New Study Tallies Corn Ethanol Costs

By Kate Galbraith
CloudyA new study casts clouds over the heath and environmental effects of corn-based ethanol. (Photo: Monica Almeida/The New York Times)

In the latest installment of the debate over the emissions impact of corn-based ethanol, researchers from the University of Minnesota and other institutions found that corn ethanol is worse for health and the environment than regular gasoline, and far worse than cellulosic ethanol.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looked at various types of fuels’ climate and health costs — defined as a combination of health costs from the emission of fine particulate matter, and climate costs from issues like mitigation, carbon capture and the damage from sea-level rise or crop loss.

The findings identified corn ethanol (corn is the main feedstock for ethanol produced in the United States) as more “costly” than cellulosic ethanol or even regular gasoline, though the range of cost estimates was wide and dependent on a large number of variables.

Last month, a University of Nebraska study found that ethanol produced significantly lower direct emissions than gasoline.

Jason Hill, a researcher with the University of Minnesota and one of the authors of the more recent study, said that the Nebraska study looked at fewer factors than did his study, and that the findings of the two were compatible.

Worth noting amid the back-and-forth: Cellulosic ethanol is far from being ready for commercial use, however.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Mike in Brooklyn February 5, 2009 · 10:16 am

I don’t think gasoline was held up to the same standard.
Did they put a number of the health of those in the Middle East who are dying from wars to protect oil, for example?
Was a number really put on the pollution caused by tar sands pits in Canada?

I strongly doubt it.

Sean February 5, 2009 · 10:18 am

Ethanol will never be a viable alternative so long as it depends on gasoline in its production. Which means corn based ethanol is a Loser, with a capital L.

And “Last month, a University of Nebraska study found that ethanol produced significantly lower direct emissions than gasoline.”
As soon as I hit the word ‘direct’ i started to laugh. Thats the same type of logic that allowed such high rates of CO2 to be emitted in the first place, the problem that we are trying to solve (unsuccessfully) with ethanol! Foolish researchers.

expat NY’er February 5, 2009 · 10:38 am

The US corn-based ethanol program is nothing more than welfare for ADM & the corn belt. It should have been strangled in its crib.

Dr. R.D.B. Laime February 5, 2009 · 10:44 am

The “Greens” were so enthusiastic about corn-based ethanol, despite warnings that it was so much less efficient than petrol(especially when combined–as the Democratic Congress ordained). Alternative fuels, especially algae, holds a lot more promise, yet it is years away(ten or more)from being online(in fuel stations). First of all–THINK–it(any alternative fuel)must be able to run present day cars, trucks, busses and more(all kinds of petrol-runned engines). Distribution has to be changed drastically(oh wait an see–Exxon, BP, and the rest will be the ones taking over alternative fuels). Will these fuels be cheaper? No one, yet, has a clue. Algae can be produced without taking land(save for the buildings used)unlike other good alternatives like Jathropa, biomass of all kinds and others. Ah the Progressive and their champion Pres. Barrack Obama(who joined other Members of Congress of both parties to pass the law about the use of corn ethanol and voted against lowering the tarrif on sugar(very efficient)ethanol from Brazil(rumor was that Brazil cut down the rain forest to grow the cane–BULL)are now wondering what do we do with present vehicles(engine modification, if possible will be costly). Progressives are ignornant(in the main), frustrated and could care less about the “downtrodden” was they ski the slopes or lay on the beaches at high dollar hotels.

Janet V February 5, 2009 · 10:47 am

Maybe a university outside the Corn Belt ought to do these studies.

DS February 5, 2009 · 10:54 am

Corn ethanol worst than gasoline!!! Get real.
The efficiency of ethanol production is CONSTANTLY improving. While it is not the sole answer, it most certainly is part of the solution. The main problem is that the vehicles made by Detroit, guzzle ethanol as well as they guzzle gasoline.

Mike in Brooklyn February 5, 2009 · 10:58 am

Here’s what an ethanol guy, Jeff Broin, has to say about subsidies.

“In 2007, the tax incentive, that tax break, was $3.3 billion, but the ethanol industry returned $4.6 billion in tax revenue to the Treasury,” Broin says. “We saved $8 billion in farm payments because we eliminated farm payments for the first time in almost 40 years. We saved the consumer $40 to $60 billion in gas prices with extra supplies that kept prices down. We added $47 billion to the (Gross Domestic Product).”

