The average American family has saved more than $500 at the gas pump in the last year because of the impact of ethanol on fuel prices, according to new research from Merrill Lynch.
Commodity strategist Francisco Blanch reported that retail gasoline prices would be $21 a barrel higher without ethanol, an average savings of $526 a year.
At the same time, ethanol has boosted corn prices just 21 percent since 2004, an increase that accounts for about $15 a year in food expense.
The real culprits in escalating food prices are rapidly increasing oil prices, increased global demand for meat and grains, commodity speculation, the declining value of the dollar, droughts and bad weather.
There are, however, some folks — some big oil companies among them — that really don’t want that message to reach the public; hence an ongoing public relations campaign to blame ethanol for all the woes in the grocery aisle.
It’s not so folks. Only a tiny portion of the food dollar pays for raw materials. The rest of your money pays for processing, packaging and transportation, all energy-intensive segments.
45 Comments
The title of P.J. Griekspoor’s ethanol commentary above should be lengthened as follows: Ethanol cuts gas prices, has little impact on food (according to some unknown commodity strategist) … BUT IN KANSAS AND ADJACENT STATES ETHANOL PRODUCTION USES GIGANTIC AMOUNTS OF OUR VALUABLE WATER FROM THE ALREADY DECLINING DEEP UNDERGROUND OGALLALA AQUIFER.
From my examination of various sources of information about ethanol production, every gallon of ethanol requires some 10 to 20 gallons of new water, over and above recycled water used in the process. The water is then discharged as a wet mass of stinking, air polluting sour mash effluent generally put in slit trenches by a battery of Catepellor tractors. This effluent then taints the shallow layers of soil around the ethanol plant or is fed to hogs and cattle in industrial farms.
These ethanol plants will hasten the coming day when Kansas will run out of its wonderful natural resource … the relatively pure underground Ogallala aquifer water for municipal drinking water supplies across the state.
Then Kansans will be relegated to obtaining its municipal water supplies from the already polluted surface river waters such as from the Arkansas River in Wichita.
Note to politicians: The best locations for ethanol plants would be at the outfall pipes of treated regurgitated sanitary sewage from our large urban sewage treatment plants. Or along the lower Mississippi River capturing billions of gallons of muddy Mississippi river water rushing towards the Gulf of Mexico.
Governor Sebelius and Senator Brownback: Can we offer you a glass of polluted drinking water from Wichita’s Arkansas River?
Not to mention the fact that ethanol has a lower BTU content than gasoline so it takes more of it to do the same work, thereby aggravating the above mentioned conditions. The extra fuel required to grow all that corn, transport it to ethanol plants and then deliver it for use places an added burden on the diesel supply. And don’t forget the already terribly expensive supply chain for the man made chemical fertilizers used on those crops. Ethanol will never be anything but a wasteful short term solution to a much larger problem.
Good Post Wink!
And I notice “PJ” has NEVER missed an opportunity to shill FOR ethanol.
And Sunflower Electric’s Holcomb plant. Wasnt Greikspoor the one who bought and sold stevie miller’s “magic algae” story with NO critical analysis?
Considereing that kind of “journalism” (and I use the term broadly) shouldnt “PJ” be on the editorial page?
To put that blatent shilling on the “news” pages is an insult to readers. And does nothing to enhance the WE.
Put “PJ” next to values boy. Shilling is as shilling does. They have about the same level of credibility.
OH, and a question for PJ. Do you ever do ANY research beyond reading press releases?
Francisco Blanch is hardly unknown. Dr. Blanch received his Doctorate in Economics from Complutense University of Madrid. He received a Masters degree in Public Administration from Harvard and a graduate degree from UC-Berkeley.
Dr. Blanch is Head of Global Commodity Research for Merrill Lynch. Before that he was an Analyst and Commodity Strategist, also for Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch has offices in 36 countries and has control of $1.8 trillion in client assets. To be employed by Merrill Lynch is an achievement. To be the head of a Merrill Lynch group is an extremely significant achievement.
