The Wood and Fiber Supply Chain Experts
When the world turned against ethanol (and forgot about energy security)
From the May 2008 Forest2Mill newsletter.
A few short months ago, the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 was hailed by politicians as a major breakthrough in energy policy and panned by
environmentalists who claimed the 36 billion gallon Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was not enough.
Since then, a number of contradictory statements and reports have spread alarm and caused
politicians to retract earlier support. Twenty-four Republican senators, including Sen. John
McCain, recently asked the E.P.A. to waive or reduce the RFS. The current debate over ethanol has
obscured the intent of the RFS: to reduce greenhouse gases, transition away from non-renewable
fossil fuels and achieve energy security.
Critics of ethanol have decried it as an inefficient, government-sponsored fuel and the
primary cause of rising food prices. Additionally, some scientists recently suggested that stopping
production now would reduce corn prices by 20 percent. A recent Texas A&M report concluded,
however, that high energy costs are the primary cause for rising food and feed prices. It further
concluded that waiving the U.S. RFS standards would not affect corn prices, as the demand and
infrastructure for ethanol production already exists. Additionally, a recent Iowa State University
study found that current ethanol blending actually saves consumers between 29 and 40 cents per
gallon at the pump.
A second issue in the ethanol debate is fuel efficiency and cost. E-85 ethanol, while
cheaper at the pump, has lower fuel efficiency than regular gasoline. AAA reported the cost per
mile of E-85 is 8 percent higher than gasoline. Proponents argue that technology refinement will
eventually increase the fuel efficiency of ethanol.
Additionally, rumors that ethanol actually increases greenhouse gases have yet to die down,
despite dismissals from the science community of the Science magazine article which originally
asserted the claim. The article asserted that demand for corn from U.S. biofuel producers would
drive up land conversion, thereby decreasing the potential for natural sequestration of greenhouse
gases, in other parts of the world. Most research from academics, non-governmental organizations
and federal labs have found that biofuels, including corn ethanol, provide a net positive and
beneficial impact to the climate. Leading scientists have questioned the methodology of article,
citing increased U.S. corn yields of up to 30 percent since 1997 and 371 percent since 1944 not
included in the authors’ analysis, as well as no reduction in corn exports despite increased
ethanol production.
The current debate about ethanol is rife with false rumors and diverts us from the real task
at hand: developing a clean, cost-effective and renewable fuel. The truth is ethanol is only a part
of the renewable energy portfolio necessary to secure our future. While ethanol is not the perfect
alternative fuel, according to Bruce Dale, a leading biofuels expert, the only choices we have now
are “ethanol, made at this time from grain, or gasoline.” Commercial availability of cellulosic
ethanol, which can be made from non-food sources such as wood chips, could render the debate moot,
but it is still a few years away.