Currently browsing posts about: Ethanol

I know I’ve been posting this graph multiple times, but to me it sums up everything that’s wrong with the U.S. agricultural system.  Close to half the biofuels grown in the U.S. is used to make biofuels.

Here’s what happens to corn.

But that’s not all.  Roughly 40% of U.S. soybeans are converted to diesel fuel, according to a report from the World Resources Institute: Increased Biofuel Production in the US Midwest May Harm Farmers and the Climate.  

As the report explains,

• Corn and soybeans are grown on 178 million acres of farmland.
• They grown mainly in Midwest states — Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
• 30 million acres of corn are used to produce ethanol, but ethanol from corn only supplied 4% of U.S. transportation fuel in 2022.
• More than 40% of U.S. soybean oil supply has been used for biofuels since 2022; biodiesel made from soybeans supplied less than 1% of U.S. transportation fuel.

The rest is mainly used for animal feed.

All this means that the current subsidy system:

• Encourages large agricultural producers to grow corn in places where it should not be grown (areas of low water, for example).
• Takes up farmland that could be used to produce food for people.
• Pollutes the environment with pesticides and herbicides, making local water sources undrinkable.
• Promotes meat in the diet (it reduces the price of feed)

This is a really bad system that does nothing to help Make America Healthy Again.

Is the system likely to change?  Not a chance.

And now we have the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

It is applauded by the trade association for ethanol and diesel producers.

The American Prospect, however, calls it “climate-wrecking.”

the Renewable Fuels Standard, created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005….was to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions by requiring the use of various biofuels for transportation and heating (and, not coincidentally, hand out gobs of cash to farm states like Iowa, a place which is kind of critical in presidential elections). Since these are created from plants that pull carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than digging up oil from the ground, it was thought this would cut emissions. [But] mainly it led to an explosion of farming corn and soybeans to be rendered into ethanol, which increased by about 500 percent between 2005 and today.

Take a look at who is made happy by this bill.

• American Soybean Association
• National Association of Wheat Growers (they want in)
• National Cattlemens Beef Association

Big Ag wants to sell crops; it doesn’t care how they are used.

Add this to everything else that’s wrong with this bill.

Fortunately, there is at least one dissenting voice:

Meanwhile, House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig (MN-02) shared her negative sentiment towards the bill saying in a statement that “Today marks a grave turning point for our country, one which leaves rural communities and farmers behind, and places us on the road toward increased hunger, less prosperity and fewer opportunities for working families. This bill takes food away from millions of children, seniors, veterans and people with disabilities. Congressional Republicans have sold out ordinary Americans to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-rich and large corporations. The Republican budget is a disgrace, and every single person who voted for it should be ashamed.”

We grow lots of corn in the U.S.

• Most of it is genetically modified, meaning that the potentially carcinogenic herbicide, glyphosate, gets dumped all over it in enormous quanitities
• 40% of the corn is used to produce ethanol; this provides an incentive to grow corn in places where water is limited or land is poor.

One argument in favor of using corn for ethanol is that using ethanol for fuel reduces climate change.

But recent reports suggest that using corn for ethanol is a net loss for the planet.

• Jessica Fu writes in The Counter. Corn ethanol was supposed to help the climate. Instead, its production may have made things worse:  Environmental advocates have long warned that incentivizing ethanol production could be a net loss for the planet. A new study suggests that those fears may be well-founded.  Read more
• Virginia Gewin in Civil Eats writes: How Corn Ethanol for Biofuel Fed Climate Change
• C. Jones points out: Iowa is addicted to cornography, but we would all be better off using electric power.
• Dr. Jonathan Foley concludes:   It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System: As a crop, corn is highly productive, flexible and successful. As a system, the same is not true.

Comment: Growing corn for ethanol is makes no sense at all.  It’s bad for land and water.  Dumping glyphosate also makes no sense.  We need an agricultural policy that promotes agroecology/regenerative agriculture/sustainability, and that promotes the health of everyone involved in production and consumption.

If you want to know what’s wrong with the US food system, consider corn.

• Hardly any of it is grown for food.
• Most—half—goes for animal feed, domestic or exported.
• One-third goes for ethanol fuel.

Let’s start with the big picture, courtesy of the National Corn Growers Association (FSI means Food/Seed/Industrial).

The USDA explains how much of total corn production ends up as ethanol fuel.

What’s wrong with this?  See The Conversation: The US biofuel mandate helps farmers, but does little for energy security and harms the environment.

If you’ve pumped gas at a U.S. service station over the past decade, you’ve put biofuel in your tank. Thanks to the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, almost all gasoline sold nationwide is required to contain 10% ethanol – a fuel made from plant sources, mainly corn.

With the recent rise in pump prices, biofuel lobbies are pressing to boost that target to 15% or more. At the same time, some policymakers are calling for reforms. For example, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced a bill that would eliminate the corn ethanol portion of the mandate.

This article is worth serious attention for its discussion of the effects of corn growing on profits, carbon-neutrality, indigenous populations, and agriculture policy in general.

Or, to summarize in a corn cob (thanks to Mother Jones):

It’s hard to know where to begin to comment on this.