Dr. Blanch is widely published, with 400 – 500 quotations readily available on line and several hundred quotations or opinions in print each year. He is used as a research source by a large number of companies in the commodity business, including many Fortune 500 companies. He is one of the most widely recognized sources of credible opinions in the world commodity industry.
Buswriter: I do appreciate extensive resume of education and experience in a complicated field such as you ascribe to Dr. Francisco Blanch. And yes, I had stockbroker friends working for Merrill Lynch in Kansas City back in the 1970’s although my accounts were with other firms.
My response is Dr. Blanch is most likely correct about ethanol economics although he did point out an extensive list of related drawbacks.
My concern and concern of other critical commenters here on the Wichita EAGLE blogs is generally the danger of ethanol production withdrawing humongous quantities of water from Kansas’ underground Ogallala aquifer located under most of western Kansas and the Equus Beds aquifer located near Halstead.
Wichita gets roughly 1/2 its drinking water from the Equus Beds aquifer near Halstead. The other 1/2 comes from Chaney Reservoir, a manmade lake which receives its water from the north branch of the Ninnescah River. Both branches of the so far always running Ninnescah River essentially begin in Pratt County, 75 miles west of Wichita.
The source of water in both branches of the Ninnescah Rivers is essentially seepage upward from the Ogallala aquifer. Unfortunately the upward rise of Ogallala water particularly between Hutchinson and Kingman absorbs some salt from the salt layers giving the Ninnescah Rivers some salt pollution in recent years.
My point is the state of Kansas is DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD LOCATION FOR ETHANOL INDUSTRIAL PLANTS NOR COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS. As I have said before, preferred ethanol production locations would be the outfall of sewage effluent in major urban cities across America. Perhaps the treated solids in the sewage effluent might actually increase the miles per gallon of the ethanol produced from that source.
Or perhaps good locations along the Mississippi River in Louisiana utilizing the muddy river water from Old Man River as it rolls toward the Gulf of Mexico.
But Kansas is not the proper location for these water gulping ethanol plants or coal fired power plants.
The “economics” of ethanol would be VERY different if big corn, big irrigation, and ethanol production were NOT being heavily subsidized by YOUR tax dollars. If ethanol had to truely pay its way, consumers would not be saving money at the pump.
And I wonder how much of their “savings” at the pump are lost by increases in taxes? Not to mention the ozone problems caused by burning ethanol. And it’s less efficient in the tank. Let’s see some analysis here.
But this part of the post is true:
“The real culprits in escalating food prices are rapidly increasing oil prices, increased global demand for meat and grains, commodity speculation, the declining value of the dollar, droughts and bad weather.”
If there’s ten cents of wheat in a loaf of bread, the price of wheat could double and it would increase the price of bread very little.
The biggest objection I have about ethanol is, as Wink pointed out, the water it uses. Not only in processing, but in irrigating corn and transporting it as well. And there are opportunity costs for planting other grains when corn and ethanol are so heavily subsidized.
Put the ethanol plants somewhere besides the Great American Desert. Develop OTHER sources for starch than grain. That technology isnt as near as big ag shills want you to think.
In fact, it’s really no closer to reality than “magic algae”.
Big eye roll…
…and since we are highly unlikely to see anything like this from o’l PJ, let me repost this from the Salina Journal. Evils of ethanol.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MO_BLUNT_ETHANOL_KSOL-?SITE=KSSAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Ksfarmgirl:
are you aware that the “magic algae” was not Steve Miller’s proposal. It is the brain child of the K-State related organization NISTAC, which conceived the integrated bioenergy park and asked Sunflower to partner in the project. Which Sunflower agreed to do. AND Nistac intends to proceed with the project regardless of the coal plant outcome. In reality, what you call “magic” algae is in advanced stages of commercial development, which is a lot more than can be said for “magic” batteries that can store wind power and feed it out to the grid when needed.
well pj, given the number of times you quoted steve miller in this article:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1083945/out_of_algae_a_green_idea/index.html
and others, I stand behind my statement that steve miller’s press release was your major source. Did he direct you to Nistac? Or vice versa? Which came first here, the chicken or the egg? ‘Cause your “sources” certainly are birds of a feather.
