2017

By Tim Rudnicki, Esq.

Race horses can’t remove their blinders, but thoughtful, engaged people can remove their metaphorical blinders to understand energy issues and ideas that surround them. When it comes to fueling our motor vehicles, big oil would like for us to keep the blinders on so we see oil as the only way to supply the energy we need to maintain a high quality of life. What are the big oil blinders preventing us from seeing?

With big oil blinders on, we might overlook some critical issues. For instance, the $31 billion in combined profits reported by several oil companies through the second quarter overlooks how these companies drill deeper into the fragile Gulf of Mexico, frack for oil and use huge amounts of water and energy to tear up the Boreal Forest for tar sands oil. Those blinders also make it difficult to see the effects of oil spills and pipeline releases around the globe including in the pristine waters of British Columbia and on popular beaches in Thailand.

Energy does, and will indeed continue to, play a role in helping us live a high quality of life. But the rate at which our life sustaining planet is being drilled and fracked for oil is not sustainable. Whether drilled or fracked, fossil fuel hydrocarbons are finite, and perpetuating the addition to them is hazardous to the planet and our health.

So how did we get stuck on finite fossil fuels as our primary energy supply? Daniel Yergin, in “The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World,” examines this question in some detail. Yergin explores more than 100 years of energy history and details the struggle for access to oil, the consequences of its use, the impact oil has on the global economy and the complex geopolitics surrounding oil. Through this examination we learn how various public policies and taxes tamped down renewable biofuels, such as ethanol, and supported the oil industry.

Despite the policies that favored oil, in the early years of the 20th century, Henry Ford envisioned a different energy future. It was Ford who built and introduced the Model T, the first flex-fuel vehicle that could operate on either ethanol or gasoline. Later, Ford introduced the “Fordson” tractors which could also run on ethanol or gasoline. Ford was not alone in his understanding about the role biofuels could have played decades ago. Yergin also writes about a scientist from General Motors who warned that oil is finite and found the solution to be alcohol fuel: “...the most direct route which we know for converting energy from its source, the sun, into a material that is suitable for use as fuel.” The Quest at 647.

What can we see when we pull off the big oil blinders? According to Yergin and other experts, a high quality of life based in large part on renewable biofuels such as ethanol. But the future is here in some measure because Minnesota’s biofuel industry is already producing enough clean, renewable fuel to displace approximately 50% of all the gasoline purchased by Minnesota drivers. That’s only the beginning. Based on biomass processing research being done by energy and agricultural experts like Prof. Bruce Dale (Professor of Chemical Engineering at Michigan State University), cropland can be used even more efficiently and sustainably to provide more food, feed and fuel while further reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Let’s pull off those big oil blinders and get the full picture about today’s renewable biofuels. Right here, right now, ethanol produced in Minnesota uses a small amount of water to make each gallon of fuel. Ethanol is a premium motor fuel that has 57% fewer lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline. The men and women who run biofuel plants in Minnesota support 12,600 jobs. The Minnesota biofuel producers inject $5 billion into the economy. Ethanol actually holds down the price at the pump.

What else will you see when you pull of the big oil blinders? Coming very soon to Minnesota: E15! E15 is 85% gasoline added to 15% ethanol (that’s only 5% more ethanol than is currently found in most “regular” gasoline sold in Minnesota, but that 5% will make a big difference in lowering greenhouse gas emissions). Will your favorite fueling station be leading the way with E15? Find out by asking the next time you stop for fuel.

By Tim Rudnicki, Esq.

Did you hear the news?  The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is proposing to roll back the amount of biofuels, like ethanol, to be mixed with gasoline.  Why?  When you dig deep into the rationale it goes like this: because the oil industry doesn’t want to blend more biofuels into gasoline!

Those of us who care about having fuel choice at the pump, saving money when fueling up, keeping the Minnesota biofuel producers that support over 12,000 jobs strong, decreasing pollution and keeping billions of energy dollars in Minnesota need to give the U.S. EPA an important reminder.

•    The Energy Policy Act of 2005, from eight long years ago, was the big hint given to the oil companies that they needed to do something about blending increasing amounts of biofuels, like ethanol, into the nation’s fuel supply for motor vehicles.

•    Two years later, via the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Congress went even further to make clear its intent by explicitly stating the increased volumes of renewable fuel that needed to be blended into transportation fuel through the year 2022.

•    For 1.5 years the petroleum industry has had another approved fuel (E15 which is 15% ethanol and 85% petroleum) that can be used to meet its volume obligations intended by Congress.

The U.S. EPA proposed rule for 2014 sends the wrong message to the petroleum companies: do everything you can to not comply with the law and the law will be changed so you are in compliance.  That’s the wrong message because it gives the petroleum companies a “get out of jail free pass” while undermining Minnesotans’ efforts to use more renewable fuel.  The U.S. EPA proposed rule sets the amount of renewable fuel to be used below the amount which is already being used in Minnesota!

