Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Friday, April 18, 2008

Battling Ethanol-Propelled Food Prices

Demand for corn-derived fuel is driving up food prices, but new technologies could help.

By Kevin Bullis
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Credit: Technology Review

Food prices worldwide have risen dramatically in the past few years, due in part to a similarly dramatic rise in the amount of corn used for ethanol production in the United States. Now, in an effort to make food less expensive, experts are calling for limits on ethanol production, subsidies for corn, and more incentives for biofuels made from nonfood sources.

According to statistics released Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Labor, food prices for the first three months of the year rose at a rate that translates to an annual increase of 5.3 percent (adjusted for seasonal variations). That's slightly higher than last year's increase, and much higher than the increases in previous years. From 2001 to 2006, the price of food increased each year by an average of only 2.5 percent. According to the World Bank, the situation worldwide is more dire: food prices have nearly doubled over the past three years. That's erased a decade of economic gains for the poor in some countries.

Part of this increase is due to corn being diverted from use as animal feed and food to use as a feedstock for ethanol production. Many other factors are also important--such as growing demand for food imports in India and China and a drought in Australia that hurt grain harvests. But the use of corn for biofuels has been singled out because it is one factor over which governments have some control. Some analysts, such as C. Ford Runge, a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, say that the use of corn for fuel rather than food could account for about one-third of the rise in prices worldwide. The other two-thirds is split between the effects of weather and increases in demand, he says. (Runge presents his argument in "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," in Foreign Affairs.) A look at the grain markets gives a good idea of the role that ethanol demand plays in food prices, says Patrick Westhoff, codirector of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri. In the past two years, global consumption of grains has risen by about 80 million tons, he says. About half of that increase, or 40 million tons, comes from corn used to make ethanol.

To reverse the effects of corn going to fuel rather than to food, some experts are calling for an end to the biofuel mandates signed into law late last year. The mandates require an increase in biofuel production in the United States, including 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol production by 2015--considerably more than the 6.5 billion gallons produced last year. Repealing the mandates would certainly have some effect on food prices, Westhoff says. According to an analysis done by his organization, the mandates will decrease U.S. corn exports by more than 13 percent from 2011 to 2016. That decrease will tighten corn supplies worldwide, driving up not only corn prices, but also the prices of other staples, such as wheat, that could serve as a replacement for corn. Removing the mandates could improve export numbers, Westhoff says. (Notably, higher demand for corn for use in ethanol production has actually increased corn exports in the short term. High corn prices have led farmers to plant more corn, and last year, not all of the increased supply went to ethanol. Much of the excess went overseas.)

[1] 2 Next »

Tags

biofuel cellulosic ethanol corn energy ethanol policy

Comments

  • Ethanol Problems Beyond Price
    RD on 04/18/2008 at 1:21 AM
    Posts:
    58
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Ethanol is a corrosive solvent that deteriorates many metals, plastics, and rubber used in fuels system (acknowledged by the E85 Council).  It is increasing not decreasing pollution (formaldehyde and aceteldehydes), burns through fire fighting foam, forces the increase in rail and truch terminal infrastructure, has a short 90 day shelf life, and its increased volatility forces the reduction of lower cost gasoline ingredients when used above 5.8% per the DOT EIA.  But here's the kicker, the global food crisis partly created by turning food into fuel will give Islamists a huge population of desparate poor Muslims to lure into the next war front. The UN says 40 countries now are at risk of collapse. What started as environmentalists' good intentions will cause our troops and citizenry great anguish in the years ahead as we battle another wave of violent recruits.  We must cancel the ethanol mandates NOW.  TODAY - Tell your Legislators to call an emergency session to eliminate the mandates and ease the suffering of the world's poor.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Ethanol Problems Beyond Price
      greenking on 04/18/2008 at 3:18 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
      Why all medias, politicians, etc. say the biofuel is not an alternative to petrol? Do you know jatropha curcas? It is not eatable tree and it is very efficient as biodiesel... How is experts point of view?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Ethanol Problems Beyond Price
        olmon on 04/18/2008 at 3:39 AM
        Posts:
        9
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        http://www.biodieseltoday.com/
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha
        http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/

