The COB Crowd Gets a Warning from the Ecological Society of America

Subtitle: Gets, Rather than Heeds

This blog previously described being in a state of uncertainty or perplexity especially as requiring a choice about the Renewable Fuels Standard. While agreeing with the majority of energy policy analysts that corn to ethanol for fuel is dumb, this blog also advocated use of ethanol blends, not only in flex-fuel vehicles capable of using E85, but also in all modern gasoline engines that could use E20 without a problem, with such advocacy made with the knowledge that most of the ethanol available for blending comes from corn.

East Shore Freeway
The survival of corn to ethanol is almost exclusively due to the power of the farming lobby, and other special interest groups in America that ensure all of those generous subsidies. And, it is an election year, so politicians are eager to please corn farmers for votes and Big Farm for campaign contributions. Meanwhile, woefully little ethanol is being blended with what in 2003 was consumption of about 360 million US liquid gallons (1.36 gigalitres) of gasoline each day.

Meanwhile, public policy pushes forward with corn to ethanol, enthusiastically received by the COB (Cruise On Booze) crowd and subsidized by the American taxpayer. Yet the billions of dollars going for imported oil, which is refined into gasoline distributed to a compliant public, is increasing as the cost of oil increases, demand increases, and alternative transportation fuels remain chiefly unavailable.

The following information is unlikely to change existing conditions, just another warning from another group of scientists, in this case, theEcological Society of America, the nation’s professional organization of ecological scientists. The Biopact team relays information about a position statement from the Society warning that the current mode of biofuels production in the U.S., mainly based on corn, will degrade the nation’s natural resources and will keep biofuels from becoming a viable energy option.

Current grain-based ethanol production systems damage soil and water resources in the U.S. and are only profitable in the context of tax breaks and tariffs. Future systems based on a combination of cellulosic materials and grain could be equally degrading to the environment, with potentially little carbon savings, unless steps are taken now that incorporate principles of ecological sustainability.

- Ecological Society of America


A comparison of fuels from the Union of Concern Scientists

The current focus on ethanol from corn illustrates the risks of exploiting a single source of biomass for biofuel production, says ESA. Continuously-grown corn leads to heavy use of fertilizers, early return of land in conservation programs to production, and the conversion of marginal lands to high-intensity cropping.

All of these bring with them well-known environmental problems associated with intensive farming: persistent pest insects and weeds, pollution of groundwater, greater irrigation demands, less wildlife diversity, and the release of more carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global climate change. Ironically, one of the touted benefits of biofuels is to help alleviate global climate change, a benefit that is considerably diluted under a high-intensity agriculture scenario.

ESA is in agreement with the Earth Policy Institute that has expressed concerned about the “hardship on the nation’s poor communities as higher crop prices drive up the cost of food.” As Saifedean Ammous has observed, a rise in the price of fossil fuels also will increase the cost of producing corn, raising its price as well.

Biofuels
“Just a short while ago,” writes keetsa, “biofuels seemed like they’d be a great alternative for some petroleum based fuels. But in the last year, we’ve seen the demand for corn skyrocket, and issues are being raised about balance between biofeuls and the demand for food supply.” Ecologists tell us, to best serve U.S. citizens, the economy, and the environment, we need a biofuels infrastructure that incorporates systems thinking, conserves ecosystem services, and encompasses multiple scales.

The ESA urges agricultural and energy policy that is congruent with ecological principles, such that the development of biofuels not only would help decrease our dependence on fossil fuels but also reduce our carbon dioxide emissions that unequivocally contribute to global climate change. According to ESA, three ecological principles are necessary in order to achieve the production of sustainable biofuels:

  1. 1. Systems thinking: Looking at the complete picture of how much energy is produced versus how much is consumed by extracting and transporting the crops used for biofuels. A systems approach seeks to avoid or minimize undesirable production side effects such as soil erosion and contamination of groundwater. Consistent monitoring is critical to ensure that biofuel production is sustainable.
  2. 2. Conservation of ecosystem services: Maximizing crop yield without regard to negative side effects is easy. On the other hand, growing crops and retaining the other services provided by the land is far more challenging, but very much worth the effort. For example, lower yields from an unfertilized native prairie may be acceptable in light of the other benefits, such as minimized flooding, fewer pests, groundwater recharge, and improved water quality because no fertilizer is needed.
  3. 3. Scale alignment: How agriculture is managed matters at the individual farm, regional, and global level. Policies must provide incentives for managing land in a sustainable way. They should also encourage the development of biofuels from various sources.

Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, July 21-28, 2007
Dissolved oxygen contours (in milligrams per liter) in the Gulf of Mexico, July 21-28, 2007

“Nitrogen in the Mississippi River system is known to be the major cause of an oxygen-starved “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico, which in 2007 was the third largest ever mapped (http://www.gulfhypoxia.net). The condition known as hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) occurs because elevated N (and, to a lesser extent, P) loading into the Gulf leads to algal blooms over a large area. Upon the death of these algae, they fall to the bottom and their decomposition consumes nearly all of the oxygen in the bottom water. This is lethal for most fish and other species that live there.” Nate Hagen

Only recently this blog noted Mindy Lubber’s article in World Changing, entitled “Corn Ethanol and the Great Dust Bowl“, in which she warns about what can go wrong when long-term sustainability measures are ignored. The Biopact article makes a general statement about overlooking the Big Picture of environmental implications. An excellent example is growth of the algae bloom in the Gulf of Mexico.