To the U.S. EPA we say: don’t undermine all that is important to Minnesotans like having fuel choice, maintaining our strong homegrown renewable energy industry, growing quality jobs, cutting pollution and keeping energy dollars on Main Street.  With eight years to prepare for this time, the petroleum industry does not deserve a free pass on fulfilling its obligations under the law.  Keep the original renewable fuel requirements and do what’s right for consumers.

If you think it’s important to keep moving forward with renewable fuels, now is the time to make your voice heard.  To help you communicate your support for biofuels and oppose the U.S. EPA proposed rule, check out this “Take Action Now” web banner (www.MnBioFuels.org ) for some ideas and contact information.

Don’t let the U.S. EPA take Minnesotans backwards when it comes to our future and quality of life.  Let’s keep working together and moving forward for a brighter, more sustainable energy future.

Please keep those email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.and calls (612.924.6495) coming with your biofuel questions and thoughts about how biofuels have improved your quality of life. 

By Tim Rudnicki, Esq.

Whether you are taking a road trip, running errands around town or driving the kids to after school sports, most likely it’s biofuels that are helping you get to your destination.  When you fuel up with “regular,” at least one in 10 gallons is clean, renewable ethanol.  If you are among the growing number of drivers who are finding “E15" at your local retail station, at least 1.5 gallons in 10 is high octane ethanol.

Why should you care if you are buying biofuels?  In short, biofuels, such as ethanol, help to hold down the overall price of fuel, save you money at the pump and put all of us on the path toward a sustainable energy future.  If it weren’t for biofuels, gasoline prices would be from $1 to $1.69 more per gallon.  That’s because biofuels are pushing down demand for the more expensive, $108 per barrel, petroleum.  The piece found in this newsletter, “RFS Kept Gas Prices Down,” by Philip K. Verleger, Jr., gives us a broad perspective on the role of biofuels and how they help our household budgets.

As for additional savings, have you noticed the difference in price for E15, or E85, compared to regular gasoline?  If you drive a 2001 or newer vehicle, you can use E15.  For those who drive a Flex Fuel Vehicle (check for the badge on the back of your vehicle, statement on the gas cap or details in your owner’s manual to find out if you have such a vehicle), you can use E85 (that means up to 8.5 gallons in 10 is renewable ethanol).  A few days ago I paid 20 cents less per gallon for E15 compared to regular.  Even though I was buying a higher octane fuel for our turbocharged car, I paid less!   And at a nearby E85 dispenser, drivers of Flex Fuel Vehicles were waiting in lines to fill up at 87 cents less than regular.

Biofuels are about more than holding down prices and saving drivers money at the pump, they are about providing all of us with a renewable energy source for today as well as tomorrow.  Consider this:  Today’s 21st century biofuels come from the solar energy stored in renewable ingredients grown right here in Minnesota.

The full scientific analysis is a bit beyond the scope of this piece, but here is a high level view of what makes biofuels a sustainable and renewable energy source.  Thanks to photosynthesis, plants use solar energy, soil nutrients, water and carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, to grow during the spring, summer and fall seasons.  For instance, entire corn plants, the starch in kernels of corn or grasses, all can regenerate.  Next, the biofuel producers in Minnesota use natural processes, similar to those used in making beer, to unlock the solar energy stored in the renewable ingredients and thereby give us ethanol.

Much has changed over the years when it comes to making the biofuels that power our vehicles.  With low input farming practices used throughout Minnesota, farmers can grow more food and renewable ingredients on fewer acres.  Minnesota based biofuel producers use high efficiency boilers, recycle water and reuse heat to make a renewable fuel that is truly green. 

In addition to getting more energy out than what goes in to make ethanol, the total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (all the inputs to grow renewable ingredients and actually make ethanol) are 44% to 57% less than petroleum.  So every time you increase the amount of ethanol you are using, for example using E15 instead of regular, to get from place to place, you are helping to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.  Check out “Why Are We Producing Biofuels?” (in this newsletter) for an expanded view on harnessing the sun’s energy.

It’s rather amazing when one stops to ponder what biofuels are and what they do for us.  In a society where we have been conditioned to think the only energy is that which comes from drilling, it is refreshing to know we, as Minnesotans, have the potential to grow our way into an even more sustainable energy solution.  I invite you to study the many scientific reports on our website to learn more about renewable ingredients and how biofuels are made here in Minnesota.  Biofuels move us from place to place, save us money and provide a renewable energy source for today and tomorrow.

Please keep those email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and calls (612.888.9138) coming with your questions and thoughts about biofuels. 

By Tim Rudnicki, Esq.

Let’s not confuse testing models with the real issues of the day, namely, the adverse effects of oil, a finite fossil fuel.  By the time you read this piece, several days will have passed since the study on biofuels from crop residue was released and many other commentators have written about their points of view that challenge the science behind some questionable assumptions in the study.  The operative word in all of this is science.  Science is important in the day-to-day production of biofuels just as science is important in other aspects of life.  Science is especially important when dealing with long-term energy and climate issues that will have a profound effect on humanity and the rest of the planet far into the future.

In this short piece, I attempt to unpack a few complicated issues with you and shift the spotlight to where I think it can do the most collective good.