• Many people in the world do not have enough to eat.
• It would be better for people and the planet if we in industrialized countries ate less meat.
• It would be better for people and the planet if we used fewer cars.

Growing corn for animal feed and automobile fuel makes no sense for human health or that of the enviroment.

Coronavirus affects everything in the food system.  Here’s what it’s doing to ethanol and alcoholic beverages.

Fuel ethanol

Q.  What does fuel ethanol have to do with food politics?

A.  About 40% of America’s corn crop is used for ethanol for cars, as a result of the fuel standards law requiring ethanol to be blended into gasoline.

Comment: Growing corn for ethanol seems absurd to me, particularly because the energy gain is so low—about 2% according to the USDA.

With that said, Covid-19 is unquestionably bad for the fuel ethanol business.

• Ethanol plants are in trouble.  People aren’t driving cars as much or using gas.
• Only about half as much ethanol is being used as was used last year—the lowest since 2010.
• The USDA is not providing emergency funding for biofuels.
• Corn farmers are upset.  There is less of a market for their overplanted corn.

Booze

Alcoholic beverage companies that donate to Coronavirus causes are seeing huge increases in sales—as much as a tripling.

But beer has a problem.  It—and sodas and seltzers—need carbon dioxide gas to make them bubbly.  Ethanol plants collect this gas as a byproduct.  If they shut down or reduce output, the gas supply goes down.  Expect shortages.

If Covid-19 does any good at all, it is to illustrate the interconnections and contradictions of our often bizarre food system.

Bloomberg News has an interactive infographic on U.S. corn production.  Corn now accounts for 68 percent of US grain-and-oilseed production.

The USDA gives a bit of background on the corn economy.

Scientific American explains why growing all that corn is not such a great idea.

• It’s mostly for feeding animals, not people
• 40% of it goes to fuel for cars
• It uses up lots of natural resources
• It’s monoculture, and vulnerable
• It’s taxpayer supported—at billions of dollars per year

Here’s how it is used.

Time to do some rethinking, no?

If you can find it, watch the film King Corn.  It’s a lot of fun and enormously revealing.

Think about this over the weekend.

Among the other consequences of the current drought—along with the ruin of this year’s corn crop—is a complicated political battle over who gets the corn.

The players:

• Corn producers: Want high prices.  Don’t care whether meat or ethanol producers get the corn.  Note: Many own their own ethanol refineries.
• Meat producers: Want the corn at low prices.  Do not want corn grown for ethanol.  Want the ethanol quota waived.
• Ethanol producers: Want the corn at low prices.  Want to keep the quota.
• International aid agencies: Want corn to be grown for food and feed, not fuel.  Want the ethanol quota waived.

The ethanol quota:

• Government energy policy requires an increasing percentage of gasoline to contain ethanol each year.
• More than 40% of U.S. corn is grown for ethanol.

Three big industries—corn agribusiness, industrial meat, ethanol—plus international agencies have a stake in the U.S. corn crop.

How should the Obama administration handle this?

• Waive the ethanol quota?
• Keep the ethanol quota?
• Do nothing?
• Do something else?  If so, what?

The U.S. Public Interest Group (USPIRG) has a new report out on the effects of farm subsidies on obesity: Apples to Twinkies: Comparing Federal Subsidies of Fresh Produce and Junk Food.  If you want people to eat more fruits and vegetables and less junk food, fixing the subsidy patterns might be a good place to begin.

New England Complex Systems Institute (whatever that might be) has an interesting explanation of the recent rise in world food prices: The Food Crises: A Quantitative Model of Food Prices Including Speculators and Ethanol Conversion.
The authors’ explanation: commodity speculation and growing corn for ethanol fully account for the rise in prices.  The remedy seems obvious, no?

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has just funded a report on the soft drink industry from the National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN), a project of Public Health Law & Policy (PHLP): Breaking Down the Chain: A Guide to the Soft Drink Industry.  This is about the industry itself, but also what it is doing to market its products here, there, and everywhere.  This is required reading for anyone interested in public health measures to reduce consumption of sugary drinks.

I’m just getting around to reading an optimistic report from USDA about how much more energy we are getting from converting corn to ethanol. 

The report surveyed corn growers for the year 2005 and ethanol plants in 2008 and happily reports that energy yields are improving.  

Never mind that the mere thought of using food resources to feed cars rather than farm animals or people makes no sense from the standpoint of sustainability.   Early estimates of energy efficiency made it clear that it took almost as much—or, in fact, as much—energy to convert corn to ethanol as cold be obtained from the ethanol, and that the size of the energy yield depended on who was doing the estimating.   

This latest report says that “the net energy balance of corn ethanol has increased from 1.76 BTUs to 2.3 BTUs of required energy” since 2004.  If true,

Ethanol has made the transition from an energy sink, to a moderate net energy gain in the 1990s, to a substantial net energy gain in the present. And there are still prospects for improvement. Ethanol yields have increased by about 10 percent in the last 20 years, so proportionately less corn is required. In addition to refinements in ethanol technology, corn yields have increased by 39 percent over the last 20 years, requiring less land to produce ethanol.

I still think this is not a good idea.  A rational energy policy must develop sustainable sources, and corn is not one of them.