POLITICALLY INSPIRED, MARGINALLY EFFECTIVE, CORN-TO-ETHANOL PROGRAM

In the 2016/2017-crop year, the US had 85.8 million acres planted with corn, of which 31.4 million acres were planted to produce ethanol. The corn production was 14.440 billion bushels, of which 5.30 billion bushels were for corn to ethanol. The 169 bushels of each acre yielded 478 gallons of ethanol. Ethanol blended with gasoline was 14.80 billion gallon, about 10% of the gasohol fuel for vehicles. See table 1.

https://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-climate-cha...

 

Below is a summary of US corn production for ethanol for 2016/2017.

 

Table 1/Corn	2016/2017
Planted, million acre	85.8
Crop + in stock, billion bushel	16.178
In stock, billion bushel	1.708
Crop, billion bushel	14.470
Bushel/acre	169
Planted for ethanol, million acre	31.4
Corn for ethanol, billion bushel	5.30
Ethanol production, million barrels/d	0.98
Gal/barrel	42
Ethanol production, billion gal	15.02
Gal/acre/y	478
Wet and dry mill average, gal/bushel	2.83
Ethanol used for fuel, billion gal	14.80
Gasoline, billion gal	133.20
Gasohol, billion gal; per EIA	142.85
Ethanol, Btu/gal, LLV	76330
Mileage, using 100% ethanol, miles/gal	28.3
Miles/y/acre	13385
Acres/car, using 100% ethanol	1.0

SUMMARY

 

Energy Production: 

Ethanol from corn is a very inefficient process. The energy production is only 9% greater than the energy inputs, excluding the energy credit of co-products. If that credit is included the energy production is 20% better. In comparison, gasoline from crude oil is a very efficient process. The energy production is 335% greater than the energy inputs. See table 2.

 

CO2eq Reduction:

- Because combustion CO2 of E10 is classified as “biogenic from an annual crop”, it is not counted, per EPA.

- Because “Other“ CO2 to produce ethanol is from fossil fuels, it is counted, per EPA. See figure 1 of URL and table 3.

- It takes about 1.0355 gallon of E10 to travel the same distance as on 1.0 gallon of gasoline.

- US CO2eq was 6511 million mt in 2016, or 5795 million mt after sequestration.

 

https://yosemite.epa.gov/Sab/Sabproduct.nsf/F100AC5CD4A083F985257E1...$File/Kim+and+Dale+2013+paper+on+Annual+Crops.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissi...

 

CO2 Reduction Versus Gasoline	Gasohol	Gasoline	CO2 Change
Ethanol used for fuel, billion gal	14.80
Ethanol combustion CO2, lb/gal	12.72
Ethanol cropping, process, transport CO2, lb/gal	13.56
Ethanol combustion CO2, million mt	85.4
Ethanol cropping, process, transport CO2, million mt	91.0
Gasoline CO2, lb/gal, including upstream	24.684	24.684
Gasoline used for fuel, billion gal	133.20
Gasoline/gasohol Btu ratio; 116090/112114		1.0355
Gasoline combustion CO2, million mt	1491.4
Total fuel, billion gal	148.00	142.93
Gasohol CO2, billion mt; 85.4 + 91.0 + 1491.4	1667.8	1600.3	67.5
Gasohol CO2, billion mt; 91.0 + 1491.4	1582.4	1600.3	-17.9

 

Cost of CO2 Reduction/Metric Ton: 

The rack price of gasohol (E10, LHV 112114 Btu/gal) was $2.21/gal and of ethanol (LHV 76330 Btu/gal) was $1.40/gal, in Nebraska, in June 2018. However, the ethanol price should be increased due the costs of 1) transport to Texas refineries, 2) blending and 3) transport to Nebraska, which likely would increase the price to about $1.70/gal (assumed).

 

This low Btu/gal fuel is blended with gasoline to make E10 gasohol (90% gasoline/10% ethanol, LHV 112114 Btu/gal), which has 3.55% less Btu/gal than gasoline (LHV 116090 Btu/gal).

The calculated rack price of gasoline would be about 1.0355 x 2.21= $2.288/gal.

The calculated cost of gasohol would be about 0.1 x 1.70 + 0.9 x 2.27 = $2.213/gal, i.e., the assumed price of ethanol was correct.

http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/66.html

 

- Ethanol adjusted cost/y = 14.8 b gal x $1.70/gal = $25.16 billion/y

- Gasoline cost saved/y = 14.8 b gal x 76330/116090 x $2.288/gal = $22.27 billion/y

- Fuel cost increase/y = 25.16 - 22.27 = $2.89 billion/y  

- CO2 reduction cost= (Cost increase, $2.89 b)/(CO2 reduction, 17.9 million mt) = $161/mt (fuel only).