Of COURSE the two have each other’s backs.
There is substantial professional disagreement about how “near” commercializtion that technology is. Yet, your foxlike “fair and balanced” pieces have NEVER included comments from those who believe this technology is a looooong way from being viable commercially.
I never said a damn thing about wind. But the fact that you brought it up in such a negative way tells me you really ARE shilling for big coal and steve miller.
Heheheh. The best you can do is to say “yeah, well, it’s better than wind….”
Hell, a sharp stick in the eye is better than being fatally gutted by a Bowie knife too, but that is little defense for a sharp stick.
But please, if it makes you feel better, attack wind instead of doing BALANCED research on the magic algae.
I’m calling you out on your shilling. I wonder if it will matter then next time you get an opportunity to write a very misleading, one sided article about coal.
Or ethanol. Yet another of steve miller’s projects. You know, among many statements, he says the coal plant expansion is needed because of ALL the ethanol plants in the desert area of sw ks.
So… when the water is gone for corn irrigation and ethanol processing, will Sunflower’s end users get stuck with the stranded asset at Holcomb and be holding the bag for repaying all those loans?
You need some schoolin’ there kiddo. Believe it or not, steve miller isnt the only opinon you should publish. Some info from those who oppose Holcomb and ethanol plants in the desert my actually give you info instead of press releases.
Oh, and btw, will you be shilling for HFCS next? It’s gotta be in a Corn Grower’s Association press release somewhere. Jere is thorough.
“In reality, what you call “magic” algae is in advanced stages of commercial development”
So… why dont you tell us the projected date it will be commercially viable?
Because if you dont have such a date, such weasel words as “advanced stages” mean no more than steve miller’s empty promises.
What the hell does “advanced stages” mean? Are they experimenting at Holcomb? Then say so. Dont act like it’s ready to go if it’s not.
And btw.. how much WATER is it going to suck up and are the water amounts to be used included in the 30,000 acre feet of water sunflower says it has secured? Or will it require additional water rights, and are THEY secured?
Seems like somewhere closer to reliable water would be a better place to test this “magic alge” technology.
Somewhere like an ethanol plant in Iowa, Illinois, or Missouri… Why would you test such a water hog in a declared drought area like sw kansas.
You DO know governor “leadership” declared counties down there to be in drought emergencies? How will THAT affect the water available for all of Sunflower’s projects and the ethanol plant.
Water is the biggest issue of this decade and the next. Why dont you report on those issues?
Or does big ag pay you enough to ignore the water issues?
Actually, PetroSun, an Arizona-based company, began a commercial algae to biodiesel operation on 1,100 acres of saltwater ponds in Rio Hondo, Texas on April 1 of 2008. They plan to produce 4.4 million gallons of biodiesel and 110 million pounds of biomass annually and have reserved 20 acres of ponds for testing algal jet fuel for the Department of Defense.
PetroSun went commercial with its 1,100 acre saltwater algae farm in Rio Honcho, Texas on April 1.
GreenFuel Technologies (same company that did the pilot at Holcomb) is building a $97 million commercial plant utilizing CO2 and Nitrogen gas from coal-fired electrical generation in Europe. It should be online sometime in 2009.
PJ – I hope as much as anyone that the algae technology can be commercialized. However, I also know that there is a very long road from lab to pilot plant to demonstration plant to full-scale commercial production. I have shepgerded tachnologies along that road. I have also seen too many technologies not make it the way down that road. So, my standing challenge to Sunflower remains: build such a plant at the existing Holcomb plant and I will believe it. (After K-State or WSU verifies it)
I know the science works; I am less sure about the engineerig.
The water issue for ethanol is a bogus issue. First, when agricultural land water rights are converted to industrial use, only half the agricultural water rights are available to the industrial user. Each acre of water rights purchased for use by an ethanol plant cuts the use of the water per acre in half. The ethanol plant would use half of the water the farmer would have used. The more land water rights converted to ethanol use, the greater the savings in water use per acre.
