Since it is Earth Day, it’s appropriate to point out that, despite the criticism - ethanol is green and getting greener.
According to an analysis conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory and released Monday by the Renewable Fuels Association, America’s ethanol industry has made dramatic efficiency gains in ethanol production over the last five years.
American ethanol facilities are using less energy and water than just five years ago while producing more ethanol. Water consumption is down 26.6 percent, grid electricity use down almost 16 percent and total energy use almost 22 percent lower.
The Argonne analysis compares ethanol industry data from 2001 to 2006. In 2001, U.S. ethanol production was 1.77 billion gallons. In 2006, U.S. ethanol production was 4.9 billion gallons, an increase of 276%.
“The dramatic improvements in dry mill ethanol production demonstrate this industry’s commitment to developing and utilizing the most efficient technologies available,” said Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen. “In the past five years, America’s ethanol industry has shown its ability to increasingly meet the fuel needs of the nation while addressing the climate change concerns of the planet. In the next five years, America’s ethanol producers will demonstrate their ability to develop and employ new technologies that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, grow our nation’s supply of renewable fuel, and expand the basket of products from which ethanol is made. The future of this industry is bright and green.”
The increased use of ethanol is also helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from America’s automobile fleet. According to the GREET 1.7 model (the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation model developed by the Argonne Laboratory to evaluate various vehicle and fuel combinations on a full fuel-cycle basis), the production and use of 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 resulted in the reduction of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions by 10 million tons, the equivalent of removing more than 1.5 million cars from American roads.
Want to do something really green for Earth Day? Fill up with ethanol-enriched fuel.
According to calculations done by life sciences researcher Nathan Danielson, president of BioCognito, if every car in America would use a ten percent blend of ethanol for one week, the amount of greenhouse gases produced in the U.S. would be reduced by nearly 1.3 billion pounds.
“What we did was take some fairly complex modeling that was done by Argonne National Laboratory and distill it down to where it would mean something to the average consumer,” said Danielson. “We considered if you took E-10, E-85 and cellulosic ethanol and put it in a typical gas tank, what would the impact on the environment be.”
Assuming a car with a 20 gallon gasoline tank, Danielson found that filling up with E10 can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 9.5 pounds per tank.
“Ethanol is just a very good fuel for reducing overall carbon foot print,” Danielson said. “The story gets better if we go to E85. If we get to E85, all the sudden you are sitting at about 90 pounds of carbon dioxide that you’ve removed from the atmosphere by using ethanol instead of gasoline.” Everyone filling their tanks with E85, he says, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 12.4 billion pounds in one week.
Danielson says that the same situation using ethanol derived from cellulose could reduce greenhouse gases by 282 pounds per car per week, or 38.5 billion pounds a week if used by every car on the road.
By the way, once upon a time, Nathan worked for the National Corn Growers Association and he is still involved in some projects, such as the Corn Utilization Conference.
We noted last Friday that the Science Express studies on land conversion and biofuels were kicking up the dust. Now, reputable members of the research community are speaking out and questioning the conclusions of Timothy Searchinger and Joseph Fargione that ethanol is twice as bad for global warming than gasoline.
It’s clear from the reactions of those concerned with the environment and prominent experts, including David Morris, Dr. Bruce Dale and Dr. Michael Wang, that several flaws exist in the papers. The popular press may fail to report on this, so let us help shed some light on the flaws.
In his comments, Wang, of Argonne National Labs, notes that Searchinger uses the model developed by Argonne.
“Many critical factors determine GHG emission outcomes of land use change. First we need to clearly define a baseline for global food supply and demand and cropland availability without the U.S. biofuel program. It is not clear to use what Searchinger et al. defined in their modeling study.”
In a press release issued by David Morris, author of Ethanol and Land Use Changes, he states:
“The studies usefully estimate how much carbon will be released when new land is brought into crop production. But the authors’ declarations that ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions, a conclusion that has made headlines around the world, is not supproted, and may be contradicted by their own data.”
Morris, who has served as an energy advisor to presidents Ford, Carter, Clinton and George W. Bush, notes the studies erroneously conclude that when countries import less food and feed from the U.S. and grow more themselves that greenhouse gases increase.
“The conclusion is not only counterintuitive, but will undoubtedly stir up considerable opposition by farmers and advocates of local food around the world.”
And Bruce Dale, notes in his letter to Science:
“There are no real verifiable data in either of these papers on the land use changes that actually occur as more corn is processed into ethanol–hence these papers on not lifecyle analysis studies.”
Media coverage of a recent article in the journal “Science” on studies that address the possible consequences of a faulty approach to utilizing lands to produce biofuel feedstocks only reported part of the story, according to the 25x’25 Alliance.
“Unfortunately, mainstream media coverage of the studies failed to report that they also identified ways to avoid these problems and insure that future biofuels give us both a new renewable energy source and greatly reduced greenhouse gas emissions,” said a statement from the Alliance. Officials say the boost in production can be met by new and better technology without bringing environmentally sensitive land into production.
