From the department of “told you so” comes this about-face on what was supposed to be an environmental solution. It seems the cure is worse than the disease:
“CORYDON, Iowa — The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America’s push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.”
“Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country “stronger, cleaner and more secure.”
But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.
As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.”
Dina Cappiello and Matt Apuzzo report for the Associated Press November 12, 2013.
h/t to reader Michael J. Bentley
============================================================
Here’s the surprising headline and money quote:
The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.
Farmers planted 15 million more acres of corn last year than before the ethanol boom, and the effects are visible in places like south central Iowa.
The hilly, once-grassy landscape is made up of fragile soil that, unlike the earth in the rest of the state, is poorly suited for corn. Nevertheless, it has yielded to America’s demand for it.
“They’re raping the land,” said Bill Alley, a member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, which now bears little resemblance to the rolling cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a Corydon pharmacy.
UPDATE: here is the video report from AP (h/t _Jim)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX2f4JnfS74
In related news:
EPA orders cut in ethanol in gasoline next year, citing risk of engine damage
November 15
By Sean Cockerham
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration Friday proposed the first-ever reduction in the amount of ethanol in the gasoline supply, signaling retreat from the Renewable Fuel Standard passed by Congress in 2007.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants 15.21 billion gallons of renewable fuels blended into gasoline and diesel next year, down from 16.55 billion gallons this year. Most of it is corn-based ethanol.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/15/4624584/epa-orders-cut-in-ethanol-in-gasoline.html#storylink=cpy
Related articles
- Making corn-based ethanol badly hurting environment: AP (cbsnews.com)
- Ethanol criticized as ‘ecological disaster’ (utsandiego.com)
- Obama’s Green Power … Raping The Land (cryandhowl.com)
- EPA orders cut in ethanol in gasoline next year, citing risk of engine damage (kansascity.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Why not just leave the gas alone? ”
Really! You do not remember the real problems of serious problems of leaded gas and serious air pollution? We do things to gasoline to make engines run better which results in cleaner air and cars that lost longer.
“If you want to see Iowa up close and personal, come and ride your bicycle on ”
I love the concept of driving your car someplace to help the environment or get exercise.
A.Scott says:
November 17, 2013 at 1:22 am
A rebutal article …
Ethanol advocates, Vilsack dispute report
——————————————————
….. and another excellent rebuttal of the shit Associated Propagandists article:
http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/9ac26b352eae807d36_h2m6bewv1.pdf
Comments on this from the Iowans most welcome.
,,,, and more excellent comments here:
http://kearneyhub.agnet.net/85/nws/10247
Could someone tell Michael Mann who Big Oil is really paying, and it ain’t us skeptics.
I understand that there is a lot of money in adulterating out gasoline to be made by farmers, but I can’t see why that means I should support being robbed both at the pump, and at tax time.
CRS, DrPH says:
November 17, 2013 at 7:38 am
==========================================================
Thanks!
==============================================================
Lead is an additive and much of the reduction in smog was due to building better engines but you do have a valid point.
How about if I said, “Why not make gas more efficient without trying to make it ‘green’?”
(Awkward sentence but I think you know what I mean.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/16/schadenfreude-and-a-they-told-you-so-moment-ap-investigation-corn-based-ethanol-causes-environment-damage/#comment-1477694
And to philincalifornia.
STARVATION
A groundbreaking study by the National Research Council:
The study concludes that for some subsidies, notably for bio-fuels like ethanol, the net greenhouse effect has been negative. According to the study, “although it may seem obvious that subsidizing biofuels should reduce CO2 emissions because they rely on renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, many studies we reviewed found the opposite.”
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated the use of ethanol in gasoline. Almost 40% of current U.S. Corn Production is used for the production of Ethanol to satisfy that mandate. According to the National Corn Growers Association, IN 2012 280,000,000,000 (280 BILLION) POUNDS OF CORN WERE USED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL, a tragic waste that has done nothing to reduce global warming and caused a significant increase in the price of corn as well as other staple crops.
U.S. Corn price per bushel in 2005: $1.90
U.S. Corn price per bushel in 2013: $7.03
World Hunger Statistics
Total number of children that die every year from hunger: 1.5 million
Percent of world population considered to be starving: 33%
Time between deaths of people who die from hunger: 3.6 seconds
Total number of people in the world who suffer from hunger and malnutrition: 800 million
Total number of people who do not have enough to eat: 936 million people
Total percentage who do not have enough to eat who live in developing countries: 98%
Total percentage of world’s hungry that live in 7 countries: 65%
Number of people who died of hunger today: 20,864
Total number of people who will die of hunger this year: 7,615,360
Climate Scientists and Politicians should be required to justify this climate-science driven, politically-mandated misappropriation of a major food source.