Very little irrigation is used to produce grain for an ethanol plant, at least in Kansas. According to data approximated from the Kansas Sorghum Producers Association, only 10% of the grain used for ethanol is corn and only a small portion of that is irrigated. Ninety percent of the grain used is grain sorghum and 90% of that is dry land grown. Notice that is possible for a farmer to sell the water rights for his land to an ethanol plant and then turn around and grow dry land grain sorghum to sell to the same plant. He wins both ways and the water use for the land is cut in half.
The numbers shown for water use are large and seem to be daunting. However, when the numbers are put in perspective a different picture emerges. According to City of Wichita data, the capacity of the City water plant is 105 million gallons per day. According to filings with the City from Abengoa when applying for water supplies for their Colwich plant, Abengoa wanted 821,000 gallons per day. That is 0.7% of the city capacity. By comparison, City documents show that Spirit Aerosystems uses 2 million gallons per day. Abengoa does not plan on using any agricultural land water rights at all and their entire water use will be less than half of that used by Spirit.
According to data provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, one of the states than keeps data on water use by ethanol plants, water use per bushel has declined by 20% in recent years. According to data from ethanol plant builder ICM Industries, the water use in 2007 for the plants it built is less than half of the water use reported state-wide by MN-DNR. Further, the technology already exists to use non-potable water. Newly constructed ethanol plants can use secondary water from water treatment plants and run-off from animal containment facilities.
Whatever the problems are with ethanol production, water use isn’t one of them.
Is someone editing the postings? My last two submissions did not get posted.
Apologies, Buswriter. You were mistakenly identified as spam. Everything should be posted now. Thanks for the heads-up.
Thanks, Buswriter for sharing some of sound science. And thank bth for your sane comments. I, too, hope that algae promise will be realized. I know that a lot of the technology to get us past where we are today has yet to be developed. And that’s what I meant by my wind comment. I’m not against developing wind. I just think we have to realize that there are a lot of hurdles to cross before we get where we need to be. The people who wnat to pretend that algae is way out there like to pretend that wind batteries are just around the corner. In reality, both have a long way to go. I applaud the sincere, hardworking people who are trying to make real solutions happen. And that includes the people in the ethanol industy who are working to improve technology every day that goes by.
Algae farming, by the way, using pratically no water, especially the closed system they tested at Holcomb. Small amounts of waste water from the electric plant are captured to grow algae, but the water consumption is virtually zero. Most other systems use saltwater or brackish water. Algae farms are absolutely NOT a water issue.
That brings me back to my challenge to Sunflower: build the algae plant NOW at the existing coal plant. Don’t rely on Neufield’s bogus claim that an experimental pilot plant would make a new coal plant carbon-neutral.
brackish water – I wonder if they can use water from the lower (Dakota I think) aquifer? That would be quite interesting.
“The people who wnat to pretend that algae is way out there like to pretend that wind batteries are just around the corner. In reality, both have a long way to go.”
Please dont assume I’m a fan of wind power. I’m not.
But thanks for FINALLY admiting that “both have a long way to go.” After you made it sound like algae was indeed “ready to go”. That was might point in the first place, and why we call it “magic algae”. It DOES have a long way to go to be commercially viable.
“Algae farming, by the way, using pratically no water, especially the closed system they tested at Holcomb. Small amounts of waste water from the electric plant are captured to grow algae, but the water consumption is virtually zero. Most other systems use saltwater or brackish water. Algae farms are absolutely NOT a water issue.”
Link please? “practically no water” is not a very specific term. “Small amounts of water water”? Link please. What is a “small amount”? And the water consumption cant be “virtually zero” unless the algae water is “virtually” all recycled. If it’s dumped at the end, it “consumes” one hundred percent.
Algae farms may not be a water issue in areas that have NOT been designated just this month as serious draught areas. Which is my point all along. Why put algae farms AND water sucking coal plants in a region that is notoriously short on water. Put it in eastern Kansas where there is more water.
