Corn Ethanol: Policy
Brief and Life Cycle
Analysis
By Tom Christen and Christina Smith
In this report, we will look to research corn ethanol and its life cycle energy efficiency from
the growing of corn until the ethanol is distributed to gas companies for blending with
gasoline. The reasoning behind this study is mainly that alternative fuels are becoming
more necessary and widely used in the US for future energy independence, and corn
ethanol has a big percentage of the total renewable fuel market for automobiles. A
thermodynamic analysis of the total energy output to input ratio of corn ethanol shown
that corn ethanol has a energy ratio of 1.24:1[1,2,3,4]. This means you only get a little more
energy out than what you put in to creating corn ethanol. Comparatively, gasoline has an
energy ratio of 4.14:1[4], meaning you get over four times the energy out than what you
put in for refining oil into gasoline. The Federal Government gives a large amount of
subsidies to corn farmers and ethanol producers in order to keep the prices of ethanol at a
reasonable level, as well as promote more corn ethanol production[5]. These corn ethanol
subsidies should be decreased, as well as corn ethanol production, until there are major
improvements in the life cycle of corn ethanol, specifically the corn to ethanol conversion
process. Big improvements in this area, which can likely be achieved through more
research funding, can greatly increase the energy output to input ratio from 1.24 closer to
that of gasoline at 4.14[4].
5/24/2012
Page 1 of 18
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Problem ......................................................................................................................... 3
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Stakeholder Analysis Table ........................................................................................................................... 5
Views of Various Stakeholders and Possible Actions/Strategies to Appease their Concerns ...................... 6
Analysis of Influence of Various Stakeholders ............................................................................................ 10
Thermodynamic Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 10
Arguments for Eliminating Government Subsidies for Corn Ethanol ......................................................... 15
Arguments Against Eliminating Government Subsidies for Corn Ethanol .................................................. 15
Policy Recommendation ............................................................................................................................. 16
Citations ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Page 2 of 18
Introduction to the Problem
In this report, we will look to research corn ethanol and its life cycle energy
efficiency from the growing of corn until the ethanol is distributed to gas companies for
blending with gasoline. The reasoning behind this study is mainly that alternative fuels are
becoming more necessary and widely used in the US for future energy independence, and
corn ethanol has a big percentage of the total renewable fuel market for automobiles. A
thermodynamic analysis of the total energy output to input ratio of corn ethanol will be
determined, and compared to other fuels, such as gasoline. In addition, a stakeholder
analysis will be completed based on a specified goal. By determining the effectiveness of
current incentives and subsidies for corn ethanol while also looking at the energy output to
input ratio, we will additionally evaluate their economic impact, and make a
recommendation to Congress for their continued use.
Background
After conducting some thermodynamic analysis on the life cycle of corn ethanol, it is
pretty clear that serious improvements need to be made before ethanol production is
increased, at least in the United States. The energy output to input ratio for wet corn
ethanol is approximately 1.24[1,2,3,4], meaning you get a little more energy out than what
you put in. The majority of energy used in creating corn ethanol is in ethanol production,
which includes hydrolysis, fermentation, and distillation. In fact, this process uses about 78
percent of the total energy needed in the life cycle of corn ethanol production. When
comparing the energy output to input ratio of ethanol to the energy output to input ratio of
gasoline, which is 4.14[4], one may wonder why so much ethanol is produced in this
country. Even though high levels of corn ethanol production are great for farmers, it is hard
to justify these levels of production we have now based on how much energy you get out of
the fuel versus the energy that goes into making the fuel.
Over the past several years, the Federal Government has implemented numerous
regulations and subsidies that directly benefit the corn ethanol industry. Although the
intention of these subsidies is to promote green energy by making corn based ethanol more
affordable to consumers, these regulations have had some economic repercussions that,
too many people, far outweigh their benefits. Some of these repercussions will be explained
in the next few paragraphs.
