Ethanol: Future fiasco

By Jack H. Knowlan Sr.

With reference to the Sept. 17 headline "Ethanol pollution worries group":

Is there really logic in building three ethanol plants in our area? If the two plants approve by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources can produce 231 million gallons of ethanol a year and use 4.5 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced, they are talking about more than 1 billion gallons of water that is either distilled off into the atmosphere, mostly as carbon dioxide, or pumped out somewhere as waste water.

The 3,350 cubic feet of natural gas per gallon of ethanol would be 773 billion cubic feet for the 231 million gallons. How would that affect our local requirements?

Also, producing high yields of corn requires high applications of nitrogen, also made from natural gas.

Besides that, planting, fertilizing and harvesting the corn requires heavy use of gasoline or diesel fuel. Does all this make sense?

Many scientists now claim ethanol from corn is a losing proposition using more fossil fuel than it replaces.

Cellulosic ethanol made from treetops, sawdust, municipal waster or fast-growing grasses like sudan or switchgrass is more practical and may eventually be economical. Currently, it is still more or less in the experimental stage.

Biodiesel from poultry and other animal fat is more logical, but it has the jell problem, and the supply of fat is probably very limited.

Production from soybeans has several problems. Due to the government mandate on ethanol and the push to increase corn acres, many farmers have converted soybean acres to corn. This and the drought in this area has increased the price of soybean oil considerably and may increase it even more.

Another problem not considered is that soybean meal for livestock feed is an important factor in return on investment for soybean crushers. Ethanol distillers grain (33 percent protein) will be in bountiful supply and in direct competition with soybean meal (41 to 44 percent protein). This more than likely will drive the price of soybean meal down and soybean oil up.

Another thing that is essentially wrong is the Missouri Qualified Biodiesel Producers Fund's giving a 30-cent-a-gallon grant to plants that are 51 percent grower-owned. This is like conning good people into a potentially bad investment.

Most people were not around during the Hoover days when about 20 percent of the population stood in long bread lines to get something to eat. Most were not around during World War II when a small grocery store only got 12 pounds of bacon and one pork loin a week, many food items were rationed and prices were so high the government invoked price controls on certain items. This could all happen again.

In fact, if the 188 ethanol plants now producing or in construction and even half of the 200 proposed plants start fighting over our corn crop, it is very possible and probable.

As corn becomes unavailable and prices go up do to ethanol demands, beef, dairy, pork and poultry producers will have two choices: raise prices to avoid losses, or reduce or close down feedlots, packing plants and processing plants.

If cattlemen cannot find feedlots to take their feeder calves, they may be forced to reduce their herds. Tyson and several of our largest processors already have felt the squeeze and complained to government agencies, apparently to no avail.

Congress is supposedly going to consider a bill this fall that would increase biofuel production to 36 billion gallons a year. Everyone needs to get involved in this to assure that the amount of corn and soybeans consumed by ethanol and biodiesel is limited to our surplus and does not gobble up our domestic requirements.

Jack H. Knowlan Sr. resides in Jackson.