        Lots better things to grow for alternative fuel then corn for alchohol. 
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Save the World, Stop Ethanol
        RD on 04/23/2008 at 1:18 AM
        Posts:
        58
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        Changing the feedstock may improve the economics which would be great, but it doesn't necessarily fix the technical problems with biofuel as identified in the Ford Fleet website statement. Biodiesel isn't as bad as ethanol because it isn't as corrosive and can be handled like diesel. Cellulosic Propanol would be much better than ethanol because it doesn't have the corrosivity problems. But look at the big picture. The current environmentalist driven food-to-fuel policy is starving millions around the globe. Some of those will be recruited by Islamists and will be fighting our troops. Our ethanol policies are getting people killed, and it will get MUCH WORSE.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • >>> the ONLY way to avoid the FOOD vs. FUEL battle and food prices rise >>>
    Gaetano Marano on 04/18/2008 at 7:06 AM
    Posts:
    73
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    .

    the problems (and the debate) about Biofuels vs. Food comes ONLY from the fact that all countries and companies choices always are for the simplest and most profitable way to solve the problems

    then, they try to change the FUEL rather than change the CARS

    we know that EACH DAY our Sun send us an incredible amount of FREE energy and that LESS than 1% of that daily energy is enough to cover ALL the world daily energy needs

    now we have the technology to capture the solar energy (as light and wind) and the good news is that it's also a CHEAP technology, so, if politics and industries WANT, we can use agricolture for FOOD and the SUN for energy

    maybe... using some SMARTER, cheaper and MORE "energy dense" power plants like MY "Wind Energy Skyscrapers Power Plants":

    http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/028energy.html

    if MANY science magazines and websites like Technology Review will talk and write articles on them, maybe, somebody will develop and build this new kind of energy source... :)

    .
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Not until Environmentalist Compromise
      RD on 04/23/2008 at 1:29 AM
      Posts:
      58
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      The biggest wind energy project ($1 billion) in the world was voted down yesterday in Scotland, and the politicians who favored it were voted out.  Such is the fickleness of environmentalists who declared that wind power was okay but not if it affected their view, or used CO2 emitting concrete.  Others complained that turbines made noise and that birds were near by, and how would they affect the fish?  Similarly in Western Washington State (my area) the "100 X 10 mile" wind/tidal project www.hydrovolts.com was scaled down dramatically because environmentalists and fishermen were concerned about the view and their fishing grounds being reduced. What would have equaled 1/2 the total power generated in Washington State now doesn't even come close. It appears that environmentalists want to reduce global emissions by putting everyone out of work.  Didn't Ted Turner state recently that then everyone will resort to cannabalism?  That's one way to reduce the global footprint.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • land use
    bj on 04/18/2008 at 9:13 AM
    Posts:
    27
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    To add to what RD said, when you consider the fact that the US has roughly the same amount of acreage in food production now as in the year 1900, but has triple the population, it just makes NO SENSE for us to continue this mad dash towards economic destruction that biofuels represents. We need clean electricity from geothermal, tidal, wind and solar, and we need electric cars and solar spaces on ALL new homes built (highest fuel use is to heat living and working spaces, not to power cars.)
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • More Nukes Less Kooks
    SirLanse on 04/18/2008 at 9:38 AM
    Posts:
    35
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    The Greens have stopped all development of nuclear power plants.  We have used them successfully in Aircraft carriers for decades.
    Put smaller ones in new developments.
    Make electricity so cheap it does not get metered.
    It is just a flat tax, like roads and schools.
    Then, electric cars will sell like hot cakes.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: More Nukes Less Kooks
      gabrielg01 on 04/18/2008 at 3:45 PM
      Posts:
      317
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      Many of the "greens" are indeed crazy people, and they are not eco-friendly at all. Psychologically speaking they fall into the "Munchausen by proxy syndrome" category of patients. These types of people create problems, just so they can complain about them. It's really a form of insanity, there is no other way to put it.

      Nuclear power could deliver clean and cheap electricity. If we used electric cars, most of the environmental problems would be solved. But then imagine a green, clean world...What would Greenpeace do?...They need the pollution so that they can stay in business. The more polluted the world, the more attention and power the "greens" get. And so they try to shut down all nuclear power generation facilities.

      France has ~80% of its power coming from nuclear plants, and it's a very green, clean and tourist friendly country. Don't we have enough brains to follow this path?