This takes into account the CO2 credit for co-products and the credit for biogenic not being counted. If the CO2 credits were not applied, there would be a significant net gain in CO2.

Ethanol from Corn Program Damages the Environment:

The cropping of 30 million acres has harmful environmental effects that far outweigh any benefits from the program.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/epa-released-a-long-del...

http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/04/epa-ethanol-mandate-environment/

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=341491

Conclusion: 

There is no rationale, other than politics, to spend about $20.7 billion dollars, plus billions of federal and state subsidies, tax savings due to interest deductions and depreciation write-offs, to have over 30 million acres in corn production, and maintain, operate, and renew the farm equipment and infrastructures for the ethanol-from-corn program.

ANALYSIS

Ethanol Production: 

It takes about 914414 Btu of various energies from fossil fuels and chemicals made from fossil fuels to produce 1 million Btu of ethanol, well-to-pump basis. The CO2 emissions associated with those processes has to be counted because it is not biogenic, as from an annual corn crop. See figure 1 of URL.

https://yosemite.epa.gov/Sab/Sabproduct.nsf/F100AC5CD4A083F985257E1...$File/Kim+and+Dale+2013+paper+on+Annual+Crops.pdf

Energy multiplier = Energy outputs/Energy inputs = (1000000, ethanol + 97301, co-products credit)/(914414, various energies and chemicals) = 1.20. See page 4 of URL and table 2.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

 

Co-Products: 

The corn to ethanol conversion process also produces co-products, such as distillers’ grains for livestock feed and carbon dioxide used in the food and beverage industry as well as industrial uses. This means the energy used in the production of these products, about 97,301 Btu, must be factored in as energy credits when quantifying the ethanol energy balance.

 

Ethanol and gasoline are compared in the below table. The co-products for gasoline production were set at zero, whereas, in fact, many products, other than gasoline, are produced from crude oil.

 

If the energy of all those co-products were credited, the gasoline multiplier would be significantly greater.

 

The USDA insistence on crediting for co-products is to make the corn-to-ethanol program look somewhat better on paper. The program is essentially a subsidized, make-work program for the agro-industrial complex.

 

Table 2/Energy outputs	Ethanol	Ethanol	Gasoline
	w/credit	wo/credit	wo/credit
Fuel, Btu	1000000	1000000	1000000
Co-products	97301	0	0
Total	1097301	1000000	1000000
Energy inputs
Various energies and chemicals	914414	914414	230000
Energy multiplier	1.20	1.09	4.35

 

Crude Oil: 

There are a myriad of uses for crude oil that affect our lives. Replacing crude oil with biofuels likely is not possible on land, but may be possible in the oceans, such as with a million square miles of kelp farms.

 

An additional challenge is the replacement of coal, gas and nuclear with 1) biofuels, 2) wind and solar, etc., and also providing electricity for heat pumps for buildings and transportation, which, in the real world, is not as easy and less costly as 100% RE proponents claim it to be.

https://www.biblemoneymatters.com/7-important-uses-for-crude-oil-an...

 

According to the Energy Information Administration, here are the major co-products from refining a barrel of crude oil:

 

- Gasoline (for cars) – 44%

- Heating Oil (for buildings), and diesel fuel – 19%

- Other products – 15%

- Jet fuel – 8%

- Propane – 6%

- Residual fuel oil (powering factories, fueling large ships, and making electricity) – 5%

- Asphalt 3%

 

NOTES:

- The US does not have significant additional acreage for corn production.

- The US had about 269 million motor vehicles in 2016, including about 113 million registered automobiles.

- At present, almost all 113 million automobiles use gasohol (90% gasoline/10% ethanol). If gasohol were 85% gasoline/15% ethanol, as advocated by ethanol promoters, at least 15.7 million additional acres would be required for corn production.

- The embedded energy for the entire infrastructure to produce corn and ethanol, and its continued renewal, requires billions of dollars of investments each year.

- Much more efficient biofuels production processes need to be invented. Gasohol, E10 = 90% gasoline/10% ethanol, by volume. The Btu of the ethanol would displace only 76330/116090 x 10 = 6.58% of the gasoline Btu.

- It would be much easier, and much less costly, to increase the mileage of the 115 million passenger vehicles, than have the politics-inspired, subsidized, environmentally destructive, marginally effective, corn to ethanol program.

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/mbm/Ethanol_chapter1.pdf

http://www.cleanfuelsdc.org/pubs/documents/EnergyBalanceIssueBriefM...

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/ethanol.aspx

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1724

CO2 Emissions of Ethanol, Gasoline and Gasohol E10, Well to Wheels

 

The values in table 3 are based on the following:

 

- Ethanol includes the CO2 benefit of co-products.