In order to promote the use of corn ethanol, the government subsidizes ethanol at
$0.51/gallon[5]. In addition, they also offer subsidies to corn growers, independent of
whether or not they actually grow corn. This means that the taxpayers have to pay twice
for the production of ethanol. Congress also passed a law requiring at least 7.5 billion
gallons of ethanol to be used annually by drivers, beginning in 2012. Due in part to
Page 3 of 18
ethanol’s high production costs and its mandated percentage in gasoline, combined with
various other economic events, fuel prices have skyrocketed. In the meantime, the cost of a
bushel of corn has almost doubled in less than a year[6]. This means record profits for corn
farmers, but it is detrimental to animal farmers. Over 50% of the corn grown in the US is
feed corn supplied to animal farmers. With the dramatic increase in the price of corn,
animal farmers have been struggling to keep their livestock fed while still making a profit.
Due to these rising feed corn costs, meat prices in the US have also risen sharply[6].
The government also requires that all ethanol sold in the US contain a certain
amount of “green” ethanol. “Green” ethanol consists of plant-based or any other completely
renewable sources of ethanol. In 2007, Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard law,
where gasoline refiners are mandated to blend so much plant-based or renewable ethanol
into the gas supply that it prevents companies such as Celanese, which converts dirty fossil
fuels into ethanol, from even competing in the United States market[7]. These companies,
unlike corn farmers, claim to require no subsidies, and are currently operational and able
to supply the US with a vast percentage of the ethanol it needs. However, they are forced to
export their product, mainly to China, because the government won’t allow them to sell it
domestically[7].
Another concern associated with ethanol when compared to gasoline is energy
density. Ethanol contains about one third less energy than gas, which means mileage is
about 30 to 40 percent lower in a 100 percent ethanol fuel[8]. So, in a typical gasoline blend
of 10 percent ethanol, the miles per gallon on your car decreases by about 3 to 4 percent.
This decrease in mileage adds up over time considering the average driver in the United
States drives 13,476 miles per year[9]. This concern is mainly shared by consumers, who
would like to get the most mileage out of their automobiles to reduce their driving costs[8].
The US government has gone to great lengths to implement a more environmentally
friendly energy policy, specifically with regards to corn based ethanol. However, the
environmental benefits of corn ethanol are proven to be minimal at best, and in most cases,
ethanol is very comparable to gasoline in that regard. The severe economic toll that corn
subsidies have levied on the American people is not worth the indiscernible environmental
benefits that corn ethanol provides[6]. The government should rescind their subsidies for
corn ethanol until they can implement policies that promote various sustainable energy
options while still allowing competition to keep prices low. Additionally, we would
recommend that corn ethanol production be decreased in the United States until there are
serious improvements in the corn to ethanol conversion process, which currently uses up
about 78% of the total energy input needed in the life cycle of corn ethanol production.
Major improvements in this area can greatly increase the energy output to input ratio from
1.24 closer to that of gasoline at 4.14[4].
Page 4 of 18
Stakeholder Analysis Table
Stakeholder Analysis
Goal: To diminish government subsidies for the corn ethanol market, allowing other alternative fuels to
be more competitive in the market.
Stakeholders
Attitude
Confidence
Influence
Confidence
Environmental Groups
0
??
M
?
Corn Farmers
--
?
M
?
Animal Farmers
++
√
M
?
Automakers
+
√
M
√
Ethanol Producers
--
√
L
√
Chemical Producers
++
??
L
√
Department of Energy
-
√
M
√
Department of Agriculture
-
√
M
√
Environmental Protection Agency
-
√
M
√
Private Sector
Public Sector
Page 5 of 18
Views of Various Stakeholders and Possible Actions/Strategies to
Appease their Concerns
Environmental Groups
Attitude
As far as their opinion on the use of corn-based ethanol, environmental groups seem to be
evenly split. Groups opposed to corn ethanol site an increase in air pollution and smog due
to the farming and production requirements of ethanol. In addition, the efficiency and
amount of fossil fuels used to create ethanol are viewed as counterproductive. Those in
favor of ethanol claim that it reduces dependency on oil, while also creating a cleaner
burning fuel.
Actions/Strategies
We would encourage those environmental groups who seek to promote the use of corn
ethanol to look into its overall life cycle efficiency, as well as the pollution caused by mass
production. We would also present them with the results of our thermodynamic analysis, in
order to publicize ethanol’s inefficiency compared to gasoline. For those environmental
groups who are opposed to corn-based ethanol, we would encourage them to continue
raising awareness of the downfalls of corn ethanol. Ideally, they would also be able to
provide the public with alternative, cleaner sources of energy, that could become more
prevalent if ethanol usage was lessened.
