Every day, it seems, corn ethanol gets a little less attractive. In fact, if the information in this article from the latest print edition of The Economist catches on, then ethanol advocates are going to have two more easy-to-remember absurditiies to defend: 1.) biofuels will use a third of the maize grown in the U.S. this year and 2.) filling "up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol [uses] enough maize to feed a person for a year."I'm not saying I want to eat corn for a year, but there is a lot of corn in many of the prepared foods sold in America (high fructose corn syrun, corn meal, etc.). Shifting so much of the grain from food to fuel - and the resulting effect on food prices - gave The Economist the idea to title the article "The end of cheap food." Welcome to the era of the ethanol-guzzlers driving to buy $10 boxes of corn flakes?
I recommend checking out the full article for the details, but before you go, let's just wonder out loud what type of ethanol the writer is talking about with that gas tank comment. Is it E85 going into the tank? That's most likely, because that the fuel that is commonly sold as "ethanol" in the U.S., but perhaps the dramatic number requires us to calculate using E100. It's an important distinction, but the general message stands whatever percentage we're talking about.
[Source: Ethanol, thanks to Nick B.]
_thumbnail.jpg "Beijing 2008: BYD e6")
1. The issue isn't the high fructose corn syrup in many processed food products in the US, though less of it would surely help address the obesity epidemic. Rather, the issue is that ethanol producers import cheap corn from third-world countries like Mexico where it is a staple food. Running your SUV on oh-so-green E85 made from corn ethanol really is taking food out of some hungry childrens' mouthes.
In terms of its impact on the world food markets, E85 isn't all that different from E100. Nor would nationwide use of E10 be any better in this particular regard. Biofuels are fundamentally a good idea, but they do have to be produced in a socially and environmentally responsible fashion. There is much talk of cellulosic ethanol but it's not yet available in any significant volume. Much the same discussion applies to FAME (aka biodiesel) vs. BTL.
Indeed, the only biofuel that can be produced cost-effectively and on an industrial scale TODAY from a wide variety of cellulosic feedstocks (except wood) is biogas. After scrubbing out the H2S and CO2 with an amine solution, you obtain methane that can be fed into the existing distribution networks for natural gas - a HUGE plus. The resulting blend can then be used in the transportation sector as CNG stored in composite tanks at e.g. 250bar (3600psi), preferably feeding a boosted direct injection engine. In the not-too-distant future, ANG at 35bar (500 psi) will be feasible. Even so, the associated fuel tank will still be heavy and cost more than the simple seal and filter upgrades required to support E85.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/new_highdensity.html
In the short and medium term, the net consequence is that most of the fairly expensive biomethane will actually end up stoking homes and industrial furnaces plus power plants. However, this helps spread the cost premium over the whole economy. Also note that the overall CO2 mitigation does not depend on how the biomethane is used.
Posted at 6:10PM on Dec 10th 2007 by rgseidl