Study Shows Ethanol Production Uses Far More Energy Than It Produces

From: THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER
July 12, 2005, Issue #413
Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness
From a Public Interest Perspective

EDITOR\PUBLISHER; A.V. Krebs
E-MAIL: avkrebs at earthlink.net
WEB SITE: http://www.ea1.com/CARP/
TO RECEIVE: Send name and address

STUDY BY UC SCIENTIST
REVEALS ETHANOL EXPENDS
MORE ENERGY THAN IT MAKES

ELIZABETH SVOBODA, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: Ethanol, touted as an
alternative fuel of the future, may eat up far more energy during its
creation than it winds up giving back, according to research by a UC
Berkeley scientist that raises questions about the nation's move toward its
widespread use.

A clean-burning fuel produced from renewable crops like corn and sugarcane,
ethanol has long been a cornerstone of some national lawmakers' efforts to
clear the air and curb dependence on foreign oil. California residents use
close to a billion gallons of the alcohol-based fuel per year.

But in a recent issue of the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, UC
Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times
more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually
contains.

The fossil energy expended during production alone, he concluded, easily
outweighs the consumable energy in the end product. As a result, Patzek
believes that those who think using the "green" fuel will reduce fossil fuel
consumption are deluding themselves -- and the federal government's practice
of subsidizing ethanol by offering tax exemptions to oil refiners who buy it
is a waste of money.

"People tend to think of ethanol and see an endless cycle: corn is used to
produce ethanol, ethanol is burned and gives off carbon dioxide, and corn
uses the carbon dioxide as it grows," he said. "But that isn't the case.
Fossil fuel actually drives the whole cycle."

Patzek's investigation into the energy dynamics of ethanol production began
two years ago, when he had the students in his Berkeley freshman seminar
calculate the fuel's energy balance as a class exercise.

Once the class took into account little-considered inputs like fossil fuels
and other energy sources used to extrude alcohol from corn, produce
fertilizers and insecticides, transport crops and dispose of wastewater,
they determined that ethanol contains 65 percent less usable energy than is
consumed in the process of making it.

Surprised at the results, Patzek began an exhaustive analysis of his own ---
one that painted an even bleaker picture of the ethanol industry's long-
term sustainability.

"Taking grain apart, fermenting it, distilling it and extruding it uses a
lot of fossil energy," he said. "We are grasping at the solution that is by
far the least efficient."

Patzek's report also highlights the potential environmental hazards of
ethanol production.

"When you dump nitrogen fertilizer on corn fields, it runs away as surface
water, into the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico," he said.

The excess nitrogen introduced into the water causes out-of-control algae
growth, creating an oxygen-poor "dead zone" where other marine plants and
animals cannot survive. And while ethanol produces fewer carbon monoxide
emissions than regular gasoline, some researchers have found that ethanol
releases high levels of nitrogen oxide, one of the principal ingredients of
smog, when burned.

Ethanol has long been touted not just for its promise as a renewable fuel,
but for its usefulness as a gasoline additive. Fossil fuels blended with it
produce fewer carbon monoxide emissions than regular gasoline and have a
higher octane rating, meaning they burn more evenly and are less likely to
cause engine knocking. While most gasoline sold in the United States now
contains approximately five percent ethanol, some cars --- such as the Ford
Explorer and Chevy Silverado --- can run on fuel blends containing up to
85%.

Though his work has been vetted by several peer-reviewed scientific
journals, Patzek has had to deflect criticism from a variety of sources.
David Morris, an economist and vice president of the Minneapolis-based
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, has attacked the Berkeley professor's
analysis because he says it is based on farming and production practices
that are rapidly becoming obsolete.

"His figures (regarding energy consumed in fertilizer production) are
accurate for older nitrogen fertilizer plants, but newer plants use only
half the energy of those that were built 35 years ago," he said. He also
cited the increasing popularity of no-till farming methods, which can reduce
a corn farm's diesel usage by 75%. "With hydrogen fuel, people are willing
to say, '25 years from now it will be good.' Why can't we also be
forward-looking when it comes to ethanol?"

Hosein Shapouri, an economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has
also cracked down on Patzek's energy calculations.

"It's true that the original ethanol plants in the 1970s went bankrupt. But
Patzek doesn't consider the impact new, more efficient production
technologies have had on the ethanol industry," he said.

Shapouri's most recent analysis, which the USDA published in 2004, comes to
the exact opposite conclusion of Patzek's: Ethanol, he said, has a positive
energy balance, containing 67% more energy than is used to manufacture it.
Optimistic that the process will become even more efficient in the future,
he pointed out that scientists are experimenting with using alternative
sources like solid waste, grass and wood to make ethanol. If successful on a
large scale, these techniques could drastically reduce the amount of fossil
fuel needed for ethanol production.

Other contributors to the debate argue that ethanol's net energy balance
should not be the sole consideration when policymakers are evaluating its
usefulness --- factors like the fuel's portability and lower carbon monoxide
emissions need to be considered as well.

"So what if we have to spend 2 BTUs for each BTU of alcohol fuel produced?"
reads an editorial in the Offgrid Online energy newsletter. "Since we are
after a portable fuel, we might be willing to spend more energy to get it."

Cornell University ecology Professor David Pimentel, however, sides with
Patzek, calling production of ethanol "subsidized food burning."

"The USDA isn't looking at factors like the energy it takes to maintain farm
machinery and irrigate fields in their analysis," he said, adding that the
agency's ethanol report contains overly optimistic assumptions about the
efficiency of farming practices. "The bottom line is that we're using far
more energy in making ethanol than we're getting out."

Patzek thinks lawmakers and environmental activists need to push ethanol
aside and concentrate on more sustainable solutions like improving the
efficiency of fuel cells and hybrid electric cars or harnessing solar energy
for use in transport. If they don't, he predicts economics will eventually
force the issue.

"If government funds become short, subsidies for fuels will be looked at
very carefully," he said. "When they are, there's no way ethanol production
can survive." [ June 27, 2005 ]