Speak ill of ethanol and forget Iowa.
Posted on 07/09/2009 11:03:53 AM PDT by bestintxas
Corn-based biofuel costs 50 gallons of water per mile 05-05-09 Federal requirements to increase the production of ethanol has developed into a "drink-or-drive issue" in the Midwest as a result of biofuel production's impact on water supplies and water quality, says an environmental engineering researcher at Missouri University of Science and Technology in the latest issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology. In an analysis of the water required to produce ethanol from various crops, Joel G. Burken, Ph.D., a professor of environmental engineering at Missouri S&T, and colleagues from Rice University and Clarkson University find that ethanol could become a costly proposition in terms of "gallons per mile" and other water quality issues. They describe the Midwest's water needs and impacts as the "water footprint."
The researchers report that ethanol derived from corn grown in Nebraska, for example, would require 50 gallons of water per mile driven, when all the water needed in irrigation of crops and processing into ethanol is considered. Fuelderived from irrigated sorghum grown in that state would require even more water to produce -- as much as 115 gallons per mile. Moreover, increasing production of biofuels from row crops will likely result in more water pollution due to soil erosion and the increased use of pesticides to grow enough crops to meet federal mandates for more ethanol, the researchers say. The mandated production using the current technology has driven the use of ethanol production from corn and biodiesel from soybeans as these are the currently available technologies.
In the article, the researchers suggest that federal regulators take a closer look at how a push for bioenergy will affect water resources. "Developing a sustainable national biofuels program requires careful consideration of logistical concerns... and of unintended environmental impacts," write Burken and his co-authors, Rosa Dominguez-Faus and Pedro J. Alvarez, Ph.D., of Rice University and Susan E. Powers of Clarkson University, Ph.D., in their article, "The Water Footprint of Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue?" The article is online.
To arrive at their gallons-per-mile figures, the researchers first looked at the amount of water required to produce a single gallon of ethanol. In Nebraska, for example, it takes 800 gallons of water -- from crop irrigation through final processing into ethanol -- to create a single gallon of the corn-derived transportation fuel. Divide that by an average mileage of 16 miles per gallon (or two-thirds the average for gasoline-powered cars, a standard average for ethanol-powered vehicles), and the result is 50 gallons of water per mile. While previous studies have examined biofuel production's impact on air quality, land use and net energy value, "the effect of increased biofuel production on water security has not been subjected to the same scrutiny," the researchers write. The main focus of previous studies looked at environmental trade-offs to fossil-fuel usage and not other aspects of biofuel production, according to the researchers.
"The overall water footprint associated with biofuels must recognize the impact of increased agricultural activity on water quality as well as water consumption," they write. With the federal Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 calling for a dramatic ramp-up in ethanol production by 2015, Burken and his colleagues foresee additional water quality problems due to "increased agricultural activity such as tilling more land for row crops and higher fertilizer and agrichemical application." EISA requires the United States to produce 15 bn gallons of corn-derived ethanol annually by 2015 and 16 bn gallons of fuel from cellulosic crops, such as switchgrass, by 2016. The researchers note that 44 % of all the corn produced in the United States from 2007 would be required for ethanol production to meet the 2015 goal.
"The decision to mandate ethanol production may look great initially as we all like the concept of biofuels," Burken says, "but really our difficult energy position and reliance on foreign oil is the result of our lack of an energy policy and investing a decade ago in biofuel technologies. Biofuel production is part of our energy future, but it needs to be considered as part of a portfolio of energy sources and technologies." Burken and his colleagues suggest that "drought-tolerant, high-yield plants grown on little irrigation water" would have less impact on water resources. One such crop, Burken says, is miscanthus, a fast-growing perennial grass that "grows so dense you can't walk through it and grows about 9-10 feet a year."
Currently, however, no technology is available to convert the cellulosic biomass and produce it in large quantities. Once alternative biofuel production crops and processes are developed, selecting the best crop for individual settings will help to optimize biofuel production and minimize the environmental impacts of the production, Burken says.
Fresh water is more precious than anything...this is so foolish.
Forget about getting 50 miles per gallon.
This is 50 gallons per mile.
Way to go environmentalists!
So I guess you’re advocating we don’t use corn anymore for the literally thousands of things we do now.
Interesting...
Ping
It’s not like the water just vanishes. And I don’t see anyone doing similar studies on how much water it costs to produce a gallon of worthless gasoline.
“So I guess you’re advocating we don’t use corn anymore for the literally thousands of things we do now.”
Wrong!
Am advocating that it is idiocy to say you are protecting the environment by raising corn to burn as fuel when there are perfectly suitable alternatives that don’t use the precious water we need.
Much more corn is being grown as fuel than is needed.
It is also subsidized at fifty cents per gallon, so that is added to the price of gasoline, too.
Look, either make your point and stick to it, or don’t make your point. If that much water is being used, we need to stop eating corn and using it for the things we do today. I’m merely agreeing with you.
I don’t agree with the subsidy either.
Using the crops we eat and the water we drink as fuel to power a car...while a completely separate viable source is available...is really foolish.
I don’t where you are coming from.
Why say that you are protecting the environment by growing a renewable like corn to burn and at the same time help destroy it by using up its water resources?
What about that point is not understandable?
Using food for fuel/energy is not very efficient.
However, it is not a new thing.
For most of human history we converted food into fuel/energy by feeding horses, camels, etc. for transportation and to do work for us.
When the internal combustion engine was developed, efficiency grew exponentially.
It seems we’re reverting back to less efficient ways to make energy.
I’m simply saying, that if corn is as water intensive as the article relates, then we need to rethink it’s use in our society. That’s all. If growing corn is bad, then it’s bad.
Who knew? I appreciate the information.
Good point. Water comes out of river to make ethanol, water goes back into river. The question is how much does it cost to get the water out and to put it back in when you are finished with it.
It isn’t like there is a shortage of the raw stuff.
Just because you have a number does not mean it is a real number, but that is where our educaiton system as failed. Common sense?
That’s just goofy. Why do the morons who do these studies always assume that the corn used for ethanol production is grown under irrigation? Couldn’t be because they have a certain opinion and want to see an outcome to support their opinion.
The 50 cent/gal subsidy sucks too.
Got it.
Corn is a wonderful food crop that has many beneficial uses beyond food, and is too important to diss.
I was simply refering to its water-hogging component to produce, which is completely unnecessary to do so as a fuel, as it is inefficient, costs more and hurts our water supply, compared to alternatives.
Are those gallons of water actually leaving Iowa, or is it the same few gallons being used and reused right there? Are the H2O molecules being broken down into hydrogen and oxygen, such that the water no longer exists?
That’s not the assumption... it takes 50 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol **after** the harvesting - not for the growing....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.