The increase in corn cultivation as a result of ethanol demand may be partly to blame for the increase in size of the GOM algae bloom. The business of growing corn means that more nitrogen runs off from corn fields and into the watersheds. Previous EPA estimates had about 210 million pounds of nitrogen fertilizer going into the Gulf annually, with 2007 figures not yet available. The increase in corn growing and the size of the algae bloom visible from satellite photos points to a big increase.

Iowa alone has planted more than a third of its land surface with corn and every indication is that farmers want to grow more corn. The consequences could include more fertilizer runoff and nitrous oxide released into the atmosphere, in addition to a greater demand for petroleum, both as fuel and petrochemicals used in cultivation. And, this occurs despite concerns about peak oil and peak natural gas. (Natural gas commonly is use to provide heat for fermentation.)

But, fossil fuels are not the only increasing scarce resource to consider. Ms. Lubber sees parallels to The Great Dust Bowl. Climate change, similar to drought conditions in the Southwest and now the Southeast, could mean less water available in the Midwest for growing corn and for converting the corn to ethanol.

A change in climate patterns has an implication for food production due to the interactions among temperature, radiation, precipitation and the land.
A change in climate patterns has an implication for food production due to the interactions among temperature, radiation, precipitation and the land.

Ms. Lubber also cautioned about a scarcity of good sense, pointing out that poorly-conceived government subsidies can thwart the best of good intentions. “According to the U.S. Department of Energy,” notes the Biopact team, “the federal government has some 20 laws and incentives to boost ethanol use.”

F.Y.I.

The Ecological Society of America will contribute more to this timely issue in a few months when it convenes a conference devoted to the ecological dimensions of biofuels. This conference, ‘Ecological Dimensions of Biofuels’, will be held on March 10, 2008 in Washington, DC and will bring together a wide variety of experts in the biofuels arena. The conference will cover the various sources of biofuels — agriculture and grasslands, range lands, and forests – and will encompass the private sector and socioeconomic perspectives. Jose Goldemberg, of the Global Energy Assessment Council and Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil, will give the keynote address.

Other Possibly Related AG Posts Automatically Generated

4 Comments

  1. jcwinnie
    Posted 2008-1-14 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    Flex Fuel logo
    According to Jim Wagoner, GM’s CEO, if all of the flex-fuel vehicles that are currently on the roads were actually powered by E85, the U.S. could displace 22 billion gallons of gasoline annually.

    ABG commentator GreyFlcn says there is a reason that there’s no E85 pumps: “it is because there’s no E85.”

    A whole 1% of the total US ethanol in 2006 was sold as an E85 blend. Why? Because E85 isn’t as profitable as E6 or E10.

    http://greyfalcon.net/gao

    That said, it doesn’t matter what magical liquid conversion technology you come up with.

    There just isn’t going to be enough domestic raw biomass to do the job. Period.

    http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png

    (It’s even worse when you consider Switchgrass’s conversion efficiency is 1/3rd lower than Sugar Cane)

    But then again, the other far more important aspect to consider Greenhouse Emissions.

    Taken cumulatively, bioFuels as they are now, without a doubt simply make things worse.

    http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png

    There’s some glimmer of potential to make them stop increasing loading greenhouses into the atmosphere, in the long run. But then again, you’d have to deal with the previous massive “carbon debt” accumulated by previous biofuels.

    Much the same way that someone might say Coal-to-Liquids might someday be a “greenhouse safe” approach, but thats no reason to charge ahead with the conventional stuff right now.

  2. jcwinnie
    Posted 2008-1-14 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Area needed to power 100% of U.S. vehicles on the road

    GreyFlcn also provided a comprehensive comment to a post by Gristmill contributor Vinod Khosla.

    “I think it’s extremely unlikely that in 20 years we will be using any ethanol in cars.” Instead, Khosla now believes that ethanol – even cellulosic ethanol – is a stepping stone to other alternative fuels.
    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/29/khosla-ethanol-is

    Why should we be creating ethanol distribution/vehicle infrastructure, when by your own admission, it’s going to be completely obsolete and useless in a relatively short period of time?
    Wouldn’t it be “pragmatic” to adapt the fuel to the infrastructure/vehicles, instead of the other way around?

    It also makes it rather illogical to entrench current ethanol infrastructure if what we want, isn’t going to be ethanol.

    _

    Corn ethanol, reduces carbon emissions (on a per-mile-driven basis) by almost the same amount as today’s typical hybrid

    Thats only if you assume Micheal Wang’s GREET model is showing a complete and honest representation of the facts.

