Killing the Bay: Another Problem with Corn-Based Ethanol

By: Lowell
Published On: 7/17/2007 8:20:23 AM

As you probably know, I'm not a big fan - to put it mildly - of corn-based ethanol.  I'm also not a big enthusiast of biofuels in general (I generally consider them to be a sideshow at best, when we all know the real answers are energy efficiency, nuclear power, and REAL renewable energy like wind and solar).  For a whole host of reasons, I believe that the concept of planting millions of acres of land with crops in order to provide relatively small volumes of fuel for our cars and SUVs is a godawfully bad idea. 

In sum: "biofuels" - especially corn-based ethnoal - will NOT solve our "energy security" issues, will NOT reduce greenhouse gas emissions much if at all, will NOT be economically competitive without heavy subsidies, and will NOT  create serious environmental problems of their own.

Now, the Washington Post reports that "A surge in the demand for ethanol -- touted as a greener alternative to gasoline -- could have a serious environmental downside for the Chesapeake Bay, because more farmers growing corn could mean more pollution washing off farm fields."  The reason is that "fields of corn generally produce more polluted runoff than those of other crops." What happens after that is not pretty:

...When it rains, some of this fertilizer washes downstream, and it brings such pollutants as nitrogen and phosphorus, which feed unnatural algae blooms in the bay. These algae consume the oxygen that fish, crabs and other creatures need to breathe, creating the Chesapeake's infamous dead zones.

Governments around the bay have pledged to cut their output of nitrogen by 110 million pounds by 2010. But the study estimated that an ethanol-driven increase in cornfields could add 8 million to 16 million pounds of pollution.

Wonderful, huh?  Grow corn to provide a tiny share of our transportation consumption needs while trashing the precious Chesapeake Bay in the process.  Sadly, this problem is not isolated to the Chesapeake Bay.  Pretty much any body of water can be contaminated - and trashed - in the same way as the Chesapeake Bay, by increased growing of corn to fuel our SUVs.  As if that's not bad enough, the Washington Post reiterates that "[b]ecause the primary ingredient at U.S. ethanol plants is corn, the price of that grain has shot up, making everything from tortillas to beef to chocolate more expensive."

So there you have it: growing corn for ethanol pollutes the water, eats up cropland and forest, and raises the price of food for livestock and humans.  For all that, corn-based ethanol doesn't even accopmlish its goal of significantly increasing U.S. "energy independence," since the volume of ethanol is miniscule compared to the 21 million barrels per day of oil we consume, not to mention the fact that growing ethanol is highly energy-, water-, and petroleum-based-fertilizer intensive. 

In fact, the only major beneficiaries of corn-based ethanol are major agribusiness companies like ADM, not to mention Big Oil itself, which is more than happy to blend ethanol into the fuel it sells at the pump.  Why not?  After all, ethanol doesn't hurt the oil companies' bottom line, but it DOES let them "greenwash" - e.g., CLAIM they're doing something good for the environment when they're really not.

The bottom line is that the answer to our energy security and environmental problems is NOT growing food for fuel, it's cutting the amount of fuel we consume through energy efficiency, smart growth, etc.  Energy experts know that saving a barrel of oil costs a lot less money than producing a corn-based substitute for that oil barrel, especially when producing the substitute destroys the Chesapeake Bay or another body of water.  Thanks, but no thanks.

Comments



Corn ethanol can have even more unforseen consequences (Hugo Estrada - 7/17/2007 9:32:13 AM)
And it is obscene to grow food to feed landrovers while people are starving in the world.
 


Corn-based ethanol sucks. (TheGreenMiles - 7/17/2007 10:15:13 AM)
Corn-based ethanol is a political tool, not an energy solution.  In the short term, the quickest, fastest, cheapest way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil AND slash our greenhouse gas emissions is to raise fuel economy standards.  But with the current Congress, it's a struggle to do even that.


Well that's just great! (Bubby - 7/17/2007 10:30:17 AM)
Here we have the best market in years for corn (and most other grains), and you want farmers to NOT grow it?  And they are supposed to maintain open farmland how?

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation takes a different view. The problem isn't the production of food crops, farmers in the drainage have made large strides to control erosion and fertilizer through modern farming techniques.  The problem is big ag.  CAFOs - Concentrated Animal Feed Operations and the large amounts of manure that they end up spreading across the land.
http://www.cbf.org/s...

We could of course continue on the present course to convert the entire bay perimeter into subdivisions,golf courses, parking lots, and highways. And we could feed this boom population with food trucked in from Mexico, and China.  Or we could find a way to keep farmers farming, food locally produced, and open space open.

The 2007 Farm Bill provides $150 million to help bay region farmers further control runoff. That is a good investment in the future good health of the Bay.
http://www.roanoke.c...



I want to grow forest buffers along every farm, river, (Lowell - 7/17/2007 10:35:44 AM)
outlet to the Chesapeake Bay.  I also want to focus on energy efficiency and let farmers grow corn to feed people and livestock. 


Then reference the CBF (Bubby - 7/17/2007 11:10:32 AM)
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation have done the hard work of figuring out what we need to do to restore and protect the Bay - not trying to sell newspapers.  The Bay will not be restored without a strong and sustainable farming industry in the drainage region, and the CBF is working to make that happen.