- Gasoline does not include the CO2 benefit of co-products.

- The gasoline upstream factor is an EPA value.

- LHVs of fuels. See URL

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf ;

- E10 combustion emissions 0.1 x 12.720 + 0.9 x 19.640 = 18.948 lb CO2/gal, about the same as gasoline. See table. 

- Ethanol production CO2. See page 6

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

- E10 fuel density. See page H-3

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/exhibi...

- E10 upstream emissions 0.1 x 13.556 + 0.9 x 4.910 = 5.775 lb CO2/gal

 

CO2 Reduction Benefit of Ethanol from Corn Program is Minimal

 

The below table shows the results with ethanol COMBUSTION CO2 counted and not counted.

If not counted, ethanol CO2/gal, well to wheels would be 23.451 lb.

If counted, 24.723 lb.

If 100% gasoline, 24.550 lb.

 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/exhibi...

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-muc...

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/97369/Thesi...

 

Table 3	Ethanol	Gasoline	Gasohol, E10	Gasohol, E10	Gasohol, E10
	100%	100%	90% gasoline	10% ethanol	Total
Combustion CO2, lb/gal, counted	12.720	19.640	17.676	1.272	18.948
Combustion CO2, lb/gal, not counted	0		17.676	0	17.676
Inch3/gal, definition	231	231			231
Cm/inch, definition	2.54	2.54			2.54
Cm3/gal	3785.411	3785.411			3785.411
LHV, Btu/gal	76330	116090			112114
Joules/Btu, definition	1054	1054			1054
LHV, MJ/gal	80.45	122.36			118.17
Density, g/cm3	0.789	0.749			0.746
Weight, kg/gal	2.987	2.835			2.824
Heat content, LHV, MJ/kg	26.94	43.16			41.84
Upstream factor, well to pump, per EPA		1.25
Upstream CO2, well to pump, lb/gal
Production CO2, well to pump, g/MJ*	76.5
Production CO2, well to pump, g/gal	6155
Gram/lb	454
Production CO2, well to pump, lb/gal	13.556	4.910	4.419	1.356	5.775
Total CO2, well to wheels, counted	26.276	24.550	22.095	2.628	24.723
Total CO2, well to wheels, not counted	13.556		22.095	1.356	23.451

*Includes 10.4 g/MJ credit for co-products

APPENDIX 1:

Here is a comparison of a Toyota Prius, 54 EPA combined versus an average new car at 28 mpg EPA combined, using different fuels.

 

- The Prius, with E100, would use 0.78 acres equivalent; the average car (much less efficient than the Prius) would use 1.51 acres equivalent.

- The table clearly demonstrates the benefits of increased mileage. See table 4.

- The current ethanol is mostly used in gasohol E10 (90/10) which requires 31.4 million acres in corn. If E100, 314 million acres would be required.

- The present ethanol from corn program is merely ludicrous regarding cost, energy return and CO2 reduction. Using 100% ethanol, as in Brazil, would be impossible.

 

Table 4	Gasoline	E10	E100	Gasoline	E10	E100
	Prius	Prius	Prius	Avg Car	Avg Car	Avg Car
Gasoline heat content, LHV, per EPA	115000	112114	76330	115000	112114	76330
Mileage, EPA combined	54.00	52.64	35.84	28.00	24.37	16.59
Energy from tank, Btu/mile	2130	2130	2130	4107	4107	4107
Required fuel, gal	1.00	1.03	1.51	1.00	1.03	1.51
US average ethanol/acre, gal	478	478	478	478	478	478
US average car travel, miles	13384	13384	13384	13384	13384	13384
Fuel required, gal	248	254	373	478	490	720
Acres equivalent	0.52	0.53	0.78	1.00	1.03	1.51

APPENDIX 2

World crude oil production could be replaced biodiesel produced by about 400 thousand square miles of kelp farms. The replacement of the world coal and gas production would require additional sea area, for a total of at least one million square miles.

 

World Crude Oil Production
Barrels/d, million	100
Gal/barrel	42
Gal/d, million	4200
Btu/gal, million	0.136119
Btu/d, trillion	571.7
Biodiesel from kelp, gal/acre/y	6000
d/y	365
gal/acre/d	16.438
Btu/gal, million	0.136119
Btu/acre/d, million	2.23757
Sea area, acres	255500000
acre/sq mi	640
Sea area, sq mi	399219

APPENDIX 3

E10 combustion CO2 = 1.2568 x (19.64 x 0.9 + 12.72 x 0.1) = 1.2568 x 18.948 lb/gal = 23.816. Table 3 indicates 24.843, because a slightly different method of calculating is used.

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-muc...

See page 59 of URL.68

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.170.7995&a...

