Ethanol dreams and ethanol realities

Posted by David Roberts at 4:57 PM on 14 Apr 2006

Read more about: energy | biofuels | ethanol | agriculture

Christopher Cook has a piece in the American Prospect identifying my central concern about the ethanol boom.

To wit, here are the sustainability advocates:

An array of ideas are afloat to encourage a more sustainable biofuels expansion: a diversified renewable energy policy that, rather than expanding corn crops, promotes more wind power and cellulosic energy from switchgrass and crop residues (which may favor localized, small-scale production); a federal version of Minnesota's model, creating targeted incentives for farmer co-ops; and increased research spending by the USDA and Department of Energy to develop smaller-scale biofuels processing plants.

Sounds great, huh?

Here's the reality:

This corporate presence is nothing new, says John Crabtree ... "People need to understand that ethanol production is already an incredibly concentrated market. Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill control the lion's share of ethanol production."

Ethanol leader ADM's market share has actually declined from a stunningly high 60 percent to a still-worrisome 25 to 30 percent in recent years. But a recent analysis by USDA agricultural economists concluded, "The fuel ethanol industry may very well be in transition toward an inevitable concentration of ownership into the hands of a few large processing firms." The market is driven by large-scale gasoline refining firms, which "don't want to deal with all these small plants," and a "virtual consolidation of ethanol processing" is taking place. ...

New biorefinery developments are trending away from farmer ownership. In 1999, farmers owned all new plants being constructed, but by 2006 "they owned just 19% of the 1.7 billion gallons that will flow from 29 new plants going up or expanding," according to Successful Farming magazine.

Oh, well, hm. That sounds a little bit more like a big, concentrated, politically connected industry that enriches a few corporate executives and provides only crappy service jobs for the masses -- you know, like all those other industries we know and love.

Here's some more reality:

By edging out diversified farming, large-scale corn mono-cropping could weaken local food security, requiring more long-distance transport of foods (already averaging roughly 1,800 miles per item) -- thus more diesel pollution from the trucks that haul foodstuffs. Meanwhile, EPA efforts to repair the Gulf of Mexico's 10,000-square-mile hypoxic zone, a massive oxygen-killing algae bloom created in good part by runoff from fertilizers and pesticides applied to corn and other grain crops, may call for less corn -- not more.

Hm. That sounds a lot like a huge, sprawling industrial process that pollutes the land and water and encourages petroleum use. Again, oddly familiar.

So when it comes to ethanol, you have the warnings of sustainability advocates going up against a consolidation and industrialization process that's already underway and backed by a number of huge, powerful corporations.

Which do you think will win out in the end?

For story: Ethanol dreams and ethanol realities
3 Comments | Post a Comment

What's the difference?

Dave, I really appreciated your comments on Patrick Moore's latest pro-nuclear power piece. But don't you think this part of your argument applies to biofuels too?

"Do not accept the oft-repeated canard that we cannot fundamentally change our energy situation, that we must simply plug one massive, unsavory power cartel in to replace another. We can build better vehicles, better cities, better infrastructure. We can drive less, consume less, and change our food system to reduce freight distances. We can shift policy to internalize industry externalities. We can tax carbon. And we can lavish the same attention, subsidies, and tax breaks on renewables that we do now on oil, coal, and agribusiness."

Shouldn't progressives be pushing for a sustainable - environmentally and economically - biofuels industry that can supply a portion of our energy needs in a world of improved efficiency? Unlike nuclear which still has scare and economic factors that hinder its deployment in the US, investment in biofuels is booming now - investments that do nothing to move us away from the current detrimental environemental and economic impacts. Why accept the canard that biofuels has to be bad for the environment and just another give away to fat-cat corporate powers rather than jump in the ring and fight for sustainability? I think the juggernaut of biofuels is sailing. Environmentalists will have a hard time returning it to port, but they might just be able to sail it into sustainable waters.

by Ana Unruh Cohen at 7:44 AM on 16 Apr 2006

What a crew!

"...investments that do nothing to move us away from the current detrimental environemental and economic impacts."

Grist sure has some great people collected all in one cyberspace!

I think biofuel could be turned around and made truly renewable becoming the main source for the vastly reduced amount of liquid fuel and natural gas that would be needed (maybe 10% of present use)once renewable electric power provides most transportation, heating, and industrial needs.

By using algae grown in solar collectors as the source for biofuel rather than chemical farming. The efficiency of sugar cane at converting sunlight to chemical energy in the sugar to ethanol process can far surpassed with algae.

And no prairie, rainforest, or land in conservation (as with switchgrass) needs to be destroyed as a natural carbon sink to do it.

Feed the algae with waste water, CO 2 from power plant emmissions, and sunlight from roof mounted solar collectors, and biofuel in the form of ethanol and methane, clean water, and organic fertilizer comes out.

Along with some solar electric power if photovoltaic cells are strategically mounted in the collectors. And waste heat to ether cool or heat nearby buildings.

The start of this sort of system has already begun in separate efforts, how to get leadership that will encourage the combination into a comprehensive energy policy?

And get subsidies moved away from fossil, nuclear, and chemically farmed fuel, directed instead to really solving global climate problems AND energy monopoly, foreign dependence, and the resulting war/terrorism.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 9:27 AM on 16 Apr 2006

Ana,

Environmentalists will have a hard time returning it to port, but they might just be able to sail it into sustainable waters.

I don't doubt that the biofuels cat is out of the bag. Given that, I'd certainly prefer cellulosic to corn-based, small-producer to massive agribiz.

But frankly, I'm pessimistic about greens' chances on this one. It's a huge goldrush. What about our history, economy, or culture leads you to believe that such a goldrush will slow or change course based on environmental concerns?

I guess I'm glad some enviros are out there advocating for less-bad biofuels. But I really wish there were a larger and more concerted push on behalf of wind, solar, geothermal, and hydrokinetic.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 8:26 PM on 16 Apr 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.