Also, from Dr. Martha Schlicher:

“The study fails to mention that natural gas and electricity use could be eliminated from corn ethanol production today, greatly altering its emission profile.”

Most of the criticism of ethanol’s damage to health and environment has all to do with corporate agricultural practices and nothing to do with ethanol as a fuel. Make the stuff in small batches, don’t transport it great distances, use sustainable agricultural practices, it’s win-win. Could be that way even with corn, a lousy crop for ethanol production (just as soy is bad for biodiesel).

Fellow February 5, 2009 · 11:00 am

Corn ethanol production was foremost a commodity profit ensuring and vote getting mechanism for the lobbyists of the corporate farms and the politicians of the corn producing states. It detracts from the need to change as rapidly as possible into the new technology of the 21 first century. Profits and politics shortsighted as usual tend to come before the farsighted rationality required for the common good. One wages starvation has accelerated in many countries as a result of the lack of corn grain at affordable prices.

Rick A February 5, 2009 · 11:00 am

Seems like no matter what we do, it’s wrong.

For every possible solution to a problem, there seems to be ten reasons why it won’t work. Or one person’s solution is the cause of the problem to another person.

I’m beginning to think the end is near, or in the very least, the world is in for a gigantic correction of some kind. Everything that’s happening seems to be leading us to massive worldwide unemployment, homelessness, starvation, sickness, etc. which will result in fatal epidemics, killing millions if not billions of people. Then maybe the world can be re-balanced.

Krish February 5, 2009 · 11:02 am

As long as US has the Iowa primaries as the first primary — actually caucuses — there is no way to stop the wasteful subsidies that prop up the ethanol industry.

Caucuses in general are undemocratic. They let a vocal and committed minority take over the agenda. On top of that Iowa, a totally unrepresentative state acts as an orifice through which the entire slate of candidates have to pass through really early in the process to even be viable.

We just keep talking about election reform every four years just when the primary season is about to get underway — that too mainly in NPR etc. And then it goes by the way side to give room for coverage for “drew peterson” and the like.

Chris Dudley February 5, 2009 · 11:32 am

Rick A,

Don’t be discouraged. I’m reading Plato’s “Phaedo” right now and there is a word introduced there, misology, which means hatred of argument. Socrates suggests that if we easily become enthusiastic about one new thing or another, we are bound to be disappointed as most new arguments fail. That disappointment may lead to a feeling that trying anything is pointless.

But experience shows that it is possible to make improvements when we try things out. We don’t deliver direct current to homes any more, but we do deliver electricity for example.

It is understood, really, that biofuels can’t do all that much for us. Plants just are not all that efficient at converting sunlight to usable energy. On the other hand, solar panels do enormously better than plants. So, in a way, corn ethanol or even cellulosic ethanol are just a sideshow. No need to look on a failure there as having any great importance. Failures are going to be reported, but that may be good new in the greater scheme of things when better alternatives exist. If we expect that some failures are going to happen, which is realistic, then there will be little urging to despair when they happen.

Drew February 5, 2009 · 11:39 am

“Caucuses in general are undemocratic. ”

Are you kidding me? Have you ever been to IA during the caucus season? Candidates come to the state more than ONE YEAR before the caucuses, and what’s more, more than a year before the Straw Poll in Ames, to talk face-to-face and speak in more than just sound bites. They answer questions about a multitude of issues, more than just what might affect Iowans more so than non-Iowans.

The candidates, particularly those who don’t have the big budgets, love the ability to visit all the small and big towns in IA so they can stop and talk to real human beings. “America’ doesn’t just include those living inside the Beltway or on Wall St. “America” includes those who are hard workers, in-depth thinkers, and not easily swayed by the circus which so heavily mesmerizes many of those outside of the state.

And then on caucus night, the culmination of all the hard work, voters don’t just go to some confined, secretive booth. They have a chance to defend their candidate and occasionally, hear something new about another candidate or their own. They might even change their minds.

With a primary, how many voters do you think actually change their minds between their driveway and booth?

Caucuses are for people who aren’t afraid to voice their opinions in front of others. It’s not so undemocratic to do this rather than just standing in a “democratic” booth with the balance resting on a hanging chad.

Sounds like the Founding Fathers would be quite pleased with the caucus process.

Back to ethanol…

Ethanol from corn may not be the answer. No one is saying the process, which has been in use in IA for more than a decade, is as environmentally-friendly today than it was Day 1.
If you think about JFK and his promise to have a man on the moon before 1970, I’m sure NASA made some errors in the beginning of the ’60’s. “We can tweak that, improve this, get more if we do this,” the scientists likely said.

If you remember Obama’s campaign rhetoric and debate items, you’ll remember he too talked about a need for energy independence before 10 years. Good science takes time.

The process is evolving. It’s not perfect. But changing plants, fuels and engines to produce maximum efficiency (including as green as humanly possible) is a lot like rocket science, aka, more difficult than your day job, most likely.

Stephen February 5, 2009 · 11:40 am

This is something that shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The energy yield coming out of corn-based ethanol production is so much lower than other sources (sugarcane in Brazil, for instance, is much more efficient), so you end up needing more corn to meet the same energy levels.

Other factors that I’m not sure the study addresses is that land used to produce corn for ethanol is land not being used to produce food. I can’t find the link right now, but a former higher up in the petroleum industry publishes a blog where he worked out a model based on the elasticity of demand for fuel versus food, and worked out what would happen as corn ethanol slowly became the fuel of choice, and the end result is rampant third world starvation simply because the market is willing to pay more for fuel than food, and poor countries can’t compete with the rich world in a bidding war.

Ethanol is a reasonable intermediary, but it is not a long term solution, particularly corn-derived ethanol.

Stephen February 5, 2009 · 11:44 am

Found it! Here’s the article I wanted to reference. If you have the patience to read through it, he does a great job talking about logistic growth and explaining his models without being too mathematical:

//www.theoildrum.com/node/2431

Jim Altman February 5, 2009 · 11:50 am

Little commented upon are the economic effects of corn-based ethanol. After a wild few years and the cooling of the corn-ethanol frenzy, dairy, meat, and poultry prices in the midwest have finally settled back to where they should be. Now we’re all enchanted by cellulose from Brazil. Don’t be deceived! As long as energy consumption grows exponentially, the big brownout is near! Discovering whole new planets full of resources will only add a few years to the end. Bio-fuel is not the answer and its hidden costs are more devastating than anyone is willing to admit.

Bob Moffitt February 5, 2009 · 12:09 pm

I’m a big fan of cellulosic ethanol, but comparing hard figures from real industries and fuels to “predictions” of a commercial cellulosic ethanol industry and infrastructure that doesn’t (yet) exist doesn’t seem very useful.

Mike in Brooklyn February 5, 2009 · 12:11 pm

Stephen, what happens to these models when food and fuel are made close together and distributed into the community to power engines, heat homes, etc?

What happens when cattails filtering human waste from all cities get harvested for thousands of gallons of food per acre?

Suggest you (and other ethanol-haters on this blog) pick up David Blume’s book Alcohol Can be a Gas!
I showed this article to Stuart Staniford, whom you reference, and he admitted this had potential for great change in his numbers. Uh, Dave Blume had already factored in the points made in this article.

//news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2008/03/scientists-discover-genetics-of.html

Ethanol, properly scaled, could make Third World countries food and fuel self-sufficient. Bad climates? Ever hear of greenhouses? The model is in the afore=mentioned book.

Charlie Peters February 5, 2009 · 12:13 pm

Does corn fuel ethanol policy increase oil use and Big oil profit?

Some folks think so

Charlie Peters February 5, 2009 · 12:15 pm

Corn fuel ethanol stinks

Chris Dudley February 5, 2009 · 12:19 pm

R.D.B. Laime (#4),

It is incorrect to say that greens supported corn based ethanol. In their 2004 platform we have the following: “We oppose the development of environmentally-destructive “alternative” fuels produced from unsustainable or toxic feedstocks, such as genetically-engineered crops, coal, or waste streams contaminated with persistent toxins.” Since much corn is now GM, this pretty much rules out corn ethanol.