Sources: 10 (pg 28), 12, 17 (pgs 8, 16)
Corn Farmers
Attitude
Corn farmers have benefited enormously from the rapid increase in ethanol production.
Government subsidies on ethanol and corn, as well as skyrocketing corn prices, have seen
these farms record profits. Their corn production has risen drastically, which has helped
create numerous jobs and promote small businesses. If the government were to stop
offering them the significant subsidies they currently enjoy, their profits would surely
decrease.
Actions/Strategies
It will be difficult to dissuade corn farmers from their support of ethanol, as they have seen
their profits skyrocket due to its mandated use. It could be beneficial, though, to try to
convince farmers to become more involved in biofuels that do not require the actual corn
to be used in the fuel. If more companies produced ethanol by using other, non-edible parts
of the corn, the edible corn could still be used as feed, thus maintaining profits for corn
farmers, while lowering costs for animal farmers.
Sources: 6 (pg 13), 17 (pgs 8, 10)
Page 6 of 18
Animal Farmers
Attitude
As a whole, animal farmers seem to oppose the growing of corn for ethanol production.
Over half the corn grown in the United States is used as feed for animals and livestock. The
rising costs of corn caused by an increase in ethanol production has been extremely
problematic for animal farmers. With feed corn supply dwindling and prices rising, animal
farmers are struggling to try to feed all their animals while still generating a profit. The
increase in corn prices is therefore causing an increase in meat prices as well.
Actions/Strategies
It is very important for animal farmers to continue voicing their concerns about ethanol to
both lawmakers and the general public. The rising cost of meat is something that most
Americans will be concerned with, and if animal farmers can gain more publicity for their
plight, there will be more of a public outcry against corn ethanol.
Sources: 7 (pg 8), 15
Automakers
Attitude
Automakers are widely opposed to shifting to an ethanol based fuel system. Government
regulations for fuel-efficient cars are detrimental to profits in the auto industry. The new
technology required to develop and produce these cars makes them very expensive, which
in turn makes them unappealing to the consumer. Automakers are forced to take a loss on
these vehicles in order to continue to sell them so that they can meet government
requirements. If requirements for specific fuels were relaxed, automakers would have a
variety of alternative fuels to choose from, and the competition would help to drive prices
down.
Actions/Strategies
Being one of the largest industries in America, and as such they have a significant influence
on the public and the government. Automakers should take a more public stand over
further integration and favoritism of corn ethanol. We would encourage them to start
developing technology to create more fuel-efficient vehicles capable of running off of
various types of green energy, so that they can help diversify the green energy market.
Page 7 of 18
Ethanol Producers
Attitude
As one might expect, ethanol producers are very much in favor of increasing ethanol
production. The recent spike in ethanol production has led to countless new factories,
which bring new jobs and help to stimulate local economies. If the government eliminated
their ethanol subsidies, demand for ethanol would obviously decrease, causing a significant
profit loss for these companies
Actions/Strategies
As with corn farmers, it will be difficult to persuade ethanol producers to give up the
tremendous profits they incur from corn ethanol production. We would present them with
information detailing the environmental impact of ethanol production, so that they can
develop ways to help minimize these effects. We would also encourage them to develop
technology to create ethanol and other biofuels from non-edible plants.
Sources: 10 (pg 28), 17 (pgs 8-10)
Chemical Producers
Attitude
Certain chemical companies have been able to create ethanol from fossil fuels such as coal
and natural gas. These companies, however, are not permitted to even enter the market,
due to government regulations requiring ethanol to contain a certain percentage of plantbased material. This obviously gives corn-based ethanol a significant advantage over these
companies. If government subsidies for corn ethanol were eliminated, these companies
would automatically be able to enter the market, benefiting themselves and consumers.
Actions/Strategies
We would suggest that these companies continue to lobby the government to allow them to
sell their product domestically. Because their product is ready for production, we suggest
that they being selling it internationally, as some have already done, and use those markets
to collect data about the cleanliness and efficiency of their product. This data would be
instrumental in removing restrictions from their industry.
