As ethanol boosterism spreads far and wide -- from Bush's bully pulpit to the New York Times to green-group press releases -- a quietly emerging trend is threatening to undermine the biofuel's environmental credibility. editorial page
How green is this ethanol plant?
Photo: iStockphoto.
More and more ethanol manufacturers are looking to power their plants with cheap coal instead of its cleaner and increasingly expensive competitor, natural gas, thereby potentially limiting ethanol's environmental benefits. And the Bush administration is doing its part to accelerate this trend. Under pressure from a group of senators and representatives from corn- and coal-producing states, the U.S. EPA is considering a rule change under the Clean Air Act that would relax pollution regulations on ethanol plants, clearing the way for them to burn coal with fewer restraints.
While only four of roughly 100 ethanol plants currently operating in the U.S. are powered by coal (practically all of the rest are fueled by natural gas), some 190 more are under construction or soon to be built. One energy analyst, Robert McIlvaine, president of the Illinois-based research group McIlvaine Company, predicts that "100 percent" of new ethanol plants built in the U.S. over the next few years will be coal-fired, "largely because of the exorbitant cost of natural gas right now, and the comparatively predictable future supply of homegrown coal." A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor also points out that many ethanol manufacturers are increasingly being drawn toward coal.
But Nathanael Greene, a renewable-energy expert with Natural Resources Defense Council, doesn't see such a clear-cut trend. "Less than a quarter of the 16-plus ethanol plants that came online last year were coal-fired, even given current natural-gas prices," he says. He believes that many ethanol-industry leaders will stick with natural gas or opt for zero-emission renewable fuel sources for their plants in order to protect their much-advertised eco-friendly image and avoid the arduous environmental-review process required for coal-plant construction.
Still, some enviros see cause to worry about a tilt toward coal, particularly because ethanol production in the U.S. is already fossil-fuel intensive. Nearly all of the ethanol on the U.S. market today is derived from corn, which tends to require substantial fossil-fuel inputs to grow, harvest, and process. While the eco-utopian promise of cellulosic ethanol -- derived from substances such as switchgrass and woodchips that require comparatively negligible fossil-fuel inputs -- lingers on the horizon, cellulosic technology is still in its infancy, years away from widespread use.
According to recent research on ethanol's environmental benefits from the University of California at Berkeley, corn-derived ethanol produced by a natural-gas powered plant offers a 38 percent greenhouse-gas reduction compared to gasoline, while corn-derived ethanol produced by a coal-fired plant offers a greenhouse-gas benefit of only about 19 percent. Cellulosic ethanol, by comparison, is far more conducive to processing without any fossil fuels, and thus is expected to offer an 88 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions compared to gasoline.
Greene estimates that an ethanol industry using environmentally preferable production methods could fully replace the gasoline used in America by mid-century and slash U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 1.7 million tons per year, equivalent to 80 percent of current greenhouse-gas emissions from transportation.
Not Ethanol It's Cracked Up to Be
Instead of striving to produce the cleanest, greenest ethanol, however, many in the industry want to keep production costs as low as possible, and they're supported by members of Congress who also want to use ethanol's soaring popularity to bolster the coal industry.
In March, the EPA -- reportedly at the behest of at least one corn-state politician -- proposed changing a rule in order to let ethanol-fuel plants more than double their air emissions, from 100 tons per year of any pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act to 250 tons per year.
"This proposal is clearly designed to usher in this wave of new coal-fired plants -- loosening the rules so that the facilities can be bigger, dirtier, and cheaper," says Greene's colleague John Walke, director of NRDC's clean-air program. Walke warns that if the EPA approves it, his group might file suit. While ethanol-fuel manufacturers can build coal-fired plants under current rules, the facilities have to be kept relatively small to meet pollution restrictions, and must undergo a rigorous permitting process.
On the other hand, a bipartisan group of 33 members of Congress led by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) threw its support behind the proposed rule change earlier this month in a letter [PDF] to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. The Renewable Fuels Association, an industry trade group, also backs the change.
A public-comment period on the proposal concluded earlier this month, and a final decision is expected soon. "It's widely accepted that the EPA will go ahead and make this important change," says Matthew Hartwig of RFA.
According to Kyle Downey, a spokesperson for Thune, "The current rules are needlessly impeding the growth of ethanol nationwide." He further argues that the trend toward coal is a good thing for the planet in the long run because it will accelerate the development of ethanol-friendly infrastructure, thereby paving the way for a system based on cellulosic ethanol: "The cheaper the ethanol in the short term, the greater the consumer demand will be for a shift from gas to ethanol, and the quicker America will transform fueling stations from gasoline to ethanol," he says, suggesting that the industry could then gradually move toward lower-emission forms of ethanol.