“The people who wnat to pretend that algae is way out there like to pretend that wind batteries are just around the corner. In reality, both have a long way to go”
Dont assume I’m a fan of wind power. I’m not. But nice try of painting me with the wrong brush.
And thanks for admiting that “both have a long way to go”. That was my point about algae in the beginnning. Despite Steve Miller’s rosy projections, algae DOES have a long way to go to be commercially viable.
Unlike what you said here “In reality, what you call “magic” algae is in advanced stages of commercial development”. Thanks for admiting the truth.
Oh, and one more thing. The question I asked was if the water to be used by “magic algae” was included in the water use figures submitted in Sunflower’s original proposal to the state? I’m sure steve miller is on your speed dial…
I love your implication that my comments are not “sane”. And yet… you finaly admitted the truth on some, and ignored the others.
Defensive?
“The water issue for ethanol is a bogus issue. First, when agricultural land water rights are converted to industrial use, only half the agricultural water rights are available to the industrial user.”
Link please? I could be wrong, but I thought it was only reduced by twenty percent, not half.
No one challenged Jwink’s figures of about ten gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol. That is the figure we are looking at, not “water per bushel”. WTF? Nice try at mixing apples and oranges. “water use per bushel has declined by 20% in recent years” is very different than water used per gallon of ethanol. And I’d like a link to read it for myself.
“Very little irrigation is used to produce grain for an ethanol plant, at least in Kansas. According to data approximated from the Kansas Sorghum Producers Association, only 10% of the grain used for ethanol is corn and only a small portion of that is irrigated. Ninety percent of the grain used is grain sorghum and 90% of that is dry land grown.”
Link please? Pardon me for being suspicious of the sorghum producers potential for skewing the numbers. I’d like a link to read it for myself. As a resident of western Kansas, that isnt my experience at all. And I bet those figures dont apply to ALL ethanol plants. The ones in southwest Kansas, you know, the ones located in designated drought areas, use almost ALL irrigated grains. How much dryland corn and other grains besided wheat are grown DOWN THERE?
Comparing water usage as a percentage of total usage in the Wichita area with the usage in DROUGHT areas like southwest Kansas are apples and oranges. If you want to use your more plentiful water down there for ethanol, go for it. But it IS insane to be doing it in southwest Kansas.
And I note that you did not address someone else’s questions about the fuel usage to grow and transport those grains used by ethanol. That just goes to ethanol being energy negative. It USES more energy than it produces, as Wink pointed out.
“According to data from ethanol plant builder ICM Industries, the water use in 2007 for the plants it built is less than half of the water use reported state-wide by MN-DNR.”
Well then, since the BUILDER of ethanol plants says it is so, it must be so? Tautology. Link please? I thought the data from MN-DNR was about use per bushel, as in irrigation, not ethanol use. That is why links are so useful for verifying industry provided info.
“Further, the technology already exists to use non-potable water. Newly constructed ethanol plants can use secondary water from water treatment plants and run-off from animal containment facilities.”
That may be true (link please) but if so? Why arent they using that “existing technology” in southwest Kansas instead of using potable water. Just because they supposedly CAN use that tech, doesnt mean they are.
Why not?
Or.. does the technology “exist” but isnt, as we started this debate saying, “commercially viable”.
I tell ya, you gotta read the fine print carefully when dealing with industry shills. And almost ALL of buswriters “facts” are unlinked, and from industry sources that have a vested interest in promoting ethanol.
Perhaps that’s why some of us CALL you shills!
I wonder if “buswriter” is short for Business Writer?
…I wonder who bizwriter writes for. The WE? Or the grain and/or ethanol industries?
Good points ksfg. I have been around the ethanol industry; I am not a stranger there. I’d LOVE to see cellulosic ethanol. However I have my doubts about grain ethanol for a number of reasons.
To me the issue is not the water used by the ethanol plant but rather the irrigation/fertilyzer used in growing crops – especially in a semi-arid region like western Kansas.