Sources: 7
Department of Energy
Attitude
As part of the Federal Government’s quest to become more reliant on domestically
produced green energy, the DOE has shown significant support for corn-based ethanol. It
Page 8 of 18
has sited the environmental benefits of corn ethanol and decreased emissions compared to
gasoline as reasoning for its support.
Actions/Strategies
We would urge the DOE to rescind the subsidies it offers for ethanol. Their goal is obviously
to reduce petroleum usage, which they should continue to do, but they should be
encouraged to do so by offering equal subsidies for all forms of clean energy, instead of
unfairly favoring corn ethanol.
Sources: 1
Department of Agriculture
Attitude
Like the DOE, the USDA has also shown significant support for the corn ethanol industry. It
has also provided evidence of ethanol as a cleaner fuel as reasoning for this support, as well
as economic advantages. The USDA would likely be opposed to a reduction in subsidies for
corn ethanol, as it would allow for the emergence of other renewable fuels, which could
hurt the agriculture businesses that have thrived off of corn ethanol production.
Actions/Strategies
The USDA is supposed to represent the entire agricultural industry, not just corn farmers.
With that in mind, we would provide them with information showing the economical
disadvantages that corn subsidies impose upon the rest of the agriculture industry. This
would be used to dissuade them from offering further subsidies to corn farmers, and to try
to promote a more general use of biofuels.
Sources: 3
Environmental Protection Agency
Attitude
The EPA has continued to support the production of corn-based ethanol, going to far as to
fine gasoline companies that do not incorporate enough “green” ethanol into their
products.
Actions/Strategies
We believe that the EPA could be easily convinced to retract their support of corn ethanol.
Providing them with the significant amount of data, from numerous sources, that shows the
negative consequences of the life cycle of corn ethanol on the environment would
encourage them to seek out other forms of green energy. If they were also provided with
other more attractive alternatives to corn ethanol, they could begin to institute fewer, more
balanced regulations.
Sources: 7
Page 9 of 18
Analysis of Influence of Various Stakeholders
Environmental Groups, Farmers, and Automakers all have significant influence in
Washington due to their prominent lobbyists (The American Farm Bureau ranked 15th on
Fortune’s 2011 list of Washington’s most influential interest groups. The Sierra club was
ranked 37th). Chemical and Ethanol producers are not nearly as prolific, so their influence
is minimal.
The DOE, USDA, and EPA are all government organizations capable of creating and
enforcing regulations, so they are obviously very influential.
Thermodynamic Analysis
To get started on the thermodynamic analysis of corn ethanol, various assumptions
were taken, including[1,4]:
- One acre of land yields 156 bushels of corn
- One bushel of corn is equivalent to 25.45 kg of corn kernels
- These corn kernels are assumed to be 70% starch
- Corn stalks are composted and not involved in the process of making corn ethanol
There are various processes involved that have to be accounted for in making corn
ethanol when looking at its life cycle efficiency, including[4]:
- External energy used in growing the corn
- Fertilizer and Pesticide production and use
- Ethanol production (hydrolysis, fermentation, distillation)
- Corn transportation
- Ethanol Distribution
- Various other processes
First, the chemistry behind making corn ethanol will be looked at. Figure 1 below shows
a hydrolyzed starch molecule:
Figure 1 – Starch Molecule
In hydrolysis, the glucosidic bonds (pink shading in Figure 1 above) are broken, and
each glucose unit gains one water molecule.
Page 10 of 18
Since ethanol is made from the hydrolyzed starch shown in Figure 1, with the
theoretical efficiency of 0.51, 1 kg of dry corn grain can yield, at maximum,
(0.66×180/162)×0.51 = 0.374 kg of water-free ethanol with zero losses[2]. Therefore, from
1 hectare, it is possible to theoretically produce 2730 kg of ethanol, given the dry corn yield
that is displayed above. Of course there are losses in the corn-to-ethanol conversion
process, and the practical efficiency will be lower.
In the U.S., the customary unit of reporting efficiency of corn conversion to ethanol
is gallons of ethanol per bushel[2]. The theoretical efficiency of 0.374 kg ethanol/kg dry
grain gives 3.19 gallons ethanol/dry bushel. This is equivalent to 2.71 gallons ethanol/wet
bushel (15% moisture).