      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: More Nukes Less Kooks
        micheltaine on 04/19/2008 at 12:13 PM
        Posts:
        3
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        France is indeed a very popular country for tourism, mainly, I think, because of its central location in Europe, i.e. many travelers have to go through France while moving from a country to another. It is an ancient and at the same time modern state, with a profusion of historic sites and marvelous countryside.
        However, “clean” and “green” are not my favorite adjectives which I would apply to the country (I am French).
        Just consider:
        - cleanliness: there is a great deal to do to get France in the same class as, say, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, from the point of view of clean streets, spick-and-span farms, or well-maintained road signs, refuse dumps or just the family home, believe me. There is a lack of neatness and fresh paint which sometimes pains me!
        - green aspect: there is little successful “green” political activity in France; most green activists are scorned and “les Verts” are usually ridiculed.
        On the other hand, France has indeed a massive and efficient nuclear power industry, but a very opaque and secretive one, about which it is very difficult to get information on unpublished problems pertaining to security, technical faults, waste disposal and costs.
             Another big area to which the “green” epithet would not apply: agriculture, one of the  largest revenue generators in the country, but a heavy user of pesticides, fertilizer and water, all of which result in polluted rivers and land.
        So, on your next trip to France, enjoy all you can (and there’s a lot) but maintain, as a good reader of TR, a critical and open mind.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: More Nukes Less Kooks
      MakeSense on 04/19/2008 at 4:34 PM
      Posts:
      79
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      Well, you might be able to cast aspersions on Greenies, calling them kooks, but you haven't countered industry-vetted facts.

      It may be convenient for those who are displeased by environmentalists and pleased by nuclear power to blame one for the demise of the other. The truth is that utilities simply don't want to build nukes. They cost too much. Over half the money ever spent by the U.S. government on energy research, subsidization and construction has gone to nuclear power. Without loads of government largesse, they can't be bothered. Also, there is a lack of experts coming up through the ranks, and most people who know nukes well are retiring.

      The U.S. produces one-fourth of the world's nuclear power, way more than France, but it only manages to meet 8% of our energy demand. We import 96% of the uranium we use. Uranium is a mineral energy source. Like oil, uranium supplies are getting tight and more difficult and costly to produce. The nuclear industry warns that in ten years, uranium supplies will only meet 80% of global demand.

      Our problem isn't environmentalists. It's that we use an unbelievably huge amount of energy. The net energy contained in remaining uranium reserves would provide little more than the total energy consumed by the U.S. in a year. This is a fact. We use a ####load of energy.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: More Nukes Less Kooks
        srudnick on 04/21/2008 at 1:58 PM
        Posts:
        4
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        According to the world nuclear association, there is enough uranium in known deposits to fuel the nuclear power plants of today at 100% capacity for 85 years.  There are further know deposits that will be more difficult to tap, but will be available as demand increases costs; much as oil shale is becoming viable today.  It is also pointed out that uranium exploration has been almost nonexistent since 1985.  The fuel projections also do not take into account reuse of spent fuel, hybrid fuel models, or advancements in plant design.  Nuclear power will provide us with a stable supply of power to maintain essential infrastructure while the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.  It will also give time and technological expertise for us to bridge forward to more sustainable energy.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: More Nukes Less Kooks
          MakeSense on 04/22/2008 at 1:46 PM
          Posts:
          79
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          None of that refutes anything I provided. Was it meant to? I don't refute your figures, but I'd like to address the context. It may be true that reasonably-assured reserves (RAR) could meet current demand for 85 years. But demand is not expected to remain static. Over 60 additional nukes are planned, many are under construction. They are all conventional light-water reactors. In fact, a recent MIT panel recommends LWR as the best design going forward. In addition, the existing 440 or so LWR plants continue to increase capacity. That static 85-year figure would look more like 45 years under the true case. But that's only if it could all be produced in a short time. Since it cannot be, there will be shortages. Also, the highest grade ores being produced in Canada and Australia - 1% to 40% uranium - will be exhausted within 15 years, and the remaining ore qualiity will jump down to the 0.05% to 0.3% range. It will take a lot more energy, facilities and time to produce it.

          BTW, where did you get the idea that shale oil is becoming viable? It's not. Shell's Mahogany research project is the only experiment, and they are expected to announce in 2010 that their idea doesn't cut it.
          Rate this comment: 12345
  • The Real Problem .
    DJTal on 04/18/2008 at 10:09 AM
    Posts:
    116
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Why there so much talk about the effect biofuels on food prices when the greatest cause of increasing food price is the rising price of fossil fuels ? This and the increasingly poor economic situation worldwide due to bad credit lending in the USA and elsewhere are the greatest cause . Get real !

