Submitted by Amanda Fritz on June 29, 2007 - 8:50am.
A fascinating summary of an Oregon State University study (pdf) was posted by George Seldes on Onward Oregon a couple of weeks ago. The study was published at the end of January, but I haven't previously seen analysis of and attention to it. I believe the OSU study is a very helpful body of work; I wonder if legislators in Salem read and considered it. George Seldes has posted other concerns about biofuels on Onward Oregon, which I've cross-referenced before. One of his previous posts cites a 6/8/07 Washington Post article, "Switching To Biofuels Could Cost Lots of Green". That's the gist of the OSU study; some highlights are copied below.
These are my concerns:
1. Burning fuel made from edible crops (especially corn) seems morally indefensible when people in this country and around the world are hungry. Likewise, growing crops for biodiesel fuel, on land that would/could otherwise produce food.
2. The current politically-popular focus on biofuels seems to give consumers hope that there may be no long-term global consequences to societal norms that are in fact unsustainable. Driving a single-occupant, low-mileage vehicle long distances to work, for example. Driving a biodiesel-fueled car when walking, biking, or taking public transportation would accomplish the trip, for another.
3. Government subsidies might be better spent providing transportation options with much higher net energy efficiency. Rapid rail connections along the I-5 corridor, for example. Better bus service, and more fixed-rail routes in urban areas. The study concludes, "On a net energy basis, the cost of promoting corn ethanol represents an 750% subsidy compared to the cost of net energy from conventional fuels."
4. Hope of biofuels being a big part of an energy independence strategy reduces political will for more effective, here-and-now regulations and standards for energy efficiency in gasoline-powered vehicles most people drive now. A recent comment on this blog that most people are not going to change their habits, so making more energy-efficient cars is crucial, is pertinent to the holistic solution. Also pertinent to that point is that most cars purchased in this country aren't diesel-powered, so if biodiesel rather than ethanol is to be a major part of the fuel energy solution, a change is needed there.
5. Governments do not have an infinite amount of money to spend, no matter how worthy the cause. Decision-makers should prioritize more transparently than most do now. While some things may be worth paying for, either for moral reasons or for long term investment/sustainability, there should be more open discussion of priorities and of those moral and long term choices.
From the study:
"This study examines the economics of three biofuel options for Oregon: corn-based ethanol, canola-based biodiesel, and cellulosic wood-based ethanol. In each case we address three questions:
1) Is the biofuel commercially viable?;
2) Does it represent a cost-effective way to further our national goal of energy independence?; and
3) Does it represent a cost-effective way to pursue the environmental goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?"
"A key observation in our analysis is that the commercial viability of a biofuel is not, by itself, sufficient to conclude that the biofuel addresses the energy independency or environmental goals at an acceptable cost. The "net energy" of a biofuel may be significantly less than than the energy in a gallon of the fuel because of the energy required to produce the fuel. The cost per unit of net energy, therefore, may be much higher than price per gallon would suggest."
"When net energy and cost aspects are combined, our estimates suggest that the three biofuels considered are significantly more costly than gasoline and petroleum diesel (including direct and indirect subsidies). Per unit of net energy, corn ethanol is estimated to cost 750 percent more than gasoline; canola biodiesel is estimated to cost 125 percent more than petroleum diesel;
and the cost of cellulosic wood-based ethanol is nearly 200 percent higher than gasoline."
"The cost of reducing CO2 emissions with corn-ethanol is found to be more than 200 times higher, or $10,700 per ton of CO2-equivalent emissions. For biodiesel, the cost is estimated to be 11 times as high as the $50 estimate, or $580/ton. And in the case of cellulosic wood-based ethanol, the cost is 7 times as high, at $350/ton. Hence, other policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions appear to be significantly more cost-effective than a shift to these three biofuels. These cost estimates, however, do not take account of the intangible costs associated with dependence on foreign oil or climate change. Therefore, the policy question can be framed with the following two questions: Are the higher costs of biofuels justified given energy independence and environmental goals? Are there other ways to achieve those same goals but in a more costeffective way than with biofuels? For comparison, promoting energy independence with an increase in the average fuel economy standards (CAFE standards) is estimated to cost 20 to 40 percent more than gasoline, compared to 750 percent for corn ethanol and 125 percent for canola biodiesel."
"To satisfy one percent of Oregon’s current petroleum energy consumption with
canola biodiesel would require over 400,000 acres, or 100 times the current canola acreage in Oregon. This amount of canola would generate 600 million pounds of canola meal, enough to feed five times the number of cows currently raised in Oregon. For comparison, the degree of energy independence resulting from a one mile-per-gallon increase in average motor vehicle fuel economy in Oregon would be equivalent to 3 - 4 corn ethanol plants like the one evaluated here, or 13 biodiesel plants like the one evaluated here."
The study seems to call out one potential biofuel source that might be relatively efficient to produce: wood ethanol. Produced from cellulose, this type has the added advantage of being made from inedible "waste" substances rather than from crops that could otherwise be eaten by hungry people.
"In the case of cellulosic wood ethanol which is not currently commercially viable (as summarized below), if producers were given additional subsidies on the order of $0.53 per gallon, this obstacle could be overcome based on our estimates. These added incentives, however, would raise the costs of the net energy gains and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Indeed, with these added incentives, the cost of net energy generation with wood ethanol would be 3 times as costly as for gasoline, and the cost of reducing GHG emissions with wood ethanol would be 7 times as costly as for other policy approaches to climate change. For comparison, promoting wood-based ethanol with these levels of government subsidies and other incentives on a per-unit of net energy basis would be equivalent to a 190 per cent subsidy on this source of net energy."
A subsidy of 190% in return for a new energy source with lower greenhouse gas emissions and less food/fuel conflict seems significantly more sensible/defensible to me than one of 750% for corn ethanol.
A further question particular to Portland is whether it is safe to locate biodiesel refineries close to homes. After I return from our trip, I will be preparing a post about the concerns of Linnton residents regarding a proposed new manufacturing plant there.
There are almost always additional factors and viewpoints to be aired and considered when reviewing an academic study. I will be very interested to read comments from proponents of biofuels on the substance of the OSU study, either here, on Onward Oregon, or via e-mail.