The study by the National Research Council MAKES IT VERY CLEAR: “We are doing this for our grandchildren” is not a justification.
If biofuels from cellulosic material is going to become a commercially viable reality someday, this Madison, Wisconsin-based startup company may have the answer. Their technology uses catalysts instead of fermentation to produce biofuels from ANY source including switchgrass, corn stalks, etc.
It’s technology is in pilot-plant stage now with major corporate sponsors.
http://www.virent.com/
If successful, this technology would preclude the need to use food-based feedstock for biofuels.
Nah, this is just the same old ethanol-bashing propaganda being recycled. Properly designed ethanol production systems don’t harm anything. All those acres would have been used anyway to grow feed for animals without the benefit of a fuel co-product.
Yeah CD and John.
A big commercial cellulosic plant just came online in Italy:
http://www.betarenewables.com/
Also, companies like POET are using cellulosic processes to use ALL of the corn plant (husks stalks etc.) to make the ethanol.
http://www.poet.com/cellulosic
What many commenters on here always seem to fail to understand is that there is massive progress being made constantly by real scientists and engineers in this and related fields. I’m not in this field, but my current project demands that I know what’s going on here. There are comments up above that relate to where the field was 5 years ago. Hello, this is not climate scientists mentally masturbating over 100 sq Km of ice or a swimming f-kin polar bear.
Phiincalifornia says:
“Also, companies like POET are using cellulosic processes to use ALL of the corn plant (husks stalks etc.) to make the ethanol.”
Virent’s technology is not used to make ethanol. It is used to turn cellulosic material directly into gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels and well as chemicals. Check out the company’s website.
CRS, DrPH says:
November 16, 2013 at 8:38 pm
“Alas, it ain’t that easy, and the required enzymes are very expensive to produce. So, supply-chain and technical problems are killing that concept entirely. ”
As that is a capitalist excuse, it should suffice that El Lider decrees the problem to be fixed with an Executive Order.
Just look at the Plasma TV’s that the Venezuelan people now have. /sarc
philincalifornia says (November 17, 2013 at 10:55 am): “Also, companies like POET are using cellulosic processes to use ALL of the corn plant (husks stalks etc.) to make the ethanol.”
Thanks for the link to company propaganda. Here’s a different perspective on POET’s Emmetsburg, Iowa plant:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/09/04/same-moonshine-different-name-welcome-to-the-age-of-cellulosic-ethanol/?ss=business%3Aenergy
From the article:
‘Poet received $80 million for Liberty from the Department of Energy. Without the grant, Lautt says, “we probably wouldn’t have” built it. Says Welsh: “We would not have made this investment without the Renewable Fuel Standard.”’
‘Lautt insists that Liberty will do better. He anticipates production costs of $3 per gallon for cellulosic. Yet that compares unfavorably with Poet’s current $2.20 cost of making corn ethanol, barely below the current $2.50-per-gallon futures price. The mechanics of the RFS mandate enable Poet/DSM to collect a premium for its cellulosic gallons. Back in 2010 that premium was as high as $1.56. But today it’s down to only 42 cents.’
So get back to us, Phil, when cellulosic ethanol can stand on its own, without government (taxpayer) grants, subsidies, and mandates.
No schadenfreude over this from me. I would love to be able to buy cheap 105 octane ethanol fuel at any old corner gas station across the land. I’d be puttin’ a Whipple blower on my old Buick.
Gary Hladik says:
“So get back to us, Phil, when cellulosic ethanol can stand on its own, without government (taxpayer) grants, subsidies, and mandates.”
I agree Gary that ethanol is not a good choice as a motor fuel. As I understand it, ethanol only has about two-thirds the energy content of gasoline…not good. Couple that with the cost of producing it, and ethanol doesn’t cut it.
That is why I like Virent’s catalyst technology. It takes cellulosic material and converts it directly into the equivalent of fossil fuels including biogasoline, biodiesel, and aviation fuel, as well as chemicals and plastics (Coca-Cola has tested it for making plastic bottles for its soft drinks). If the pilot plant testing of Virent’s technology pans out with its corporate partners and it proves commercially competitive and viable, it could have a promising future.
Time will tell though if proves as promising as it looks.