It rains a lot in Minnisota; in fact rainfall is increasing with climate change. It does NOT rain much in western Kansas – and rainfall there is decreasing with the changes in the jet stream. (It’s ironic that we are so close to western KS and our rainfall is up. That is one of the quirks of the jet’s migration)
Yeah Ben. I’d be a little more sympathetic to the use of water in processing if Russell hadnt teamed up with Hays to drain Cedar Bluff for their ethanol plant. And, make no mistake, the processing uses LOTs of water.
But I do agree, the even BIGGER problem is the irrigation/nutrients in the water supply, and and other issues with corn and sorghum grains that are harmful. And those are harmful to the precious and dwindling water supply whether the end product is used in ethanol or cattle feed. And the same holds true out here for soybeans, sunflowers, and canola used in biodiesel as well.
And did I mention they are ALL energy negative, not positive? heheheheh! It’s like spending a dime to save a penny.
And, as you know, I’m a BIG supporter of research and development, especially the kind funded by non-industry sources. I dont hate technology, but I also, as we say, dont appreciate someone whizzing on my leg and then trying to tell me it’s raining! When technology is ready for commercial or large scale application, let me know. But I’ve seen waaaay too much university generated technology sitting on a shelf waiting for someone to commercialize it or take it to the next step. The old SBIR grants used to be good, until the MIC guys and big pharma and Monsanto types took it over.
But I digress from the shifting rainfall patterns, the futility of growing irrigated grains in a desert, and our rapidly dwindling and irreplaceable water supply…
That’s why I always say the ethanol plants should be put where there is plentiful water, for both processing and grain. It would help slow the decline of the aquifer and surface water, and it would save on fuel costs by not having to truck the grains so far.
But the downside is, people live where there is water. And NIMBY is not just for breakfast anymore. Population centers dont want their water drained away either. It’s only popular where there is no water, and hence no people anyway. And in places that are so desperate they dont care HOW bad they ruin the quality of life.
However, like most trendy economic development schemes, now every little dying desert town out here thinks it NEEDS an ethanol plant. Here’s a tip.
It might bring a few bucks into a dying region in the short term, but in the long term? It wont stop the draining of the water supply. Unless folks out here want to drain not only their kid’s pocketbooks with the massive public debt we’re running up, AND they want to make sure NO ONE lives out here ’cause there’s no water…
They need to rethink the “wisdom” of both irrigation and ethanol in western Kansas.
ksfg – I think they are building one near Newton and thinking about making it cellulosic. An interesting co-location idea is with a solid waste/recycling facility. Then feed cellulosic waste to the etahnol plant.
And THAT would be energy-positive.
It’s an ICM test facility and it is nearby the Harvey County solid waste transfer station.
Correct Bill. Perfect location as I noted. In addition, it is my understanding that it will use grey water for process water.
ICM is probably the most advanced ethanol company around.
And to your point, Ben, about the dangers of fertilizer, this is what happens to be the ultimate destination of the nitrates used on THIS side of the continental divide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_sc/sci_midwest_flooding_dead_zone;_ylt=ArXfIe18pNwdYEw2L.O9gToiANEA
Not to mention that it makes raw oysters dangerous to eat. Red algae has almost destroyed oystering along the gulf coast.
Now THAT makes me mad!
Actually ksfg – I think the big culprit in the dead zone is land use and farming practices that lead to too much erosion and direct runoff. If water flowed to streams via interflow or other sub-surface flow it would be filtered and carry much less in the way of contaminants. Also, the use of filter strips along riparian zones would help.
OK, folks. Time to get serious on a couple of issues.
KSFG, I didn’t dispute jwink because if I disputed every weird number from jwink, I wouldn’t get anything else done and people expect me to do other things. Suffice it to say, Jwink came up with 10 to 20 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol. Even the wild-eyed crazies back off at about 6 gallons. I don’t do a whole bunch of web research. I’m more the interview and government filings and papers type. But if you google ethanol and water use, you’ll find a gamut of stuff and the top end is about 6 gallons. I used 3 gallons from the latest presentations of the Kansas Bioscience Authority and the International Ethanol Fuel Workshop which ended today in Nashville.
