Food for Thought: Are Ethanol and Biofuels Worth the Work?

Opponents of crop-based biofuels, however, contend that it’s anything but net zero. Agricultural biofuel production, they say, takes food out of the ground and emits more carbon dioxide (CO2) than the fossil fuels it replaces.

This last point is a key reported finding by European clean-energy advocacy group T&E. In its latest Cerulogy report, T&E calculates that global biofuels production emits 16% on average more CO2 than conventional fossil fuels. (Editor’s Note: The group is decidedly pro-electrification when it comes to energy for the transportation sector).

Given that expectations of biofuel demand growth are predicting 40% or more by the end of this decade, biofuel foes are sounding the alarm to warn global climate leaders of the issue as they see it.

“These higher emissions are largely driven by the indirect impacts of farming and deforestation linked to crop-based biofuels,” reads T&E’s Cerulogy report. “By 2030, biofuels are projected to emit 70 metric tons of CO2 equivalent more than the fossil fuels they replace, equivalent to the annual emissions of almost 30 million diesel cars.”

Biofuel counterpoint: Cleanest fuel is the fossil fuel avoided

The T&E viewpoint is countered by many biofuel supporters who contend that converting waste animal and agricultural products into renewable diesel, renewable natural gas and SAF is a net decarbonization win. Waste products--whether it’s cattle droppings, crop residue, landfill materials or discarded food—are known to emit high levels of methane, considered by many environmental scientists as multiple times more damaging to the climate than CO2.

Biofuels also replace oil demand, including as much as four million barrels per day by 2028, according to the IEA.

“Renewable electricity leads growth by avoiding an additional 1.3 million barrels equivalent per day of oil consumption over the forecast period, while biofuels avoid another 700,000 barrels per day,” says the IEA site. “By 2028, biofuels account for nearly 60% of avoided oil demand and renewable electricity for the remainder.”

At what expense? T&E is not alone in citing the use of land and removal of food from the market by ethanol production. Growing crops to be burned as fuel, the group says, uses up to 32 million hectares (or 79 million acres) of land simply to meet a relatively paltry 4% of global transport energy demand.

The impact negatively touches several economic sectors and, more critically, human beings, T&E says.

“The same land could feed 1.3 billion people, while using just 3% of that land for solar panels would produce the same amount of energy. As electric vehicles are much more efficient than fossil fuel cars, that 3% of solar energy would be enough to power close to a third of the world’s current car fleet,” reads the Cerulogy report.

T&E’s analysis estimates that 90% of global biofuel production relies on food crops, including corn and sugarcane. The burning of 100 million bottles equivalent of vegetable oil in cars every day, the group says, could meet minimum calorific requirements for as many as 1.3 million people.

“Biofuels are a terrible climate solution and a staggering waste of land, food, and millions in subsidies,” Cian Delaney, biofuels campaigner at T&E, said in a statement. “Ensuring a sustainable balance between agriculture and nature is essential to tackling the climate crisis, and burning crops for fuel only pushes us further in the wrong direction. Governments around the world must prioritize renewables over crop biofuels.”

Creating diversion and diversification in the fuel supply stream

Biofuels producers and their supporters contend they are doing important work with long-term environmental benefits. Even the pro-fossil Trump Administration Department of Energy released nearly $800 million in DOE loan guarantees for Montana Renewables’ SAF production plant expansion where it converts seed oil into fuel in Great Falls, Montana.

On the food waste side, Divert and refrigeration warehousing firm United States Cold Storage (USCS) are partnering on a recycling program to take unsellable food and beverages and turn them into renewable energy.

“Creating reliable and flexible diversion pathways to support our customers across the food value chain represents a massive opportunity to drive environmental and operational impact,” Andrew Johnston, VP and GM, Industrials, Divert, said when the collaboration with USCS was announced. “Our collaboration with USCS demonstrates how the cold storage industry can turn a challenge into a value-generating solution—meeting compliance requirements, reducing emissions, and unlocking positive ESG and business outcomes.”

Food waste and animal waste are one thing. Ethanol inspires specific environmental concerns because of the acreage used, the corn taken out of the food industry and the net energy loss involved in the refining process.

Some ethanol producers are working to correct the carbon emission imbalance. Recent stories in EnergyTech convey work by ethanol and biofuels producers to further reduce their carbon footprint.

Agricultural production giant ADM (Archer-Daniels-Midland) recently started up a carbon capture, transport and storage (CCS) project at its Nebraska Corn Processing Complex which ultimately produces ethanol.

Both ADM and Green Plains have separate CCS facilities at their Nebraska biofuels sites. The captured carbon is collected and moved through the Trailblazer Pipeline to carbon storage sites deep underground in North Dakota and Wyoming.

The Trailblazer is a converted natural gas pipeline. Summit Carbon Solutions and others are investing in the system to remove as much as 18 million metric tons of compressed CO2 per year out of the ethanol production systems.