Growth Energy

April 12, 2016

By Marc J. Rauch

A motorcycle blog recently posted a piece attacking the use of E15 in engines.The blog post relied on patently false information to make its claims against E15, and recycled the misinformed criticisms that are often levied against the fuel by those who rely on erroneous anecdotal evidence and ignore fact. Marc Rauch, Executive Vice President and Co-Publisher of The Auto Channel, penned a response to the baseless claims made in the original blog post and set the record straight on the benefits of E15. His response can be viewed in full below:

I read your post about E15 along with the comments from your friend ‘Stump.’ I'm surprised that you failed to warn motorcycle riders of the danger of riding their bikes too close to large areas of water because a Kraken monster could rise up out of the depths at any moment to seize them.

I understand that the Kraken is a mythological creature, but as long as you’re peddling fairytales you might as well go all the way.

Owning and riding a motorcycle, like owning and driving a car, doesn't magically imbue the owner with any great technical knowledge. Therefore owners of bikes and cars, like you guys, should stay away from making claims when it’s clear that you don't have any technical knowledge whatsoever. The claims you posted are completely false.

The only uncertainty in my mind is why you would make these false claims – is it just because of ignorance or are they intentional lies. If the false claims come from StarTron then I'm reasonably certain they are lies; lies made to help sell their snake oil products. Perhaps they should have stayed dedicated to making car polish products.

You posted that “Gums rapidly form in the fuel tank and fuel delivery systems as ethanol fuels age.” The substance you are referring to, which some call sludge or gunk, is caused by gasoline. This will form whether there is ethanol present in your fuel or not. This problem has been around for as long as gasoline has been used in internal combustion engines (more than 100 years). Engine treatment and cleaner products have been around for nearly as long. So to ascribe the problem to ethanol as if it’s something exclusive to ethanol is preposterous.

To solve the problem of sludge/gum/gunk build up you use ethanol or a product that emulates ethanol. When you wash your hands with soap, the soap doesn't make your hands dirtier; the soap facilitates the cleaning process. If your engine has a great deal of build up, then you will have to eventually have it cleaned. This may also require changing the fuel filter and other parts. This is standard procedure in vehicle ownership.

It may be that going from long-term use of ethanol-free gasoline to an ethanol blend will cause the sludge/gum/gunk to breakaway, but that’s what you would want to happen in order to clean your engine. However, if you have already been using E10 or if you recently had your engine cleaned and the fuel filter changed, then E15 won't cause any problems with the gum/gunk/sludge because there will be very little of it; in fact, there may be none.

Your post continues by going deeper into myth. Ethanol does not attract moisture from the atmosphere. Moisture (water) can form in a fuel tank, but it forms because of condensation. Ethanol does not exacerbate the condensation process. And the problem of condensation has been a problem with internal combustion engines for as long as internal combustion engines have existed. Condensation can occur with gasoline or even if the fuel tank is completely empty; that’s how condensation works. So again, to ascribe this problem to ethanol as if it’s specific to ethanol is ridiculous.

Moreover, if your fuel tank and fuel system did get water in it there are two ways to remove the water: First is to drain the tank and system. The Second, and faster solution, is to add something like Dry Gas. Dry Gas is ethanol. So ethanol solves the problem, it doesn't cause the problem.

Phase separation is actually a problem with gasoline, not ethanol. Ethanol breaks down water molecules and holds it until it’s expelled through the exhaust system when the engine is running. Gasoline does not have that same ability to break down and hold the water. That’s when you get phase separation. That’s when the engine will not start.

It is true that ethanol can reach a point where there is too much water and the water will lie separately from the ethanol, but this is several times more water than gasoline can handle. So if there’s a situation in which you inadvertently poured some water into your fuel tank, you better hope that you have ethanol and not gasoline in the tank.

Your post continues with more silliness. You write that ethanol fuels break down quickly. It’s gasoline that breaks down quickly, which is why gasoline stored in a fuel tank for a long time requires a stabilizer. You may have noticed a bottle of whisky in your grandparent’s liquor cabinet over years and years. They whisky never broke down; it never required a stabilizer; you can drink from the same bottle of whisky for 20 years and the taste and strength will remain the same.

An ethanol-gasoline blend may separate but the moment the engine is started the ethanol and gasoline readily mix. In addition, the “short period of time” is not a short period of time. You make it sound as if it will occur over a lunch break.

Painting the image that the separation of ethanol and gasoline is similar to the separation of water and gasoline is false. Water has no ability to combust, so if you have phase separation in your tank of water and gasoline then you will have trouble. On the other hand, if the ethanol and gasoline separates you'll never know it because ethanol combusts, and once combustion takes place the gasoline and ethanol mix together.