Increased demand for cellulosic ethanol and the next generation of biofuels has led to research into enhancing existing crops, such as corn and soybeans, with enzymes specifically geared towards ethanol production. While biofuels will lower the cost of farming inputs, higher yielding, technology-enhanced crops can make existing acreage more productive, helping prevent encroachment of biofuel feedstock production onto sensitive lands.
The Science article reported on studies that indicate clearing land for the production of biofuels would produce twice as much greenhouse gas as the use of biofuels would reduce.
NCGA has a wealth of information when it comes to the use of water in corn and ethanol, and one of the factoids we use is that the average-size ethanol plant uses about as much water as a municipal golf course.
Regarding this subject, I found this recent article from the Minnesota Corn Growers Association made a good point.
Snippet:
The ethanol industry used two billion gallons of water last year. The Environmental Quality Board has organized an Ethanol Work Group because that use rate may rise to five billion gallons. Golf courses utilized 5.6 billion gallons of groundwater in 2005. Isn’t it natural to ask: where is the Golf Course Work Group?
How much water have you seen wasted at golf courses or, worse, in landscaped areas that are set on timed sprinklers that go off even when it rains?
A new Environmental Protection Agency report released last week indicates that ethanol additives in gasoline have helped clear the air, ground and water.
The EPA report documents the success of clean fuels programs implemented by the agency, including the replacement of MTBE with ethanol in reformulated gasoline (RFG).
Ethanol use in RFG increased and MTBE use decreased — In the summer of 1996, about 11 percent of the RFG sold contained ethanol while virtually all the remainder contained MTBE. By the summer of 2005, the ethanol share increased to about 53 percent, with corresponding decreases in MTBE.
A key finding of the “Fuel Trends Report 1995-2005″ is that these programs exceeded expectations in reducing ozone pollutants and air toxics, and the research found that emission reductions were often significantly greater than regulatory requirements.
National Corn Growers Association president Ron Litterer says the report as further proof that ethanol is good not just for energy security, but a cleaner environment.
“The research is clear, and our growers are excited about meeting the demands of an expanded renewable fuels standard while still providing ample food and feed for domestic and export needs.”
As the Energy Bill beat goes on in the Senate, here’s some food for thought on the necessity of corn ethanol and biofuels.
The Fueling Station reports that Scott Nauman, corporate planning manager for ExxonMobil, speaking at an Energy Business Forum in Florida, estimates global demand for energy is expected to be one-third higher by 2030 than it is today.
Nauman said Exxon estimates annual energy demand growth is expected to average 1.3 percent per year from 2008 to 2030. Fossil fuels will continue to account for about eighty percent of energy demand through 2030, with oil and gas accounting for approximately sixty percent.
If Exxon is correct in this analysis, world governments will have serious difficulty meeting their CO2 emissions reduction targets, reports Fueling Station. But will th is play in California, targeted as an early adopter of low-carbon emissions. The California Low Carbon Fuels Standard requires a reduction of carbon emissions of at least 10 percent by 2020.
Yet the harder to reach oil that companies are extracting and refining–the tar sands or coals to liquid–contain higher levels of greenhouse gases. In exploring California’s Low Carbon Diet, Cleantech Blog notes:
“All unconventional forms of oil are worse for greenhouse-gas emissions than petroleum,” said Alex Farrell, of the University of California at Berkeley. Farrell and Adam Brandt found that the shift to unconventional oil could add between fifty and four hundred gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere by 2100.
So, how can California reduce the carbon emission from fuel use? As a major agricultural state, E10 ethanol will be part of the solution. E10 can be used in all gasoline vehicles including 40 mile per gallon hybrids and in the new 100 mile per gallon plug-in hybrids being driven by early adaptors.
A subject that is very misunderstood when it comes to growing corn is fertilizer. Here’s another installment of our Corn Commentary video series that was produced at the recent National Association of Farm Broadcasting convention. In it NCGA CEO Rick Tolman helps you better understand what’s going on in corn production as it relates to fertilizer. For example, Rick says that people hear that corn uses more fertilizer than any other crop. He says that’s because corn is planted on more acres than any other crop. That’s why the totality of fertilizer usage is higher. However, if you look at fertilizer use on a per unit basis corn is really middle of the road compared to other crops.
Rick also points to a white paper on corn production sustainability that you can download from their website. Here’s an excerpt relating to this topic:
The latest advances in agriculture technology enable farmers to apply fertilizers with pinpoint accuracy, minimizing their impact to soil, water and air. For example, the use of enhanced efficiency fertilizers, such as slow- and controlled-release fertilizers and stabilized nitrogen fertilizers, are helping to protect the environment by reducing nutrient losses and improving nutrient efficiency while improving crop yields.
