Corn

Over the past few months, it seems like many folks not associated with or beholden to the corn clique of the agribusiness industry have started to realize that biofuels relying on food crops — corn in particular — might not be such a good idea.

For example, consider this graphic which appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Can we quit drinking the ethanol kool-aid now?  (Although, the algae line looks interesting.  I wonder what the catch is….)

Seen in USA Today:

The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.[...]

The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.[...]

“We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products” such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said in an interview. “And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don’t require too much too fast. Right now we’re making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels.”

I’m one of several folks who have been concerned about the unintended consequences of drinking the ethanol kool-aid, ranging from stressing already limited water supplies to fallout from the increased competition for food crops.

Can we now start looking for more viable sustaniable fuel options, rather than just pandering to agribusiness lobbyists?

So, remember how the feds have caved into the corn division of corporate agribusiness in promoting corn-based ethanol as the current preferred alternative fuel?

Remember too how several of us have expressed concern about the resource consumption and energy inefficiency involved with corn-ethanol?

Seen at Scientific American:

Once established, the [switchgrass] fields yielded from 5.2 to 11.1 metric tons of grass bales per hectare, depending on rainfall, says USDA plant scientist Ken Vogel. “It fluctuates with the timing of the precipitation,” he says. “Switchgrass needs most of its moisture in spring and midsummer. If you get fall rains, it’s not going to do that year’s crops much good.”

But yields from a grass that only needs to be planted once would deliver an average of 13.1 megajoules of energy as ethanol for every megajoule of petroleum consumed—in the form of nitrogen fertilizers or diesel for tractors—growing them. “It’s a prediction because right now there are no biorefineries built that handle cellulosic material” like that which switchgrass provides, Vogel notes. “We’re pretty confident the ethanol yield is pretty close.” This means that switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies.

Perhaps Bush wasn’t completely silly in his promotion of switchgrass in a past State of the Union address. It’s a shame, however, that the idea hasn’t caught on as preferable to the cult of corn ethanol.