You post that ethanol causes lost power, performance and decreased fuel economy. This is all nonsense. Ethanol delivers more power because you get more compression. More compression leads to better performance - this is why high end performance cars and many race cars use ethanol fuels. And, the reason that a gasoline engine running on ethanol fuel will get less MPG is because the engine is optimized to run on gasoline. The same engine optimized to run on an ethanol fuel will get better MPG. In any event, if you lose 10% in miles by using an ethanol-gasoline blend, but save 20% in fuel cost, then you have a net gain, not net loss.

And finally, you raise the absurd issue that the ‘Kraken E15 monster’ will force its way into your fuel tank. Just because E15 may become available in Colorado, it doesn't mean that it’s everywhere or that it’s the only fuel choice. Also the pump and hose is clearly labeled. I realize that on occasion someone excessively stupid or drunk will pump diesel fuel into a gasoline tank, and vice-versa, but this is another reason while you should not drive when drunk or excessively stupid.

Incidentally, I own and ride a motorcycle, and have done so for the past 20 years. I have never, ever, experienced any of the problems that you, Stump, ABATE and StarTron claim. I have, however, over the course of driving vehicles of all types for nearly 50 years experienced fuel line freeze (which is virtually non-existent with ethanol-gasoline blends), faulty fuel pumps, broken fuel lines, and leaky seals… all of which happened to my vehicles using leaded gasoline or gasoline with MTBE.

If you guys don't understand these extremely simple facts about internal combustion engines then you should not be writing about them, let alone giving advice to anyone else.

Have a happy week and ride safely.

Read the original story here : The Auto Channel Fires Back Against False E15 Claims

Renewable Fuels Association

Today, the American Petroleum Institute unveiled anti-biofuel results from a new Harris Poll.

Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen had the following response:

“It’s no surprise that API, an organization which has made its top priority to get rid of the RFS, is trotting out a phony faux poll to support its antediluvian narrative about biofuels. This push poll, which uses opinionated statements to elicit a negative response to biofuels, is not reflective of reality. For example, the renewable fuel standard (RFS) has not raised food prices 25 percent, as API claims, but instead food prices have risen by an average of just 2.7 percent per year since 2005, the year RFS was adopted. In fact, only 17 cents of every dollar spent on food pays for the raw farm ingredients in the food item. The other 83 cents pay for processing, transportation, labor, packaging, advertising and other costs.

“If you want to know what the American public really thinks, with direct questions and no spin, look no further than a Morning Consult poll conducted April 1–3, on behalf of RFA, in which nearly six in 10 registered voters (57 percent) support the RFS. Conversely, only 19 percent oppose the RFS. Additionally, 64 percent of those polled have a favorable opinion of biofuels and two-thirds (66 percent) have a favorable opinion of corn-based ethanol. This data is consistent with the findings from the approximately 18,000 registered voters we have polled over the past year.

“With these growing levels of support for biofuels, it’s no wonder that API President Jack Gerard told Politico’s Morning Energy last month that the organization was pivoting its strategy toward reforming, rather than repealing, the RFS. API can’t continue to support repeal because Americans want more fuel choice, not less.”

The Morning Consult poll included results from 2,004 registered voters, with a margin of error of +/-2 percent. To view a copy of the poll results, click here.

Read the original story: Push Poll Push Back

Business Wire

April 5, 2016

Today, six biofuel trade associations sent a letter to House and Senate leaders asking Congress for a multiyear extension of advanced biofuel tax credits. The Advanced Biofuels Business Council, Algae Biomass Organization, Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Growth Energy, National Biodiesel Board and Renewable Fuels Association sent the request in a letter to Senate and House leaders, Senate Committee on Finance leaders, and House Ways and Means Committee leaders.

Congress granted a two-year extension to the Second Generation Biofuel Producer Tax Credit, the Special Depreciation Allowance for Second Generation Biofuel Plant Property, the Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Fuels Credit, the Alternative Fuel and Alternative Fuel Mixture Excise Tax Credit, and the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property through the Protecting Americans From Tax Hikes Act of 2015, which became law on Dec. 18, 2015. While other energy production tax credits were extended through 2019, these provisions expire at the end of 2016.

The letter sent today states, “This short-term expiration of tax incentives is jeopardizing the long-term investment necessary for advanced biofuels. This creates uncertainty for investors and industry about the availability of these credits in the future. As leaders in a critical innovation sector in the United States, we are well aware of the financial constraints facing this country. However, as Congress works on developing energy tax extenders legislation, we urge you to ensure that advanced biofuels are part of the package. Extending some 2016 expiring energy tax provisions and not others creates a piecemeal approach and investment uncertainty across the energy sector and distorts the playing field for biofuel producers.”

Tom Buis, Co-chair of Growth Energy, stated, “These incentives are important in providing certainty for investment into second-generation biofuels.”