Now, let’s deal with the discharge of “wet mass of stinking sour mash.”
Jwink, don’t know where you live, but modern technology is contained affluent and dry distillers grain. Dry means dry. And it doesn’t get fed to pigs, because it contains fat and fiber and their single chamber stomachs can’t digest that. KSFG, that’s some of my “non-shill” research that didn’t come from press releases.
It’s cattle feed and comprises about one-third of the corn or grain sorghum taken in.
KSFG: The “Steve Miller” stuff is getting a little out of hand. I apologize to Steve that he was the tour guide that walked me through the plant when I came out to do on-site research and interview people which resulted in him being quoted. Jason somebody (MIT guy) I’m sorry you didn’t get credit for your research in the blog world.
One more time. It’s NOT Sunflower’s project. It belongs to NISTAC, the National Insitute for Strategic Technology Application and Research, which is by the way, a K-State affiliate. The Kansas Bioscience Authority put money into the pilot. Sunflower agreed to make a donation, be the site and partner in the project. BTH, Nistac says they are doing everything possible to move ahead. Let’s hope we see algae research in southwestern Kansas.
Correction to buswriter: I’ve been doing a bunch of online research and it appears your 90 percent of corn grown for ethanol is NOT under irrigation is wrong. The number should be 96 percent. And yes, KSFG, that is a Nationwid number and your point about desert country is well taken.
So PJ, your position has gone from “commercially viable” to “Let’s hope we see algae research in southwestern Kansas.”
Cool. I think that’s the point. It is research, and miller and neufeld et al are blowing smoke up our collective hineys when they make it sound like the magic algae is ready to go. It’s not.
You are indeed correct about the gamut of figures regarding how many gallons of water it takes to produce one gallon of ethanol. Industry shills go with the low end three gallons figure, and Wink is not far off on his 8-10 gallons for some plants. Every plant is different, but I found this from ABC news. It is on the high end at 15 gallons. And it does not include irrigation, etc. which, in southwest Kansas and apparently Minnesota is a real issue. Maybe in Illinois and Iowa not so much, but certainly it is in Kansas.
“A longtime analyst of ethanol production disagreed with Martin and questioned his figures, saying it takes an average of about 15 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol much higher than the roughly three gallons of water per gallon of ethanol Martin cited.
Groundwater tables in some states, including Missouri, have been drawn down to dangerously low levels near some ethanol plants, said David Pimentel, an ecology and agriculture professor at Cornell University.
The figures cited by both Martin and Pimentel include only a plant’s production of ethanol, not the water it takes to grow corn. After adding that, about 1,700 gallons are needed to produce every gallon of ethanol, Pimentel said.
The entire water-use picture, coupled with the fuel it takes to produce ethanol, makes long-term, mass production of ethanol unsustainable, Pimentel said.
“I wish it were sustainable, I’m an agriculturalist,” he said. “I wish this whole ethanol deal was a major benefit, but you’ve got to be a scientist first and an agriculturalist second.”
I encourage readers to indeed google “ethanol + water usage” and read the information for yourself. Obviously industry shills want folks to think water is no big deal, and water activists like me want you to know it is a very big deal.
I’m also unimpressed with the “yeah, but ethanol doesnt use as much water as (fill in the blank)” arguments. There is already a shortage of water in all of western Kansas, but especially in southwest Kansas. Water sucking industries are not sustainable. And, as Wink noted, ethanol pollutes groundwater too, as you will find if you google as suggested.
Wink generally has his stuff correct when it comes to water issues.
I’m sorry you and I got off on the wrong foot PJ. However, I’ve been reading your ethanol stuff for quite some time, and it makes me LIVID when you only quote industry sources. I thought “fair and balanced” was the standard for journalists. I know how important ag is to Kansas (note my nic) but Kansas will be nothing but a Buffalo Commons if people here dont wake up.
Or, maybe, paraphrasing Sting, we should hope that Kansans love their children too. Why piss, moan and sigh about economic development when NO development, or population, is sustainable without water.
