JLF: The Corn Industry's Killing You - PART II, Ethanol
Johnny Lead Foot here, and I'm pissed....
This article, The Corn Industry's Killing You, requires two parts, because of the sheer volume of evil in the corn industry spews. In fact, they remind me of the tobacco industry, lying and misdirecting for decades while millions of people died. If you missed my set-up article for this series, about how the agribusiness uses lobbyists and campaign contributions to affect our laws, read it for your own good.
Part I of "The Corn Industry's Killing You" studied how corn has flooded our country's food. Nearly everything you purchase has corn in it, and the government's done nothing to study what consuming mass quantities of an inherently indigestible food might lead to. Kudos to the corn lobby and campaign donation efforts for that blind eye. Do yourself a favor and read Part I.
Part II that will focus on how the corn industry is muscling in as the ethanol standard, when it's not much better for the world than using petroleum. More importantly, there are more efficient processes already out there.
Now, this "trilogy" will come to a close (until I decide to revisit it again).
Part II that will focus on how the corn industry is muscling in as the ethanol standard, when it's not much better for the world than using petroleum. More importantly, there are more efficient processes already out there.
Now, this "trilogy" will come to a close (until I decide to revisit it again).
The largest threat to our country right now, by far, is our dependence on/guzzling of oil. Not only does it empower our enemies in the middle east who plot to kill us, but it also contributes to global warming that'll drown us all in a century. (If you don't believe in global warming... then... stop reading. It's a pre-requisite to participating in my amazing blogging.)
So, what are we going to do about it? "What about electric cars," you might ask? That sounds perfect! Carbon dioxide reduced to zero and no oil money for those who want to kill us. Just plug the car in, right? No. Most people don't know that about 75% of our energy comes from, in order of production: coal, natural gas, and turbine engine power plants. They run on burning coal, gas or gasoline, and they all that release carbon dioxide while creating energy, throwing it out into the environment like a billion Ferrari F-40s. (Granted, the natural gas throws the least, but only around 35% more efficient.)
What's the solution, then? Well, lets look around the world and see if we find a country that is not dependent on foreign oil and see how they did it. Venezuela doesn't need any foreign oil, but that's because they have tons of it and own the company Citgo. Hmmmm.... What else in South America? Brazil. BRAZIL! Look at Brazil! As of a couple of years ago, they are totally independent from foreign oil. How did they do it? They have gasoline, but the also have ethanol.
Ethanol? O que e isso? Ethanol is alcohol, essentially, made from sugars. Hops and grapes turn into ethanol (beer and wine). Biomass (i.e., wood chips, switchgrass, corn) can be turned into ethanol (gasoline substitute). Essentially, Brazil has a beer-type-thing as 30% of its automotive fuel? No bubbles, no troubles?
Well! I've heard of ethanol in the U.S. Corn, right? I've seen that lots of ads for that. How much corn would we need to replace the gasoline we use? Well, I pilfered a copy of Technology Review from John (he gets it free as an MIT alum) and--great timing since this project of mine has been in the works for a month now--this issue has an article that covers The Price of Biofuels. Pick up a copy in any news stand, or register to read it online.
This article by David Rotman is so good, I could have written it. He answers the question, How much corn would we need to replace the gasoline we use? Apparently, if we use all the corn produced in the U.S. (which is almost as much as all the grown in the rest of the world, combined), we'd only replace 12% of the gasoline used in the U.S. Wha? This doesn't seem like a viable solution...
There are deeper problems, too, though. You'd assume this ethanol would cut down on carbon dioxide emissions like a champ, right? No. Ethanol made from corn is very inefficient that way. It's hard to have exact numbers because of the complexity of the process, but here are some conservative numbers. The chemical reaction that makes ethanol takes a lot of energy, about 50% of the energy that can be found in the final product. That's 1/2 of the energy gone in making it. In addition, growing corn takes a boatload of energy, about 25% of what can be found in the final product. (Growing corn also creates nitric oxide and methane, two more greenhouse gases.) Add those up, and you're using 75% of the energy you produce in making the energy your produce. Again, conservative numbers.
In addition, ethanol is more "sensitive" (in a way) than petroleum and can't use our petroleum infrastructure for distribution. This means it has to be trucked everywhere, which... adds greenhouse gases to the environment.
I'll take Botman's lead and set the range of 12-25% in greenhouse gas reduction. [Some estimates even take it over 100%, meaning it takes more energy to produce than it contains.]
It wouldn't be a problem if corn was the only answer to this riddle, but there are more efficient systems out there. After all, Brazil wouldn't have enough corn to make 30% of their automobile fuel. Instead, they use sugar cane, which has a greenhouse gas reduction of 82-85%. What? 82-85% for sugar, 12-25% for corn. What the hell are we doing?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is the work of the corn industry's lobbying and campaign contributions. It would be one thing if the market was demanding corn ethanol, but the truth is that this is being thrust upon us by the government. They provided $7 billion in subsidies last year to corn producers to make about 5 billion gallons of ethanol. The increased delta to produce ethanol, though, is only about $0.38 more than gasoline, per gallon.... so, even taking into consideration that ethanol isn't as efficient as gasoline, there is about $4 billion that goes to pure profit for the corn farmers.