    Isn't it ironic that the very thing we are trying to use less of is causing an increase in the price of the biofuels we need more of ? Given that biofuels make up such a tiny percentage of our energy needs they can hardly be blamed for the colapse of economies .

    Zimbabwe is an example of a country with great agricultural potential but is being ruined by Robert Mugabe . There is enormous potential for increasing food and biofuel production in the world without creating new farmland .

    We don't want to see Jatropha being used as a biofuel because the fruits have to picked and the seeds removed by hand just so that people can drive their cars , it's tragic .
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Food vs. Fuel -- Not Really
    book_addict on 04/18/2008 at 11:25 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    Before getting upset about ethanol taking food out of people's mouths, it's well to remember that human beings eat almost no field corn. Most of it is eaten by cattle, which are then eaten by people in wealthy countries, and increasingly by people in rapidly developing countries like China and India. In fact, higher prices for corn have the potential to boost incomes in agricultural communities in poorer regions, where agriculture employs the greater portion of the populace. In fact, those fragile economies are only now just recovering from decades of cheap, heavily subsidized, U.S. corn being dumped on their markets. There certainly are environmental, economic, and social issues connected with biofuels that must be dealt with, but if biofuels are causing higher fuel prices it is only indirectly through competition for agricultural resources. High oil prices have a much more direct impact on food prices, since vast quantities of food must be transported long distances to get to concentrated population centers. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Food vs. Fuel -- Not Really
      Kevin Bullis on 04/22/2008 at 9:38 AM      		 Technology Review TR Staff
      Nanotechnology and Materials Science Editor
      Posts:
      58
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      I had the same idea when I was interviewing economists for this article.  I asked whether it would ultimately do more for the poor to address fuel prices to indirectly help food prices, or to modify biofuels policy. They said modifying biofuels policy would provide a more direct benefit to the poor. They noted, however, that high energy prices ultimately have to be addressed, too.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Farm policies are not energy policies
    MakeSense on 04/18/2008 at 1:00 PM
    Posts:
    79
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Biofuels are a farm policy, not an energy policy. They are propagandized as an energy policy. Eliminate all the ridiculous and wasteful mandates and subsidies.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Food for Thought
    mkogrady on 04/18/2008 at 2:24 PM
    Posts:
    127
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    President Bush wants to produce 35billion gallons of ethanol to offset our demand for foriegn oil, which is driving up food costs.

    Big Auto spent $60 million last year influencing CAFE

    Big Agri-Business gets Billions in Subsidies

    The Senate and Congress submitted over 190 Bills to ease Greenhouse gas emissions - most failed (purposely?)

    The States and Feds need taxes from Gasoline sales to pay for pork barrel projects

    The US consumers like Big Cars, Big homes and Big meals

    Seems like a lot of folks are at fault.

    The FCC says we have 60 million broadband connections and maybe 40 million properly equipped US workers who could Telecommute - yet don't.

    If we pushed a law stating a mandatory 3 day per week limit to have as many US workers Telecommute, we can reduce fuel damands by 25% today and avoid food fights, long commutes, increased gas costs and live healthier.

    my .02 cents
    www.digitalfuel.org
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Food for Thought
      lasertekk on 04/18/2008 at 4:05 PM
      Posts:
      26
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      Thank you mkmcgrady for bringing it all to the front, honestly.  The ethanol decision was not an environmental one, it was a business and political one.  Remember, it was a Republican president who pushed for this.  Line the pockets of a few Mid-Westerners to assure yourself of a few future votes. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Food for Thought
        mkogrady on 04/21/2008 at 8:27 AM
        Posts:
        127
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        My comments wasn't pointing a finger at any particular person or group per se. The fact the a Republican President actually offered the "challenge" to the nation to curb consumption by offering up biofuels is a step in the right direction. But his solution didn't go far enough.

        We need Conservation to be included in this effort, not just new technology. I'm pro-telecommuting because it works today, has a huge base potential and is both competative and complementary to oil and auto industries.

        As for big business involvement - it takes a lot of money to stay on top, sadly - most of it is our taxes. I personally favor removing all subsidies and make business stand on their own. As for exemptions on new tooling, grants for refineries and distilleries - it's good money spent wisely. As for exemptions on large flex fuel vehicles, and hybrids - same thing - BUT only as long as the product is made with US parts, materials and labor. Why give an exemption to a foreign corporation - even "offshored" US ones? Keep our money at home and have it work for us for a change!

        Our tax base has been eroded to the point that a $50K automobile with a $25K exemption is beyond most buyers income level. A family of modest income will not be able to afford buying one today, or the near future. When you add in the fact that biofuels will cost more per week to gas up, it compounds the problem even more. A fill up today with regular gas is about $30 avg, with E85 it wil be closer to $40 - and we'll be subsidizing it 25cents per gallon just to keep it below $3/gallon. Food prices are another issue as well, so the best thing we can do is to use less!

        Less = more!

        A good internet connection costs about the same as your increased costs at the pump, but if used for Telecommuting will save the "driver" much more over the long haul.

        Buy a laptop ($600), get a broadband link ($600 annually) and Telecommute as opposed to buying a flex fuel car for $45K (less exemptions) and filling up with ethanol ($2K annually) - then reinvest the money into your 401K or other personal finance efforts - pay down debt, college funds, accelorate home payments etc. I also believe that reducing your car mileage to a status of "casual use" (<7500/year) will also reduce your car insurance rates too.

        Telecommuting Matters!

        .... and yes, it's a lot more than .02!


        mko
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Food for Thought
        RD on 04/23/2008 at 1:41 AM
        Posts:
        58
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        Gore, HillBilly, Obama, Bush, Kerry, and even McCain all were tripping over themselves to promote Ethanol.  Only McCain has come out against subsidies but he still pushes ethanol.  The only way to fix this is for people to demand their Legislators, Senators, and Representatives to stop this madness, cease the government designed fuels, relax the restrictions on building refineries, encourage drilling in ANWR and off shore and in the 800 billon barrel shale oil deposits, relax the restrictions on the alternative energy sites, and eliminate all subsidies. If you don't get an immediate response - run for office and fix it from the inside.  That's what I'm doing.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Food for Thought
      MakeSense on 04/21/2008 at 11:03 AM
      Posts:
      79
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      If you want to get right down to it, ethanol and biodiesel bring together the interests of agriculture, forestry, the auto industry and the oil industry.

      Agriculture and forestry push any renewable energy idea that helps farmers. It doesn't matter to them if the idea is a good one, they will sell it that way. If a better idea exists that does not benefit them, they ignore it.

      Add the auto industry to the ethanol bandwagon when they work the angle to produce SUVs that are exempt from CAFE standards. Those E85 gas hogs, gotta love them.

      Add the oil and gas industry that tout any solutions that they know will fail to compete with oil or have any possibility of impacting the price of oil. They tout biofuels and hydrogen, the two least likely fixes to our problem.

      Since politicians look for money and votes, they tend to go along with these formidable interests.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Food for Thought
      srudnick on 04/21/2008 at 2:15 PM
      Posts:
      4
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      Here Here!

      I would take a pay cut to telecommute.  I would save money on the back end in fule cost and have more time with the family.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Ethanol Benefits America
    SumoPixel on 04/19/2008 at 1:10 PM
    Posts:
    4
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Ethanol production greatly benefits the United States and it is a shame that the ethanol debate always seem to focus on repeating urban myths that are simply untrue.

    First: Ethanol production is not really an energy VS food issue.  Yes, grain is used to produce ethanol, but a a byproduct of the fermentation process is brewer's grain which is used to feed livestock.  Much of the food value is still retained.

    Second: It is an urban myth that ethanol production does not reduce the carbon footprint.  But, even if there is no reduction in carbon emissions, there is still a great benefit the the economy of the USA because less oil needs to be imported.

    Third:  Any increase in the cost of food is actually of great benefit to the economy of the USA since the USA is a net food producer.  Also higher grain prices eliminate grain subsidies since they are paid only when grain prices are low - this eliminates the drag those subsidies caused to the economy.

    Fourth:  Newer studies do, in fact, show that there is an energy gain from ethanol production. 

    Finally: Producing ethanol provides a way for the USA to produce liquid fuel from domestic resources rather than using imported petroleum.  Even though energy is consumed when ethanol is distilled, it is energy that comes from domestic sources such as corn stubble, natural gas, and coal.  This also greatly benefits the economy of the USA by reducing imported oil.
      
