[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[SANET-MG] biofuels for addicts
ISIS Press Release 28/02/06
Biofuels for Oil Addicts
Cure Worse than The Addiction
Bioethanol and biodiesel from energy crops compete for land that grows
food and return less energy than the fossil fuel energy squandered in
producing them; they are also damaging to the environment and disastrous
for the economy. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
A longer, fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS
members’ website. Details here.
“We must break our addiction to oil”, President George W. Bush said in
his State of the Union address; but he wasn’t advising people to give up
their cars or to use less oil, say by improving the gas mileage of cars.
Instead, he launched the “Advanced Energy Initiative” that would
increase federal budget by 22 percent for research into clean fuel
technologies; including biofuels derived from plants as substitutes for
oil (see Box) to power the country’s cars.
Successive US presidents have promoted ethanol from corn as a subsidised
fuel additive. President Bush said US scientists are now working out how
to make ethanol from wood chips, stalks, or switch grass “practical and
competitive within six years”, which would replace more than 70 percent
of oil imports from “unstable parts of the world” - the Middle East - by
2025. Currently 60 percent of the oil consumed in the US is imported, up
from 53 percent since George W. Bush came to power.
What are biofuels?
Biofuels are fuels derived from crop plants, and include biomass that’s
directly burned, biodiesel from plant seed-oil, and ethanol (or
methanol) from fermenting grain, grass, straw or wood. Biofuels have
gained favour with environmental groups as renewable energy sources that
are “carbon neutral”, in that they do not add any greenhouse gas into
the atmosphere; burning them simply returns to the atmosphere the carbon
dioxide that the plants take out when they were growing in the field.
However, they take up valuable land that should be used for growing
food, especially in poor Third World countries. Realistic estimates show
that making biofuels from energy crops require more fossil fuel energy
than they yield, and do not substantially reduce greenhouse gas
emissions when all the inputs are accounted for. Furthermore, they cause
irreparable damages to the soil and the environment (see main text).
Biofuels can also be produced from wood chips, crop residues and other
agricultural and industrial wastes, which do not compete for land with
food crops, but the environmental impacts are still substantial.
Biofuels cannot substitute for current fossil fuel use
Biofuels from energy crops cannot substitute for current fossil fuel
use. The major constraints are land surface available for growing the
crops, crop yield, and energy conversion efficiency, although economics
also plays a large role.
Growing crops for burning – biomass - should be the cheapest kind of
biofuel both in energy and financial terms, as it requires minimum
processing after harvest.
Crop scientists at Virginia Tech, David Parrish and John Fike, reviewed
the biology and agronomy of switchgrass, the most researched and
favoured biofuel crop. Switchgrass is a perennial native to the USA, and
has been extensively grown for fodder soon after the Europeans arrived.
It is prolific, does not require much nitrogen fertilizer, and is
considered the most sustainable, or the least environmentally damaging
biofuel crop. But the review concluded that, “even at maximum output,
such systems could not provide the energy currently being derived from
Substituting switchgrass for coal is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by about 1.7 t CO2 per t switchgrass. The prices that growers
must receive for biomass, however, must be sufficiently favourable.
Thus, about 8 m ha would be available if the price reached $ 33 per t at
the farm gate, increasing to about 17 m ha at $44 per t. The market
price paid for woodchip biomass in Virginia in 2004 averaged about $33
per t delivered, and the price for hay (all kinds) is about $95 per t.
One estimate placed the delivery costs of switchgrass at $63 per t.
Adding the costs of processing, such as pressing into pellets or cubes
for handling within a power plant, would bring the user’s costs to about
$83 per t. One t of switchgrass produces 17-18 GJ of energy when burned,
compared with 27-30 GJ for coal; and coal prices are $55 per t.
Switchgrass for energy is not at all economically competitive, unless
substantial subsidy is available. The same applies, perforce, to other
David Pimentel, a professor of crops science at Cornell University New
York and Tad Patzek, a professor of chemical engineering at University
of California Berkeley, reviewed the energy balance and economics of
producing biomass, ethanol or biodiesel from corn, switchgrass, wood,
soybeans and sunflower using the now generally accepted life-cycle
analysis. Although there is much controversy over the energy balance of
ethanol and biodiesel, the energy balance of biomass yield is generally
less subject to dispute, and is therefore a useful starting point.
It turns out that switchgrass has the most favourable output/input
energy ratio of 14.52, followed by wheat at 12.88, and oilseed rape at
9.21, if the straw is included. Switchgrass is hence the most promising
energy crop, whether as biomass for burning or to make other fuels
downstream, such as ethanol.
