Public Health
Implications of the
Closure of Ensus
Bioethanol Plant
Ensus Bioethanol Plant, Wilton, Redcar
Scott Hunter
22 June 2025
Two reports this week have caught our attention. The first was the press release from Ensus, the bioethanol producer whose Wilton plant is under threat of closure (reported by the BBC here); the second was a report into air pollution by the Royal College of Physicians (A breath of fresh air: responding to the health challenges of modern air pollution | RCP). These, and the latest reports of the UK-US trade deal, are interlinked.
The Ensus press release states that
“… a decision to allow the US to import 1.4 billion litres of bioethanol into the UK tariff free - made as part of the recent agreement between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer - has fundamentally undermined its business position and will have wider consequences for industry on Teesside and the UK economy.
“Ensus employs more than 100 people at its plant on the Wilton International site, but has a supply chain of around 3,000 people in firms throughout the north in sectors including agriculture, transport, product storage and energy supply.”
"The plant produces about 400 million litres of bioethanol annually. This press release follows a joint statement by Ensus and ABF, the UK’s other main bioethanol producer, at the end of May in which the crisis in the industry was highlighted along with news that the companies were in urgent talks with business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, aimed at resolving the issue without the loss of these plants."
While discussions may be ongoing, the fact that this second statement has been made by Ensus leads us to suspect that there has been little progress. The seriousness of the problem for Ensus and ABF is that 1.4 billion litres is equivalent to total UK demand for the product, and, as a report in Business Matters observes:
“ …. the deal has made it almost impossible for British producers to compete. US manufacturers already benefit from lower crop and energy costs, and the sudden influx of cheap imports has put UK-based plants like Ensus and Vivergo Fuels on the brink of closure.”
A recent comment piece in the Times suggests that the reason behind the deal is that it was simply a cock-up by the government’s negotiating team:
“… Starmer won’t want to admit he’s brought a UK industry to its knees because he failed to spot the ramifications of the “landmark” US deal he was signing up to. Causing companies to collapse by cock-up is not a good look.”
However, it presents no evidence to support this opinion, and it is equally likely that the sacrifice of the bioethanol industry from the government negotiators’ point of view constituted an acceptable level of collateral damage in order to get the trade deal over the line.
Unfortunate, then, that the trade deal itself is starting to look a little shaky, with agreement on steel and aluminium tariffs being postponed, the tariff-free access for British car manufacturers not yet in operation, and the bioethanol industry not yet being retrieved from under the bus. Not to mention the fact that Ensus is now the UK’s largest producer of high-purity CO2, which could also now be lost.
The principal use of bioethanol is as a sustainable ingredient in petrol, known as E10, whereby the fuel is a 90-10 mix of petrol and bioethanol. While its introduction reduces dependence on fossil fuels, it is also acknowledged to reduce certain emissions, principally particulate emissions, known as PM2.5, and nitrous oxide (NO2).
The arrival of the Royal College of Physicians’ report on the dangers of air pollution is therefore apposite.
A Breath of Fresh Air – Report of the Royal College of Physicians
That report states that, while historically, the negative health impacts of air pollution have been framed in terms of respiratory illness, in reality it is a major contributor to a wide range of health conditions:
“It sets out new evidence gained over the last decade about the health harms of air pollution even at low concentrations. We now know that air pollution exposure in early life is linked to poor health later in life and that it impacts foetal development, cancer, heart disease, stroke, mental health conditions and dementia.
“Put simply, there is no safe level of air pollution, and increasingly ambitious action needs to be taken to improve air quality across the country to reduce avoidable deaths and improve the health of our population.”
The report therefore sets out a wide ranging but clear challenge to the government to act in the interests of public health.
It is true that, while the report is wide ranging, it nowhere mentions bioethanol. What it does do, on the other hand, is to specify that the principal air pollutants are particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrous oxide (NO2), precisely those emissions that are reduced by the addition of bioethanol to petrol.
For clarity, the report states that direct emissions are not the main source of the pollutants. The main source is secondary – through chemical reaction in the atmosphere triggered by a range of chemicals released through industrial processes. The matter of vehicle emissions is nonetheless not insignificant. It is, moreover, one where more affirmative action could be taken in the relatively short term.
Growing the Demand for Bioethanol
“The companies [Ensus and Hull-based Vivero] are working together to urge the government to raise the demand for ethanol in the UK above the US quota level”
… runs the press release, quoted in all of the media reports, but not explained by any of them. You obviously can’t just snap your fingers and increase demand for a product like this. So, what is the route to increasing demand and providing UK producers with a market for their product?
The fact is that the fuel mix currently available to motorists is pinned by regulation not by technology. The UK is already behind the curve in this regard (as, incidentally, is the European Union). In the US, fuel with a 85-15 petrol/bioethanol mix (known as E15) is already on the market. The Alternative Fuels Data Center reports that E15 is available in 31 states via 3,000 filling stations, being unsuitable only for vehicles manufactured before 2001.
While it may be overly optimistic to accept uncritically the enthusiasm of the Alternative Fuels Data Center, and the European Bioethanol trade body, ePure, for the product, it appears nonetheless that this is a potential growth industry. Producers in the European Union remain protected from the incursions of US producers who, according to BM Magazine, “already benefit from lower crop and energy costs,” while British producers have immediate vulnerability.
The negative consequences of allowing Britain’s bioethanol industry go well beyond the threatened job losses on Teesside, impacting the country’s energy security as well as progress towards net zero. As for public health, while the extended use of bioethanol in fuel may only constitute an incremental improvement in air quality, it is nonetheless one that government should not dismiss lightly. To allow this industry to disappear would be extremely short sighted.