Brooke Coleman, Executive Director of the Advanced Biofuels Business Council, added, “There is no good rationale for letting temporary tax breaks for advanced biofuels expire against the backdrop of ongoing, permanent and substantial subsidies to fossil fuels. Congress must extend advanced biofuel tax incentives as long as our competitors in the sector – oil and gas – continue to receive special allowances from the federal government. To do otherwise would be to further distort private investment toward oil and gas.”

Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen said, “Short-term tax incentives are akin to new drivers in a stick shift vehicle. The cars haltingly lurch forward for a time, but suddenly stall. The advanced biofuel industry needs certainty if it is to remain commercially viable, as it continues to bring new facilities and technologies online. Longer term incentives would go a long way to making sure the industry continues its growth, and don’t leave consumers stalled along the way.”

Brent Erickson, Executive Vice President of BIO’s Industrial & Environmental Section, added, “For several years now, policy uncertainty at the federal level has undercut investment in cellulosic and advanced biofuels even while pioneering companies proved the technology and started up the first commercial-scale production facilities. It will take several more years for companies to plan, finance and build the next wave of advanced biofuel facilities. Stable policy in the form of a multiyear extension of these advanced biofuel tax credits is necessary to help companies secure capital for these projects.”

Anne Steckel, Vice President of Federal Affairs at the National Biodiesel Board, said, “Biodiesel producers across the country are ready to expand production and hire new workers, but they can’t do it when they don’t know what their tax liability will be in nine months. We need to end this cycle of on-again, off-again incentives and replace it with stable, long-term policy for clean fuels that encourages economic growth and innovation.”

A copy of the letter is available at here.

Read the original release: Biofuel Trade Associations Ask Congressional Leaders to Extend Advanced Biofuel Incentives

Hastings Tribune

March 27, 2016

By Amy Roh

Improving efficiency in the ethanol industry has been crucial to its survival during economic downturns. 

Todd Sneller, administrator of the Nebraska Ethanol Board in Lincoln, pointed to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that highlighted the improvements in efficiency. 

When the ethanol industry started, the energy put into processing at a plant was barely less than the energy created. For every unit of fossil energy put into a plant, 1.2 to 1.5 units of energy was produced.

“Now the latest USDA study says that for every unit of fossil energy going into a plant, there are four units of energy that come out of that,” Sneller said. “That’s a terrific increase over time.”

He pointed to companies using different seed varieties that improve oil extraction or starch conversion and other improvements to develop the ethanol sector over time. He said the companies that invested the large amounts of money they made at the beginning were able to lower production costs to help sustain themselves through economic downturns in the industry.

“I’ve been interested in seeing those trends because they speak to a maturing of the sector as time has gone on,” he said. “In times of marginal profitability, like we’re in now, the focus really has evolved to recognize if you’re sloppy during those periods, you’re probably going to have a tough go of it.”

With stricter carbon emission regulations being enacted around the globe, Sneller said, ethanol has become more popular in the world market. 

“A lot of this is going to places in the world where low carbon fuel standards have been embraced to a bigger extent than they have in the U.S., so those really become the emerging markets in the ethanol sector,” he said. 

Besides a lower cost, he said, ethanol needs to leave its mark with its other added values, including lower carbon intensity and lower toxicity. Given its higher octane and cleaner burning components, ethanol has a competitive advantage over gasoline when one is looking to comply with carbon emission and greenhouse gas regulations. 

But Sneller said he is concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency’s undermining of the Renewable Fuel Standard requirements set out by Congress in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

The bill set out to increase the volume of renewable fuel product to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. At this point, however, the EPA has lowered the associated incremental increases several years in a row. 

Instead of the robust growth expected, he said, the ethanol sector has seen policy languish in oil industry lawsuits. Investors are ready to support new technology being developed in the emerging market, but it’s being hampered by the EPA’s actions.

“Because the EPA has insisted on undermining the standards that Congress has set, it’s caused a lot of hesitation so you see delays in rolling out new technology,” he said. “That sort of uncertainty really puts the brakes on investment.”

While oil lobbyists try to cast aspersions on the ethanol industry, Sneller said, people need to examine the real price of oil, including money spent protecting shipping lanes, cleaning up oil spills and tending to public health and the environment. 

And it doesn’t just affect the ethanol sector. 

Sneller said automakers need a higher-octane fuel to meet the carbon emission standards imposed on them. Automakers have developed small engines that operate at a lower cost but require a higher octane fuel. But before they can produce vehicles that perform best at E25 or E30, they need to be assured those biofuels will be available. 

He said promoting a variety of ethanol blends would also give consumers options. 

“What we’re trying to do is make sure that when you pull up to a gas pump, you have a choice other than 100 percent hydro-carbon product,” he said. “You have a choice of ethanol blends that may range up to 85 percent. That’s been the real push — to give consumers a choice.”

Read the original story: In Lean Market, Efficiency Improvements Key for Ethanol