A quick calculation showed that even if all the farmland in the United
States were converted to growing switchgrass, it would not produce
enough ethanol for the country’s fossil fuel use. Switchgrass takes
several years to mature. The yield ranges from 0 for complete failure of
the crop to take hold to 20 t or more per ha, a lot depending on the
rainfall. A yield of 15 t /ha is optimistic; and would provide some 250
GJ/ha of raw chemical energy a year. If that energy could be converted
with 70 percent efficiency into electricity, ethanol, methanol etc., it
would take about 460 m ha to produce the 80EJ (ExaJoule = 1018J) fossil
fuel energy used in the USA each year. The total farmland in the USA is
380 m ha, of which 175 m ha is harvested cropland.
Clearly, energy crops are a bad option, and may become obsolete as
ethanol can now be made from wood chips, crop residues and other
agricultural wastes, and industrial wastes, though even that is not
sustainable (“Ethanol from wood biomass not sustainable”, this series).
Do you get more energy out of biofuel than the fossil fuel energy you
There is a huge debate over the energy balance of making ethanol or
biodiesel out of energy crops, with David Pimentel and Tad Patzek
presenting negative energy balance for all crops based on current
processing methods, i.e., it takes more fossil energy input to produce
the equivalent energy in biofuel. Thus for each unit of energy spent in
fossil fuel, the return is 0.778 unit of energy in maize ethanol, 0.688
unit in switchgrass ethanol, 0.636 unit in wood ethanol, and worst of
all, 0.534 unit in soybean biodiesel.
Their paper has provoked a strong riposte from several US government
departments, accusing Pimentel and Patzek of using obsolete figures, of
not counting the energy content of by-products such as the seedcake
(residue left after oil is extracted) that can be used as animal feed,
and of including energy used for building processing plants, farm
machinery, and labour, not usually included in such assessments.
For their part, Pimentel and Patzek, along with many other scientists
like me, are critical of estimates that produce positive energy balance
precisely because they leave out necessary energy investments. In fact,
neither Pimentel and Patzek nor their critics have included the costs of
waste treatment and disposal or the environmental impacts of intensive
bioenergy crop cultivation such as depletion of soil and environmental
pollution from fertilizers and pesticides.
To apportion processing-energy to coproducts according to their bulk
composition in the seed may appear unexceptionable. Only 18 percent of
the soybean is oil that makes biodiesel, while the rest is soybean cake
used as animal feed. However, as the seedcake is produced as soon as the
oil is extracted, it is simply creative accounting to attribute 82
percent of the downstream processing energy for biodiesel - which is
quite substantial - to the animal feed.
Energy balance of ethanol from corn
Sure enough, a new study comparing six estimates of energy balance of
corn ethanol did find that “net energy calculations are most sensitive
to assumptions about coproduct allocation”.
The new study, carried out by researchers at the University of
California Berkeley, published in the journal Science, evaluated six
analyses of corn-ethanol production, including those of Pimentel and
Patzek. The researchers developed a ‘model’ to allow them to compare the
data and assumptions across the analyses. Pimentel and Patzek’s negative
energy balance stood out in including energy used for building
processing plants, farm machinery, and labour, and for not giving credit
for co-products. Removing those “incommensurate” factors nevertheless
resulted in only a modest positive energy balance of just over 3
MJ/litre to 8 MJ/litre ethanol in the analyses that gave positive energy
balance, which translates to 1.13 to 1.34 for energy output/energy input
(there being 23.4MJ in one litre of ethanol), while the reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions averaged about 13 percent.
The researchers have devised a way of presenting energy balance in terms
of “petroleum input” - expressed as MJ petrol/MJ ethanol – that puts a
very positive gloss on the figures and is very misleading. It
essentially adds one hundred percent energy credit to the ethanol
because it assumes that the ethanol substitutes 100 percent for fossil
The researchers then used the “best data” from the six analyses to
“create” three cases with their model (hence all hypothetical): Ethanol
Today, that claims to include typical values for the current US corn
ethanol industry; CO2 Intensive, based on plans to ship Nebraska corn to
a lignite-powered ethanol plant in North Dakota, and Cellulosic, which
assumes that production of ethanol from switchgrass cellulose becomes
economic, an admitted “preliminary estimate of a rapidly evolving
he three cases, the researchers found a positive energy balance: a
whopping 23 MJ/litre ethanol for Cellulosic, 5 MJ/litre for Ethanol
Today, and 1.2 MJ/litre for CO2 Intensive; the corresponding
output/input energy ratios are 1.98, 1.21, and 1.05 respectively.
