Corn-Based Biofuel: Not All It’s Popped Up To Be?

20090401_corn fuelNowadays, the buzzword on everyone’s lips in the “green” world is “biofuel.” It seems that everyone and their uncle is looking for the best alternative to gasoline; something that is effective as a basic fuel source while doing away with the many pollutants that are associated with the discovery, refinement, and use of plain’ ol’ gas. So, it’s not surprising that someone went and found a way to make fuel out of something as off-the-wall as corn. Yes, corn biofuel exists, but is it a viable replacement for gasoline? The short answer seems to be both yes and no; for the longer answer, read on.

The allure of biofuels in general, and corn-based biofuel specifically, is their supposed ability to not only reduce mankind’s carbon footprint upon the planet, but to also reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil as well. However, Gracelinks reports that, sadly, neither is the case when it comes to that fancy new fuel that makes your car smell of the delightful aroma of french fries, they said.

“Even dedicating the entire U.S. corn crop to ethanol would displace only a small share of gasoline demand. Plus ethanol does little to nothing to fight climate change,” they said. “Large-scale corn production requires farm equipment that runs on fossil fuels. Coal-powered ethanol refineries can lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions than the fossil fuel ethanol is intended to replace.”

But it’s not just the harvesting and refinement methods of corn that make it ill-adviced for use as a furl source; in a previous article on the subject, environmental blog Yellow Pages Goes Green poses the hypothesis that corn-based biofuels, in and of themselves, are actually worse for the environment than gasoline.

“A recent study funded by the federal government and released the journal Nature Climate Change throws a wrench into the theory that biofuels are better for the environment, concluding that corn-residue biofuel releases seven percent more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than gasoline in the short term,” they said. “The study claims that [Corn Biofuel] won’t even be able to meet the standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuels. The study was an attempt to quantify the amount of carbon lost to the atmosphere when corn residue (stalks, leaves and cobs) is removed from the fields to be used in making biofuel instead of staying on the ground to replenish the soil naturally. The study concluded that the process of removing the corn residue from the fields contributes to global warming, no matter how much is removed.”

Even if corn biofuel was completely devoid of any environmentally-negative side-effects, Forbes nonetheless contends in a recent article that its simple existence has harmful ramifications upon people in other ways; making this alternative fuel source is literally taking food out of people’s mouths, they said.

“In 2013 the U.S. used 4.7 billion bushels of corn (40% of the harvest) to produce over 13 billion gallons of ethanol fuel,” they said. “The grain required to fill a single 25-gal gas tank with ethanol can feed one person for a year, so the amount of corn used to make that 13 billion gallons of ethanol did not feed the almost 500 million people it was feeding fifteen years ago. This is the population of the entire Western Hemisphere outside of the United States. Some estimate that 30 million people are actually starving as a direct result of biofuel production.”

Another issue with the production of corn biofuel that needs to be addressed is the sheer amount of water needed: three liters of water are needed to produce a single liter of gasoline. By contrast, making a liter of corn-based ethanol requires between 350 and 1,400 liters of water, according to Rwlwater.com.

Does it sound so far as if corn biofuel is a bad idea? It probably does. However, there are just as many opinions to the opposite on the value of its safety and usefulness as an alternative fuel source; The Guardian has published the results of a number of studies that claim to rebuke a number of the negative findings about corn-based fuels, saying that, overall, they ARE better in many respects than gasoline...if care was taken to address some of the legitimate environmental concerns regarding its production.

“A peer-reviewed study performed at the Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory in 2012 found that biofuels made with corn residue were 95% better than gasoline in greenhouse gas emissions,” they said. “That study assumed some of the residue harvested would replace power produced from coal, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is unclear whether future biorefineries would do that.”

Regardless, the entity whose opinion matters the most on the issue of corn biofuel – Uncle Sam himself – is decisively in the positive, according to Rwlwater.com; they note that United States Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 calls for 15 billion gallons of ethanol from corn to be produced annually by 2022. The idea is that this ethanol would be combined with motor fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the nation’s dependence on imported oil.

Whether corn biofuel is a harmful mistake or an environmental boon to mankind is open to some considerable debate, with both sides bringing plenty of viable ammunition to the table to support their arguments; indeed, there are enough contrasting opinions on the safety and usefulness of corn biofuel to set off debates for decades to come.