Study Finds Corn Ethanol Just as Bad as Gasoline
A study released on Monday by the University of Minnesota has come up with some hard facts for ethanol supports: Corn ethanol is just as bad for polluting the air as gasoline.
We’ve all heard the arguments against corn ethanol before, but this is the first study of its kind to look at economic and health costs of not only corn ethanol but also of gasoline and cellulosic ethanol, reports the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and BusinessGreen.com.
The major problem with corn ethanol doesn’t come in its emissions while a car is in motion; it comes from the energy-intensive process used to make it in the first place, and the fertilizer needed to grow corn. The Minnesota study used computer models and came up with these numbers:
- Gasoline costs 71 cents per gallon in environmental and health costs.
- Corn ethanol costs 72 cents to $1.45 in environmental and health costs.
While this is only just one more item on a string of bad news for corn ethanol, it’s also good news for the advancement of cellulosic ethanol (that which is made from plant materials like switchgrass and stalks). The study found that cellulosic ethanol only costs 19 to 32 cents.
The study, while important for the United States, might affect rural Minnesota most, where corn ethanol is a huge industry.
Photo Credit: broox at Flicker under a Creative Commons License
[...] And It Gets Stuck in Your Teeth, Too: Corn ethanol is just as polluting as gasoline, according to a new study. (Hat tip: Red Green and Blue.) [...]
Nice headline
“Study Finds Corn Ethanol Just as Bad as Gasoline”
Sounds like Corn Ethanol is a viable alternative to gasoline.
I’d prefer the headline:
“Study Finds Corn Ethanol Just as Good as Gasoline”
Also taking into consideration, political issues and risk of supply disruptions: Corn Ethanol is a better alternative to gasoline. Nice try, but Corn Ethanol is still a good idea for a well-rounded energy supply. (Unfortunately, we (U.S.) are shooting ourselves in the foot by restricting imported corn. (Ugh, damn farm special interest groups)
We have lots of shiny new Ethanol refineries (Subsidized?) that are forced by law to pay well over the world market price for corn. Way to go Washington!
This University of Minnesota study will have little or no effect. It is based on false assumptions, slanted data, and omissions. For example, the study used domestically made gasoline data, which is not based in reality. 60 to 70 percent of our gasoline comes from importing foreign oil, which is shipped long distances using additional dirty fossil fuels. And a significant portion of our oil comes from energy intensive Canadian tar sands and offshore drilling in deep water. This defective study is also based on the false assumption that farmers will expand corn acreage dramatically into lands now laying fallow in the land Conservation Reserve Program. The reality is that corn ethanol is capped at 15 Billion gallons, and is now at about 10.5 Billion gallons at 80% capacity. And we now have a large surplus of feed corn. Making more ethanol from corn will come from a combination of: improving the yield of corn per acre, cutting edge refining technology, extracting starch from more surplus corn and export corn that we already produce, and adapting ALGAE production to consume corn ethanol refinery waste products, CO2, waste heat, and nutrient rich water effluent. That may just trump all other forms of ethanol. The University of Minnesota study is also based on the flimsy concept of rural fertilizer exhaust whimsically floating hundreds of miles into urban centers and doing more damage than gasoline. This is also a false assumption. ‘Claiming that this fertilizer exhaust, which is diluted thousands of times as it travels miles and miles in the air, is somehow more dangerous than sucking up the exhaust of the fossil fueled gasoline powered vehicle right in front of you. Furthermore, the corn farming and ethanol industry is working on making agriculture and refining environmentally safer. For example, refineries are being equipped with cutting edge exhaust filtration systems and fertilizers are being developed that are friendlier. The Minnesota study does not compare apples to apples. Carbon dioxide from corn ethanol gets recycled. It’s carbon neutral, where as fossil fuels such as gasoline continue to bring up new carbon from deep underground, which is accumulating in the atmosphere, causing global warming and addition damage to the environment and health. The Minnesota study does Not account for that. An accurate study would also account for the fact that corn ethanol byproducts supplement the livestock, dairy, poultry and fish farming industry with high protein distillers grains. For example, supplementing dairy cows with distillers grains produces 10 pounds more milk per cow per week, and makes 10 to 14 percent more meat on livestock. Corn oil is also extracted, either for human consumption or for biodiesel. The corn ethanol industry produces food and fuel, not just fuel. But these anti-ethanol studies typically make their comparisons only in the context of fuel. Two recent studies are much more accurate than the defective Minnesota study. These are: “Improvements in Life Cycle Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn Ethanol”, published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, and “Biofuels, Land Use Change, and GHG Emissions: Some Unexplored Variables”, published in Environmental Science and Technology. If you want accurate information on these issues, see: “NCGA: Minnesota Ethanol Study Is Faulty; Nebraska Study Much More Valid” and “ACE: University of Minnesota Study Bases Results on False Assumptions About Corn-Based Ethanol”.
Computer models are only as good as the assumptions you use in the model. Unfortunately journalists are incapable of grasping this concept and we get “scientific” authorities like Al Gore dictating science policy so they can fatten their wallets. The only person who benefits from global warming is Al Gore.
What about Ethanol’s lower energy quotient (for lack of a better word)?
Essentially Ethanol gets lower MPG than gas, 10-20% less, I think…
I did a quick analysis from last weeks CBO report (which is a bit out of date because the bill keeps changing, but most of the new spending is useless pork). Using the categories in the CBO report, I found at most $34.1 of the $525.5 billion in first and second year budget impact (spending + tax cuts) was for any kind of construction, energy efficiency, transit, buildings or any other kind of infrastructure. Of this, at most $7 billion is for energy programs. Full analysis here: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/01/peering-into-the-details-of-the-stimulus-bill.html
To describe this bill as an energy or infrastructure bill is to describe all of America based on the Florida Keys. This is a tax cut and welfare bill with a dollop of infrastructure thrown in. This is one of the worst bills I have ever seen. It hodge podges so much together that nothing gets scrutiny or accountability.
The energy goals would have been much better achieved in a separate piece of legislation. It is just incredible to me that Obama has squandered his honeymoon this way. He had more moral authority in his pocket than any other new president in recent history, and instead of using this moral authority to pass each piece of his agenda, he felt like he needed to tuck pieces into this mess of a bill. Why? If anyone needed the cover of an emergency bill to hide pieces of his agenda, it certainly wasn’t Barrack Obama on January 20.
[...] week, the University of Minnesota published a study that found corn ethanol to be just as bad for the environment as gasoline. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean we should careen to a [...]