Water Education Foundation

Ethanol gets hosed: Texas researchers say the biofuel consumes 443 times the water of petroleum-based gasoline

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 22, 2008 at 5:38 am

From Cleantech:

Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin say not enough people are considering whether they have the necessary water resources to meet the needs of new biofuel technologies.

Energy analysts Carey King and Michael Webber calculated the water usage of several fuels being developed in the United States as alternatives to petroleum-based gasoline and diesel. Ethanol and soybean-oil biodiesel were among the biggest water culprits in the study, which followed their research earlier this year showing the high water-cost of plug-in electric vehicles.

“We looked at it just from the irrigated water perspective, a proxy for, ‘Are you in a place where it rains or not?’” King, a research associate at the University of Texas Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy, told the Cleantech Group.

King and Webber looked both at the amount of water consumed—water taken from a surface water or groundwater source and not returned—and water withdrawn, used in a process and then returned to the source. Areas that require irrigation systems have higher water-usage figures because the water has to travel farther, he said.

Their study appears in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. Some of their findings include:

* Typical gasoline consumes up to 0.14 gallons of water per mile and withdraws up to 0.63 gallons of water per mile.
* Converting coal into fuel via the Fischer-Tropsch method (coal gasification) consumes up to 0.58 gallons of water per mile and withdraws up to 0.43 gallons of water per mile.
* Biodiesel from irrigated soybean fields consumes as much as 24 gallons of water per mile and withdraws up to 26 gallons of water. If the biodiesel was made from non-irrigated soybean fields, it would consume up to 0.02 gallons of water per mile and withdraw up to 0.12 gallons of water per mile.
* Ethanol (E85) made from corn grown in irrigated fields consumes up to 62 gallons of water per mile and withdraws as much as 110 gallons of water per mile. Ethanol produced from corn grown in non-irrigated fields on the other hand, consumes up to 0.35 gallons of water per mile and withdraws up to 0.56 gallons of water per mile.
* Hydrogen produced via electrolysis consumes as much as 0.42 gallons per mile and withdraws up to 13 gallons of water per mile.
* Hydrogen derived from natural gas consumes up to 0.06 gallons of water per mile and withdraws up to 0.07 gallons of water per mile.

Read more from Cleantech by clicking here.

October 22, 2008 · Filed Under Biofuels

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Another inconvenient truth: Making a dent in the world’s energy problems with biofuels will require much more water than the world can afford to give up, says commentary

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 6, 2008 at 6:03 am

From the International Herald Tribune, this commentary by Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the chairman and former chief executive of Nestlé:

At last, many of the world’s political leaders have begun to realize that diverting land and food crops to produce biofuels leads to higher food prices. But an equally important consequence of this policy folly is being largely ignored in the public and political debate: Producing biofuels will further deplete the world’s already overtaxed water supply.

This is emblematic of a larger and increasingly dangerous disregard for the world’s most valuable, irreplaceable and finite natural resource: fresh water.

Seventy percent of all water withdrawal is already used in agriculture, and while all such activity requires water, growing enough soy or corn to create biofuels is especially water-intensive. For example, to produce just one gallon of diesel fuel up to 9,000 gallons of water are required. Up to 4,000 gallons are needed to produce enough corn for the same amount of ethanol. By way of contrast, producing enough food to meet the caloric needs of one person for one day in, for example, Tunisia or Egypt requires about 666 gallons of water, and twice as much in California (caloric needs and intakes vary widely from region to region due to dietary customs).

If all of the biofuel targets and timelines set by governments across the world are met, we can expect water withdrawals for agriculture to increase by up to one-third. Making a dent in the world’s energy problems with biofuels will require much more water than the world can afford to give up. There simply isn’t enough; water tables are falling throughout the world. While there are substitutes for oil, there are none for water.

October 6, 2008 · Filed Under Biofuels

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

The ethanol economy: plant will convert green waste to ethanol, using reclaimed water

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on August 31, 2008 at 5:50 am

From the Daily Breeze:

Californians are fed up with high fuel prices, but some relief may finally be in sight. The ethanol industry is revving up to boost the supply of its renewable fuel in Los Angeles County. And the technology has advanced to the point that there are really few downsides to moving forward.

The idea is to transform urban green waste headed for landfills into ethanol through a process that generates little pollution. Ethanol can be either blended with regular gasoline as a clean-fuel additive or used to create E85 gas for so-called flex-fueled cars. (E85 is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.)

Irvine-based BlueFire Ethanol has already received a permit to build a $30million ethanol plant near a landfill in Lancaster. Once the plant is operating next year, it will take in green municipal wastes, such as non-recyclable paper, grass clippings, wood chips, construction debris and straw, and process it into ethanol.