Another example of the ignorance shown about ethanol:
Big Ethanol’s bad week just got worse: EPA announces reduction to 2014 biofuels requirements
From the Washington Post story:
The EPA is adjusting the RFS standards because they do not accurately reflect the production and demands in the marketplace. For ONCE the EPA is reacting appropriately to a regulation of theirs that is not working.
Which they noted they would be doing in their August 2013 report:
Cellulosic requirements for 2013+14 in the 2007 Renewable Fuels Standards are currently too high as production is not available yet. There are a couple reasons for that – first, it is a new, emerging technology… and just as it was getting to the commercial stage the bottom dropped out of the economy, and driving miles dropped dramatically, drying up funding.
As the economy and financial markets have finally started improving, albeit slowly, cellulosic is getting closer to commercial viability. As others have noted several full scale commercial plants are open, including Ineos in Florida. And a dozen commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants, now under construction by the likes of DuPont and Abengoa , are slated to go into production in 2014.
The EPA rules required use of a certain amount of cellulosic fuels, yet that fuel was not available. The EPA absurdly fined oil companies for failure to use cellulosic that did not exist. It makes no sense to require use where production capacity is not available, and after some impetus from a Court loss, the EPA has finally acknowledged the real world and is adjusting RFS to more accurately reflect real world.
They have done the same with corn based ethanol requirements.
In 2013 corn based ethanol consumption is predicted to be appx 13.8 billion gallons. A review of plant locations and production capacity shows the operating capacity of all US ethanol plants is currently appx. 13.68 billion gallons.
The RFS standards have been revised to simply reflect the reality of current production capacity … a rare display of common sense by the EPA.
CD (@CD153) says (November 17, 2013 at 12:13 pm): “I agree Gary that ethanol is not a good choice as a motor fuel. As I understand it, ethanol only has about two-thirds the energy content of gasoline…not good.”
To be fair, I vaguely recall claims in earlier WUWT discussions that an engine built/adjusted for ethanol can get better mileage on (pure?) ethanol than on gasoline. Something about higher compression, perhaps? So if all grants/subsidies/mandates for ethanol fuel are ended, maybe a small niche market would remain?
So many people claim to “understand” ethanol but really don’t.
This has been explained here in detail MANY times. You can find out the facts yourself with a minimal amount of effort.
FACTS: Gasoline has appx 124,800 BTU’s per gal. Ethanol has appx 77,000 BTU’s per gal. E10 has appx 120,100 BTU’s per gallon.
E10 has appx 3.83% less energy than straight gasoline.
Ethanol does get lower mileage than gas however it also costs less. E85 currently costs me $2.15 vs $3.09 for E10 blend - 30% less for E85 vs E10.
My average fuel economy drops appx 15-18% in a 2003 Tahoe flex fuel vehicle running E85 vs E10.
E85 is 30% less than E10 but mileage only drops 15% to 18% – go ahead and do the math yourself, and then come back and tell us how ethanol is “doesn’t cut it.”
Ethanol blends also REDUCE the cost of the regular gas (E10) you buy at the pumps.
Ethanol is a BETTER fuel value overall. Ethanol is cleaner than gasoline, by a large amount. Ethanol reduces reliance on foreign oil. And ethanol is RENEWABLE – we can keep growing more.
Ethanol also produces a large amount of co-products as part of ethanol production … corn oils, corn meal and high quality Distillers Dried Grain Solids (DDGS). Every bushel of corn produces appx 2.8 gals ethanol, plus 17 lbs of DDGS along with corn oil and corn meal.
By nutritional content almost 50% of the corn used for ethanol is produced and returned as animal feed – which is better feed than the corn initially.
Using corn for ethanol does NOT increase food prices – we do NOT use “food” corn for ethanol – we use “feed” corn..
Using corn for ethanol does NOT increase the use of pesticides and fertilizers – which is proven by all the comments that we should be using this corn for food – not fuel. Those people want us to use that corn for food – so it would be grown regardless of use – and thus pesticide and fertilizer use would be near identical.
Nor does use of corn for ethanol cause Guatemalans, or anyone else to “starve” … the US has been the worlds primary corn supplier for most of recent history. We provide 100% of the corn demand for animal feed, food use, and fuel use in the US. We also meet 100% of the export demand requested of us. And yet still manage to add to the reserves every year.
Our exports have dropped the last couple years – not because of ethanol use, but because other world corn suppliers like Brazil etc have ramped up production. Yet we still supply MORE corn to the world than ALL of the other supplies combined.