We often hear the word “science” bandied about.  What is science?  Science, as defined in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, is: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.”  This rich definition suggests science is rather substantive.  How can we tell if an investigation or report uses the scientific method?

If, for example, I merely attempt to describe how biofuels are made, is that science?  Probably most of us would conclude the description of the biological process for making biofuels is not in and of itself science.  The reasoning behind that conclusion is simple: we are missing the other four essential elements of the definition which are observation, identification, experimental investigation (test, controlled conditions, demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried) and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.  In short, we can determine whether an investigation or report is credible science by testing it against apolitical elements.

Interestingly, despite sound science that passes all the tests to be science, Greenwire news service from April 28, 2014, reports “polls show that significant swaths of the American public distrust climate science, even though scientists have been warning about the risks of climate change for several decades.”  Science is not about winning a popularity contest.  Remember, at one time, contrary to scientific findings, people believed the sun revolved around the earth.  So what can possibly explain the distrust some people have of climate science?  Could it be due to the way some scientists are vilified or how some critics cloud science with uncertainty?  More importantly, if we were to collectively embrace the climate science, as a people, state, nation and global community, we would be racing to further reduce our use of high carbon fuels such as oil.  We would be racing to find ways to be even more fuel efficient and indeed use a higher percentage of renewable biofuels since these fuels are derived from plant ingredients that work with the cyclical natural systems to absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.

Now for some cloudiness.  Without going too deep into the merits, or soundness of science, behind the crop residue study done by the Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska, it seems this study gives critics of biofuels and proponents of oil just what they wanted.  With media attention focused on one part of a study that relies on 39 other studies instead of in the field measurements, it can create confusion and cloud the broad range of science on this complicated issue.  The crop residue study examines other reports and data and tests models and the effects of removing extremely high levels of corn residue from fields to make biofuels.  In fact an environmental team leader at the Argonne National Laboratory said the study looked at “extreme levels of corn stover removal — up to 100 percent.”  In the real world, however, stover removal ranges from 10% to 25%, well within the range required to replenish the soil.

The crop residue study itself does acknowledge its focus is on the removal of high levels of crop residue without any mitigation actions.  On the other hand, within the same study, specific mitigation factors and management options are suggested as actions that can be taken to balance soil carbon dioxide emissions.  In other words, the study tests what appears to be the absolute extreme effects associated with removing virtually all the crop residue and yet it does suggest ways to avoid the extreme so as to keep a balance between soil carbon and emissions.  Confusing, or confusing enough to take the spotlight off petroleum for a brief time?

Let’s take a look at the fine print of other studies and apply some critical thinking.  In the study Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use, Argonne National Laboratory determined that ethanol made from corn starch reduces lifecycle GHG emissions from 48% to 57% below emissions from petroleum.  This study examined the full spectrum of emissions for fertilizer, farming, production of biofuels and combustion in vehicles.  Biofuels, such as ethanol, produced in Minnesota unequivocally reduce GHG emissions.

In the same study by Argonne National Laboratory, the use of corn stover, the material in the crop residue study done by the University of Nebraska, was examined.  Here is the finding from Argonne’s examination of the issue:  using the corn stover increases the GHG reductions to approximately 103% better than petroleum!  The critical factor that differs between the Nebraska study and Argonne is this: management of corn stover removal.  The Nebraska study is based on removing virtually all the stover whereas Argonne’s position was “The general consensus has been that we would manage corn stover removal to avoid adverse impacts to soil health, including a decline in soil organic carbon.”  

If we go back to the real issue of the day, it is GHG emissions and how to significantly reduce them.  Biofuels, including from corn stover (crop residue), is part of the solution.  The sound science we have, based on countless studies done over the years, should be enough to remove any clouds of doubt.  Those studies demonstrate that biofuels, including advanced biofuels that use crop residue, are indeed a solution to our climate change challenge because their lifecycle GHG emissions are far below those for petroleum.

Furthermore, renewable biofuels produced in Minnesota provide some solid economic benefits.  In a recently released comprehensive economic study conducted by John Dunham & Associates, we learn the production of biofuels in Minnesota injects $11.7 billion annually into the economy.  This same economic analysis finds the Minnesota biofuel producers help support 48,506 jobs (direct, induced and supplier), pay $3 billion in wages annually and contribute $1.1 billion annually in combined state and federal taxes.

While the fine print does matter, we should be clear about the issues.  The high carbon emitter in town is oil.  On the other hand, biofuels, for today and tomorrow, are an important renewable, low carbon emitting energy source.  Biofuels do, and will, continue to drive down GHG emissions to help stabilize the climate.  Biofuels do, and will, continue to be a big economic boost for Minnesota as well as the consumers who benefit from having a higher octane fuel that holds down the price of gasoline.  By keeping the focus on the real issues and applying science to further enhance the production of biofuels, we can indeed displace at least 30% of petroleum use in Minnesota by 2025 and be on a truly sustainable, low carbon biofuel cycle.

Please direct any comments This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.