Why can't we use sugar, then, like Brazil? The U.S. has high tariffs in place requiring the U.S. pay more than double what the rest of the world pays for sugar. This--again covered in Part I--makes corn-based sweeteners, like corn syrup and high fructose syrup, a cheaper option for food producers than sugar.
Setting corn as the standard for ethanol in the U.S. is a result of a close tie between the corn industry and the politicians in this country. [I already covered how agribusiness is able to impact our policy, the setup for this two-part study. Read it for your own good.] The ramifications of corn ethanol, though, are more than just lining the pockets of corn farmers and deceptively helping the environment. It affects the very price of corn. 17% of last year's corn use went to making ethanol (2% of of the fuel supply). Taking that corn off the market raises the price, and the effects are felt everywhere. The majority of corn goes to feed the animals that we eat. If we raise the price of corn, we raise the price of all that meat. It raises the price of milk and eggs. It raises the price of everything those are made from. It's an overwhelming waterfall effect. For example, in Mexico, the price of a corn tortilla doubled last year.
President Bush is pushing corn ethanol like a madman, too. In his State of the Union last year, he said he expected 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017. Last year we produced about 5 billion. [Go corn, go!] Bush, once again, though, pulled the number out of his rear because even corn ethanol enthusiasts say production levels can't go much higher than 15 billion gallons a year. Oh, this administration.
Can you imagine this administration acting intelligently like the Brazilian government, finding a solution that works, investing in it and then enforcing their car manufacturers to play along? Every car sold in Brazil now has to be compatible with their ethanol. I can't imagine our government standing up to their best friends, the auto industry, like that. But I sure wish they would.
Do we have a solution in the U.S., though, that's better than corn? Sure. For example, there is a plant called switchback in the U.S. that grows wild, even on "infertile" land that won't yield crops. Making ethanol out of switchback is as efficient as making out of sugar, but making a cellulose ethanol plant costs up to four times as much as a corn one. Shouldn't the government subsidize that, though: the building of switchback ethanol plants?
There are also superbugs that are being developed/discovered that might make ethanol production that much more efficient. The government has given about $350 million to fund that research.
So, there are lots of options out there, some we don't even know about yet. The government has picked a favorite, though, and is putting its money behind corn ethanol: $7 billion/year, and it's expected to more than double if a bill proposed last year goes through and boosts agribusiness subsidies from $17 billion/year to $58 billion... a version of this bill has already been passed by the House and the Senate, by the way. They are expected to be reconciled at the beginning of 2008.
Does this put a hole in your stomach, too? Get full hot like me.
In terms of greenhouse gases, though, the gasoline situation's a drop in the bucket. Look for my future post about how the U.S. going vegan could save us all this trouble.
Always your pleasure.
- JLF
Find me on Facebook.com, and join the HAWTaction.com Reader group. My name there is Johnny LeadFoot (they didn't allow the space).
So, what are we going to do about it? "What about electric cars," you might ask? That sounds perfect! Carbon dioxide reduced to zero and no oil money for those who want to kill us. Just plug the car in, right? No. Most people don't know that about 75% of our energy comes from, in order of production: coal, natural gas, and turbine engine power plants. They run on burning coal, gas or gasoline, and they all that release carbon dioxide while creating energy, throwing it out into the environment like a billion Ferrari F-40s. (Granted, the natural gas throws the least, but only around 35% more efficient.)
What's the solution, then? Well, lets look around the world and see if we find a country that is not dependent on foreign oil and see how they did it. Venezuela doesn't need any foreign oil, but that's because they have tons of it and own the company Citgo. Hmmmm.... What else in South America? Brazil. BRAZIL! Look at Brazil! As of a couple of years ago, they are totally independent from foreign oil. How did they do it? They have gasoline, but the also have ethanol.
Ethanol? O que e isso? Ethanol is alcohol, essentially, made from sugars. Hops and grapes turn into ethanol (beer and wine). Biomass (i.e., wood chips, switchgrass, corn) can be turned into ethanol (gasoline substitute). Essentially, Brazil has a beer-type-thing as 30% of its automotive fuel? No bubbles, no troubles?
Well! I've heard of ethanol in the U.S. Corn, right? I've seen that lots of ads for that. How much corn would we need to replace the gasoline we use? Well, I pilfered a copy of Technology Review from John (he gets it free as an MIT alum) and--great timing since this project of mine has been in the works for a month now--this issue has an article that covers The Price of Biofuels. Pick up a copy in any news stand, or register to read it online.
This article by David Rotman is so good, I could have written it. He answers the question, How much corn would we need to replace the gasoline we use? Apparently, if we use all the corn produced in the U.S. (which is almost as much as all the grown in the rest of the world, combined), we'd only replace 12% of the gasoline used in the U.S. Wha? This doesn't seem like a viable solution...