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Ethanol Benefits America
      MakeSense on 04/21/2008 at 11:29 AM
      Posts:
      79
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      SumoPixel, let's get your facts straight. Right now they look like a bent wire.

      I don't know how you can miss the point that ethanol consumes crops that would otherwise be consumed as food. Distillers grains do salvage a byproduct, but it has a single use. Obviously, it cannot replace the corn used to make ethanol. Dent corn goes primarily toward food production. To those who say we don't eat it, you really need to study how corn provides a wide range of food products here and abroad.

      You say it is a great benefit that less oil must be imported. Would one barrel less oil be "great?" What criteria add up to a great benefit? I think it's clear that the use of ALL corn to make ethanol would provide only a momentary bump in the road.

      I'll go along with you that certain subsidies are lowered when the prices are high. Many are not. But we trade one subsidy for another with ethanol and still get higher food prices. BTW the U.S. became a net food importer several years ago. Since any new ethanol production will come from corn that would otherwise be exported, ethanol reduces agriculture exports further.

      Newer studies of EROEI that give 1.35 for corn ethanol are carefully worded to ignore any renewable energy used in the process. At any rate, 1.35 is pretty bad - only 25% of the energy in ethanol would be new energy, while 75% would pay back the energy used to produce it. I disbelieve that figure. More complete studies estimate that the EROEI is just shy of breakeven.

      You imply that imported oil is precious, but domestic coal is not. Obviously you are unaware that the U.S. imports 20% of our natural gas. But you should also know that increased reliance on coal not only stresses our ability to produce it, it dramatically limits its longevity. A 2% annual increased reliance on coal would reduce the lifespan of domestic coal to just 40 years. That's the power of compound interest.

      There's no point to looking only at "this goes up and that goes down" relationships. Numbers always tell the story better.

      In the 2007-2008 growing season, we are using 27% of our corn crop to make 9.3 billion gallons of ethanol. Since we consume about 150 billion gallons of gasoline and ethanol has just 65% of the energy of gasoline, about 4% is ethanol. Since gasoline is only 43% of oil consumption, ethanol from 27% of our corn offsets about 1.5% of our oil consumption. Since we increase oil consumption by 1.5% a year, it is just a bump in the road. When you factor in the energy needed for the whole process of producing ethanol, it isn't even a bump in the road.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Ethanol Benefits America
        SumoPixel on 04/22/2008 at 5:27 PM
        Posts:
        4
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        I did check my facts:
        1. In 2007, the USA exported 17.9 billion dollars more in agricultural products than it imported (source: USDA).  Furthermore, this figure only accounts for commodities, such as grain.  If you also consider the price increases in processed food due to higher grain prices, then higher grain prices actually have a much greater positive impact on the economy of the United States.  The bottom line is that, due to fact that we have such a large proportion of the world’s arable land, the United States serves as the world’s greatest bread-basket and that increases in food prices mean that the USA earns more money.   Higher food prices are good for our economy.
        2. The United States has a 245 year coal supply (source:  American Coal Foundation).  There is no shortage of energy from coal in the United States, but we do have a severe shortage of liquid energy that can be put into the gas tanks of our cars.  Thus, even if the energy gain from producing ethanol is only marginal (USDA shows a 67% energy gain), it clearly makes a lot of sense for our economy so long as we use coal to distill it so that we can convert our plentiful solid form of energy into a scarce liquid form of energy. 
        3. The point about distiller’s grain is that grain does not simply disappear from the food chain when it is used to produce ethanol.  The process of producing ethanol results in byproducts, such as distiller’s grain, that re-enter the food chain as livestock feed and so on.  True, you will never use these byproducts to produce taco shells, but it may be used to produce the beef, chicken, eggs, and milk that are consumed as food.  Furthermore, if the livestock were not eating distiller’s grain, then they would be consuming virgin grain instead (ie no corn chips from the grain they consume).
        4. It may be true that ethanol currently only replaces a small portion of the petroleum that the USA imports but, nevertheless, it does help improve the trade balance.  In the future, improved technology, such as cellulosic ethanol production, promise to greatly increase the amount of ethanol that can be produced.  Also, the ethanol industry is still in its infancy and better, more efficient, methods of production such as improved enzymes, more efficient fermentation pr