Wed 28 Jun 2006
Dozens of factories that turn corn into the gasoline substitute ethanol are sprouting up across the US, often in places hundreds of miles away from where corn is grown, the New York times reports:
“Once considered the green dream of the environmentally sensitive, ethanol has become the province of agricultural giants that have long pressed for its use as fuel, as well as newcomers seeking to cash in on a bonanza. The modern-day gold rush is driven by a number of factors: generous government subsidies, surging demand for ethanol as a gasoline supplement, a potent blend of farm-state politics and the prospect of generating more than a 100 percent profit in less than two years. The rush is taking place despite concerns that large-scale diversion of agricultural resources to fuel could result in price increases for food for people and livestock, as well as the transformation of vast preserved areas into farmland.Even in the small town of Hereford, in the middle of the Texas Panhandle’s cattle country and hundreds of miles from the agricultural heartland, two companies are rushing to build plants to turn corn into fuel. As a result, Hereford has become a flashpoint in the ethanol boom that is helping to reshape part of rural America’s economic base.
Despite continuing doubts about whether the fuel provides a genuine energy saving, at least 39 new ethanol plants are expected to be completed over the next 9 to 12 months, projects that will push the United States past Brazil as the world’s largest ethanol producer. The new plants will add 1.4 billion gallons a year, a 30 percent increase over current production of 4.6 billion gallons, according to Dan Basse, president of AgResources, an economic forecasting firm in Chicago. By 2008, analysts predict, ethanol output could reach 8 billion gallons a year.
For all its allure, though, there are hidden risks to the boom. Even as struggling local communities herald the expansion of this ethanol-industrial complex and politicians promote its use as a way to decrease America’s energy dependence on foreign oil, the ethanol phenomenon is creating some unexpected jitters in crucial corners of farm country. A few agricultural economists and food industry executives are quietly worrying that ethanol, at its current pace of development, could strain food supplies, raise costs for the livestock industry and force the use of marginal farmland in the search for ever more acres to plant corn.
… many energy experts are also questioning the benefits of ethanol to the nation’s fuel supply. While it is a renewable, domestically produced fuel that reduces gasoline pollution, large amounts of oil or natural gas go into making ethanol from corn, leaving its net contribution to reducing the use of fossil fuels much in doubt.
For all the interest in ethanol, however, it is doubtful whether it can serve as the energy savior President Bush has identified. He has called for biofuels — which account for just 3 percent of total gasoline usage — to replace roughly 1.6 million barrels a day of oil imported from the Persian Gulf.
To fill that gap with corn-based ethanol alone, agricultural experts say that production would have to rise to more than 50 billion gallons a year; at least half the nation’s farmland would need to be used to grow corn for fuel. But that isn’t stopping out-of-the-way towns looking for ways to pump life into local economies wracked by population loss, farm consolidation and low prices from treating the rush into ethanol as a godsend.
While farmers are seeing little of the huge profits ethanol refiners like Archer Daniels Midland are banking, many farmers are investing in ethanol plants through cooperatives or simply benefiting from the rising demand for corn. With Iowa home to the nation’s first presidential caucuses every four years, just about every candidate who visits the state pays obeisance to ethanol.
In 1990, when Congress mandated the use of a supplement in gasoline to help limit emissions, agribusiness lost out to the oil industry, which won the right to use the cheaper methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, derived from natural gas, to fill the 10 percent fuel requirement. The phased removal of MTBE from gasoline, a result of concerns that the chemical contaminates groundwater and can lead to potential health problems, hastened the changeover. Now, government officials are also pushing for increasing use of an 85-percent ethanol blend, called E85, which requires automakers to modify their engines and fuel injection systems.
Threat to Food Production
“Unless we have huge increases in productivity, we will have a huge problem with food production,” Mr. Staley said. “And the world will have to make choices.”
Last year corn production topped 11 billion bushels — second only to 2004’s record harvest. But many analysts doubt whether the scientists and farmers can keep up with the ethanol merchants.
“By the middle of 2007, there will be a food fight between the livestock industry and this biofuels or ethanol industry,” Mr. Basse, the economic forecaster, said. “As the corn price reaches up above $3 a bushel, the livestock industry will be forced to raise prices or reduce their herds. At that point the U.S. consumer will start to see rising food prices or food inflation.”
If that occurs, the battleground is likely to shift to some 35 million acres of land set aside under a 1985 program for conservation and to help prevent overproduction. Farmers are paid an annual subsidy averaging $48 an acre not to raise crops on the land. But the profit lure of ethanol could be great enough to push the acreage, much of it considered marginal, back into production.
Mr. Staley fears that could distract farmers from the traditional primary goal of agriculture, raising food for people and animals. “We have to look at the hierarchy of value for agricultural land use,” he said in a May speech in Washington. “Food first, then feed” for livestock, “and last fuel.”
