|
*Tom Elam is president of FarmEcon.com based out of Carmel, Ind.
Myth 1: Food-based ethanol is a "renewable" fuel.
Reality: Wood harvested and transported by human labor and burned for heating and cooking is a true renewable fuel. Electricity generated from a solar cell is another. They use nothing but the sun, human labor and the land for an energy source. Even then, wood is only renewable if we harvest it at a rate no faster than nature is producing it.
Food-based ethanol production and distribution burns about two-thirds of a Btu of fossil fuel energy for every Btu of energy produced. Food-based ethanol is no more renewable than the fossil fuels used to produce it.
Myth 2: Food-based biofuels can replace a meaningful proportion of the world's fossil fuel supply.
Reality: Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider that the total world supply of edible oils is currently at 125 million metric tons. World crude oil production is more than 10,000 mmt. Even if we could convert 20% of our current edible oil supply to fuel with no conversion losses, it would replace only 0.25% of current crude oil production.
Food-based ethanol requires significant amounts of fossil energy for its production (see Myth 1). If we were to convert 20% of the world's 2007 grain crop to ethanol, it would produce about 138 million tons of ethanol. That 138 million tons would represent a net gain of only 45 million tons of energy due to the fossil fuels burned to produce the ethanol. Those 45 million tons are only 0.45% of the world's crude oil production and would supply an even smaller percentage of total world energy consumption.
Myth 3: Food-based fuels can be produced from "surplus" agricultural commodities.
Reality: The world's population is growing and getting richer. The demand for food already is stretching our production capacity.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, world total grain stocks have declined from 523 million tons in 2000 to a forecasted level of 315 million tons in 2008. In 2007, we have seen wheat prices set new records due to a small reduction in the world harvest. All major crops are currently at historically high price levels. We are using all of the world's good land to produce food, and we still see declining stocks of grains and oilseed crops. There is no "surplus" of food or good land that can be used for food-based fuel production without affecting food prices.
Myth 4: Food-based biofuel is a green, environmentally friendly product.
Reality: According to a recent Swiss paper on biofuels (Zah et al., 2007), the U.S. corn-based ethanol production system emits only 10% fewer greenhouse gases than are produced by burning low-sulfur gasoline. The same Swiss study states that corn-based U.S. ethanol has over 150% more total environmental impact than gasoline. Biodiesel from Brazilian soybean oil was rated even worse than corn-based ethanol. Included in the impact calculation were land use, pesticide use and fossil fuel use in the total production system, plus greenhouse gas emissions.
The potential exists for widespread ecological damage from conversion of land not used for food production to industrial "fuel farms." Large areas of forests, swamps, marginal lands and other natural areas face the potential of being turned into mono-species landscapes devoid of any resemblance to a natural setting.
Myth 5: Subsidies for production of food-based biofuels create value-added products for the U.S. economy.
Reality: The current subsidy system for food-based biofuels has the effect of taking food away from one potential user (the food producer) and selling it to a different user (the biofuel producer) but at a lower price. That is, we take food products away from producers who give it a higher value than those who ultimately receive the benefits of its use.
In the case of ethanol, the ethanol producer is effectively receiving corn at about $1.50/bu. under its market price. In the case of biodiesel, the producer is receiving soybean oil at $1/gal. less than the market price. Taking products away from high-value users and giving it to low-value users destroys value instead of adding it.
Myth 6: Cellulose and waste product-based ethanol can supply a meaningful proportion of the world's future energy demand.
Reality: Biofuel supporters are fond of pointing to cellulose from crop residue, forest products and waste streams as a long-term feedstock that can supply amounts of energy. Only about 25% of crop residue can be harvested without having detrimental effects on soil quality and yields. Biomass produced from forests is limited by tree growth rates and competing uses for wood products. Collection of waste products is costly and energy intensive.
A recent Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development study (Doornbosch and Steenblik, 2007) estimates that the total net energy from added land for non-food-based biofuels, cellulose byproducts and other waste products could total 43 Exa Joules (EJ) per year (EJ = 1018, 1 joule = 0.24 calories) to the 2050 energy supply. That estimate assumes future breakthroughs in cellulose conversion that have proven to be elusive. Total world energy consumption in 2050 is forecasted to be roughly on the order of 1,000 EJ per year (U.N., 2000).
