Ethanol reports negative

Last week's headlines didn't look good for corn-based ethanol:

-- "Food-crop biofuels given thumbs down."

-- "Ethanol is sort of a drop in the bucket, scientists warn."

-- "Study says ethanol not best alternative to oil."

-- "Ethanol no 'silver bullet' for world's fuel problems.'"

In many cases, ethanol supporters did not care for stories that went with the headlines around the world any better than they liked the headlines.

news@nature.com reported: "Producing biofuels such as ethanol from food crops isn't worth the effort."

Grist Magazine's Web site added: "A new study casts serious doubt on ethanol's status as a green wonder-fuel."

Farm-state politicians were remarkably slow in coming to ethanol's defense in light of the University of Minnesota study, which was not as bleak toward ethanol as many reports indicated.

But the study was right, and even politicians probably realize it, when it said ethanol won't wean the country from foreign oil. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty often is the chief cheerleader for ethanol, proclaiming that the United States needs to rid itself of foreign oil dependence by using ethanol, a fuel made from corn. While ethanol can help, even Pawlenty probably would not argue with the report's conclusion that the corn-based fuel is not the full answer.

The new report is a split decision.

"Producing biofuel for transportation is a fledgling industry," said David Tilman, University of Minnesota regents professor of ecology and a co-author of the study. "Corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel are successful first-generation biofuels. The next step is a biofuel crop that requires low chemical and energy inputs and can give us much greater energy and environmental returns."

Another study last week looked at turning sugar beets into ethanol. There had been a lot of talk about using sugar beets because the world's leading ethanol country, Brazil, turns sugar cane into the fuel

The U.S. Department of Agriculture study produced dueling news releases from U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.

"Today, USDA released a study that confirmed what I've been saying all along - ethanol produced from sugar in the United States is not cost-effective," said Peterson, the top House Agriculture Committee Democrat. "As the USDA study suggests, it takes five tons of sugar to produce the same amount of ethanol made from one ton of corn. At the end of the day, ethanol made from sugar cane and sugar beets would cost between $2.35 and $2.40 per gallon in the U.S., while ethanol produced from corn costs only $1.03 to $1.05 per gallon."

Using beets for ethanol could end up driving many beet farmers out of business, Peterson added.

Coleman read the study differently: "I am pleased that the USDA study released today recognizes sugar-to-ethanol has the potential to play a vital role in that solution. A robust sugar-to-ethanol industry in the U.S. will require the same type of leadership and long-term commitment we have seen in Brazil, which no longer has a need for foreign oil."

The studies may change the tone of political ethanol debate.

If nothing else, the studies prove ethanol is not a mature industry. More research will follow, and new types of ethanol-making facilities will be needed as technology improves. That probably will mean many farm state policymakers will argue for continued government involvement in the industry, which will keep the issue in the political headlines for the foreseeable future.