices on beef and chicken could skyrocket, Knops said.
"It used to be you had energy and food ... Now they're linked," Knops said. "And they're never going to be separated."
A solution may be to make fuel from waste products, in which case the source is readily available. This kind of fuel could even be made from the leftover oil in restaurants.
"We should connect everything in McDonalds to a pipeline (to make fuel). ... That is totally logical," Zenklusen said. "(Saying) we'll make our own ethanol when we don't have the conditions to produce it - that makes no sense."
andreavasquez@dailynebraskan.com
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 7
Brian
posted 2/19/08 @ 11:01 AM CST
It takes 3 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. Think about it, if you fill a 10 gallon tank, that used 30 gallons of water...how many tanks of gas do you go through a year? You are now using wayyyyy too much water. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 2/19/08 @ 3:24 PM CST
There is ongoing research that support both sides of the ethanol issue. Alot of people familiar and educated within the issue realize that corn based ethanol is not going to be the answer, but it is serving as a gateway to increased efficiency and production of cellulosic ethanol. (Continued…)
W_Dan
posted 2/19/08 @ 7:36 PM CST
It is true that "over-production" of anything could affect the climate and environment. If one argues that corn ethanol production is going to be "the BIGGEST" greenhouse gas producer, one should also address other major greenhouse gas- and environment pollutant-makers, such as cattle industry, cotton production (i e. (Continued…)
W_Dan
posted 2/19/08 @ 7:42 PM CST
It is true that "over-production" of anything could affect the climate and environment. If one argues that corn ethanol production is going to be "the BIGGEST" greenhouse gas producer, one should also address other major greenhouse gas- and environment pollutant-makers, such as cattle industry, cotton production (i e. (Continued…)
Haythrower
posted 2/19/08 @ 10:13 PM CST
W_Dan, your comments are excellent, but the author should have done a little homework by talking with other DN staff members before letting this get printed. (Continued…)
Post a Comment