    And there are many reasons to heavily doubt his figures, to the extent that it may actually be making the problem much worse.
    http://greyfalcon.net/lca.png
    http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
    http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
    http://greyfalcon.net/landuse
    http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-reliable-are-
    http://greyfalcon.net/soy2
    http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0103-biofuels.html

    Much in the same way that one may comment Coal-to-Liquids with Sequestration has faint potential of reducing emissions in the future, but that gives it no reason to push forward the currently dirty fuels right now.
    http://greyfalcon.net/zeiger

    R&D subsidies perhaps, but lavish purchase subsidies for currently dirty fuels is simply perverse.

    _

    Hybrids are a media darling and Corn Ethanol is demonized, despite it’s more competitive economics.

    Except that the economics AREN’T favorable to Corn ethanol.

    Corn Ethanol ranks last, when compared to diesel and hybrids.

    Your statement isn’t based on fact.
    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/13/diesel-vs-hybrid-
    http://greyfalcon.net/e85stations.png
    http://greyfalcon.net/e85stations2.png

    _

    my review of the technology suggests that the upside with known chemistries is limited to maybe 2-4x change in cost per kwh of capacity — a significant improvement to be sure, but not nearly enough to change the hybrid or plug-in hybrid cost dynamic.

    And then other technologies push forward to break that assumption.
    http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/01/eestor-
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103105

    _

    A plug-in serial hybrid with sufficient driving range to get consumer acceptance, powered mostly by electricity, would cost at least $5,000 more (probably much more) for the average buyer.

    Thats nothing compared to the current raw subsidies and cost of ownership of driving on ethanol.

    Which totals cumulative to nearly $2000 PER YEAR!!!

    Just in 10 years, thats $20,000! (Which gets to be even more when you factor in inflation)
    http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes2.png
    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/13/diesel-vs-hybrid-

    And the dramatic drop in cost of maintaince and fuel costs alone would easily pay that back anyways.
    http://greyfalcon.net/volt

    An electric car (or similarly a series plugin hybrid) is orders of magnitude less complex than conventional cars.
    http://video.wnbc.com/player/?id=70885
    http://greyfalcon.net/raser2

    As such, it would be more accurate to compare the total amortized cost of ownership. (including subsidies)

    It’s rather disingenuous to only compare raw sticker price.

  3. jcwinnie
    Posted 2008-3-9 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Via Green Car Congress, we learn from PIW (Petroleum Intelligence Weekly) that projections are the US will pay $440B for imported crude oil and finished petroleum products in 2008. This represents an increase of some 300% since 2002.

    The increase to the estimated $440 billion for 2008 is based on an average $90 per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oil began, US oil imports cost less than $103 billion. The preliminary figures for last year came to some $327 billion.

    PIW calculates that the US paid out a record $245 billion for about 10 million barrels per day of crude oil imports in 2007, and another $82 billion for about 3.5 million b/d of imported oil products. With US crude production continuing to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transport fuels remaining strong, and oil prices around 30% higher year-on-year so far in 2008, PIW sees the bill continuing to rise.

    With oil prices this year as strong or stronger than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced volumes. While oil demand growth has slowed slightly in recent years due to both high prices and greater fuel efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refiners require and the emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mix are likely to keep upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable, according to PIW.

    Although “energy security” and “dependency on the Mideast” get the attention in the national debate over oil imports, huge and rapidly rising costs are of greater immediate economic significance, PIW says. Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico account for about one third of crude imports.

  4. jcwinnie
    Posted 2008-3-9 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Torontonian Lloyd Alter instructs Treehugger readers to read the following two stories together:

      graincars.jpg
      From Photo Essay by Dan Koeck for The New York Times

    1. 1. New York Times on A Global Need for Grain That Farms Can’t Fill: “Wheat prices have doubled in the last six months. Corn is on a tear. Barley, sunflower seeds, canola and soybeans are all up sharply…. Everywhere, the cost of food is rising sharply. A tailor in Lagos, Nigeria, named Abel Ojuku said recently that he had been forced to cut back on the bread he and his family love. “If you wanted to buy three loaves, now you buy one,” Mr. Ojuku said.
    2. 2. The Guardian: US dumping of biofuels will ruin us, says UK firm The US is flooding Europe with subsidised biofuels that threaten to destroy Europe’s domestic refining market. “Imports of heavily subsidised biodiesel fuel from the US, so-called B99, have eroded margins to the point where we have no choice but to consider how to reduce operating costs….”If you believe in free trade, this isn’t a fair market.” He feels it is unlikely that the US will end subsidies to its powerful farming lobby in an election year.

    So, people starve because the American government subsidizes soybean growers to make biofuels which are then exported at below manufacturing costs. It all makes so much sense.

4 Trackbacks

  1. [...] that important opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels, and to ensure wider environmental and social benefits, may be missed with existing policy frameworks and targets. I took issue with [...]

  2. [...] of CO2. And, in terms of EROEI, corn to ethanol fares poorly. Despite such knowledge, public policy pushes forward with corn to [...]

  3. [...] in the United States public policy has pushed forward with corn to ethanol, the Ecological Society of America has issued a strident warning about the total impact upon the environment of such injudicious [...]

  4. [...] the University of British Columbia and Chris Kucharik of the University of Wisconsin. While others, like the Ecological Society of America, previously have warned of such risk, the researchers quantified nutrient pollution in a waterway [...]

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE