Ethanol Industry: Jobs Are Better Than Food?

  • Published on March 4th, 2008 by
 

Bob DinneenThe ethanol industry seems to be on the warpath against bad press (maybe that’s just my impression), which it’s been continuously mired in over increasing food prices, changing land-use patterns, and the questionable environmental benefits of grain-based fuel. As I mentioned last week (Ethanol Industry Pays Off Subsidies, Boosts U.S. Economy), business is booming, and this has potentially emboldened or intensified the pro-ethanol lobby.

Bob Dinneen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, had this to say at this year’s National Ethanol Conference (via Autopia):

He calls the food-vs-fuel debate a “fallacy” that assumes “farmers are incapable of supplying the growing needs for food, fiber and fuel.” Besides, he said, biorefiners only need the starch in feedstocks; the protein provided 14 million metric tons of livestock feed last year.





Dinneen says a study by Informa Economics found ethanol production caused less than 5 percent of the increase in food prices last year. (The study was funded by the Renewable Fuels Foundation, which is linked to the Renewable Fuels Association.)

I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a fallacy since, as Autopia highlights, US grain subsidies are still implicated in world-wide food price increases.

A report this morning from NPR also weighed in on the value of protein byproducts and local economic stimulus produced by the ethanol industry (Listen Here: Ethanol Demand, Prices Boost Farm Communities). In Northwestern Iowa, local farmer Brian Friedrichsen describes:

“We are able to utilize the co-products from the ethanol plant, and so we’ve expanded our cattle operation a little bit every year for the last four years,” Friedrichsen says.

He says the feed from the ethanol plant cuts his costs by $40 to $50 per steer each year, saving him at least $200,000 annually. Friedrichsen estimates that the number of cattle being raised in the area has tripled as a direct result of the ethanol facility.

Farmland is also shooting up in value. A nearby farm sold last year for almost $7,000 an acre. Before the ethanol boom, an acre of farmland here would often go for less than $2,000.

There’s no question that ethanol is here to stay, but with major increases in food-based ethanol are we putting short-term economic gain at the expense of everything else?

Related Posts:

Popular Mechanics: Ethanol Bill Bad News

ADM to Pump Ethanol Plant’s CO2 Under Illinois

The Growing Need for Fuel Substitution, Efficiency, and Conservation

NPR (Mar. 4, 08), Morning Edition: Ethanol Demand, Prices Boost Farm Communities, by Jason Beaubien

Autopia (Feb. 27, 08): Ethanol Industry, Bigger Than Ever, Says Its Critics Are Wrong





About the Author

In a past life, Clayton was a professional blogger and editor of Gas 2.0, Important Media’s blog covering the future of sustainable transportation. He was also the Managing Editor for GO Media, the predecessor to Important Media.

  • Ron Steenblik

    Good question! I might expand on your ending question and put it as “but with major increases in food-based ethanol are we putting short-term LOCAL economic gain at the expense of everything else”, where the “we” are the state and local governments, and the industry.

    That some livestock farmers in the ethanol-producing region may be benefitting from the availability of relatively cheap ethanol co-products does not alter the fact that much larger numbers of livestock producers, and consumers of corn and commodities (wheat, soybeans) that compete with corn, elsewhere are paying higher prices.

  • Ron Steenblik

    Good question! I might expand on your ending question and put it as “but with major increases in food-based ethanol are we putting short-term LOCAL economic gain at the expense of everything else”, where the “we” are the state and local governments, and the industry.

    That some livestock farmers in the ethanol-producing region may be benefitting from the availability of relatively cheap ethanol co-products does not alter the fact that much larger numbers of livestock producers, and consumers of corn and commodities (wheat, soybeans) that compete with corn, elsewhere are paying higher prices.

  • Pingback: University Funding Pulled For Anti-Biofuel Research : Gas 2.0()

  • Pingback: Alternative Fuels Now » Ethanol Industry: Jobs Are Better Than Food? : Gas 2.0()

  • solarnano

    It is idiotic to think that food based biofuels have a future in the world. Corn, soybean, palm oil and conventional pond-grown algae typically yield 18 gallons, 48 gallons, 635 gallons and 10,000 gallons per acre per year respectively. Valcent Products, http://www.valcent.net, has data proving that algae, using their closed loop vertical system, can grow 33,000 gallons of biodiesel, 16,500 gallons of ethanol, and 64 tons of animal feed on one acre of arid land using very little water. Some years back the NREL predicted that we could eliminate fossil fuels by growing algae in open ponds, at 10,000 gallons an acre of biofuel per year, using 15,000 square miles of nonagricultural land. No need for fresh water with the use of sea water. The Valcent system is 5 times more efficient than open ponds. Using the NREL figure 15,000 square miles and divide by 5, you get 3,000 square miles to feed the nations fuel needs. Add another 3,000 square miles to feed all of the electric needs for home and industry. 6,000 square miles of land theoretically should keep all of our fuel dollars at home, keep all food on the table, feed a hell of allot of animals, creates new jobs and, because algae needs carbon to grow, clean the air of all of those nasty pollutants that infect our health and planet. We can start doing that now. As for the future, phase out all the grossly inefficient polluting transportation, and go to efficient, non polluting all electric transport while sequestering the carbon, produced from the generation of electricity, back into growing more algae.

    What could be better??? Certainly not food for biofuel!!!

  • solarnano

    It is idiotic to think that food based biofuels have a future in the world. Corn, soybean, palm oil and conventional pond-grown algae typically yield 18 gallons, 48 gallons, 635 gallons and 10,000 gallons per acre per year respectively. Valcent Products, http://www.valcent.net, has data proving that algae, using their closed loop vertical system, can grow 33,000 gallons of biodiesel, 16,500 gallons of ethanol, and 64 tons of animal feed on one acre of arid land using very little water. Some years back the NREL predicted that we could eliminate fossil fuels by growing algae in open ponds, at 10,000 gallons an acre of biofuel per year, using 15,000 square miles of nonagricultural land. No need for fresh water with the use of sea water. The Valcent system is 5 times more efficient than open ponds. Using the NREL figure 15,000 square miles and divide by 5, you get 3,000 square miles to feed the nations fuel needs. Add another 3,000 square miles to feed all of the electric needs for home and industry. 6,000 square miles of land theoretically should keep all of our fuel dollars at home, keep all food on the table, feed a hell of allot of animals, creates new jobs and, because algae needs carbon to grow, clean the air of all of those nasty pollutants that infect our health and planet. We can start doing that now. As for the future, phase out all the grossly inefficient polluting transportation, and go to efficient, non polluting all electric transport while sequestering the carbon, produced from the generation of electricity, back into growing more algae.

    What could be better??? Certainly not food for biofuel!!!

  • Pingback: Ethanol Brings Gas Prices Down, Saves Consumers Money : Gas 2.0()