|
Ag & Energy Links
Ag
& Energy || Biofuels
|| Renewable
Fuels Standard || Farm
Bill || BCO/Pubs ||
Briefings
|| links
|
Does ethanol have a
negative net energy balance? (Requiring more energy to produce
than it provides)
The energy balance of ethanol is found by taking the
amount of energy contained in a gallon of ethanol (roughly
76,000 Btu) and subtracting the amount of energy that goes
into producing a gallon of ethanol. Critics of ethanol have
argued that it has a negative net energy value ( NEV ),
meaning that ethanol requires more energy to make than it
actually produces.
However, over the years numerous studies have shown
that ethanol does indeed have a positive NEV. Most recently, a 2002
study by the US Department of Agriculture that accounts for
gasoline and diesel fuel use, fertilizers and a variety of
other energy inputs in the production, concluded that the
energy balance of ethanol is 1.34:1.[1] This means that
ethanol “yields 34% more energy than it takes to produce it,
including growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it and
distilling it into ethanol.” These data are consistent
with a study by Dr. Bruce Dale, Michigan
State University (2002), and a
study by Argonne National Laboratory (1999).
The positive
ratio is due mostly to technological advances in the ethanol
production process. Advances in the
areas most critical in determining NEV :
corn yields, changes
in agricultural practices resulting in reduced energy inputs,
and advances in the corn to ethanol conversion process. According to
USDA, “energy requirements for producing a gallon of
ethanol are falling over time,” and that higher energy costs
will provide incentives for industries to “become more energy
efficient, which will continue to push the NEV of
corn ethanol higher.”
Here are a few specifics as to why:
Corn yield
plays a critical role in determining the energy balance of
starch-based ethanol. In fact, a 1 percent increase in corn
yield raises NEV by 0.37 percent. Importantly,
with the exception of a few bad years, corn yields have been
increasing over time since 1975. This means that farm
resources are being used much more efficiently because less
energy (fossil fuel) is being put into the growing process,
while more ethanol is being produced.
|
U.S. Corn Yield - Bushels/acre
 |
“Thanks to better corn varieties, improved farming
practices, and farming conservation measures,
U.S. corn yield per
acre has increased over the last 30 years by over 50%, to
about 125 bushel (btu) per harvested acre”
- Wang et al. Argonne National Laboratory, 1999
|
|
Ethanol plants are
the largest fossil-energy-consuming component in the
corn-to-ethanol fuel cycle. Today’s ethanol plants
use far less energy than in the past. According to USDA, the
majority of ethanol plants in production today have been
extensively modernized utilizing the latest advances in
ethanol production technology. In fact, USDA reported
that by 1991 changes in production patterns (larger plants and
energy efficiency innovations) “reduced the processing energy
required to produce a gallon of ethanol from 120,000 Btu in
1981 to 43,000 Btu in 1991.”[2]
This, combined with
substantial electricity conservation efforts through
cogeneration and alcohol dehydration have resulted in
“considerable energy savings.” All of these factors
translate into a higher net energy balance for ethanol.
According to USDA, fertilizer accounts
for about 45% of the energy required to grow corn. However, the use of
fertilizer in grain production, which includes chemical inputs
such as nitrogen, potash and phosphate, has been in general
decline since the early 1980’s.[3] In the years from 1985-2000, nitrogen used per planted
acre of corn declined from 140 lbs. to 132 lbs; phosphate from
60 lbs. to 47 lbs. per acre; and potash from 84 lbs. to 51
lbs. per acre. The most significant of these decreases is
nitrogen, as “it has a much higher average energy requirement
than phosphorous and potash fertilizers.” |
Reduced energy use
intensity of ethanol plants[4]
 |
Ž
New technologies in the ethanol conversion process have
dramatically reduced energy use intensity of ethanol plants
over the last 20 years.
Ž
Corn-based ethanol has a net energy balance of
20,000–25,000 Btu. This is due to
improvements in corn farming and corn-to-ethanol
conversion.