Oh, and here’s a link to the ABC News article I used. It’s less than a year old.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=3465919
And for those too lazy to use the google…
http://www.google.com/search?q=ethanol+%2B+water+usage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
And gee, I guess THESE guys “I used 3 gallons from the latest presentations of the Kansas Bioscience Authority and the International Ethanol Fuel Workshop which ended today in Nashville” wouldnt have a vested interest in getting the public, via the press, to believe water is a non-issue, now would they?
heheheheh….
And as for the steve miller thing, I see you have fallen under his charming and well spoken spell. Dont feel bad. Most press people do. But remember, he’s shilling too. He is a PR guy, not a scientist or environmentalist. And he’s a very good PR guy. As a scientist? Well, he’s a great PR guy.
When he stops lying and misleading, I’ll stop holding him accountable for it, and when you research and verify what he tells you, I’ll get off your back about shilling for him.
Deal?
Ben, I obviously defer to your expertise on all matters relating to science, but my understanding is that once nitrates enter the water supply, there isnt much that will filter it out. It can be used up, as with the red algae blooms, but I dont think it’s filtered. If you see this and you have time, can you expound a bit?
I agree about groundwater issues with nitrogen. A LOT of folks out here have to haul their potable water, or become a member of a rural water district, not because they dont have enough water, but because they have unsafe levels of nitrates in their ground water. That comes either from nitrogen leaching out of fields, or from leaching from confined animal operations.
And once it’s in there, to use MY scientific term, “yer screwed”!
We all think our ground water is pristine. As Wink always points out, it isnt always so. Giardia (sp?) has become a groundwater and surface water problem for folks out here, as are nitrates, and oil field contamination. The oil field problems were generally created long ago with inefficient and unsafe well plugging, but it still happens today. And the more we drill, the more of those problems we will have.
Maybe industry, from ethanol to confined animals to petroleum exploration and production, actually WANT people to literally “get the hell outa Dodge”.
That way they dont have to worry about polluting or draining the water supply…
Deer and pheasant and prairie dogs dont vote!
Would someone care to address this?
“The “economics” of ethanol would be VERY different if big corn, big irrigation, and ethanol production were NOT being heavily subsidized by YOUR tax dollars. If ethanol had to truely pay its way, consumers would not be saving money at the pump.”
Where is Karl when we need him?
ksfg – nitrate has a half-life in groundwater of about 3 years. It gets used in place of oxygen as an electron acceptor by facultative anaerobe bacteria. So, as long as an aquifer is functioning properly it should not build up – IF we are not overloading the system. In surface water nitrate can be used by a number of things – especially in a wetland. That is why I am such a hawk on wetland preservation and filterstrips.
pg – I am glad you seem to be recognizing that algae is still experimental. Take it from another ‘MIT guy’ that is still has a long way to go. Wind is a LOT further along – I can take you to functioning wind farms all over the world. And, wind IS reliable if done right – that is, wind farms rather than isolated turbines. It is always blowing SOMEWHERE.
The reason for the connection between algae and Sunflower is the BOGUS claims that were made last year that the algae plant would make Sunflower’s expansion at Holcomb essentially carbon-neutral. Morris and Neufield were deliberately lying with that claim. Thus my challenge – demonstrate algae in the similar coal plant already at Holcomb.
A concern about the residue as cattle feed. I read somewhere that there has been an increase in Salmonella associated with that. I don’t know whatever came of that but it would seem to be a concern – especially with wet cake. I always worry about what might ‘grow’ in such an environment. We have found in the past that messing around with animal feed can lead to undesirable unintended consequences.
ksfg, I think the “filter” that Ben is referring to in reference to riparian strips is that planting trees (or better yet brushy bushes with extensive, relatively shallow root systems) next to surface streams adjacent to farmland helps prevent runoff of nutrients into the streams bcause they soak up the nutrients before they hit the water. It’s not exactly filtration in the classic sense, but the result is the same.
Correct pg – ‘filter strip’ is a land-use term. As little as just some tall grass along a stream to as much as an entire wetland system.