Environmentalists reject this logic, arguing that the ethanol industry is booming now and doesn't need looser environmental regulations to succeed. "The ethanol markets are already exploding with 25 percent growth per year without this rule change," says Greene. "The industry is expected to double in less than four years. It's very clear that there is an economically viable way of growing the ethanol industry rapidly without sacrificing public health."
He points to new corn-ethanol facilities fueled by zero-emission technologies. A plant in Nebraska was built next to a cattle farm so it could use methane from the bovine waste to power its operations. Two others in Minnesota use fuel from gasified biomass, and a demonstration plant being built in Illinois will be powered by solar thermal collectors. These facilities can produce corn ethanol with nearly 70 percent lower greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline, says Greene. "I suspect we'll see substantial growth in this area," he predicts.
RFA's Hartwig agrees that zero-emission ethanol plants are economically sound and part of an important trend; still, he sees them as only one part of the puzzle. "We need a diversified approach to growing this industry," he says. "There is plenty of room for coal, natural gas, and renewables."
But if the industry wants to keep promoting ethanol as the eco-friendly fuel of the future, it would be well advised to lay off the coal and lean on clean energy.
Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
Comments
View as Threaded
blindriverboy Posted 5:44 am
26 May 2006
Permalink
johnilsr Posted 6:37 am
26 May 2006
Permalink
johnilsr Posted 6:38 am
26 May 2006
Permalink
Pamela Drew Posted 7:42 am
26 May 2006
The conservative think tank CATO Institute report, ADM: Case Study in Corporate Welfare , stated
"At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30."
Here's the link to the full report. ADM can see GREEN from ethanol, but beyond the hype, taxpayers may see some RED!!
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html
Permalink
GreenWash Posted 12:53 pm
26 May 2006
So let's hear it...what's your solution? What's your answer? What are YOU doing to help address the problem? What other technology can you name that is making a difference TODAY in our liquid transportation fuel complex?
....That's what I thought. Is corn ethanol perfect? No. Is it helping reduce U.S. oil and gasoline consumption? Absolutely. Is it helping reduce GHG emissions? You bet. Is it keeping energy dollars local vs. sending them to the Persian Gulf? Yep.
Do your homework. Even coal-fired ethanol plants are minor source emitters. And with amonia scrubbers and other technologies, emissions from some coal-fired plants are actually CLEANER than from natural gas fired plants (which are generally very clean).
If you want to b!tch about emissions, look at the power plants and oil refineries. But, oh yeah, the computer you used to hack out your anti-ethanol diatribe probably derives its electricity from a coal-fired power plant.
Pull your heads out, you ridiculous morons. Get a grip and apply your energies to an argument that actually needs arguing...
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:50 pm
26 May 2006
All fossil fuel CO2 must be eliminated from our economy. Nothing else matters. Tar sands and coal must be totally eliminated.
Some transitional investments are better than others. Car-pooling is low hanging fruit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:58 pm
26 May 2006
That's the solution many of us "morons" have explained over and over here. Maybe you would do well to read some of our posts.
Education, it's a wonderful experience! Hehey.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:02 pm
26 May 2006
Alternative energy technologies might benefit the individuals who use them in certain ways -- for instance, if my car runs on corn oil, then the finances of running my car hinge on the price of corn oil, not crude oil, and I benefit from that. (Of course, if everyone did as I did, the price of corn oil might shoot through the roof, and I wouldn't benefit. That's not even looking at the ecological costs of growing all that biomass for fuel.)
But as for solving the social problems caused by the fossil fuel economy... see the part of the Foster article where it says increased efficiency in using a natural resource, such as coal, only resulted in increased demand for that resource, not a reduction in demand. This was because such improvement in efficiency led to a rising scale of production. If we really wish to deal with the environmental problems of a society that consumes 85 million barrels of oil every day, nicer energy production methods (eg corn oil) might in theory "make it possible" for the world to use less oil, but in real life what will happen is that consumption of all forms of energy will increase because capitalism requires growth. That's what Jevons' Paradox is about.
A more rational approach would be to start by asking why world-society needs to consume 85 million barrels of oil every day. The next step is to investigate, and change, the social relations of a world-society that sucks oil off the planet so voraciously. "Conservation" within the existing framework might save a couple of million barrels per day here and there at most, while leaving the existing social malaise intact.
