We read with interest the commentary from Drs. Jack Carter and John Nalewaja (Forum, July 20) regarding the inefficiencies of ethanol production. The authors proposed an objective discussion regarding the issue of conversion of grain to ethanol. However, their commentary contained statements regarding ethanol which are inaccurate.
Ethanol production is not simply energy conversion (petroleum products used in corn production being converted to ethanol), as stated in their article. Two recent research papers (Kim and Dale, 2002; Shapouri et al., 2002) have extensively reviewed and investigated the issue of whether or not ethanol production is energy efficient (i.e. does ethanol production produce more energy than it consumes?). Both papers concluded ethanol production does, in fact, produce more energy than it consumes (34 percent to 56 percent more in the two studies, respectively). These studies took into account the energy inputs necessary to grow the grain, transport it to a "biorefinery," the value of the resulting coproducts, and transport the ethanol to the consumer.
In addition, for every one BTU of liquid petroleum fuel used to produce ethanol, 6.34 BTU's are created (ethanol production uses natural gas and coal in addition to liquid petroleum inputs). From an energy security standpoint, this is promising, since it reduces our dependence on foreign crude oil imports.
Carter and Nalewaja appeared to be referring to dated research when they stated "five or six studies ... found the corn to ethanol process is negative for energy." Advances in fermentation technology, increased corn yields and advances in fertilizer production have all increased the efficiency at which ethanol is produced in the United States. In addition, new technologies under development (enhanced fermentation, improved engineering and improved corn varieties) should improve efficiency of ethanol production even more.
We certainly don't dispute the fact that ethanol and corn production are subsidized by the federal government. However, ethanol production throughout the Midwest has resulted in job creation, higher prices for corn, increased availability of high protein livestock feeds and economic development. Corn prices in eastern North Dakota are some of the lowest in the nation, making the area attractive for ethanol production as a means of adding value to locally grown agricultural commodities.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ethanol has other important environmental benefits which cannot be overlooked. Reduced emissions of greenhouse gases is one of the primary aims of federal mandates for reformulated fuels. Ethanol can serve this need and reduces concerns relative to ground water pollution which are present with MTBE, the other popular fuel additive in many urban areas.
As corn acreage rises in North Dakota, it makes sense to evaluate the potential for ethanol production. Federal clean air mandates have strengthened demand for cleaner burning fuels such as ethanol.
In our view, ethanol production makes sense for North Dakota and our corn farmers.
Lardy, Ph.D., is associate professor, Department of Animal and Range Sciences; Odde, Ph.D., is professor and head of the department at North Dakota State University.
E-mail glardy@ndsuext.nodak.edu
