Moore: Biomass for energy - a cautionary tale

Columnist Michal Moore asks of ethanol fuel: "Given that the impacts on land use, economics and energy substitution are considerable, you have to ask how an industry this inefficient got permission not just to go ahead, but benefit massively from subsidies and mandated inclusion in the fuel mix." (Photograph by: Colleen De Neve, Calgary Herald)

There is a race on to diversify our fuel supplies, and in the process gain just a bit of enhanced security along the way.

One alternative that seems to satisfy a range of benefits is the growth of the biofuels and ethanol industry. They are touted as a combination of renewable, affordable and green. In today's world, these are popular and politically charged adjectives.

That we consider bio-based fuels at all stems from a collective interest to wean ourselves from dependence on gasoline, the fuel that drives our mobility. Much of our modern industrial economy could not exist and compete without access to fossil-derived fuels.

Yet, we now find ourselves in the position where diversifying or even abandoning carbon-based fuels is critical for survival.

Biomass begins to look like a panacea. We can reduce our carbon footprint, and finally achieve the goal of domestic energy independence. With support from both the environmental and corn lobbies, ethanol has been positioned as a magic bullet.

Here was their pitch.

Ethanol replaces gasoline, it is renewable and it is environmentally benign. Long used as an additive in gasoline (where it has replaced MTBE, a suspected environmentally persistent carcinogen) ethanol can be derived from plant sugars or with more effort, from plant cellulose.

Most ethanol fuel in North America uses corn as feedstock. Encouraged by generous subsidies, the ethanol market share in the U.S. gasoline supply grew from just over one per cent by volume in 2000 to nearly four per cent in 2006, peaking at almost eight per cent in 2009.

Along the way, corporate farming interests grew richer and amassed more land for fuel rather than food production, and smaller, less agile farmers struggled to keep up.

To produce all this ethanol, you have to use a great deal of energy. It takes about 30 per cent more input energy to produce a gallon of ethanol from sugar cane (such as that used in Brazil) than from petroleum stock.

That same gallon takes about eight times as much energy if corn is the base.

Now factor in the energy density - the punch by volume from ethanol compared to gasoline. No matter what stock produces it, ethanol is just under one half as powerful as gasoline. In other words, to go the same distance or move the same weight, you need about twice as much product.

But it doesn't end there.

When we take into account our preference for corn over sugar cane, the ratio of land used is roughly 2-1 again. When we include the cost to consumers, it's only even with gasoline with an added subsidy (without the subsidy, corn-based ethanol would cost roughly two times that of gasoline).

Given that the impacts on land use, economics and energy substitution are considerable, you have to ask how an industry this inefficient got permission not just to go ahead, but benefit massively from subsidies and mandated inclusion in the fuel mix.

For instance, two years ago the unintended consequences of trying to boost the domestic corn-based ethanol industry resulted in a disaster for tortilla prices in Latin America, diverted capital away from other promising renewable energy alternatives, and didn't improve fuel economy, performance or cost for anyone. Meanwhile, food riots erupted in the developing world.

When all the emotional cover was removed from this short-sighted exercise, what remained was an embarrassing lack of coherence in public policy and regulatory institutions, not to mention a huge loss of public revenues.

The issue of choosing renewable vs. fossil fuels, or food vs. fuel hasn't come to Canada yet. But it will. And when it does, we should not reduce the issue to a simplistic Hobson's choice with one undesirable alternative pitted against another unacceptable choice.

Instead, policy-makers should be charged with a clear mandate to ensure regulators maintain independence and demonstrate clear standards in their decisions regarding long term fuel supplies, subsidies and choices in the public interest.

In public policy, an ethical decision is a decision informed by facts and an understanding of the full range of consequences, not the hue and cry of noisy lobbyists.

Michal Moore is a professor with the school of public policy at the University of Calgary.

source: The Calgary Herald