How ingrained have we a society been with the idea that going ethanol is going green? We’re in pretty deep. Too deep. I used to be a supporter of ethanol, but having learned myself, I realized ethanol is not that great, and I’ll tell you why in a moment.
First, the government’s national commission on energy policy is calling for a 400% increase in the use of biofuels (see: corn ethanol [see: US farmer lobbyists]) by 2022. Flex fuel cars are in full production (mostly huge, gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs from what I can see) and there is an ethanol pump at almost every gas station in this town. Fuel runs about 30¢ cheaper than the regular stuff (but…subsidies make it this cheap).
As for the carbon output of ethanol, it’s supposedly “carbon neutral”, meaning that because it’s renewable, the carbon it outputs will be sucked right back up by the corn we’re growing to make more ethanol, a fine and dandy circular method, if not for some pesky details we’ll get to below.
In Minnesota, there are 14 ethanol plants and 20% of the corn production goes to ethanol production. MN is one of three states required to blend ethanol with gas (Hawaii and Missouri being the other two). In 2005, the E-20 bill passed, which mandates by 2013 a mix of 20% ethanol in all gasoline sold in the state. This is set to expire at the end of this year if “Minnesota is not granted federal approval to use E-20 gasoline blends”. This in turn will pump money into the local economy and provide new jobs, etc. etc.
Which would be great if MN was sitting on an unending supply of freshwater. …
Because one gallon of ethanol requires 1700 gallons of water to produce.

1700 gallons of water.

For one gallon of ethanol.
Potable water isn’t endless. And it’s one thing everybody cares about. Everybody on this planet needs water to survive. And we’re pissing away 1700 gallons of it to make 1 gallon of ethanol? And this is GREEN?
Not to mention the carbon spewed out when we grow corn and during the production of ethanol, the pesticides, and the fact that rainforests are destroyed to grown corn (well, not in MN). There are the production pollutants of drilling for oil and the production, but there is still that PESKY water issue. Estimated water used per gallon of gasoline? 1.5-2.5.
Add in the fact that corn ethanol is not that great of a fuel, as it provides 34% less energy than oil-based gas. Flex-fuel cars are tuned to give better power and torque output (why can’t we do this for REAGULAR cars?) and so you get between 20-30% less fuel efficiency than oil-based gas. Hmmm. does the price difference make up for the miles you’re losing? Based on the $2.60 gas and $2.30 e85 in this locale, nope. E85 would need to be $2.08 at most. And given that ethanol would be MORE than your regular gas without subsidies, ethanol seems to be a losing battle.
Except if we could grow sugarcane (which we really can’t on a large scale). In Brazil, sugarcane ethanol is a thriving industry, but the difference is that sugarcane gets more than 50% more ethanol out of an acre of land than corn. Also, sugarcane is 5-6 times more efficient as a biofuel than corn. Corn is not a good biofuel. But corn is this country’s cash crop.
So now you’re all thinking I’m turning into a carbon-spewing, gas-loving, SUV-driving hypocrite. NO. We need an alternative, desperately. But guess what? Corn isn’t it. There have to be other alternatives out there that are more efficient, wreak less havoc on the environment while making it, and use LESS THAN 1700 GALLONS OF WATER while producing a gallon. Heck, there ARE better alternatives (sugarcane). But since corn has a stronghold on this country, we’re not going to be on friendly terms with Brazil on that anytime soon. Yes, oil is limited, and we need renewable energy sources, but not at the cost of our water supply.