There are deeper problems, too, though. You'd assume this ethanol would cut down on carbon dioxide emissions like a champ, right? No. Ethanol made from corn is very inefficient that way. It's hard to have exact numbers because of the complexity of the process, but here are some conservative numbers. The chemical reaction that makes ethanol takes a lot of energy, about 50% of the energy that can be found in the final product. That's 1/2 of the energy gone in making it. In addition, growing corn takes a boatload of energy, about 25% of what can be found in the final product. (Growing corn also creates nitric oxide and methane, two more greenhouse gases.) Add those up, and you're using 75% of the energy you produce in making the energy your produce. Again, conservative numbers.
In addition, ethanol is more "sensitive" (in a way) than petroleum and can't use our petroleum infrastructure for distribution. This means it has to be trucked everywhere, which... adds greenhouse gases to the environment.
I'll take Botman's lead and set the range of 12-25% in greenhouse gas reduction. [Some estimates even take it over 100%, meaning it takes more energy to produce than it contains.]
It wouldn't be a problem if corn was the only answer to this riddle, but there are more efficient systems out there. After all, Brazil wouldn't have enough corn to make 30% of their automobile fuel. Instead, they use sugar cane, which has a greenhouse gas reduction of 82-85%. What? 82-85% for sugar, 12-25% for corn. What the hell are we doing?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is the work of the corn industry's lobbying and campaign contributions. It would be one thing if the market was demanding corn ethanol, but the truth is that this is being thrust upon us by the government. They provided $7 billion in subsidies last year to corn producers to make about 5 billion gallons of ethanol. The increased delta to produce ethanol, though, is only about $0.38 more than gasoline, per gallon.... so, even taking into consideration that ethanol isn't as efficient as gasoline, there is about $4 billion that goes to pure profit for the corn farmers.
Why can't we use sugar, then, like Brazil? The U.S. has high tariffs in place requiring the U.S. pay more than double what the rest of the world pays for sugar. This--again covered in Part I--makes corn-based sweeteners, like corn syrup and high fructose syrup, a cheaper option for food producers than sugar.
Setting corn as the standard for ethanol in the U.S. is a result of a close tie between the corn industry and the politicians in this country. [I already covered how agribusiness is able to impact our policy, the setup for this two-part study. Read it for your own good.] The ramifications of corn ethanol, though, are more than just lining the pockets of corn farmers and deceptively helping the environment. It affects the very price of corn. 17% of last year's corn use went to making ethanol (2% of of the fuel supply). Taking that corn off the market raises the price, and the effects are felt everywhere. The majority of corn goes to feed the animals that we eat. If we raise the price of corn, we raise the price of all that meat. It raises the price of milk and eggs. It raises the price of everything those are made from. It's an overwhelming waterfall effect. For example, in Mexico, the price of a corn tortilla doubled last year.
President Bush is pushing corn ethanol like a madman, too. In his State of the Union last year, he said he expected 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017. Last year we produced about 5 billion. [Go corn, go!] Bush, once again, though, pulled the number out of his rear because even corn ethanol enthusiasts say production levels can't go much higher than 15 billion gallons a year. Oh, this administration.
Can you imagine this administration acting intelligently like the Brazilian government, finding a solution that works, investing in it and then enforcing their car manufacturers to play along? Every car sold in Brazil now has to be compatible with their ethanol. I can't imagine our government standing up to their best friends, the auto industry, like that. But I sure wish they would.
Do we have a solution in the U.S., though, that's better than corn? Sure. For example, there is a plant called switchback in the U.S. that grows wild, even on "infertile" land that won't yield crops. Making ethanol out of switchback is as efficient as making out of sugar, but making a cellulose ethanol plant costs up to four times as much as a corn one. Shouldn't the government subsidize that, though: the building of switchback ethanol plants?
There are also superbugs that are being developed/discovered that might make ethanol production that much more efficient. The government has given about $350 million to fund that research.
So, there are lots of options out there, some we don't even know about yet. The government has picked a favorite, though, and is putting its money behind corn ethanol: $7 billion/year, and it's expected to more than double if a bill proposed last year goes through and boosts agribusiness subsidies from $17 billion/year to $58 billion... a version of this bill has already been passed by the House and the Senate, by the way. They are expected to be reconciled at the beginning of 2008.
Does this put a hole in your stomach, too? Get full hot like me.
In terms of greenhouse gases, though, the gasoline situation's a drop in the bucket. Look for my future post about how the U.S. going vegan could save us all this trouble.
Always your pleasure.
- JLF
Find me on Facebook.com, and join the HAWTaction.com Reader group. My name there is Johnny LeadFoot (they didn't allow the space).
great article. as always JLF is there to point out the shenanigans of King Corn. personally i think we should subsidize corn farmers to plant/manage trees and turn the midwest back into a giant carbon sink.
also, a nitpick: hops doesn't turn into ethanol. the sugar from the malt does. hops is purely a bittering/flavoring agent.
Courtesy of the Corn Refiners Association
Ad 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0
Ad 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q