A-8
THE COST OF ETHANOL
THE NEW MEXICAN Thursday, November 14, 2013
Next generation of biofuels is still years away By Jonathan Fahey The Associated Press
Dirty truth about ethanol Environmentalist Craig Cox looks at a corn field July 20 near Ames, Iowa. ‘This is an ecological disaster,’ said Cox, with the Environmental Working Group, a natural ally of the president that, like others, finds itself at odds with the White House. Higher corn prices due to demand for the crop to produce ethanol has led to more acres planted and stream pollution from fertilizer runoff. PHOTOS BY CHARLIE RIEDEL/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ON THE WEB
By Dina Cappiello and Matt Apuzzo The Associated Press
CORYDON, Iowa he hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America’s push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply. Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. When President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country “stronger, cleaner and more secure.” But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today. As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and contaminated water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found. Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have been converted on Obama’s watch. Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil. Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, polluted rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can’t survive. The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative consequences. All energy comes at a cost. The environmental consequences of drilling for oil and natural gas are well documented and severe. But in the president’s push to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming, his administration has allowed so-called green energy to do not-so-green things. In some cases, such as the decision
T
u For unabridged versions of all of these stories, go to our website at www.santa fenewmexican.com.
The numbers behind the ethanol mandate have become so unworkable that, for the first time, the EPA is soon expected to reduce the amount of ethanol required to be added to the gasoline supply. An unusual coalition of big oil companies, environmental groups and food companies is pushing the government to go even further and reconsider the entire ethanol program. Erosion is seen in a field of soybeans But the Obama administration stands by July 26 that was converted to row crops the mandate and rarely acknowledges that near Corydon, Iowa. green energy requires any trade-offs. “There is no question air quality, water quality is benefiting from this industry,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told ethanol lobbyists recently. But the administration has never conducted studies to determine whether that’s true. Fertilizer, for instance, can make drinking water toxic. Children are especially susceptible to nitrate poisoning, which causes “blue baby” syndrome and can be deadly. Between 2005 and 2010, corn farmers increased their use of nitrogen fertilizer by more than a billion pounds. More recent to allow wind farms that sometimes kill data isn’t available from the Agriculture eagles, the administration accepts environmental costs because they pale in com- Department, but conservative projections parison to the havoc global warming could suggest another billion-pound increase since then. ultimately cause. In the Midwest, where corn is the domiIn the case of ethanol, the administration nant crop, some are sounding alarms. believes it must encourage the development The Des Moines Water Works has faced of next-generation biofuels that will somehigh nitrate levels for many years in the day be cleaner and greener than today’s. Des Moines and Raccoon rivers, which “That is what you give up if you don’t supply drinking water to 500,000 people. recognize that renewable fuels have some Typically, when pollution is too high in one place here,” EPA administrator Gina river, workers draw from the other. McCarthy said. “All renewable fuels are not “This year, unfortunately the nitrate corn ethanol.” levels in both rivers were so high that it But next-generation biofuels haven’t created an impossibility for us,” said Bill been living up to expectations. And the Stowe, the utility’s general manager. government’s predictions on ethanol have For three months this summer, huge proven so inaccurate that independent purifiers churned around the clock to meet scientists question whether it will ever demand for safe, clean water. achieve its central environmental goal: Obama’s support for ethanol dates to his reducing greenhouse gases. time as a senator form Illinois, the nation’s That makes the hidden costs even more second-largest corn producer. significant. These days, when administration offi“They’re raping the land,” said Bill Alley, cials discuss ethanol, they often frame it as a Democratic member of the board of an economic program for rural America, supervisors in Wayne County, Iowa, which not an environmental policy. now bears little resemblance to the rolling When Obama gave a major speech in cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a June on reducing greenhouse gas, biofuels Corydon town pharmacy. received only a passing reference.
Scientists question whether ethanol will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases.
“ They’re raping the land.”
Bill Alley, Democratic member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, Iowa
NEW YORK — The first trickle of fuels made from agricultural waste is finally winding its way into the nation’s energy supply, after years of broken promises and hype promoting a next-generation fuel source cleaner than oil. But as refineries churn out this so-called cellulosic fuel, it has become clear, even to the industry’s allies, that the benefits remain, as ever, years away. The failure so far of cellulosic fuel is central to the debate over corn-based ethanol, a centerpiece of America’s green-energy strategy. Ethanol from corn has proven far more damaging to the environment than the government predicted, and cellulosic fuel hasn’t emerged as a replacement. “A lot of people were willing to go with corn ethanol because it’s a bridge product,” said Silvia Secchi, an agricultural economist at Southern Illinois University. But until significant cellulosic fuel materializes, she said, “It’s a bridge to nowhere.” Cellulosics were the linchpin of part of a landmark 2007 energy law that required oil companies to blend billions of gallons of biofuel into America’s gasoline supply. The quota was to be met first by corn ethanol and then, in later years, by more fuels made with nonfood sources. It hasn’t worked out. “Cellulosic has been five years away for 20 years now,” said Nathanael Greene, a biofuels expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Now the first projects are up and running, but actually it’s still five years away.” Cellulosic makers are expected to turn out at most 6 million gallons of fuel this year, the government says. That’s enough fuel to meet U.S. demand for 11 minutes. It’s less than 1 percent of what Congress initially required to be on the market this year. Corn ethanol is essentially as simple to make as moonshine but requires fossil fuels to plant, grow and distill. For that reason, it has limited environmental benefits and some drastic side effects. Cellulosic biofuels, meanwhile, are made from grass, municipal waste or the woody, non-edible parts of plants — all of which take less land and energy to produce. Cellulosics offer a huge reduction in greenhouse gases compared with petroleum-based fuels and they don’t use food sources. In Vero Beach, Fla., for example, agricultural waste and trash are being turned into ethanol. In Columbus, Miss., yellow pine wood chips are being turned into gasoline and diesel. In Emmetsburg, Iowa, and Hugoton, Kan., construction is nearly complete on large refineries that will turn corncobs, leaves and stalks into ethanol. But despite the mandate and government subsidies, cellulosic fuels haven’t performed. This year will be the fourth in a row the biofuels industry failed by large margins to meet
Cellulosic makers are expected to turn out this year enough fuel to meet U.S. demand for 11 minutes. required targets for cellulosic biofuels. “Has it taken longer than we expected? Yes,” acknowledges Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. The Obama administration’s annual estimates of cellulosic fuel production have proven wildly inaccurate. In 2010, the administration projected 5 million gallons would be available. In 2011, it raised the projection to 6.6 million. Both years, the total was zero. The administration defended its projections, saying it was trying to use the biofuel law as a way to promote development of cellulosic fuel. But the projections were so far off that, in January, a federal appeals court said the administration improperly let its “aspirations” for cellulosic fuel influence its analysis. Even with the first few plants running, supporters acknowledge there is almost no chance to meet the law’s original yearly targets that top out at 16 billion gallons by 2022. “It’s simply not plausible,” said Jeremy Martin, a biofuels expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “2030 is the soonest you can anticipate it to be at that level.” The EPA is weighing how deeply to reduce targets for cellulosic fuels for next year and beyond. Biofuel supporters want higher targets to spur investment in new facilities. Opponents want low targets to reflect what’s available in the market and the chronic underperformance of cellulosic makers. Cellulosic’s great promise will likely be enough to keep it in the Obama administration’s favor. “There seems to be recognition among the administration that cellulosic fuels haven’t met the targets, but there’s still support for them,” said Timothy Cheung, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington research and consulting firm. Cellulosic fuels have lagged expectations for several reasons. For one, expectations were simply set too high. To attract support from Washington and money from investors, the industry underestimated and understated the difficulty of turning cellulose into fuel. Cellulose is the stuff that makes plants strong, and it has evolved over several hundred million years to resist being broken down by heat, chemicals or microbes. That makes it difficult to produce these fuels fast enough, cheap enough or on a large enough scale to make economic sense.
Industry takes aim at Associated Press ethanol investigation The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A new Associated Press investigation, which found that ethanol hasn’t lived up to some of the government’s clean-energy promises, is drawing a fierce response from the ethanol industry. In an unusual campaign, ethanol producers, corn growers and its lobbying and public relations firms have criticized and sought to alter the story, which was released to some outlets earlier and started being published online and in newspapers Tuesday. The Agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, told the Des Moines Register that the AP project included “a number of inaccuracies and errors.” Vilsack said farmers were engaged in other conservation practices, including wetland reserve programs, wildlife habitat incentive programs and EQIP, a program that helps farmers adopt conser-
vation practices. The industry’s efforts, which began one week before the AP project was being published and broadcast, included distributing fill-in-the-blank letters to newspapers editors that call the AP’s report “rife with errors.” Industry officials emailed newspapers and other media, referring to AP’s report as a “smear,” ”hatchet job” and “more dumpster fire than journalism.” “We find it to be just flabbergasting. There is probably more truth in this week’s National Enquirer than AP’s story,” said Geoff Cooper, vice president of research and analysis for the Renewable Fuels Association in a press call with reporters Monday criticizing the investigation. The economic stakes for the industry are significant. Congress is working on legislation to do away with the corn-based portion of the mandate, which required oil companies to blend
billions of gallons of ethanol into their gasoline. Big Oil is pumping big money into the effort. The Obama administration, a strong defender of biofuels, is soon expected to slightly ease the law’s requirements. Overnight, such changes would eliminate a huge source of the demand for ethanol, reduce profits for farmers and ethanol producers and likely lower the price of corn. The AP’s investigation is based on government data, interviews and observations. It highlights what many researchers have published in peerreviewed journals and is consistent with reports to Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency about ethanol’s environment toll. “The AP’s reporting on this important topic is a result of months of work and review of documents, and interviews of experts and people on all sides of the public policy debate about this energy resource,” said Mike
Oreskes, AP’s vice president and senior managing editor. “We stand behind our reporting and welcome further insights and discussion.” Specifically, the ethanol industry disputed AP’s findings that as farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land and destroyed habitat. The industry said the primary driver for such losses was Congress lowering the number acres allowed in conservation, not ethanol. It also cited a Dutch study, which was not peerreviewed and found that urban sprawl internationally was responsible for greater loss of grassland than biofuels. In addition to citing the Agriculture Department’s figures of more than 5 million acres of conservation land transformed under the Obama administration from grass field back into farmland, the AP analyzed U.S. government crop data collected by
satellite. The AP identified tracts of land that were cornfields in 2012 and had been grassland in 2006. The AP then excluded land lost from the Conservation Reserve Program to prevent double counting. The AP vetted this methodology with an independent scientist at South Dakota State University, who has published peer-reviewed research on land conversion using the same satellite data. The Dutch study that the industry cited, which AP did not mention, noted that in the United States “biofuel expansion is the dominant cause of agricultural land use loss.” The ethanol industry said farmers were not converting native grasslands into cropland. The AP cited USDA’s own data for 2012, the first year it collected data on so-called new breakings, showing that 38,000 acres of neverbefore-planted grassland was farmed.