And even Cargill is hedging its bets. It recently announced plans to nearly double its American ethanol capacity to 220 million gallons a year. Meanwhile, the flood of ethanol plant announcements is making the American livestock industry nervous about corn production. “I think we can keep up, assuming we get normal weather,” said Greg Doud, the chief economist at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “But what happens when Mother Nature crosses us up and we get a bad corn year?”
Beyond improving corn yields, the greatest hope for ethanol lies with refining technology that can produce the fuel from more efficient renewable resources, like a form of fuel called cellulosic ethanol from straw, switchgrass or even agricultural waste. While still years away, cellulosic ethanol could help overcome the concerns inherent in relying almost exclusively on corn to make ethanol and make the advance toward E85 that much quicker.
“The cost of the alternative — of staying addicted to oil and filling our atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and keeping other countries beholden to high gasoline prices — is unacceptable,” said Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York. “We have to struggle through the challenges of growing and producing biofuels in the right way.”
But the current incentives to make ethanol from corn are too attractive for producers and investors to worry about the future. With oil prices at $70 a barrel sharply lifting the prices paid for ethanol, the average processing plant is earning a net profit of more than $5 a bushel on the corn it is buying for about $2 a bushel, Mr. Basse said. And that is before the 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit given to refiners and blenders that incorporate ethanol into their gasoline.”
This article was reported by Alexei Barrionuevo, Simon Romero and Michael Janofsky and written by Mr. Barrionuevo.
One Response to “US Boom in Ethanol”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

September 11th, 2006 at 3:31 am
Ethanol production comes at a high price
September 10, 2006
By GLENN E. SORENSEN
Leaping toward biofuels without looking where we will land is fraught with great danger. So let’s not be too quick to celebrate the end of oil.
New ethanol production facilities are popping up around the country, but in reality it was a backdoor mandate from Congress that allowed this to happen, the idea being that steadily increased use of corn-based ethanol could reduce our reliance on foreign oil. So Congress proceeded to ratchet up our nation’s ethanol quota. An estimated 5 billion gallons of ethanol will be produced this year, up from 4.2 billion gallons in 2005, and the amount will rise each year to at least 7.5 billion gallons in 2012.
But ethanol has some serious problems. Its increased use has led to fuel shortages, sizable cost increases at the pump, higher food prices and worries about the depletion of groundwater in the Midwest.
The ethanol mandate has added an estimated 20 cents a gallon to the average cost of reformulated gasoline containing 2.7 percent ethanol. With E85 – a blend of 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline – the increase has been steeper.
Ethanol proponents claim that biofuels will protect consumers from gasoline-price shocks, but ethanol is no panacea. It provides less mileage than gasoline, so drivers have to fill their tanks more often, adding to the cost.
There’s irony in that fossil fuels are needed to make ethanol. Growing all that corn requires petroleum-based fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Oil is needed to run tractors. Large amounts of natural gas are used in the heating process for distilling corn into ethanol. Because it can’t be shipped by pipeline, ethanol is transported to blending facilities by truck and rail, requiring more fossil fuels. Several studies, including one by David Pimentel, professor of agriculture at Cornell University, show that obtaining ethanol from corn consumes more energy than ethanol provides.
The ethanol industry couldn’t survive without subsidies. It receives a 51 cent per gallon federal tax credit. An additional tax credit goes to “small” ethanol producers whose output is less than 60 million gallons a year. Also, tax credits and other incentives are offered by 14 states, mainly in the Midwest. And government subsidies for corn farmers amount to billions of dollars annually.
Today’s almost blind rush to cash in on ethanol may well be trading very modest improvements in air quality and greenhouse-gas reductions for adverse consequences on underground water supplies. It takes four to five gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. In the Midwest, the water comes mainly from the same underground aquifers used for crop irrigation. Hydrologists warn that crops could fail if ground water levels drop during a prolonged drought. So it is likely ethanol production will require alternative sources of water or run up against serious opposition from farming interests.
The reality is that 15 percent of America’s corn crop – 2.15 billion bushels – is allocated toward ethanol production, and this has already caused corn prices to rise 30 percent, causing an across-the-board increase in food prices.
As more of the nation’s corn goes into producing ethanol, the impact on consumers will increase. It’s estimated that if ethanol were to provide only 1 percent of our nation’s energy needs, more than two-thirds of the nation’s corn production would be needed to make the fuel.
A more practical and less costly way to provide the fuel needed to run our automobiles would be to expand oil production in the United States. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates there are substantial offshore oil resources, but 90 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf is off-limits to oil production. Legislation that would open up more of the shelf is awaiting final passage in Congress. It’s difficult to envision our economy remaining healthy unless there is more domestic oil production.
Ethanol has a role to play in America’s energy future, but only a relatively small part. It will not replace oil but rather serve as a supplementary fuel. Make no mistake: It comes at a high price.
Glenn E. Sorensen Jr. is a retired petroleum geologist. He lives in Barre.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/NEWS/609100303/1030/FEATURES15