For wet-milling plants, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
arrived at an average estimate of 2.682 gallons ethanol per dry bushel[3]. Therefore, by
dividing this number by 3.19 gallons at maximum theoretical efficiency, the average
efficiency of the U.S. wet-milling ethanol refineries is determined to be 84.1% of the
theoretical efficiency. This equated to an actual overall efficiency of 42.9%. These results
are shown below in Figure 2:
Maximum theoretical conversion of corn to
ethanol
Average Efficiency of US Ethanol Plants compared
to maximum theoretical value
Actual Overall efficiency of US Ethanol Plants
Figure 2 – Efficiencies
=
51%
=
84.10%
=
42.90%
First, we will look at an idealized process for the life-cycle of corn ethanol. Table 1
below shows different energy required (in Btu/gal) for the various processes used to grow
corn until it is distributed as ethanol[4]:
Page 11 of 18
Ideal Ethanol Life Cycle From
Growing to Distribution
Energy Source
External Energy
(used in growing
corn)
Diesel
Gasoline
LP Gas
Natural Gas
Electricity
Fertilizer/Pesticide
Production and Use
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Potassium
Pesticide
Ethanol Production
Hydrolysis and
Fermentation
Distillation
Miscellaneous
Corn Transportation
Energy
needed per
gallon
(Btu/gal)
1958
703
1059
385
516
4677
193
435
22
5715
32335
2263
Ethanol Distribution
1588
Total
Ethanol Energy
Content
Net Energy Value
Energy Output:Input
Ratio
51849
76330
24481
1.472
Table 1 – Idealized Ethanol Life Cycle Analysis
As shown above, an ideal process for converting corn to ethanol yields an energy
output to input ratio of 1.472. This means that it would take about 0.68 gallons of ethanol
to produce and distribute 1 gallon of ethanol from corn.
These idealized values were taken based on ideal conditions. For example, corn
output is assumed to be at the maximum theoretical amount, which increases the amount
of ethanol you can get from each acre. Additionally, irrigation is kept to a minimum, which
no farmer would ever dare approach. This decreases the electricity used in growing the
Page 12 of 18
corn. Also, there is assumed to be no losses in the ethanol production, as ethanol plants are
assumed to be running at 100% efficiency. As stated earlier, this value is actually 84.1%.
Next, we will look at a realistic process for the life-cycle of corn ethanol. These
values are taken by averaging 9 Midwest states together. Table 2 below shows different
energy required (in Btu/gal) for the various processes used to grow corn until it is
distributed as ethanol[1,4,7,15]:
Realistic Ethanol Life Cycle
From Growing to Distribution
Energy Source
External Energy
(used in growing
corn)
Diesel
Gasoline
LP Gas
Natural Gas
Electricity
Fertilizer/Pesticide
Production and Use
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Potassium
Pesticide
Ethanol Production
Hydrolysis and
Fermentation
Distillation
Miscellaneous
Corn Transportation
Energy
needed
per
gallon
(Btu/gal)
2447.5
878.75
1323.75
481.25
645
4677
193
435
22
7143
48503
2828.75
Ethanol Distribution
1985
Total
Ethanol Energy
Content
Net Energy Value
Energy Output:Input
Ratio
71563
76330
4767
1.067
Table 2 – Realistic Ethanol Life Cycle Analysis
As shown above, a realistic process for converting corn to ethanol yields an energy
output to input ratio of 1.067. This means that it would take about 0.937 gallons of ethanol
to produce and distribute 1 gallon of ethanol from corn. Clearly, this is not very energy
efficient. In fact, it would take 15 gallons of ethanol to have 1 net gallon of ethanol for use.