Ž
Cellulosic ethanol has a net energy balance of over
60,000 Btu per gallon, largely due to the fact that
little fossil energy is used in biomass farming and cellulosic
ethanol conversion. It is also assumed that extra electricity
generated in cellulosic ethanol plants will be exported into
the electric grid.
|
|
A 1999
study by Argonne National Laboratory found the energy balance
of cellulosic
ethanol to be in excess of 60,000 Btu per
gallon.[5] Given
that feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol are essentially waste
products like corn stover, rice bagasse, forest thinnings or even
municipal waste, there are relatively few chemical and
energy inputs that go into the farming of feedstocks for
cellulosic ethanol.
A secondary factor, although to a much lesser extent,
is the fact that cellulosic ethanol plants will presumably
produce “extra” energy that can be fed into the power
grid. Doing so
will effectively displace the use of electricity produced in
power plants, which for the most part rely upon fossil
fuels.
|
| Then
why do I keep hearing that ethanol has a negative energy
balance? |
|
Controversial
research from Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell
University
concludes that ethanol has a negative net energy
balance. Several
recent studies have challenged the methodology, transparency,
and statistical basis of Dr. Pimentel’s findings. Here are a few reasons
why[6]:
Ž
Dr. Pimentel’s corn
yield statistics date from 1992, meaning that the study
does not take into account recent advances in the efficiency
of corn growing.
Corn yields
have increased by over 10% since then with significantly lower
inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, etc., per
bushel.[7]
Ž
Dr. Pimentel’s figures for
energy used in the ethanol conversion process
date from 1979.
Today’s ethanol plants use far less energy per gallon
of ethanol produced.
|
|
Ethanol’s Net Energy
Value: A Summary of Major Studies Since 1995
| Authors and Date |
NEV
[Btu] |
| Pimentel (2001) – Cornell University
|
- 33,562 |
| Lorenz
and Morris (1995) - Institute
for Local Self-Reliance |
+ 30,589 |
| Agri.and Agri-Food, CAN (1999) |
+ 29,826 |
| Wang et al. (1999) – Argonne National
Laboratory |
+ 22,500 |
| Shapouri et al. (1995) - USDA |
+ 20,436 |
| Kim and Dale (2002) – Michigan State University
|
+
23,886-35,463 | |
|
What is biodiesel’s energy balance?
A 1998 joint study by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concluded
that biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for
every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life
cycle.[8]
In other words, the
biodiesel life cycle produces more than three times as much
energy in its final fuel product as it uses in fossil
energy. |
|

|
Ž
Biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel energy for every
unit of fossil fuel consumed in its life cycle.
Ž
Petroleum diesel yields 0.83 units of fuel energy per
unit of fossil energy consumed |
The
production process of biodiesel and diesel is
practically the same in terms of efficiency in the conversion
of raw materials into fuel. The difference is that
biodiesel is able to use renewable resources in its production
– soybeans and rapeseed oils, or used frying oil and unwanted
animal fats – while conventional diesel relies on fossil fuel
resources. In
fact, petroleum diesel’s life cycle yields only 0.83 units of fuel
product per unit of fossil energy consumed.
|
| [1] USDA:
“The Energy Balance of Ethanol: An Update.” National
Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Wang, Shapouri,
Duffield, Aug 2002.
[2] Hohmann, Neil, and C. Matthew Rendleman. Emerging Technologies in
Ethanol Production. AIB-663. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, January
1993.
[3] USDA: “The Energy Balance of Ethanol: An
Update.” National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Wang,
Shapouri, Duffield, Aug 2002.
[4]
EESI Congressional Briefing: Michael
Wang, Argonne National
Laboratory, 7/31/02
[5] Argonne National Laboratory:
“Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-Cycle Energy and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Wang, Saricks, Santini, January
1999.
[6]
EESI Congressional Briefing: Bruce Dale, Michigan
State University , 7/31/02
.
[7] Colorado School of
Mines ,
National Corn Growers Association: “A Rebuttal to ‘Ethanol
Fuels: Energy, Economics and Environmental Impacts’ by D.
Pimentel,” Graboski, McClelland, May 2002.
[8]
EESI Congressional Briefing: John Sheehan, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 7/31/02
. | |