[Sust-mar] Energy Ethanol Balance
ibs_pei at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 18 15:29:02 EDT 2008
Here is a very interesting letter that was forwarded to me.
I write to share a surprising calculation regarding Bill C-33's 5%
ethanol mandate: That mandate will displace just 0.7% of the fossil fuel
currently burned in Canadian cars and trucks. The 5% mandate will not
displace 5% of the fossil fuel now used, it will not even displace 1%,
it will displace just 0.7%, and it will do so at a cost of billions of
dollars. The following concisely details that conclusion.
According to numerous reports published by ethanol supporters (Shapouri
et al, Wang, Agriculture Canada, etc.), the energy balance for ethanol
is in the range of 1.1:1 to 1.35:1, with a consensus emerging around
What does an energy balance of 1.25:1 mean? It means that for every unit
of fossil fuel energy you put into producing ethanol (in making
fertilizer, in farmers' fields, in ethanol plants, etc.), you get back
1.25 units-a net gain of 25%. Many top analysts disagree strongly that
such a gain exists, but for the purposes of this letter, we can accept
the estimates of ethanol supporters.
A 1.25:1 energy balance means that for every one unit of fossil fuel
energy we put in, we get 1.25 units of ethanol energy out. What is the
significance of that calculation to the current debate around Bill C-33
and its proposed 5% ethanol mandate?
On the face of it, Bill C-33 would seem to help us replace 5% of our
fossil fuels (gasoline) with "renewable fuels" (ethanol). But this isn't
the case. This is where the energy balance comes in. Because that
ethanol-let's call it 5 units-takes some fossil fuel to produce. How
much fossil fuel does it take to produce those five units of ethanol?
Just over 4 units (the math is this: 5 ¸ 1.25). And when we account for
those 4 units of fossil fuel that went into making the 5 units of
ethanol, we find that a 5% ethanol mandate does not really displace 5%
of the fossil fuel in our gas tanks: it displaces just 1% (5 units minus
4 units, or 5% minus 4%).
But it's even worse than that, because the ethanol mandate is based on
volume. If the energy density of ethanol were the same as gasoline (if
there were the same number of BTUs per gallon or megajoules per litre),
then we actually would displace 1% of our fossil fuel. But the energy
density is not the same: A gallon of ethanol contains just 70% as much
energy as a gallon of gas. Thus, a 5% ethanol mandate for Canada does
not replace 5% of the fossil fuels we burn in our automobiles. It does
not even replace 1%. It replaces 0.7%-seven-tenths-of-one-percent (1% x
Surely Canada can find creative ways to cut fossil fuel consumption by a
paltry 0.7% without triggering the food price crisis that many have
attributed to ethanol. Surely we can find alternative ways to make that
0.7% gain that does not require billions in taxpayer spending. Surely we
can find ways to increase our fuel efficiency by less than 1% that don't
lay us open to charges of "burning food" in a world where nearly 1
billion go hungry.
When considering Bill C-33 and its 5% ethanol mandate, it is important
to think about options. It is important to ask: What other options do we
have for reducing gasoline use by 0.7%? An average driving speed of 1
mph slower would cut gasoline use by that amount. Cutting back by one
driving trip in every 142 would do the same. Just keeping our tires
properly inflated would do it. According to the Government of Canada,
"If just one tire is under inflated by 8 pounds per square inch, it can
increase your vehicle's fuel consumption by 4 percent." (
up our tires would save 4%, or more, of the fossil fuels used in
automobiles. That 4% saving is several times the 0.7% saving that would
result from a 5% ethanol mandate. And that 4% can be accomplished
without spending billions, and without risking the food security of
millions around the globe.
The National Farmers Union would like to appear before Senators to
discuss this critical issue. We urge you to give adequate and careful
consideration: Do not rush forward with this legislation based on
We look forward to working with you on this issue.
Director of Research
National Farmers Union
Phil Ferraro and Nancy Willis
Institute for Bioregional Studies Ltd.
114 Upper Prince Street, Charlottetown
Prince Edward Island Canada C1A 4S3
"Restoring Community, Protecting the Land and Informing the Earth’s Stewards"
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
More information about the sust-mar