by Jeremy Brown , Canadian Statistical Assessment Service, CanStats Bulletins (http://www.canstats.org/readdetail.asp?id=781)

July 21, 2005

Through the federal Ethanol Expansion Program and federal and provincial fuel exemptions, the governments of Canada have been promoting the use of ethanol as a fuel supplement to help meet their Kyoto targets. However, recent research indicates that using ethanol as a fuel supplement, effectively displacing some gasoline consumption, may do little to help the environment as it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it contains.

Government Support

Various levels of government have provided substantial support to expand ethanol production in Canada. At the federal level, the Ethanol Expansion Program has already allocated $118 million for the construction or expansion of ethanol plants across the country. Besides direct support for the construction of ethanol plants, the ethanol portion of blended gasoline receives an exemption from the federal excise tax of 10 cents per litre on gasoline.

The provincial governments of Alberta and Ontario exempt the ethanol portion of blended gasoline from their taxes, without restriction on the ethanol source or the percentage of ethanol blended in the fuel. The governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba offer an exemption from their taxes for ethanol that is both produced and consumed in their respective provinces. The governments of British Columbia and Quebec have committed themselves to exempting the ethanol portion from their taxes when an ethanol plant is built in their respective provinces. Furthermore, the Saskatchewan government has passed legislation that will mandated all gasoline contain a 10% ethanol blend across the province; Manitoba and Ontario are considering similar legislation.

Through generous government support, ethanol production has increased from about 200 million litres per year before the Ethanol Expansion Program began, to a total of about 1.4 billion litres of fuel ethanol per year by the end of 2007; about seven times the level of production prior to the program. This is enough ethanol to cover the government’s target that 35% of all gasoline in Canada contain a 10% blend of ethanol by 2010, as outlined in Canadian Climate Change Action Plan.

But Is It Worthwhile?

According to a recent study published in Natural Resources Research, turning plants such as corn, soybeans, and sunflowers into liquid fuel, such as ethanol, uses much more energy than can be generated from the resulting ethanol. David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at University of California-Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the ratios of energy input to energy output of ethanol produced from corn, switch grass, and wood biomass.

In assessing inputs, the researchers considered the energy used in producing the crop, including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop; as well as in fermenting/distilling the ethanol. Comparing energy input to energy output for producing ethanol, the study found that:

• producing ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
  
  
• producing ethanol from switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
  
  
• producing ethanol from wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

Ethanol, touted as an alternative fuel of the future, may eat up far more energy during its creation than it winds up giving back, according to research by a UC Berkeley scientist that raises questions about the nation's move toward its widespread use.

A clean-burning fuel produced from renewable crops like corn and sugarcane, ethanol has long been a cornerstone of some national lawmakers' efforts to clear the air and curb dependence on foreign oil. California residents use close to a billion gallons of the alcohol-based fuel per year.

But in a recent issue of the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad Patzek argued that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the finished fuel actually contains.

The fossil energy expended during production alone, he concluded, easily outweighs the consumable energy in the end product. As a result, Patzek believes that those who think using the "green" fuel will reduce fossil fuel consumption are deluding themselves -- and the federal government's practice of subsidizing ethanol by offering tax exemptions to oil refiners who buy it is a waste of money.

"People tend to think of ethanol and see an endless cycle: corn is used to produce ethanol, ethanol is burned and gives off carbon dioxide, and corn uses the carbon dioxide as it grows," he said. "But that isn't the case. Fossil fuel actually drives the whole cycle."

Patzek's investigation into the energy dynamics of ethanol production began two years ago, when he had the students in his Berkeley freshman seminar calculate the fuel's energy balance as a class exercise.

Once the class took into account little-considered inputs like fossil fuels and other energy sources used to extrude alcohol from corn, produce fertilizers and insecticides, transport crops and dispose of wastewater, they determined that ethanol contains 65 percent less usable energy than is consumed in the process of making it.

Surprised at the results, Patzek began an exhaustive analysis of his own -- one that painted an even bleaker picture of the ethanol industry's long-term sustainability.

"Taking grain apart, fermenting it, distilling it and extruding it uses a lot of fossil energy," he said. "We are grasping at the solution that is by far the least efficient."

Patzek's report also highlights the potential environmental hazards of ethanol production.

"When you dump nitrogen fertilizer on corn fields, it runs away as surface water, into the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico," he said.

The excess nitrogen introduced into the water causes out-of-control algae growth, creating an oxygen-poor "dead zone" where other marine plants and animals cannot survive. And while ethanol produces fewer carbon monoxide emissions than regular gasoline, some researchers have found that ethanol releases high levels of nitrogen oxide, one of the principal ingredients of smog, when burned.

Ethanol has long been touted not just for its promise as a renewable fuel, but for its usefulness as a gasoline additive. Fossil fuels blended with it produce fewer carbon monoxide emissions than regular gasoline and have a higher octane rating, meaning they burn more evenly and are less likely to cause engine knocking. While most gasoline sold in the United States now contains approximately 5 percent ethanol, some cars -- such as the Ford Explorer and Chevy Silverado -- can run on fuel blends containing up to 85 percent.

Though his work has been vetted by several peer-reviewed scientific journals, Patzek has had to deflect criticism from a variety of sources. David Morris, an economist and vice president of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance, has attacked the Berkeley professor's analysis because he says it is based on farming and production practices that are rapidly becoming obsolete.

"His figures (regarding energy consumed in fertilizer production) are accurate for older nitrogen fertilizer plants, but newer plants use only half the energy of those that were built 35 years ago," he said. He also cited the increasing popularity of no-till farming methods, which can reduce a corn farm's diesel usage by 75 percent. "With hydrogen fuel, people are willing to say, '25 years from now it will be good.' Why can't we also be forward-looking when it comes to ethanol?"

Hosein Shapouri, an economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has also cracked down on Patzek's energy calculations.

"It's true that the original ethanol plants in the 1970s went bankrupt. But Patzek doesn't consider the impact new, more efficient production technologies have had on the ethanol industry," he said.

Shapouri's most recent analysis, which the USDA published in 2004, comes to the exact opposite conclusion of Patzek's: Ethanol, he said, has a positive energy balance, containing 67 percent more energy than is used to manufacture it. Optimistic that the process will become even more efficient in the future, he pointed out that scientists are experimenting with using alternative sources like solid waste, grass and wood to make ethanol. If successful on a large scale, these techniques could drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuel needed for ethanol production.

Other contributors to the debate argue that ethanol's net energy balance should not be the sole consideration when policymakers are evaluating its usefulness -- factors like the fuel's portability and lower carbon monoxide emissions need to be considered as well.

"So what if we have to spend 2 BTUs for each BTU of alcohol fuel produced?" reads an editorial in the Offgrid Online energy newsletter. "Since we are after a portable fuel, we might be willing to spend more energy to get it."

Cornell University ecology Professor David Pimentel, however, sides with Patzek, calling production of ethanol "subsidized food burning."

"The USDA isn't looking at factors like the energy it takes to maintain farm machinery and irrigate fields in their analysis," he said, adding that the agency's ethanol report contains overly optimistic assumptions about the efficiency of farming practices. "The bottom line is that we're using far more energy in making ethanol than we're getting out."

Patzek thinks lawmakers and environmental activists need to push ethanol aside and concentrate on more sustainable solutions like improving the efficiency of fuel cells and hybrid electric cars or harnessing solar energy for use in transport. If they don't, he predicts economics will eventually force the issue.

"If government funds become short, subsidies for fuels will be looked at very carefully," he said. "When they are, there's no way ethanol production can survive."

Page A - 4