Arnold Klann, BlueFire’s chief executive officer, said the plant would process a batch of urban green waste into ethanol in only 18 hours. For each ton of waste that is fed into the plant, 70 gallons of ethanol are produced - at an operational cost of under $1 a gallon. The plant won’t be a strain on drought-plagued Southern California’s water resources either because it will use reclaimed water.

Read more from the Daily Breeze by clicking here.

August 31, 2008 · Filed Under Biofuels, Great Green Ideas

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Algae may be the new frontier

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 27, 2008 at 8:22 am

From the Imperial Valley Press:

Hidden on the northeast edge of Imperial County are an old house, a garage and about three dug-up, would-be ponds. The house is empty and the garage is the local “home office” for SunEco Energy. The ponds, when completed and filled in, and a processing plant that still needs to be constructed could be revolutionary. “It could be, if it’s successful,” a major change in the cattle industry, local cattleman Rod Foster said.

What’s being proposed by SunEco is an algae facility where algae would be grown and processed into vegetable oil and feedstock supplement. And eventually that algae vegetable oil could be used to create butanol, which is considered a cleaner and more efficient form of energy than ethanol. If and when the algae is turned into a biodiesel, Hoyt Isom, chief information officer for SunEco, said the vehicles used by SunEco to move the product will utilize its own product, lowering any emissions.

SunEco, a branch of Global Renewable Energy Systems, began work on its project just northeast of Calipatria in March. Isom said the company is building on low- to non-productive land and when in operation will use nonpotable water as its main water source.

“Algae prefers contaminants and our algae that we’ll be using is an indigenous strain to the Imperial Valley,” Isom said. “And really, the Imperial Valley is probably the best place in the country for algae.”

July 27, 2008 · Filed Under Biofuels

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Is corn boom expanding Gulf of Mexico’s ‘dead zone’? Some fear an ethanol-fueled harvest in the Midwest may be behind the hard times for marine life at the other end of the Mississippi River

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on June 4, 2008 at 5:46 am

From the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune:

Last fall, the farm fields of the Midwest yielded record profits and the greatest corn crop in recent history. But there may have been an unintended consequence hundreds of miles to the south: As the corn grew, so did the size of the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

The dead zone is a low-oxygen area virtually uninhabitable by marine life. It emerges in the spring and summer, created in large part by high nitrogen levels and other nutrients such as phosphorus. Its size varies: Last year it was about as big as Massachusetts.

Recent studies suggest that a prime driver for the dead zone — or hypoxia — is farm-field runoff from the Mississippi River basin, although cities also play a role, contributing municipal, industrial and lawn and garden runoff.

Now, with the growing season underway, Congress late last month passed a major five-year farm bill over President Bush’s veto. It includes an increase in funds for conservation, which could keep some additional land out of production and rein in some runoff. Market conditions, however, appear to favor production.

Read more on this story from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune by clicking here.

June 4, 2008 · Filed Under Biofuels, Other Oceans & Beaches Stories

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

New trend in biofuels has new risks

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 21, 2008 at 6:01 am

From the New York Times:

In the past year, as the diversion of food crops like corn and palm to make biofuels has helped to drive up food prices, investors and politicians have begun promoting newer, so-called second-generation biofuels as the next wave of green energy. These, made from non-food crops like reeds and wild grasses, would offer fuel without the risk of taking food off the table, they said.

But now, biologists and botanists are warning that they, too, may bring serious unintended consequences. Most of these newer crops are what scientists label invasive species — that is, weeds — that have an extraordinarily high potential to escape biofuel plantations, overrun adjacent farms and natural land, and create economic and ecological havoc in the process, they now say.

At a United Nations meeting in Bonn, Germany, on Tuesday, scientists from the Global Invasive Species Program, the Nature Conservancy and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, as well as other groups, presented a paper with a warning about invasive species.

“Some of the most commonly recommended species for biofuels production are also major invasive alien species,” the paper says, adding that these crops should be studied more thoroughly before being cultivated in new areas.

Controlling the spread of such plants could prove difficult, the experts said, producing “greater financial losses than gains.” The International Union for Conservation of Nature encapsulated the message like this: “Don’t let invasive biofuel crops attack your country.”

Some of these alternative plants can be as bad if not worse than corn. Case in point:

The European Union is funding a project to introduce the “giant reed, a high-yielding, non-food plant into Europe Union agriculture,” according to its proposal. The reed is environmentally friendly and a cost-effective crop, poised to become the “champion of biomass crops,” the proposal says. A proposed Florida biofuel plantation and plant, also using giant reed, has been greeted with enthusiasm by investors, its energy sold even before it is built.