One of the clearest measures of sustainable agriculture production is increasing efficiency, with the ability to swell output while decreasing inputs. According to USDA, growers use less nitrogen to produce over 50 percent more corn than in 1980. Furthermore, over the past 15 years, farmers experienced a 17 percent increase in nitrogen efficiency as measured by bushels of corn produced per pound of nitrogen applied which in turn means less nutrients lost to runoff.
At the National Association of Farm Broadcasting convention NCGA’s Rick Tolman took time to dispell some myths about the use of water by the corn industry. He’s got some great facts and figures to explain why the numbers being bantered about as doomsday speak are really meaningless when put in perspective with the information those same people don’t say or want you to know.
* More than 85% of all corn produced in the United States is non-irrigated. So, that 4,000 gallons per bushel is mostly rainfall. That rain is going to fall on the land whether it has corn on it or asphalt or marijuana. According to the USGS (U.S. National Geological Survey), if that same land was instead in wheat, it would take 11,000 gallons per bushel. If it were in alfalfa, it would take 15,000 gallons for a similar amount. If it is a paved parking lot, the same amount of rain still falls. So, one perhaps important point left out by the good bug doctor and the headline writers is that most of the water corn needs is not being sucked from the ground or from rivers, but it actually falls from the sky.
* And, looking even deeper, according to the same USGS, an acre of corn actually gives off 4,000 gallons a day in “evapotranspiration,” the combined result of transpiration and evaporation. Over the course of a growing season that would equate to turning that acre of corn into a lake approximately 11 inches deep. Corn is a very remarkable plant. It gives back much of that water it takes up. That water goes up into atmosphere to start the precipitation cycle all over again. In aggregate, the corn crop actually returns more water to the atmosphere than is withdrawn from ground or surface for irrigation.
* Some other USGS statistics that might be of interest and add perspective:
It takes 1,500 gallons of water to produce a barrel of beer
It takes 1,851 gallons of water to refine a barrel of crude oil
It takes 62,600 gallons of water to process a ton of cane sugar to make processed sugar
It takes 62,600 gallons to make a ton of steel
It takes 2,075 gallons of water to make four tires
According to the Science Daily release on the National Research Council report “Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States” released today, “the committee that wrote the report examined policy options and identified opportunities for new agricultural techniques and technologies to help minimize effects of biofuel production on water resources.”
This would be a positive thing, as noted in responses from the National Wildlife Federation and the Renewable Fuels Association.
National Wildlife Federation Senior Program Manager for Agriculture and Wetland Policy Julie Sibbing says the report highlights the need for a new Biofuels Innovation Program in the next Farm Bill.
“The report notes that cellulosic biofuels, produced from native plants like switchgrass, should have less impact on water quality per unit of energy gained,” Sibbing said in a statement. “It suggests the adoption of public policies that encourage production of energy from cellulosic alternatives. America’s water resources will be under even greater pressure in a warming climate. Moving to non-irrigated, native crops to produce ethanol will go a long way towards helping to safeguard our water resources.”
Renewable Fuels Association president Bob Dinneen noted that the ethanol industry is already moving in many of the directions the study suggests.
“As this study accurately points out, U.S. ethanol producers are rapidly developing and implementing technologies that are improving the already green footprint of the industry,” Dinneen said. “Better efficiencies at today’s ethanol biorefineries are reducing water use, improving water recycling methods and utilizing wastewater supplies to further lessen the impact, if any, a biorefinery may have on local water supplies.”
Dinneen adds that the ethanol industry is evolving so rapidly it will be unrecognizable from its present form five years from now. “Technological evolutions will provide for more efficient use of natural resources like water, further reduce already low emissions from biorefineries, and allow us to produce ethanol from less resource-intensive sources in addition to grains.”
However, the media’s general take on the report was to focus on the “implications” - the scenario painted by the report assuming ethanol production continues on in its present form, using the current technology, and just producing more and more corn to make into ethanol - which is NOT going to happen. That’s missing the point. The study is focusing on the solutions, not the problems - as we all should.
According to an analysis conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory and released Monday by the Renewable Fuels Association, America’s ethanol industry has made dramatic efficiency gains in ethanol production over the last five years. 
“The dramatic improvements in dry mill ethanol production demonstrate this industry’s commitment to developing and utilizing the most efficient technologies available,” said Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen. “In the past five years, America’s ethanol industry has shown its ability to increasingly meet the fuel needs of the nation while addressing the climate change concerns of the planet. In the next five years, America’s ethanol producers will demonstrate their ability to develop and employ new technologies that further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, grow our nation’s supply of renewable fuel, and expand the basket of products from which ethanol is made. The future of this industry is bright and green.”
“What we did was take some fairly complex modeling that was done by Argonne National Laboratory and distill it down to where it would mean something to the average consumer,” said Danielson. “We considered if you took E-10, E-85 and cellulosic ethanol and put it in a typical gas tank, what would the impact on the environment be.”
Media coverage of a recent article in the journal “Science” on studies that address the possible consequences of a faulty approach to utilizing lands to produce biofuel feedstocks only reported part of the story, 