Cellulosic is the clear winner in terms of energy balance, and also by a
long shot in net greenhouse gas emission saved, which is 89 percent; the
corresponding values for Ethanol Today and CO2 Intensive are 17 percent
and about 2 percent respectively.
These analyses show that current production methods, represented by
Ethanol Today and CO2 Intensive, offer but a small positive energy
balance and little if any savings in greenhouse gas emissions, even with
the most favourable assumptions built in.
Bad economics of ethanol from corn
Ethanol constitute 99 percent of all biofuels in the United States; 3.4
billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2004 and blended into
gasoline, amounting to about 2 percent of all gasoline sold by volume
and 1.3 percent of its energy content.
Ethanol use is set to expand as the federal government has introduced a
0.51 tax credit per gallon of ethanol and issued a new mandate for 7.5
billion gallons of “renewable fuel” to be used in gasoline by 2012,
which is included in the recently passed Energy Policy Act (EPACT 2005).
Pimentel and Patzek have shown not only that the energy return is
substantially negative, the economics is worse. About 50 percent of the
cost of producing ethanol is for the corn feedstock itself
($0.28/litre). Ethanol costs a lot more to produce than it is worth on
the market, and without federal and state subsidies amounting to some $3
billion per year, corn ethanol production in the US would cease. Senator
McCain reports that total ethanol subsidies amount to $0.79/ litre;
adding the production costs would bring the cost to $1.24/litre. Ethanol
has only 66 percent as much energy per litre as gasoline; so corn
ethanol costs $1.88 per litre- or $7.12 per gallon- equivalent of
gasoline, compared to the current cost of producing gasoline, which is
Federal and state subsidies for ethanol production that total
$0.79/litre mainly end up in the pocket of large corporations, with a
maximum of $0.02 per bushel, or 0.2 cent/litre ethanol going to the farmer.
The total costs to the consumer in subsidizing ethanol and corn
production is estimated at $8.4 billion/yr, because producing the
required corn feedstock increases corn prices. One estimate is that
ethanol production adds more than $1 billion to the cost of beef
Clearly ethanol from corn is neither sustainable nor economical, and a
lot of effort has been devoted to finding alternative feedstock.
Worse energy yields as accounting gets more realistic
In a detailed rebuttal to the Science paper showing a positive energy
balance in ethanol production from corn, Patzek exposed the major flaws
in energy accounting used, which greatly inflated the energy return.
Failure to account for the energy in corn grains as energy input
Assuming an impossibly high yield of corn ethanol at variance with real
Assigning away undue energy costs in ethanol production, in particular,
distillation, to coproducts such as fermentation residues that have
nothing to do with ethanol production.
In addition, the ethanol industry routinely inflates the ethanol yield
by counting as ethanol the 5 percent of gasoline added to corn ethanol
as denaturant; by taking the amount of fermentable starch to be the
total extractable starch, although not all of the latter is fermentable;
and by taking the weight of wet corn (average 18 percent moisture) as
When the energy accounting done by different authors is reanalysed on
the same set of realistic data, energy yields come out remarkably
uniform. The output/input ratio varies between 0.245 and 0.310. In other
words, the energy balance is strongly negative: for every unit used in
making corn ethanol, one gets at most 0.3 unit of energy back. It takes
at least 9 times more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol from corn at
the refinery gate than gasoline or diesel fuel from crude oil.
As Patzek points out, the 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol mandated by the
2005 Energy Bill by 2012 could be compensated by an increase of car
mileage by just one mile per gallon, excluding gas-guzzling SUVs and
The economic consequences of excessive corn production have been
devastating. The price of corn in Iowa, the largest corn producer,
declined 10-fold between 1949 and 2005 as corn yields have tripled.
Today, Iowa farmers earn a third for the corn they sell compared to
1949, while their production costs increased manifold, because they burn
methane and diesel to produce corn. The price of methane has increased
several-fold in the last three years. “Corn crop subsidies supplemented
the market corn price by up to 50 percent between 1995 and 2004.” Patzek
writes, predicting more concentration of industrial corn production in
gigantic farms operated by large agribusiness corporations, and real
farmers will only rent the land.
An industrial raw material at rock-bottom price can now be processed
into ethanol at a significant profit, further enhanced by a federal
subsidy of 50 cents per gallon ethanol, plus state and local community
Patzek concludes: “the United States has already wasted a lot of time,
money, and natural resources…..pursuing a mirage of an energy scheme
that cannot possibly replace fossil fuels…The only real solution is to
limit the rate of use of these fossil fuels. Everything else will lead
to an eventual national disaster.”
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <firstname.lastname@example.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html.
Questions? Visit http://www.sare.org/about/sanetFAQ.htm.
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.