The corn used for ethanol has indirectly created a huge corn reserve as well. Last year, when our crop yields were down due to drought, the ethanol industry absorbed virtually the entire difference, using less corn and producing less ethanol to compensate.
And about those poor Guatemalans we are supposedly starving by using “food” for “fuel” … more ignorant garbage – sorry, no other way to put it.
Neither Guatemalans or Mexicans, or others who use corn for food, use seed corn for food. They eat WHITE corn. Which we are also a major exporter of. We provide 100% of the white corn exports the Guatemalans ask for, and have made clear we can and will provide more if they ask. The Guatemalan government imports US white corn to help LOWER their local pricea – as our white corn exports are significantly cheaper than their locally grown. Guatemalan’s don’t grow white corn – which they eat as a staple food, as much anymore, because it is cheaper to buy from the US – and use their own crop land to produce higher value things like specialized vegetables and fruits.
Just one more lie about ethanol that can be disproven by simply digging up the facts.
Ethanol will never replace 100% of our fossil fuel use. It is not intended to. It IS able to provide a significant share of our fuel energy needs. It is truly renewable, is better for the environment than gasoline, and helps LOWER our overall energy costs.
Unlike solar, wind and other renewables it IS commercially viable, and is “transportable” … and increasingly plants are becoming self contained, using ethanol and/or the corn waste to power the plant (and often generate electricity).
We may well have all the fossil fuels we need for the immediate future – and I am a supporter of using those resources. But there is nothing wrong with stretching those resources with renewables.
The virulent and uninformed attacks on ethanol just don’t make sense. It is cheaper and causes gas to be cheaper. It is better for the environment than gas. It is renewable, and transportable. It does not require massive backup generation sources and related costs like solar and wind. And it no longer receives the subsidies as in the past.
Yet a certain section of people still hate it. Makes zero sense.
@Zeke
Are you familiar with the AP’s science and environmental reporting, or is this the first AP article you ever read?
I don’t mean to sound condescending and I don’t have time to edit and be more polite, but this piece is typical or any science or environmental reporting from that organization. My grandfather was a farmer and you’re right, the majority of farmers want to conserve their land and the government has really fouled up ag economics.
However, the truth of ethanol from corn — as it stands right now — is poor policy for many reasons, not the least of which is we are using farmland to create a substitute for an energy source that is actually quite abundant instead of using farmland to grow food.
@DirkH — What army? The EU has unilaterally disarmed and is still highly dependent upon the American military for defense.
@soylent green,
Thank you. If you would be more specific, please, I can understand any objection you have. My comments have been the most critical of ethanol and of subsidies and mandates on the thread, except for DirkH’s. The land and irrigation is needlessly diverted to putting fuel in American’s gas tanks, with global consequences. Fuel for cars and trucks can be located and safely retrieved in ANWR and the continental shelves.
A.Scott says (November 17, 2013 at 1:32 pm): “Ethanol is a BETTER fuel value overall. Ethanol is cleaner than gasoline, by a large amount. Ethanol reduces reliance on foreign oil. And ethanol is RENEWABLE – we can keep growing more. ”
Blah blah blah. If ethanol is so @ur momisugly#$%ing great, why force people to use it??? How do you expect people to believe in the supposed benefits of a program that has to be shoved down our throats? (Must…resist making…Obamacare connection…again)
“How about if I said, “Why not make gas more efficient without trying to make it ‘green’?” ”
I would say you are more interested in in shallow arguments than understanding a complex issue. Adding ethanol to gasoline does not change the thermodynamics of ICE.
“E10 has appx 3.83% less energy than straight gasoline. ”
BTU is a unit of energy, gallon is a unit of volume.
“go ahead and do the math yourself ”
Statements like this show a low understanding of the principles. Power is sold in units of kwh, maybe we should start selling fuel in units of BTU. Assuming the thermal efficiencies are the same, pricing by BTU would make the math practical.
People who are serious about solving problems look for the root cause of so they can fix it rather than hyperbole.
“Percent of world population considered to be starving: 33% ”
Clearly there are many people in the world that do not get enough food. Generally these people do not have electricity or clean drinking water. As we demonstrate in the the US, providing an adequate standard of living is technically feasible.
“By nutritional content almost 50% of the corn used for ethanol is produced and returned as animal feed – which is better feed than the corn initially. ”
Processing out the excess energy from corn does not result in an increase in world starvation but provides protein in a more concentrated form. Thus lowering starvation.
One of the reason for small standards is to see what the benefits and consequences are.