You can't have it both ways (TheGreenMiles - 7/17/2007 10:51:33 AM)
I know you're trying to make a feel-good argument, but corn grown to make ethanol isn't "locally-produced food."  It's "locally produced fuel that's only marginally better for the environment than gasoline and drives up the price of corn at the grocery store for all of us."


You are confused. (Bubby - 7/17/2007 11:01:00 AM)
Corn is a national if not international commodity.  As grain crop prices rise in the midwest for their ethanol feedstock, so too do they in Virginia.  But the corn grown in Virginia is used locally for animal feed, Virginians can't afford to buy corn on the open market.  Any production of fuel corn in Virginia will alway be at a disadvantage to the more cost-effective industrial farming of the midwest.


The incentives to grow corn make it (Lowell - 7/17/2007 12:47:09 PM)
artificially economical to grow, but it's certainly not a free market in any way, shape or form.  In fact, the government strongly favors corn growing over many other alternative uses for the same land, even if corn growing is not the optimal choice from an economic, enviromental, or any other perspective.  Why is this?  I'd argue it's a combination of big money from Big Agribusiness (e.g., ADM, "supermarket to the world" - whatever!) and electoral politics (e.g., Iowa!).  Is growing corn for fuel a smart choice in the absence of those factors?  I doubt almost anybody outside the ethanol lobby would argue that. 

By the way, the flip side to "great corn prices for farmers" is "high food and feed prices for consumers, ranchers, etc.).  And, I'd point out, there are a lot more of the latter than the former in this country.



You are talking macro economics (Bubby - 7/17/2007 5:09:33 PM)
At the micro level the family farmer struggles to get by. Feed, fuel costs, capital outlay consume the profit. High market prices for grain give them an option to catch up. And there is zero control of the market by small producers. But if history is any indicator, the market will flood with corn, the price will fall, and farmers will go to something else.

Its really not that different than energy markets where commodity speculation jerks pricing every which way.  Investors are speculating on corn with the knowledge that someone will buy it.

Americans have never had lower food prices. We are now spending less than 10% of income on food - nearly half outside the home.  And the price of your food is mostly energy cost, fuel to grow it, fuel to process it, fuel to deliver it, fuel to keep it fresh. 



Macro and Micro (Lowell - 7/17/2007 5:23:55 PM)
are interrelated.  Can't have one without the other. :)

Seriously, though, I agree with you that the situation from the individual perspective doesn't always take in the macro picture.  Still, government policies - trade, tax, subsidy, whatever - help shape the playing field, the ground rules, and ultimately the outcomes for just about everything we do.  Regarding subsidies for corn-based ethanol, I believe that they represent bad science, bad economics, and bad public policy, whether at the macro or micro level.  Honestly, I'd rather just give farmers cash than subsidize corn per se.

Regarding food prices, the issue isn't so much that they represent a small share of the family budget right now, but what the trend is and what the perception is.  I mean, hell, gasoline doesn't represent a high percentage of family income, but people stil follow gas prices to the penny.



Fair enough. (Bubby - 7/17/2007 10:11:57 PM)
Lets just resolve not to be as dependent on other nations for our food, as we are for our energy.


Ethanol itself not a solution (Silence Dogood - 7/17/2007 3:42:14 PM)
But I hope you'll consider that of all the different methods humans have invented to harness the power of solar energy, we haven't created anything that does it as perfectly, as effeciently or as cheaply as mother nature has through photosynthesis.  While I agree with you that we need to find a renewable solution to America's energy needs, that solution must itself be scalable to avoid future energy pinches.  Wind power and even solar power as we envision it is not nearly scalable enough (though solar has a brighter future, no pun intended).  But I think the real solution will come down the line as we find new, innovative ways to harness mother nature's solutions, rather than limit outselves to what was innovative sixty years ago when we just learned to split the atom and started powering calculators with tiny solar cells.

Today that means growing organic fuels, including the admittedly ill-conceived corn-based ethanol fuels.  Tomorrow, who knows?  Using a form of organic photosynthesis to break apart water molecules, harnessing the hydrogen ions for fuel cells?



How about.... (Lowell - 7/17/2007 3:44:18 PM)
...this?



Or.... (Lowell - 7/17/2007 3:45:45 PM)
this?



Interesting ideas, but CGI models don't keep the lights on (Silence Dogood - 7/17/2007 4:09:21 PM)
They also usually don't account for the stresses of real-world operation or the impact of, for instance, a thick aluminum cable swinging around on the whims of the wind.

But I feel like these do illustrate my criticism of the scalability of current wind and solar technology.  When energy consumption numbers outpace what the current technology is capable of producing, we decide the only solution is to build a bigger, more-complicated cell or turbine, when we might look to nature herself for a more-ellegant solution, a simpler, smaller solution.  As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.



The cold water from the lake idea (Lowell - 7/17/2007 4:14:31 PM)
is already being done in Toronto, apparently very successfully.  It's an extremely elegant solution, using the natural cold of the lake.  There are geothermal heating systems as well, which take advantage of the earth's natural heat (a few inches below ground, the temperature is pretty much constant year round).  The bottom line with all these ideas is that if we work WITH nature instead of AGAINST nature, we could live more comfortably, use less energy, save money, AND stop global warming.  Is this a no brainer or what?!?