World Politics Review | The Global Poor Will Suffer the Worst Ethanol Hangover The Global Poor Will Suffer the Worst Ethanol Hangover Henry I. Miller | Bio 27 Feb 2008 The headlong rush in many parts of the world to replace oil with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) illustrates how the best of intentions can run afoul of the law of unintended consequences. While positive effects have been elusive -- and, in fact, are unlikely with current policies -- starvation and malnourishment are becoming worse among the poorest of the poor. The European Union has announced that it wants to replace 10 percent of its oil consumption with biofuels by 2020. President George W. Bush announced last year a goal of replacing 15 percent of domestic gasoline use with biofuels over the next 10 years, which would require almost a five-fold increase in mandatory biofuel use to about 35 billion gallons. In June 2007, the U.S. Senate pushed the target to 36 billion gallons by 2022, of which 15 billion are mandated to come from corn and 21 billion from other more advanced but largely unproven sources. China is aiming for 15 percent conversion to biofuels. The reality is that with current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no other feasible, proven alternative. But because of the inefficiencies inherent in producing ethanol from corn and the relatively meager amount of energy yielded by burning ethanol, the demands on farmland would be staggering. An analysis by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggested that replacing even 10 percent of America's motor fuel with biofuels would require that about a third of all the nation's cropland be devoted to oilseeds, cereals and sugar crops. Achieving the 15 percent goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40 percent of the world's corn supply. In the short- and medium-term, ethanol can do little to affect oil consumption, but the diversion of grain from food to fuel exerts widespread and profound ripple effects on various commodity markets. It has already has been catastrophic for the poor around the world. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's food price index, which is based on export prices for 60 internationally traded foodstuffs, climbed 37 percent last year, following a 14 percent increase in 2006. Protests have erupted in Pakistan and Indonesia over wheat and soybean shortages, respectively, and China has imposed price controls on many staple foods. Keith Bradsher, writing in the New York Times, reveals another outcome of the shortages: "Smugglers have been bidding up prices as they move [palm] oil from more subsidized markets, like Malaysia's, to less subsidized markets, like Singapore's." The shortages and rise in the prices of edible oils have had a devastating impact on the nutrition of poor families not only in Asia, but also in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. Any sort of shock to yields, such as drought, unseasonably hot or cold weather, pests or disease in the next few years could send food prices farther into the stratosphere and cause unprecedented social upheavals. Politicians like to say that ethanol is environmentally friendly, but these claims must be put into perspective. Although corn is a renewable resource, it has a far lower energy yield relative to the energy used to produce it -- what policy wonks call "net energy balance" -- than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from many other plants. Moreover, ethanol yields about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage per gallon in internal combustion engines drops off significantly, and the addition of ethanol raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle. Lower-cost biomass ethanol -- for example, from rice straw (a byproduct of harvesting rice) switchgrass, or other sources -- would make far more economic sense. And also environmental sense: Estimates of greenhouse-gas reductions from the substitution of biofuels for gasoline failed to take into consideration the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices by converting forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (and cropland) diverted to biofuels. Performing the analysis correctly yields shocking results: Instead of producing savings in carbon emissions, corn-based ethanol "nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years," according to a research article published earlier this month in the journal Science. Politicians may be drunk with the prospect of corn-derived ethanol, but without policies based on science and sound economics, our problems will only increase, and the poorest of the poor around the world will suffer from the worst hangover. Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, was an FDA official from 1979 to 1994; his most recent book is "The Frankenfood Myth."
Couldn't have said it better myself!!! I would only add, all the biomass of the earth creates ~90 terrawatts of energy annually. Humans burn ~ 16 terrawatts of energy per year. If you were to replace all the other fuels with bio fuels you would burn ~17% of ALL the biomass grown. Plankton, grass, algae, trees,,,everything. Are we going to burn 17% each and every year? (source: Radio interview KUOW Seattle's afternnoon "conversation" ~12/10/08. President of the Stinson Bullet(sp) foundation). Bio fuels are at best, a stop gap measure, and at worst a disaster in the making. Icarus
When someone can finally figure a way to get rich off of solar or wind, that's when these other fool hearty and damaging measures will be put to rest.