Myth 7: Food-based biofuels are cost-effective replacements for fossil fuels.
Reality: Factoring in all costs, including subsidies and effects on food prices, food-based biofuels are much more expensive to produce than fossil fuels. U.S. corn-based ethanol costs about $6/gal. for the net energy produced. Soy diesel production requires a subsidy equal to 50% of the cost of diesel fuel. In other words, soy diesel is twice as expensive as the fuel it replaces.
Myth 8: We can easily increase crop yields fast enough to have both enough food and produce more energy, too.
Reality: Rates of crop yield increases are not easily or quickly increased. The magnitude of the increase needed for any meaningful impact is also staggering. Assume that we wanted to replace a modest 25% of the current U.S. gasoline supply with food-based ethanol. That would take about 52.5 million gallons of ethanol per year. At 2.8 gal./bu. of corn, that implies 18.75 billion bushels of corn are needed. If we have to raise that much corn on the normal area of 85 million acres and not reduce our other uses of corn (about 10 billion bushels a year), we would require a yield of almost 340 bu. per acre.
The 2007 corn crop is forecasted to yield 155 bu. per acre. It took us more than 40 years to double corn yields and reach current levels. The rate of corn yield increase has been steady since hybrids were introduced in the 1930s and shows no sign of accelerating. Even at 340 bu. per acre, we would still only be able to replace, on a net energy basis, about 8.25% of the U.S. gasoline supply (66% of the energy in ethanol comes from fossil fuels).
Myth 9: The U.S. ethanol industry is starting to move away from food-based feedstocks.
Reality: Ethanol proponents state that other feedstocks are starting to take over from corn. The Renewable Fuels Assn. web site (www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/facts/food) claims, "Ethanol production from other nontraditional sources continues to grow. An increasing amount of ethanol is produced from nontraditional feedstocks such as waste products from the beverage, food and forestry industries."
However, according to the same web site (www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations), EVERY U.S. ethanol plant currently under construction uses either corn or a corn/milo feedstock. The 85 plants under construction or expansion will double the amount of U.S. food used for ethanol production by 2009.
Myth 10: The solution to higher-cost energy is to produce more energy, including food-based energy.
Reality: Energy prices are set by supply and demand. Over time, the supply of fossil fuels will hit a peak and start to decline, forcing real prices even higher. We have probably already seen the all-time low of inflation-corrected energy prices. However, we can stop pretending that supply is the major problem and start making some difficult decisions that can affect fossil fuel demand. Higher efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances would be a good place to start. High energy taxes in Europe have been successful in increasing the energy efficiency of that entire economy.
Truly renewable energy sources such as wind, wood, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric can help reduce our demand for fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants are also a potential source of energy but come at potentially high environmental costs.
Eventually, the increasing cost of fossil fuels will force us to turn to other sources of energy. Given world energy consumption, this is going to mean major adjustments in where we get our energy and how we use it.
The long-term answer to increasing fossil fuel costs is not to burn up our food supply in a meaningless attempt to replace the cheap oil, coal and natural gas of yesterday. Rather, we need to start the transition to truly renewable energy sources that do not rely heavily on fossil fuel for their production and distribution.
The billions we are spending every year on U.S. food-based energy production would be better spent on research on conservation and truly renewable energy sources.
References
Zah, R., H. B�ni, M. Gauch, R. Hischier, M. Lehmann and P. W�ger. 2007b. �kobilanz von Energieprodukten: �kologische Bewertung von Biotreibstoffen. EMPA f�r die Bundesampt f�r Energie, die Bundesampt f�r Umwelt und die Bundesampt f�r Landwirtschaft, Bern.
Doornbosch, R., and R. Steenblik. 2007. Biofuels: Is the cure worse than the disease? Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development. Sept. 12.
U.N. Environment Program. 2000. IPCC special report on emissions scenarios. March. | 