Page 13 of 18
One way to increase the energy output to input ratio of the life cycle of ethanol is to
add some co-products in ethanol production to the net energy value of the life cycle process
of converting corn to ethanol. Some co-products of corn ethanol production that can be
used for other processes are distiller’s dried grains, corn oil, corn gluten meal, and corn
gluten feed. A realistic value for co-products is 10,000Btu/gal. This is shown below in Table
3[7]:
Ethanol Energy
Net Energy Value
Realistic Addition
due to Coproducts
New NEV
Energy Output:Input
Ratio
76330
4767
10000
14767
1.240
Table 3 – Energy Output:Input Ratio After Including Co-Products
After including co-products in the life cycle analysis, the new energy output to input
ratio is 1.24. This is a big upgrade over the previous ratio of 1.067. However, when
compared to the life cycle analysis of gasoline, ethanol is nowhere near as energy efficient
in production. Gasoline has an energy output to input ratio of 4.14[4], which is almost 4
times as high as the same ratio for ethanol. These results are summarized in the table
below:
Energy Input Low Heating
(Btu/Gal) Value (Btu/Gal)
Ethanol
61563
76330
Gasoline
28023
116090
Energy
Ratio
1.24
4.14
Table 4 – Corn Ethanol vs. Gasoline Energy Ratio[4]
The energy ratio is calculated using the following equation:
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝐿𝑜𝑤 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡
 Equation 1
In order to come up with efficiencies for the corn ethanol life cycle compared to
gasoline, we came up with the following equation is used:
𝑁𝐸𝑉
𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 ∗ 100%  Equation 2
Where NEV is the net energy value of the process and the energy content of the fuel is
taken as the low heating value of the fuel.
As shown in the equation above, if there was no refining involved in a fuel, the net
efficiency would be 100%. This is because the net energy value would not change since
there are no production losses. However, this is not realistic. Table 5 below shows the net
efficiency of corn ethanol compared to gasoline:
Page 14 of 18
Energy Content
(Btu/Gal)
Ethanol
76330
Gasoline
116090
NEV
Efficiency
14767
88067
19.35
75.86
Table 5 – Net Efficiency
Overall, when you compare the life cycle of corn ethanol to gasoline, the results are
drastically different. The energy ratio of gasoline, 4.14, is almost 4 times greater than the
energy ratio of corn ethanol, 1.24. The net efficiency of ethanol is about 20%, compared to
about 76% for gasoline. As shown by these values, corn ethanol needs to go through huge
technological improvements before it is even comparable to gasoline, or any other major
fossil fuel.
Arguments for Eliminating Government Subsidies for Corn Ethanol
The thermodynamic analysis of the life cycle efficiency of corn ethanol proves that it
is an incredibly inefficient fuel source. Although it may burn cleaner than gasoline, the low
energy output to input ratio nearly negates its benefits. In addition, the extensive land use
and air pollutants resulting from the production of ethanol will continue to harm the
environment unless significant technological improvements are made throughout the
production process. In the meantime, government subsidies continue to take an
unnecessary toll on consumers. The government requires gasoline to contain a certain
percentage of corn ethanol. Since ethanol is significantly more expensive to produce than
gasoline, this cost is then added to the price of gasoline, which has helped to cause prices to
rise dramatically in recent years. Corn is also the main source of feed for animal farmers.
With the price of corn rising, it now costs more for animal farmers to raise their animals,
meaning food prices will also skyrocket. In order to justify this kind of economic impact on
the American people, the government should be able to provide substantial evidence of the
environmental benefits of corn ethanol, which is impossible at this point. These subsidies
should be removed in order to make other, cleaner alternative fuels more competitive.
Arguments Against Eliminating Government Subsidies for Corn Ethanol
The increased production of corn ethanol has helped to stimulate the economy and
create jobs. Corn growers have seen record profits over the past several years. Increasing
the yearly mandate for ethanol usage has led to the creation of many new ethanol
production factories, which in turn have created new jobs. As the ethanol industry
continues to grow, producers will continue to seek out more efficient methods of
production in order to increase their profits. Without government subsidies and mandates,
the demand for ethanol will decline, which will obviously lead to a decrease in production.
Page 15 of 18
Without this demand there will be no incentive for ethanol producers to continue creating
more advanced, environmental production technologies. Government subsidies for corn
ethanol have created jobs and helped advance green energy technology.
Corn Ethanol also helps to decrease American dependence on foreign oil, which is
very important to both the government and the general public. It burns much cleaner than
gasoline, and if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gasses, we need to start making
financial sacrifices in order to do so. Corn ethanol may be more expensive, but it does emit
fewer toxins than gasoline, and in the long run this will really add up.