In the 2000 platform, there was support for use of natural gas in transportation to reduce emissions but no mention of using corn ethanol. There is mention of state level support for biomass fuel.

I think also that you over estimate the influence of the greens in the US. Much of ethanol policy is set by the agribusiness lobby.

Krish February 5, 2009 · 12:47 pm

Drew #12:

Let me list the reasons why I think Caucuses are undemocratic:

1) They are not a secret ballot; Can you imagine the pressure to conform in a small town; All you need to notice is how vehemently the senators avoid some issues from coming to a vote. They cannot vote their actual preference when it is an open vote.

2) There is no absentee voting. You can vote only if you don’t have 8:00-5:00 job, or if your boss lets you. If you don’t have transportation on demand the problems compound.

2a) There is no absentee voting. You cannot vote if you happen to be out of town on the day of the caucus.

2b) There is no absentee voting. you cannot participate if are otherwise stuck that day (lack of child care arrangement, sick, etc.)

3) Not very friendly to the handicapped, due to the entended hours required as opposed to simply casting your vote.

4) Military folks cannot participate.

5) Inherently biased towards the vocal and committed. You can argue about the merits and demerits. But still it is not democratic in the sense of one person one vote.

6) Biased against non-native speakers of English — balance tilts towards people who can convince others in second balloting etc.

7) Biased against shy people. There are many who are afraid of public speaking. Caucuses are not their thing.

8) By their nature they will self select populist candidates and ideas. It lends itself to sloganeering rather than address complex issues. It is true of most campaigning and elections, but in caucuses even those individuals who have privately considered their choice weighing in complex issues may not be able to articulate it as well as the rest of the sloganeers in the framework that a caucus requires.

That all being said, I do agree that it is good to have the candidates running around small towns bouncing their ideas. There are quite a few alternatives that always get talked about — but nothing gets done because both the parties are afraid to death that the other party will game it better than they can. At lease this one is a known devil. So there is no incentive to change.

California has more than ten times the population of Iowa and has less than a hundredth of the influence in the election. I wouldn’t exactly call this democratic — unless you define democracy so narrowly so as it applies only to your street in Iowa so that you or you neighbor can host the candidate in your living room two years before an election.

john February 5, 2009 · 1:27 pm

Read really quickly, thought it said “Telly Tubbies on Ethanol”
Guess I have dyslexia. I’ll bet they are big drinkers.

CaptD February 5, 2009 · 2:02 pm

Credit for wind energy should be at the top of the Bailout list…

Why should we be dragging our oil slicken’d feet?

Dr. James Singmaster February 5, 2009 · 2:15 pm

Biofuels need to be recognized as a deception in doing anything for controlling global warming. They just recycle carbon dioxide without removing on balance one molecule of that gas from the growing overload of it in the biosphere. And the fuel crops usurp land and especially water needed for food crops and human needs. We need to be expanding the use of windmills that actually are recycling some of the extra energy released via fossil fuels and nuclear power into the biosphere making for nastier weather. That extra energy is warming the ground making many crops in need of much more irrigation adding to water shortages.
So biofuels concept should be dumped, period and megabucks being wasted on it should be used to sponsor development of hydrogen..Six different catalysts have been reported recently to split water using sunlight energy to get hydrogen. Our National Renewable Energy Lab. is wasting much time and money on biofuel concepts that ought to go to develop hydrogen as a fuel.
Dr. J. Singmaster

Capt. Concernicus February 5, 2009 · 2:36 pm

#17 – Mike

You state: “Ethanol, properly scaled, could make Third World countries food and fuel self-sufficient. Bad climates? Ever hear of greenhouses? The model is in the afore=mentioned book.”

I have a problem with that logic and maybe you can help me with it. If ethanol comes from food, food is taken off the market because it’s needed to make fuel. So how does a 3rd World country become self sufficient in food when it’s being taken off the market for fuel? Secondly a lot of 3rd World countries don’t have much food for their country in the first place and they’re poor. So you have limited supply of food which you’re taking off the market to make ethanol, a starving poor population that don’t buy ethanol because they can’t afford a car that can use it or generator for their hut. So to me your logic is on a downward spiral to nowhere.

Very few countries could grow enough food to feed their people and fuel their cars, homes etc….