In the 1930s there was this little ol’ thing called the new deal, which was product of the great depression, and a part of which was the agricultural adjustment act. This paid farmers to leave parts of their fields fallow so as to raise the price of crops. (Not coincidentally, this was also following the dust bowl, where farmers had so over-farmed their fields that, when combined with drought, practically eliminated topsoil.) This was pretty much the norm until the 1970s, when the secretary of agriculture Earl Butz came in with a whole new idea: “get big or get out.”
Now farmers were encouraged to plant from fencepost to fencepost and leave no part of their fields fallow. Not only that, Butz also encouraged big farms and consolidation. This “farm bill” has been pretty much held to the same standard for the past 40 years. The most recent bill was passed in 2008, and contains the following (via CRS report for congress, order cod rs22131):
1. Commodity programs
2. Conservation
3. Trade
4. Nutrition
5. Credit
6. Rural development
7. Research
8. Forestry
9. Energy
10. Horticulture and organic agriculture
11. Livestock
12. Crop insurance and disaster assistance programs
13. Commodity futures
14. Miscellaneous
15. Trade and tax provision
Some interesting things to pull out of here: the commodity programs eliminate benefits to farmers with less than 10 acres (bigger is better). There is a mandated 85% market share for US sugar producers (not corn related, but I thought it was very relevant). The farm bill is where the food stamp program is hidden in our country’s budget (under nutrition). (I find it very weird that the food stamp program is nestled in with a bill that, in theory, reduces that eligibility limit for food stamps…) ethanol production is promoted through the energy section of this, and I’m not sold on the viability of ethanol (but that’s another blog post).
As for the numbers, the farm bill for 2008-2012 is estimated at a total of $284 billion. 14% is for commodity crops, 67% goes to nutrition programs (food stamps), 9% for conservation and 8% to crop insurance. The remaining 2% goes to the rest of the provisions in the bill.
So how does a subsidy work? It guarantees a price floor on a crop and farmers are paid an extra 52¢ per bushel. For example only, say the price floor on corn is $3.71/bushel. Farmers will always get that price plus 52¢. If the price falls below $3.71, farmers get paid the difference. So, corn is selling for $3.65; the farmer gets 58¢ a bushel.
Now where it gets sticky is when prices go below the price floor. The loan deficiency payment is the difference that is paid when prices are lower, and it’s getting to the point where farmers are wishing for lower prices to cash in on government (see: OUR) cash. According to a “Washington post” article (Dan Morgan, July 3, 2006), a farmer named Richardson walked into the local USDA office and proved he owned and harvested a crop. He applied for the deficiency payment based on this only. Since Richardson was able to store his grain, he got his cake and ate it too. He got the LDP, and waited for prices to go up, then cashed in on the high corn prices.
Nice, huh?
So you can see why I am kinda down on corn at the moment.
It’s not just corn, but corn is the biggie. Here is how the subsidies are broken down:
Corn: 35%
Cotton: 18%
Wheat: 14%
Rice: 14%
Soybeans: 8%
Dairy: 4%
Peanuts: 3%
Sugar: 1%
Tobacco: .2%
Wool: .1%
And some other crops that are unsubstantial. For comparison’s sake, there are 400,000 corn farms in the US. There are 350,000 soybean farms. Soybeans and corn take up the same amount of acreage in the US. Corn produced 10 billion bushels and soybeans almost 3 billion. The US produced 32 million tons of sugar beet sugar and 28 million tons of sugarcane sugar. I couldn’t find the number of farmers, but a bushel weighs 56 lbs., so let’s figure there were 280 million tons of corn produced and 60 million tons of sugar. Divided out, that’s $10.14/ton of corn and $1/ton of sugar. (Why is this relevant? because that’s why corn is so CHEAP and sugar is so EXPENSIVE to you as a consumer.) I couldn’t find the number of sugar farmers in the US; otherwise I would have figured this out per farmer.
So where does your corn go?
42.5% goes to feed livestock for your protein needs. 32% goes to ethanol (again, another whole post). 15.7% is exported, 6.2% goes to other, and a whole whopping 3.5% goes to high fructose corn syrup.
And right now you’re wondering, Kate! Why on earth are boycotting HFCS? This seems really ridiculous to make a huge deal out of HFCS when you should really stop eating beef and driving.
Oh, but these are just part of the problem, and will definitely get their own posts. Not to mention the list of issues with crop subsidies: discouraging fallow fields and crop rotation; world prices and developing countries’ place in agriculture; small farms getting bought out and consolidated into large, corporate farms; monopolies in seed development and post-production. Add in cattle feedlots, other animal production, and most of all ethanol, and there will be PLENTY to stew about by the time may is done and over with.
But yeah, why the fascination with HFCS? I think it’s because I, as a lone consumer (although Nate has kind of jumped on board), feel like I am doing SOMETHING when I put that bottle of HFCS-laden product back on the shelf. I buy more organic stuff, more stuff from the farmers’ market, and overall, stuff that’s probably better for me. If I can do it, it proves that any old schmo can do it. And if enough any old schmos do it, maybe the market will get a clue and change their habits.