 

Table 6	Lb CO2/gal
Gasoline	19.64
Ethanol	12.72
E10 (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) wo/upstream	18.95
Upstream factor well to pump	1.2568
E10 w/upstream	23.816

APPENDIX 4

Here is a comparison of two identical cars, one with E10 and the other with gasoline. They require the same 2732 Btu/mile to the wheels for motion.

The gasoline vehicle, an efficient hybrid, gets 42.5 mpg on gasoline at 116090/gal, LHV.

The E10 vehicle would need 116090/112114 = 1.035 gallon of E10 to have the same Btu to work with, i.e., it gets about 3.5% less mileage per gallon of E10.

 

- The total energy input (source to wheel) is 6375 Btu/mile, if E10, and 3800 Btu/mile, if gasoline, at 42.5 mpg.

- It takes 141291 Btu/gal for all energy inputs, other than combustion, if E10, and only 37141 Btu/gal, if gasoline.

- About 1.035 gallon of E10 is required to replace 1.0 gallon of gasoline. See page 2 of URL and table 7.

- The combustion CO2 of ethanol (12.72 lb CO2/gal) is not counted, because it is “biogenic from an annual crop”, per EPA.

http://www.cleanairchoice.org/fuels/E85C02Report2004.PDF

.

Table 7	E10			Gasoline
			CO2	1.2568		CO2
			lb/gal			lb/gal
Total energy, incl. corn cropping, Btu/gal	261650
Total energy, incl. crude oil, Btu/gal				161481
			26.276			24.684
Upstream, Btu/gal	141291	0.54	13.556	37141	0.23	5.044
Combustion, HHV, Btu/gal	120359	0.46	12.720	124340	0.77	19.640
Combustion, LHV, Btu/gal	112114			116090
Heating value, Btu/gal	116090
Mileage, mpg	42.5			42.5
Required gallons	1.035			1.000
Tank to wheel, Btu/mile	2732			2732
Upstream, Btu/mile	3643			1068
Total energy, Btu/mile	6375			3800

.

APPENDIX 5

Various medical studies claimed fat in beef caused atherosclerosis in the US population. In response, in 1986, the USDA made some changes regarding the feeding of corn to cattle to reduce the fat content in beef.

 

- Feedlots would be allowed to feed corn to cattle for 3 weeks before slaughter, instead of usual 8 weeks.  

- Instead of the usual three categories of Prime, Choice and Select, Prime was eliminated and Choice was elevated to Prime, and Select was elevated to Choice.

 

The explanation was it would be “healthier” for the public. However, those measures eliminated the beautifully marbled, sweet tasting, great American beef. The resulting beef became tougher, tasted like cardboard.

 

It appeared, three weeks was not enough for cattle to adjust to the change in corn feed. They often had diarrhea when slaughtered causing beef to be covered with e.coli bacteria. Those bacteria were ground into hamburger meat for food chains. People started to get sick from eating rare hamburgers. Restaurant chains were advised not to serve rare hamburgers.

 

- Various medical studies finally revealed fat causing atherosclerosis had been wrong, and revealed fats in moderation are good for you. Thus our great American steaks were destroyed based on nonsense.  

 

After the USDA measures reduced the demand for corn, corn growers were devastated, so the USDA came up with the subsidized “ethanol from corn” program to increase corn demand, corn prices and farmer incomes.

APPENDIX 6

From Captain Tom Marks:

 

I am very wary of plant-based fuels. I have seen bad consequences, for example in the Maumee River and Sandusky River drainages. Corn fields for ethanol in Ohio and Indiana are fertilized in the winter excessive amounts of cow manure. Much of the manure runs off into these rivers which drain into Lake Erie. The fertile run off causes harmful algal blooms on the lake. In really bad years, there are large areas with blue-green algae.

 

In July 2019, a severe bloom of blue-green algae spread across the western basin of Lake Erie. The dominant organism was Microcystis Cyanobacteria which produces microcystin, a toxin that can cause liver damage, numbness, dizziness, and vomiting in humans. It is toxic to fish and large die-offs have been seen in these large blooms. The blooms are so large that they can be seen from space! 

 

There are consequences to the drinking water making it unfit for humans. The Toledo municipal water supply has been infected with the microcystin. Chlorine added to the water had little effect on these toxins.

 

Lake Erie not only is a source of drink water for millions of people, its fisheries support a commercial industry, tourism and recreation fishing. The blue-green algae blooms cost millions of dollars to these industries. 

 

Any suggestion for plant-based fuels, especially farmed, has to be considered very carefully for its harmful impacts to the environment.

 

Another impact seldom considered is the loss of tillable land that produces food. What is more important food or fuel? There are millions of starving people on this planet that could answer that question for you.