But the project has been opposed by the Florida Native Plants Society and a number of scientists because of its proximity to the Everglades, where giant reed overgrowth could be dangerous, they said. The giant reed, previously used mostly in decorations and in making musical instruments — is a fast-growing, thirsty species that has drained wetlands and clogged drainage systems in other places where it has been planted. It is also highly flammable and increases the risk of fires.

Read the full text of this story from the New York Times by clicking here.

May 21, 2008 · Filed Under Biofuels

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap? Corn-based fuel isn’t the villain critics contend, but shifting to other crops is critical

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 3, 2008 at 8:15 am

From Business Week:

Ethanol is taking a tumble. Once hyped as a magic brew for reducing both oil addiction and global warming, alcohol made from corn kernels is now being accused both of triggering a global food crisis and doing more ecological harm than good. Ethanol critics, ranging from environmental groups to pig farmers facing high feed prices, blame mandates from Washington and Brussels stating that billions of gallons of fuel must come from ethanol or other plant-based fuels. These critics are now fighting to get those laws repealed. “What started as an energy policy is leading to spreading hunger and political instability around the world,” charges Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. Companies are piling on, too. The Grocery Manufacturers of America has substantially stepped up its lobbying efforts to reduce the corn in gasoline.

There are grains of truth in this backlash, experts say. “There are bad biofuels and good biofuels,” says Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis. Corn-based ethanol ranks as mediocre. Yet it is only a minor cause of high food prices, and better biofuels are on the horizon. The transition to these superior fuels will get a boost from policies now being developed, with California leading the way.

First, a reality check on corn ethanol, which isn’t quite the villain critics make it out to be. Last year, American farmers grew a record 13.1 billion bushels of corn on 85 million acres. Of that, 22% went to make about 7 billion gallons of ethanol. That still left enough corn to supply the domestic market, increase exports to record levels, and stockpile a 10% surplus. McKinsey principal Bill Caesar estimates farmers will be able to keep increasing corn-based ethanol production to 15 billion gallons in 2015 (a level of output mandated by federal policy) without reducing the amount going for food and feed, and without increasing acres planted. The secret: continuing improvements in yields.

Of course, it’s impossible to divert nearly one-quarter of the corn crop to fuel without causing prices to rise. Corn is now around $5.50 per bushel, more than double its price in 2005. But this has had a relatively small impact on the broader runup in global food prices. Higher corn costs add 2 cents to a box of corn flakes, or 11 cents to a gallon of milk from corn-fed cows. Corn prices have little to do with the increases in rice and wheat, and only a small connection to soybean price jumps. “Biofuels are a very, very small factor” in rising food costs, says David Morris, vice-president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit group that tries to strengthen communities politically and economically around the world. Absent corn ethanol, food prices would still be up dramatically because of soaring global demand, fast-rising prices for oil and natural gas used to make fertilizer, and climatic factors such as Australia’s drought. It’s also worth noting that these high crop prices save taxpayers billions of dollars in reduced subsidies to farmers—far more than is spent to subsidize ethanol.

The one thing this article fails to mention is that corn is a very water-intensive plant, and with water shortages predicted in at least 36 states in the upcoming years, do we really want to be using water for this purpose? The main point of this article, however, is that there are better crops that can be used for biofuels: “the key is to speed up the transition from corn to crops that offer more benefits.”

The water issue regarding ethanol is rarely reported; click here for an article on ethanol production & water. Meanwhile, Bush recently defended his ethanol policy, saying “it makes sense for America to be growing energy.”

Read the full text of this article from Business Week by clicking here.

May 3, 2008 · Filed Under Biofuels

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

Smart biofuel policies and global warming: what California can learn from other states

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on April 1, 2008 at 5:31 am

From the California Progress Report:

In the search for alternatives to oil, biofuels have emerged as a promising answer to wean us off our oil addiction. By some estimates, biofuels could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year, be cost competitive with gasoline and provide a major source of revenue for farmers.

However, not all biofuels are created equal and the rapid rush to develop biofuels is beginning to show some dangerous trends. Biofuel material is being grown on protected lands, fuel production is competing with food production, and recent data seems to indicate that almost all biofuels used today in the United States cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels when the full emissions costs of producing the biofuel is taken into account.

We now turn to some of the problems with biofuel production and how states can implement smart policy to ensure sustainable biofuel development.
Biofuels are a type of fuel made from plants and other forms of biomass. The two main forms of biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is made from a variety of materials, including sugar cane, corn, trees, grass and even municipal solid waste. Cellulose, which makes up a majority of a plant’s structure, can be broken down into sugars, which can then be converted into ethanol.