Since I figured out how corn syrup is made, I figured I should probably understand how sugar is processed.
The sucrose part of it is in the beet and is made from sunshine and farming. (And fertilizer as well, I would assume.) The beets are harvested and taken to a processing plant where they’re cut into shoestring-potato-like wedges for maximum exposure. Then my understanding is that the bejesus is boiled out of them. (There’s actually a very detailed description here, but my understanding is that it’s boiled like heck in water.)
Next the sugar water is mixed with calcium hydroxide (milk of lime) and carbon dioxide bubbles (this process is fittingly known as “carbonation”). Then there are lots of settling tanks to get the non-sugary stuff out.
Next is sulfitation where sulfur dioxide gas is mixed into the juice to prevent the “Maillard Reaction”, which is a reaction with amino acids that would turn it brown; this is the same reaction that happens on the crust of bread.
Then we have more bejesus boiling for some evaporation so we get a sugar sludge (mmm) called standard liquor. This is normally stored until crystallization, where the magic happens. The sludge is boiled in a vacuum (!!!) and some sugar crystals are introduced to the sludge so more crystals “grow”. The vacuum’s dropped and crystals and juice are centrifuged, and the result? White sugar and molasses. The sugar is dried in a rotating cylinder and then off to be stored for further bagging, weighing, etc.
That was a lot more involved than I thought it would be. Huh. You know, the more I read about sugar, the more I realize it’s not that great either. But it does taste better. And you don’t have to add hydrochloric acid to make it be sugary.
Tomorrow: sugar cane!
Reference: http://www.smbsc.com/index.php
EDIT:
Ok, so sugar cane isn’t that much different and doesn’t deserve its own post. The main differences are:
Instead of boiling to get the sugar water (the first step), the cane is pressed to release the sugar water. Then same same same same.
One nice thing about cane sugar is that often the pulp that’s left after the pressing is used to power the plant that makes the sugar. The beet factory I looked up makes a specific pellet out of the leftover beet pulp and mixes it with molasses and sold in Europe (although what they use if for, I have no idea…. the site doesn’t say).

To understand the overabundance of hfcs, first things first: why sugar is expensive in the US.
When we acquired the Louisiana territory, farmers decided to start growing sugar cane, which was actually not a very good thing to be growing in the not-tropical continental US. So, the government made sure tariffs were imposed on imported sugar so as to not lower the value of slaves working on sugar plantation. And god forbid slave values got lower.
Thus starts the big sugar debacle.
In the 1930s, sugar quotas were imposed as well as the tariffs and subsidies to sugar growers. This has continued to this day, with justification being that congress is “protecting” the American people from international sugar prices. If only that were true: in the past 45 years, only 1 year has the international sugar price been higher than US prices.
We’re not talking 2-3¢ difference here. While sugar sells for 21¢/lb. here in the US, it’s 3¢/lb. worldwide.
The practice of import quotas was abolished briefly in the 70s, but Reagan (the harbinger of republican free-market, eh?) reimposed them to artificially create a shortage, drive up prices, and support American sugar growers.
Oh, this seemed to be a USDA regulation nightmare when, in 1984, something happened that would change everything: Coke and Pepsi announced they were switching to hfcs.
500,000 tons of sugar demand a year was suddenly gone. So much for the control of supply and demand. In 1985, there was an additional 20% cut in the sugar quotas.
Of course there was a way around this: sugar smuggling. Companies would import items of high sugar content that got around the tariffs/quotas/government micromanaging and would sift out the sugar, then sell it at US prices. It garnered a hefty profit, I would think. This was soon abolished with additional restrictions and regulations.
Not surprisingly, this restriction and subsidization inhibits other American businesses, such as American candy producers. The high price of sugar has cut 9000 jobs since 1981. Brach Candy relocated its Chicago factory to Canada (Canada!) because of sugar prices. 10 sugar refineries have closed. Soybean exports have decreased, especially from MN. The rent on farmland is so spendy in the Red River Valley because of sugar beet growers that soybean farmers (which are relatively unsubsidized) can’t find land to grow soybeans. Other countries have limited their American imports, such as Brazil (a biiig sugar country) limiting the grain it imports. The Dominican Republic is producing grains instead of sugar to compete with American farmers.
Meanwhile, there are 13,000 sugar growers in the US, 17 of which receive more than half of the benefits of the sugar subsidies. Nice, huh? And to top it off, a lot of them are growing in areas that aren’t suited to growing sugar. Which begs the question: why are we cyclically driving ourselves into the ground on this sugar thing??
The 1996 farm bill almost passed (217-208) with the sugar subsidies cut out. The sugar lobby in this country is a hard thing to pass up, apparently, because the bill that would cut out the subsidies was actually sponsored by 223 house reps. they got lured away by money from the sugar dudes. And why not lure them away if you can, when you are making more government money than any other country to grow an artificially scarce product?
Oh, this is just the beginning of the ridiculosity. Wait until you hear about corn.