Policy Recommendation
Based on our findings, we would recommend that the US Government significantly
decrease its subsidies and incentives for corn ethanol. The bias shown to corn ethanol over
other alternative fuels has placed a severe monetary burden on the taxpayers, while failing
to have a substantial impact on the environment. As the government continues to provide
these benefits to corn ethanol industry, it is taking incentive away from other types of
sustainable energy that are arguably much cleaner than corn ethanol.
It is our recommendation that the government eliminates or reduces the majority of
its subsidies and incentives for corn ethanol, specifically the requirement that 7.5 billion
gallons of ethanol be used annually. This requirement is helping to drive up the cost of
gasoline, while having little if any positive impact on the economy. The money used to fund
this, and other subsidies, should then be redistributed to researching ways of improving
ethanol production technology, as well as other clean energy incentives.
Current ethanol technology is not advanced enough to produce a fuel type with
comparable efficiency to gasoline while significantly reducing its environmental impact.
The money being used to subsidize and promote ethanol use should go to improving the
environmental and economic viability of ethanol, as well as other emerging clean energy
options.
Page 16 of 18
Citations
1) Wang, Michael. "Ethanol." US Department of Energy, Mar. 2007. Web. 22 Apr. 2012.
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/ethanol_brochure_
color.pdf>.
2) Patzek, Tad W. "Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle." Energy Crisis.
N.p., 24 Feb. 2006. Web. 18 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.energycrisis.org/Patzek/ThermodynamicsCornEthanol.pdf>.
3) Shapouri, Hosein, and Duffield, James, and Wang, Michael. “The Energy Balance of
Corn Ethanol: An Update.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief
Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report No.
813. Web. 22 Apr. 2012. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
4) Syed Shajudeen, Peer Mohideen. "Analysis of Corn-to-Ethanol Process for
Automotive Applications." University of South Alabama, 2008. United States -Alabama: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT). Web. 19 Apr. 2012.
5) "An Energy Field of Dreams." Editorial. The Wall Street Journal [New York] 17 June
2006. Mindfully.org. Web. 13 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2006/Ethanol-Energy-Dreams17jun06.htm>.
6) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/opinion/25Rattner.html?_r=1&hp
Rattner, Steven, "The Great Corn Con", The New York Times, June 24, 2011. Retrieved
2011-06-25.
7) Helman, C. (2012, April 3). How a Dumb Law Blocks a Great Way to Fuel America.
Retrieved from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/03/ethanol-minusthe-corn-it-could-fuel-america-if-it-werent-illegal/
8) Newman, Rick. "Corn Ethanol." US News. N.p., 11 Jan. 2008. Web. 22 Apr. 2012.
<http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2008/01/11/cornethanol>.
9) "Average Annual Miles per Driver by Age Group." United States Department of
Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. N.p., 4 Apr. 2011. Web. 8 May
2012. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm>.
Page 17 of 18
10)Foust, Thomas, and Matthew Yung. "Advanced Biofuels: Weaning Clean Energy Off
Corn." ASME. N.p., Mar. 2011. Web. 22 Apr. 2012. <http://www.asme.org/kb/news--articles/articles/renewable-energy/advanced-biofuels--weaning-clean-energy-offcorn>.
11)Hitting the Ethanol Blend Wall: Examining the Science on E15: Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, 112th Cong. 28 (2011).
12)"What is a life cycle assessment?." National Renewable Energy Laboratory. N.p., Mar.
2002. Web. 22 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy02/31792.pdf>.
13)"Ethanol Facts: Agriculture." Renewable Fuels Association. N.p., 2012. Web. 22 Apr.
2012. <http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/ethanol-facts-agriculture>.
14)Hitting the Ethanol Blend Wall: Examining the Science on E15: Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, 112th Cong. 28 (2011).
15)Hearing to Review the Impact of the Indirect Land Use and Renewable Biomass
Provisions in the Renewable Fuel Standard: Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, 111th
Cong. 13 (2009).
16)Review of the Impact of Feed Costs on the Livestock Industry: Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, of the Committee on Agriculture,
110th Cong. 4 (2007)
17)The Benefits of Tax Incentives for Producers of Renewable Fuels and its Impact on
Small Businesses and Farmers: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Rural Enterprises,
Agriculture, and Technology of the Committee on Small Business, 108th Cong. 63
(2004).
Page 18 of 18