We must look at the problem from the consumption-side. This will mean that environmental problems will have to have social solutions. The high-energy consumption lifestyle, that which consumes all the barrels of oil every say, is conditioned by the form of society. In general, most of society is dependent upon an economy that appeals to the high-consumption consumer to keep the circulation of money going. A much slower economy, with less production and less consumption, would be ecologically desirable; but under current conditions a huge segment of the population would have no way of earning a living if this were to pass. Thus a new, less consumeristic, society will require an overall transformation of the social form. Otherwise we will all either depend upon, or want to be, that high-energy consumer.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:31 am
27 May 2006
The Pruis?
Is it helping reduce U.S. oil and gasoline consumption? Absolutely.
Is it helping reduce GHG emissions? You bet.
Is it keeping energy dollars local vs. sending them to the Persian Gulf? Yep. Dealerships get their share of the pie and it is too bad American industrial leaders are such ridiculous morons that need to pull their heads out before all cars sold in America are made in Japan.
The electric plug-in? Solar, wind, to charge those plug-ins?
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 9:29 am
29 May 2006
Mary
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:37 pm
29 May 2006
I can think of a more succinct way to make the case!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:46 pm
29 May 2006
Algae in solar collectors fed on waste and regular power plant emmissions is that vegetation. And none of it requires more combustion to refine.
Just recently saw John Prine do his song "Paradise" all about the devestation of coal mining, as relevant today as when he wrote it decades ago. It would be great to see coal mining become just a horrible memory instead of an ongoing environmental issue.
But liquid fuel from coal looks like the latest industrial scam.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:00 am
30 May 2006
Dear Greenwash,
We could invest in mass transit, natural gas powered buses (fleets of them), subway systems everywhere. Bring back the trains.
Make cities bicycle friendly. We could provide free comfortable bicycles for short distance trips in cities.
We can encourage research into ever more efficient and powerful bicycles.
We can change zoning laws to encourage people to live, work and shop in close proximity, thus reducing the need for cars.
We could get serious about all of these things with real money (not the symbolic money they get now) behind them.
Or we can keep on re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic (trying to make cars and sprawl seem sustainable).
patrick
Permalink
ichoose Posted 12:05 am
30 May 2006
It wouldn't hurt to throw in a bunch of ideas of things people can do to lessen their own individual carbon footprints - things that won't turn their lifestyles upside-down overnight. Give them the fact on how they can not only help the environment by making small changes, but also save themselves MONEY...there it is!
Changing lightbulbs to CSLs, turning off lights, doing laundry at night, watering lawn at night, recycling, carpooling, not letting the car idle while sitting in the carpool line, using the dryer less and a drying rack or clothesline, not washing towels & sheets every day (people actually do this!)...the list goes on and on.
Someone else mentioned the importance of fact-checking - we can't afford to put out any information that isn't correct.
Somehow find a way to plant a little seed in there regarding how huge a difference we could make as individuals...and if we did that, it would be easier to get the government to act accordingly.
Permalink
Hans Noeldner Posted 5:03 am
30 May 2006
We are not going to break free from this mess until we clearly understand that automobiles are displacing natural life from Earth more rapidly than any other destructive force - including our own species. Just look at how much of the United States we've already suffocated under asphalt!
GreenWash asks what we should do instead of producing ethanol.
(1) PARK YOUR CAR! Even better, get rid of it! Walk, bike, carpool, and use public transit instead
(2) Stop using fossil fuels to fertilize and mow lawns
(3) Stop using fossil fuels for recreation and to play (snowmobiles, RVs, vacation flights, water parks, etc.)
(4) Stop building suburbia and exurbia
(5) Densify existing urban areas
(6) Build mass transit as fast as possible
(7) If you have a yard, raise some food for your family
(FYI, I myself am doing and/or promoting all these things.)
The problem in the United States isn't supply of energy and other resources, it's our gluttony. We live in a nation with more biologically productive land and natural resources per capita than any other on Earth. If we can't build a sustainable civilization here - if we do ridiculous stuff like planting every square inch of farmland to feed automobiles - we deserve to become extinct.
Permalink
Hans Noeldner Posted 5:19 am
30 May 2006
For our convenience, God Almighty has already perfected our "leg" infrastructure - the more we use them, the stronger and more efficient they become. "Legs" work great all on their own, and even better when turning bicycle cranks. Plus regular use of "legs" also makes our bodies - and our communities - much healthier!
Permalink
lorleee Posted 6:02 am
30 May 2006
I saw another story this morning saying that if you used all the corn in the country, the ethanol would be able to replace 7% --- yes under 10%...
And then by golly, what would we eat since corn syrup is in just about everything. So are they counting on that sawgrass for the other 93%
Permalink