It doesn't have to be a matter of someone getting rich! The fact is that if we stopped subsidizing big oil, and transfered the $$ to RE it would go a long way to get us started. As it stands now, solar Pv CAN be almost competitive with grid power if time of day metering is used. We have to grow up, and realize the hidden costs of our conventional energy sources. Measured against that, solar PV is cheap. Bio fuels are still a loser! Icarus
There is a notice in our local grocery store in the bakery section, explaining that they have to raise their prices of baked goods due to the emphasis on ethanol production raising the price of wheat and flour. There's hope: Bioenergy pact between Europe and Africa Surging interest in Fischer-Tropsch fuels signals end to "food versus fuel" debate Harry
Good to see some growing interest in FT liquid fuels. There are some nice advantages to the process. Cost of course is the big question mark. My understanding is that FT facilities have a high capitalization.
I refer you to my above post. Bio mass for fuel is a fools choice in the long run, no matter the source. I agree FT , and non food crop are better, but it is still only a stop gap. We need to use less, and make our technology (cars, houses etc) more BTU efficient. The answer doesn't lie in coming up with more stuff to burn! A:all of it runs out, even the growing stuff, and B: Most if not all is not carbon neutral, and therefore contributes to greenhouse gasses. Spend the R&D $$ on real renewable energy, and efficiency. Just get rid of incandecent lights and turn off the stuff we don't need and we would be far ahead. Icarus
I agree. Efficiency is always the most logical first step. Getting rid of ICEs is even better, but FT will still be important because it allows us to make plastics and jet fuel out of biomass. Air craft will be using liquid fuels for quite sometime and I don't see plastics going away anytime soon. Better efficiency with both of those things will help and will make sense, but FT will be quite important if we're serious about petroleum substitutes.
IN my opinion, the point is twofold First,, if we used all energy wisely, we would have plenty to use petrolium wisely. In other words if we reduced the need for petro by using solar and other renewables, which, in this example would reduce oil consumption 80%, then "alternative sources of petro" wouldn't be needed. I realize that I dream up a pipe, but as long as we continue to believe that we can just go ahead and keep doing what we are doing and somehow it will all turn out alright, even with new tech helping is insanity. I plead guilty to not walking the complete walk but I keep trying. We live in a passive solar house, with average energy consumption ~20% of the national average. That said, it is probably 5 times the world average. Icarus
yup. not a fan of ethanol for the us unless you can do it with kudzoo or some other non food crop. the performance is lousy. let entrepenuers do it. dont let the govt subsidize, everytime we subsidize the law of unintended consequeces occurs. boy is my spelling lousy.
yup. not a fan of ethanol for the us unless you can do it with kudzoo or some other non food crop. the performance is lousy. let entrepenuers do it. dont let the govt subsidize, everytime we subsidize the law of unintended consequeces occurs. boy is my spelling lousy.
Yeah, there is that. We use about half the electricity of the Colorado avg. (between ~300-550 kWh/month). Then we use NG for heating and water heating. I've made a stab at the water heater... installed low flow shower head and have a wrap on the tank.
Tripp, Look into demand hot water, (Rinnai, takagi, Noritz) With the $300 tax credit you can get a net cost comparable with tank water heat, with ~50% reduction in fuel used depending on usage. Coupled with a pre-heat solar, further reductions are not only possible, but quite easy. We tend to think that these saving technologies are exotic and expensive. The fact is they are very simple and can be very cost effective. Just like the people who don't like cfl's because they "look funny" or are perceived as expensive. There are tons of cfl's out there that are conventional in shape, size, color and even price with conventional bulbs. It is just a mind set for people to realize. I just bought some globe shaped 60 watt eq 15 watt, warm white cfl', 6000 hour, for under $2 net. It is a no brainer to convert your entire house. Even dimmable and flood, spots are available. With every normal light on in our house we are burning under 200 watts! Icarus Icarus
Sadly, we had to buy a new water heater in a rush. The old one was knackered and I had to shut water off to the whole house because of a leak. So we just took what the guy had in stock. I was a bit narked by the whole process, but we needed running water. On our next house we'll do solar water heating and PV. We're stuck in our current house for a few more years, sadly. We only have 2 bulbs that aren't CFL and they don't much use at all. I'll probably replace them at some point.
Tripp, Do a quick calc. I figured that the $300 energy tax credit, plus the reduction in propane usage paid for our Takagi in less than 3 years. (I also sold the old water heater for $75 which made it even cheaper. It depends somewhat on your usage but it is a pretty quick pay back. Icarus PS The price of propane has almost double in 2 years, so it paid back even faster.
