Storm over Ethanol Blended Petrol
Raghu
THE mainstream and online media, and social media in particular, have been abuzz with controversy and comments from the vehicle-owning or driving public, experts and different sectional interest groups over the government’s roll out in Delhi and other cities of mandatory supply of petrol blended with 20 per cent ethanol, that is EBP20 or E20, soon to be extended to the whole country. The National Policy on Biofuels as amended in 2022 is the current version being implemented, having gone through several avatars since first being mooted in 2009. The Policy with an initial target of achieving 10 per cent ethanol blending (E10) had subsequently targeted 20 per cent blending (E20) by 2030. With Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) having been successful in establishing relatively steady supply chains for bio-ethanol earlier than targeted, E20 has now been rolled out in 2025, five years earlier than anticipated.
The Bio-ethanol being used is termed first-generation ethanol derived from plant-based resources through fermentation and distillation, at present mainly from food crops – sugarcane, maize and rice. The more advanced and environmentally better second-generation bio-ethanol from cellulosic material such as agri-residues is currently in early stages of development in India.
Biofuels have long been touted as having multiple benefits even as a partial substitute for fossil fuels. In India, the government has been aggressively pushing back against criticism arguing that rollout of ethanol blended petrol is saving substantially on crude oil imports, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing additional income to farmers, and generating employment through ethanol extracting industries. Above all, it is claimed that EBP is a non-disruptive technology in the sense that it can be introduced through existing petrol distribution infrastructure and can be used seamlessly in existing vehicles without major modifications. As we shall see, while all these claims have a germ of truth, all the claims are open to question, and raise serious concerns on several counts.
The loudest protests for the present are from motorists, who have reported a substantial drop in fuel efficiency and mileage, rise in fuel expenditure and, especially in older vehicles, considerable damage to vehicle engines and other parts raising maintenance costs. Disturbed voices are also emerging about gains to some industries but losses to others, due to the increased focus on maize compared to sugarcane. Serious questions are also being asked about the impact of bio-ethanol blending on agriculture, on the environment, and on the food basket, again bringing to the fore the “food vs fuel” debate.
FUEL EFFICIENCY AND MILEAGE DROP
Vehicle owners have been complaining regularly and vociferously about drop in mileage, deteriorating drive quality and engine performance, and increased maintenance costs. While government has pooh-poohed these complaints, claiming that while slightly lower fuel efficiency is to be expected, this is not more that 1-6 per cent depending on age of vehicle, compatibility with E20 and engine tuning for E20. On the other hand, as reported in media interviews, vehicle users have claimed upto 20 per cent drop in mileage.
Government claims, said to be backed by different expert and industry agencies would be based, as per usual practice, on data from test conditions, whereas user perceptions would be based on real-world conditions and, as per the user interviews, observed data such as kilometers covered for a certain quantity of fuel filled.
The basic science however tells an incontrovertible story.
The calorific value (CV or energy content of a substance) of petrol is significantly higher than that of ethanol, so ethanol blended with ethanol is bound to contain less energy than pure petrol of the same total volume. CV of petrol is 46.4 mega joules/kg, while CV of ethanol is 29.7 MJ/kg or 36 per cent less energy. Simple arithmetic would tell us that, in order to get the same energy out of 10 litres of E20 fuel as in 10 litres of pure petrol, a user would have to fill about 8 per cent extra E20 amounting to about Rs 70 for each 10 litre E20 refill at Delhi prices. That is a substantial loss to a motorist who may refill several times a month. Further, this is total energy in the fuel, which may translate to an even smaller quantity of useful power under real world road and traffic conditions. A 10 per cent loss reported is therefore a very reasonable claim.
Several experts and industry spokespersons have suggested that users be “compensated” by stipulating a lower price for E20. Cost of Ethanol is Rs 61 per litre for administered price to manufacturers including GST, whereas petrol is sold at Rs 91/litre in Delhi. So why not charge less for cheaper ethanol than for petrol, thus giving an incentive to users in a highly price sensitive market? Unfortunately, the user has been left with no choice, since pure petrol would no longer be available after full E20 rollout. This government has taken full advantage of rising international oil prices, but has never passed on drop in international prices to the consumer. It is now doing the same with ethanol as well, treating it the same as petrol as far as pricing goes, leaving the user to pay more for the fuel and also face other costs. A multiple whammy!
MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE
Another cause for vehicle user complaints is additional costs arising from higher maintenance requirements and the need to make older vehicles compliant with E20 standards. As an alcohol that is also hygroscopic in nature, meaning that it attracts water, ethanol leads to higher corrosion of the fuel system especially in rubber tubing, gaskets, seals and other components such as the fuel filter, fuel pump etc. These require to be substituted by appropriate ethanol-compliant materials such as certain types of plastics. A one-time cost of around Rs 5000-7,000 may be required, or periodic maintenance costs to replace corroded parts which may also cause further damage. Further costs entailed could include more frequent replacement of fuel filters and engine oil.
As per government rules, all vehicles sold after 2023 must conform with E20 requirements, but compliance is unknown and enforcement has been largely absent. In any case, about 90 per cent of vehicles on the road are of older vintage and are not compliant with E20, although some may be compliant with E10. Statements by ministers and officials in the media as well as in detailed releases through the Press Information Bureau have all tried to minimise this problem, whereas industry sources and specialist automobile publications have attested to these problems and added costs.
A major problem with the government’s EBP Policy is that it has only dealt with macro-level issues, and interests of some sections of industry involved in manufacture of ethanol, but has never viewed vehicle users as stakeholders, leave alone crucial ones. No attempt has been made to communicate with vehicle users and communicate to them steps they require to take to deal with the transition to E20. None of the facts discussed above are known to vehicle users who have been left groping in the dark!
FEEDSTOCKS AND IMPACT ON FOOD
There has been a massive shift in feedstock for ethanol, notably in the past few years under the amended Biofuels Policy, in the face of major supply constraints under earlier policies. Extensive analysis by this writer, and others, reported on earlier including in these columns, are not repeated but only briefly summarised here.
Main feedstock for ethanol in early years was sugarcane. Despite exportable surplus sugar in a few years, the margin between supply and domestic demand was always a delicate balance. Diversion of by-product molasses from sugar to ethanol put pressure on sugar availability and prices, and on other alcohol user industries, so much so that even E10 blending required import of ethanol in several years, defeating the entire purpose! To tackle this, government unwisely permitted conversion of cane juice directly to ethanol, which only made matters worse! This policy was recently reversed.
From Ethanol Supply year (ESY) 2022-23, maize was included as a feedstock for ethanol along with “spoiled” rice in FCI godowns and some other minor crops. While maize was not used at all for ethanol in 2021-22, volume of ethanol produced from maize jumped from 315 million litres in ESY 2022-23 to a whopping 2,860 million litres in ESY 2023-24, accounting for 42 per cent of the total ethanol produced! In ESY 2024-25, ethanol from various grains, especially maize, was over 51 per cent of all ethanol.
This has had two major effects. The increased demand for ethanol, and from maize in particular, has led to a major shift in cultivation to maize, area under maize having risen by around 10 per cent at the cost of other food crops such as oilseeds, millets and pulses, driven by the ethanol push and higher administered prices for it.
The major shift to maize as ethanol feedstock has badly impacted small poultry farmers and poultry feed industries, who earlier used up to 70 per cent of maize produced and who are now facing shortfalls of 15 per cent or more. India which used to export large volumes of maize to Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia and Vietnam has now become a net importer! Export of corn to India by the US was a major driver of the US tariff war with India! Once again, the very logic of ethanol production has been turned on its head!
The threat to food supplies is also very direct. Rice and some millets are being increasingly used for ethanol. Yield of ethanol from rice is 450-480 litres per tonne, and from other grains 380-460 litres/tonne, compared to about 225 litres/tonne from C-heavy molasses. While rice for ethanol is officially supposed to be only “spoiled” grain rotting in FCI godowns, in practice this may well have meant diversion of rice, especially since the limits for using ‘surplus’ FCI grains for ethanol have recently been raised.
Emissions too are only viewed one-dimensionally. Only tailpipe emissions are being considered which are, of course, less from ethanol than from petrol, although several pollutants such as PM2.5 and CO do not decrease. On the other hand, other environmental damage is not being taken into account at all.
Area under sugarcane has also risen, including in water-stressed regions like Vidarbha, due to increased demand for ethanol. Sugarcane is a very water intensive crop, requiring about 250 tonnes per tonne of cane, leading to severe depletion of groundwater including in Uttar Pradesh, the largest producer of sugarcane. Production of sugar, alcohol and other products from molasses are also heavy polluters, ranked third among the most polluting industries in India. According to authoritative sources, around 70 per cent of surface water in UP is said to be polluted by wastewaters from sugar and related industries.
The issue here is clear. Since only a single objective, that of producing more and more ethanol is being considered, then other objectives such as food security, balanced crop production, and impacts on other sections in the farming and industrial sectors, are being ignored. The policy of ethanol blending of petrol is being used as a blunt instrument whose main supposed benefits are questionable. If so, should the EBP policy be continued at all?
