Ethanol profitability calculator developed by Iowa State University researcher

Jan 14, 2009

( -- A researcher at Iowa State University has developed a tool to determine what market conditions are needed for ethanol producers to make a profit.

David Peters, an assistant professor of sociology in Iowa State's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, has been getting questions about the profitability of ethanol plants under current market conditions and decided to create a spreadsheet that would allow anyone to figure it out for themselves.

"I've developed a model that inputs all the costs," he said. "Then it indexes it to corn prices and ethanol prices to determine profitability."

In creating the tool, he considered that there is conflicting information about ethanol.

"Different groups have different perspectives," he said. "But when you sit down and do the numbers, I wanted this to be a neutral, third-party view."

Peters expects this calculator will be useful for several different groups.

"This is a tool for local communities, investors, policy makers and anyone else who wants to better understand how these ethanol plants are doing," said Peters.

"Of course investors are very interested in calculating profitability," he said. "But communities that have plants, or are considering plants, also want to know if they'll make money. The communities invest a lot in local infrastructure and want to know if the plant will be profitable."

According to Peters' model, near-term price conditions -- corn cost, approximately $4; ethanol price, approximately $1.75 -- a typical ethanol plant that has capital debt is losing 17 to 23 cents on every gallon produced. For a plant producing 100 million gallons each year, that is an annual operating loss of $16 to $23 million. Unless the plant has cash reserves to weather this storm, they could be in trouble, says Peters.

In the past few years, when ethanol prices were high and corn low, many plants made enough money to retire their debt early. These plants with no capital debt are now roughly breaking even or losing a few cents on every gallon, according to Peters.

Peters predicts that the current market may lead to some consolidation among ethanol producers as they try to remain profitable.

"No one has a crystal ball to see the future, but this can give people an idea of where prices have to be," he said. "For example, if corn is at $4.25, then ethanol would have to be at $2.00 for plants with debt to break even -- and $1.85 if they have no debt."

Peters' calculator allows anyone to input their own costs or prices to estimate what the costs of corn and ethanol would have to be for a company to be profitable.

Peters says there are other considerations that he could not include in his calculations.

"Ethanol is important for clean air and that wasn't really figured into the model," he said. "Health costs and a cleaner environment are important, so from a public policy perspective, it's important."

Peters' model can be found at .

Provided by Iowa State University of Science and Technology

Explore further: History books spark latest Texas classroom battle

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Mesquite a complementary biofuel feedstock

Aug 04, 2014

As requirements grow for use of cellulosic biofuels to meet the energy needs of the nation, researchers look at potential feedstocks and any effects these alternative sources may have on greenhouse gas emissions.

Cover crops make stover more sustainable, profitable

Aug 04, 2014

Farmers using cover crops as a soil conservation method can remove much more corn stover per acre for biofuels or other uses and at the same time potentially increase their income, Purdue University research shows.

Recommended for you

History books spark latest Texas classroom battle

Sep 16, 2014

As Texas mulls new history textbooks for its 5-plus million public school students, some academics are decrying lessons they say exaggerate the influence of Christian values on America's Founding Fathers.

Flatow, 'Science Friday' settle claims over grant

Sep 16, 2014

Federal prosecutors say radio host Ira Flatow and his "Science Friday" show that airs on many National Public Radio stations have settled civil claims that they misused money from a nearly $1 million federal ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Jan 14, 2009
"an assistant professor of sociology"???

You know THIS guy has a heavy math background...
not rated yet Jan 14, 2009
This actually isn't hard to do, by any means. It's a very simple spreadsheet, and only looks "impressive" because there are so many scenarios. What would make more sense is to let the user specify the costs: a bushel of corn, the water rate, electricity rate (varies alot through the US), as well as natural gas. Reading his assumptions, users should also be able to input trucking costs (he assumed that corn was 15 miles away, maybe in Iowa but not many other places; the price of diesel is important here). Anyways when I read "calculator" I figured you specify some costs and it comes up with the break-even price of ethanol, this is just a bunch of scenarios (corn & ethanol) with fixed costs that are not representative of all plants (but may fit most of Iowa nicely).
not rated yet Apr 16, 2009
The history of ethanol as a "green" alternative should give us pause. What was suppose to be an easy answer has become quite complex with big variations in cost from state to state (due to the cost of water for growing corn) and due to the competition for corn (animal feed, etc.)

We are all too quick to jump on new technology without understanding the implications. I have very serious concerns about the rate at which government is pushing us toward huge investments in unproven technology as answers to questions that have not been fully analyzed. Yes, there are environmental consequences of using fossil fuels, but there are environmental consequences to just about everything... e.g. having children and feeding the poor.

On top of that, every environmental changes in history was clearly NOT caused by humanity. Changes of these types WILL happen again, in spite of what WE do. What we need is flexibility in dealing with environmental changes and drop the blame game as to how "we (or more often "they") are responsible.

It is amazing that we can blithely accept as "beyond our control" the financial collapse of the last 6 months... a TOTALLY human created event, with all inputs and outputs fully documented... and still THINK we have some idea about how to weigh the trade offs between the various sources of energy we use.

That is human ego "gone wild"!