Most of the ethanol produced in the United States is from corn. According to the National Corn Grower’s Association, 1.8 billion bushels of corn were used to produce 4.9 billion gallons of renewable fuel. Ethanol production consumes 20% of the corn crop in the U.S. and the new federal energy legislation, which mandates a doubling of ethanol made from corn, is predicted to increase that amount to one third of the total corn crop. Yet, environmentalists are seriously concerned with the heavy dependence on corn-based ethanol.

The myopic focus on only developing corn-based ethanol is leading our alternative fuels into a bad direction. Corn-based ethanol is among the least efficient, most polluting, and overall least sustainable biofuel feedstock. In contrast, Brazil has been very successful in developing an efficient ethanol source from sugarcane, which, unlike corn in the U.S., has a higher energy return.

The author is not arguing against biofuels, but rather is recommending people take another look.  A hastily crafted biofuel policy could cause more problems than it will fix.  Some states have implemented sensible biofules policies, some have not.  Find out more by reading the rest of this comprehensive article from the California Progress Report by clicking here. 

April 1, 2008 · Filed Under Biofuels

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment 

The folly of biofuels: agribusiness and politicians could suck the country dry with biofuel mandates

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 24, 2008 at 6:15 am

corn-by-mars.jpgFrom AlterNet:

With corn selling at record-high prices, Steve Albracht expects to have no trouble paying his electric bills this year. Albracht irrigates 1,000 acres of corn near the town of Hart in the Texas Panhandle and expects to shell out $180 to $240 per acre to run his pumps through the spring and summer. “In this area,” says Albracht, “the water table has dropped, but nobody’s cutting back on watering yet. There’s still plenty down there.”

Albracht won the 2005 National Corn Yield Contest in the “irrigated” category, producing a whopping 352 bushels per acre. In a region that gets an average of less than 18 inches of rain annually, Albracht and his neighbors apply anywhere from 28 inches to more than 3 feet of water to their corn each year. With the prospect of a highly profitable harvest, Albracht says he can afford to water generously this year. And he’ll need to, he says, “because it’s been a dry winter.”

For once, times are good in the High Plains. Corn and other grains are selling like precious metals, and there is every reason to believe that prices will stay high. At the heart of the boom is the U.S. government’s decision to rely on corn-based ethanol to meet a big part of the nation’s demand for “renewable” fuels.

Most recent controversy over ethanol has focused on the its poor energy return; in growing corn and turning it into ethanol, you have to burn three calories to get four. With prices of fuel and other inputs rising fast, corn farmers won’t be getting rich (except for those who happen to have oil wells on their property.) But selling their corn for such high prices, they can afford to sow more acres and burn more propane, diesel or electricity to pump more water than ever. A torrent of cash will be flowing through the nation’s corn-growing regions, but the biggest price will be paid in water.

Ethanol production burns three calories to make four; not a good return on investment. And while the price of corn is rising, farmers won’t necessarily get rich, but they’ll have money to sow more acres and buy the fuel that will pump ‘more water than ever’.

To hear agribusiness boosters and politicians tell it, corn-based ethanol is a miraculous solution to the nation’s hunger for liquid fuels. But as miracles go, it’s not all that impressive. When Jesus, according to Biblical reports, converted approximately 150 gallons of water into an equivalent quantity of wine, his conversion rate was about a cup of ethanol per gallon of water invested (given the typical alcohol content of wine). Compare that to current processes that use irrigated corn as their carbon source and get less than a teaspoon of ethanol for each gallon of water consumed.

In dry areas of the High Plains where irrigation is the most crucial to corn production and the ethanol-to-water ratio even lower, agriculture is dependent on a one-time drawing of groundwater that hasn’t seen daylight for 11,000 years or more. The vast Ogallala aquifer, stretching from not far south of Steve Albracht’s Texas farm all the way up into South Dakota, is being mined at a rate that, in some areas, will drain it sometime in the relatively near future — at least before the oil wells of the Persian Gulf run dry.

The Ogallala was trapped underneath the High Plains around the time of the last ice age. The formation holds enough ancient water to fill Lake Huron, the second-greatest of the Great Lakes — or at least it did before being exploited for agriculture. In the High Plains, raising a single bushel of irrigated corn slurps up 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of water, and more corn than ever is being raised there.

Read the rest of this story from AlterNet by clicking here.

Photo of corn plants by flickr photographer MarS.

March 24, 2008 · Filed Under Agriculture, Biofuels

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment