Many of us may be consuming a lot more ethanol than usual these days, and not just because it’s Oktoberfest again (hic). Rather, federal and regional biofuel mandates in Canada and the United States mean that all of our gasoline fill ups contain some ethanol – at least 5 percent by law, and as much as 85 percent in the case of the E85 blend.
Suncor's St. Clair Ethanol Plant in the Sarnia-Lambton region of Ontario is Canada's largest ethanol facility.
It is no accident that ethanol has come to dominate alternative fuel strategy in North America (Full disclosure: Suncor operates Canada’s largest ethanol plant, having recently doubled the facility’s capacity as part of existing and planned investments in renewable energy which are expected to total $750 million by 2012.)
Bio ethanol has many things going for it. Its entire production chain can be localized thanks to North America’s vast and efficient farm sector. It can displace significant amounts of oil sands and conventional crude, including imported oil. The U.S. for example, already produces nearly as many barrels of ethanol as it imports in crude from Saudi Arabia. And when burned, ethanol produces less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than gasoline.
But ethanol has its critics, not least of which includes groups within the environmental movement (which is mildly ironic since it was these groups who first pushed policymakers to embrace biofuels). Ethanol critics say that, looked at on total lifecycle basis, corn is not nearly as carbon and energy efficient as assumed, and could even be worse than petroleum. They also claim corn production consumes unsustainable amounts of water and by using corn for fuel, poor countries lose out on food as world food prices are driven higher. And, as drivers have noted, ethanol-blended gasoline has them refueling more often than they did with the standard stuff in the tank.
Are the critics right? Yes and no, according to a new article penned by Forrest Jehlik, a fuels expert from the U.S. Argonne National Laboratory.
He says the criticisms are not fair, mainly because they’re based on out-of-date statistics or a misunderstanding of how corn is used industrially. For example, U.S. farmers today produce 160 bushels of corn per acre, compared to just 95 in 1980, positively impacting water and fertilizer efficiency. And only one percent of U.S.-grown corn is suitable for the dinner table, while the rest is destined for animal feed and biofuels.
That said, the goal is to make bio ethanol from non-food crops or better still, from marginal or non-edible plants, such as grasses. Using so-called cellulosic ethanol, E85 fuel would emit 63 percent less GHG emissions than conventional gasoline.
One criticism of ethanol that sticks: reduced mileage per gallon. The laws of physics dictate that litre for litre, E85 contains 25 percent less energy than gasoline. On the other hand, a litre of E85 typically costs less, and the price-to-mileage difference is likely to even out with increased production efficiencies.
Meeting the demand for energy and societal expectations for reduced environmental impact requires that we include alternative sources in the energy mix. Biofuels such as ethanol are proven energy sources with demonstrable benefits. As technical advances allow us to make ethanol from plants we don’t typically eat, biofuels are destined to get even better.