Ethanol Producer Magazine

February 4, 2016

By Holly Jessen

Which needs to come first, a new high-octane midlevel ethanol blend or new vehicles optimized to more efficiently take advantage of the higher octane content?

“It is that classic chicken and egg thing,” says Timothy Theiss, bioenergy technologies program manager at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “The analysts say it's the simultaneous introduction of a new fuel and a new vehicle, which is very difficult.”

Brian West, deputy director of the Fuels, Engines and Emissions Research Center at ORNL, offered a slight tweak to that perspective. “All we are talking about doing, and I don't mean to make it sound easy, is just changing that ratio a little bit,” he says, adding that the nation already has a gasoline and ethanol infrastructure. “It would certainly seem to me to be a much simpler thing than putting in a whole new infrastructure of, say, hydrogen.”

West believes a new E25 or E40 blend, perhaps marketed as a “renewable super premium,” could be sold in a way that is a win for consumers, retailers and everybody involved. In fact, vehicles optimized for the new fuel could be manufactured today. “I often say, there's not a good technical reason we couldn't see this in the marketplace in five or 10 years,” West adds. “That doesn't mean I think it will happen in that time frame. There's just too many parties that need to be in agreement.”

Thiess and West are two of many researchers at ORNL, Argonne National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory who have been engaged in a study since 2013. The goal of the U.S. DOE-sponsored scoping study was to assess the potential of an E25 to E40 mid-level blend.

In mid-January researchers were wrapping things up, preparing to provide a short, high-level summary to the DOE. The last of the data will be released in publications within the next year, West says. Up next is the Optima initiative, which will focus on developing new, co-optimized fuels and engines to maximize performance and carbon efficiency. While the high-octane fuel study focused specifically on ethanol, Optima will look at fuels like ethanol as well as other high-octane fuels, Thiess says.

Significant Findings
The high-octane fuel study found that E25 and E40—when used to fuel a vehicle optimized for the blend—could achieve volumetric fuel-economy parity with E10. In other words, each additional gallon of ethanol added would displace a full gallon of gasoline and fuel economy would be the same as one of today's vehicles using E10. Vehicle efficiency would also increase, at 5 percent for E25 and 10 percent for E40.

Of course, fuel economy varies according to multiple factors, such as how fast the vehicle is driven and engine design. “Not everybody is going to see all of this across the board every time,” Theiss says. “Your mileage may vary.”

An ANL report concluded that, compared to E10, when 40 percent corn ethanol was used for blending, total greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 18 percent. If corn stover were the feedstock, E40 achieved a 32 percent GHG emission reduction.

NREL was involved in the high-octane fuel study in several capacities, says Robert McCormick, principal engineer and platform lead in fuels performance R&D. For example, a market analysis concluded that high-octane vehicles could make up 43 to 79 percent of light-duty vehicle stock by 2035. Another thing NREL completed was an infrastructure assessment. “There are no technical issues in deploying equipment for higher ethanol blends, only cost considerations and station knowledge of their equipment,” he says.

That's what's exciting to Thiess about the high-octane fuel study. “In this, we're finding we have a lot of ands,” he says. “We can get better fuel economy. And. When ethanol is traditionally priced a little less than gasoline, we can get a fuel that is a little bit less because we are using less petroleum and more ethanol. And. We're showing that we'd get pretty nice greenhouse gas emission reductions. And. We're showing that the vehicle manufacturers would be favorably inclined to build those vehicles. And. We're showing that the biofuel infrastructure could pretty much be adapted to handle it. And. We're showing that there's a lot of feedstock out there that could be used to make it. So, there's a lot of ands, and not the major ors, where we have to make very big trade-off decisions right up front. Now, that's not to say that it's not a difficult thing. It is very difficult to introduce any new fuel. And this would be no exception. But there are a lot of benefits that stack on top of each other.”

Making It Happen
In order to make high-octane fuels and vehicles a reality, quite a few players, including the U.S. EPA and the auto industry, have to get on board. “For manufacturers to build cars that are dedicated for this fuel, I think a number of things have to happen,” West says. “It has to be widely available. They have to believe the consumer is going to buy it all the time, or they aren't going to get the fuel economy benefit that they are getting in the certification test. In order for the consumer to buy it all the time, it has to be on a cost-parity basis with E10.”

But that doesn't mean that the fuel can't be sold until that happens. In fact, E30 is already being sold at some blender pumps across the nation and work to increase the infrastructure for higher ethanol blends is ongoing. And, most flex-fuel vehicles on the road today can already use midlevel ethanol blends and actually see a performance benefit doing so. Thiess sees the FFV fleet as a bridge across the chicken and egg dilemma in establishing a new midlevel ethanol blend and new vehicles optimized for that fuel.

Read the original story: E25, E40 for the Masses

It’s no secret that the transportation sector is one the largest contributors to climate change. But alarmingly, it continues to remain the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Globe Gazette Des Moines Bureau

January 25, 2016

By James Q Lynch and Rod Boshart

Another day, another round in the Ted Cruz-Terry Branstad battle over ethanol and the Renewable Fuels Standard.

Ethanol Producer Magazine

January 21, 2016

By Mike Bryan

All eyes are turning to Iowa as the State Caucus looms on Feb. 1. Of course, those of us in the ethanol industry hang on every word candidates speak when it comes to ethanol and renewable energy, in general. I wonder, however, if it really makes a great deal of difference.

In theory, it’s great to have a president who supports renewable energy, but in practice, Congress is the body that actually determines the success or failure of our industry. I’m reminded of this when I hear presidential candidates make wild claims about what they are going to do if they are elected to the Oval Office. In fact, there is little they can do (outside of veto power) without Congressional approval, as it relates to renewable energy.

I’m not a Washington insider, so what I’m saying here may not be the view of those who are insiders. But, from someone who has seen a few presidents come and go (more than I would like to admit), I do wonder how important their comments about renewable energy are, when they are vying for the top job. Aside from only a handful of candidates over the years, just about all of them, when they are in Iowa, say they support ethanol. Following through on that commitment is another story.

Not to do so would be like a vegetarian seeking the position of CEO for the National Cattlemen’s Association. If you really wanted the job, you would probably, albeit reluctantly, wolf down a T-bone over dinner with the board and comment that there is nothing like a good steak. Of course, once you have the top job, there are all sorts of reasons you can revert back to being a vegetarian but, boy, deep down I really do support the meat industry. I think you get my point.

Over the years I’ve become pretty cynical about what politicians promise when on the campaign trail. The political realities of Washington soon come to roost once the election is over. That list includes campaign donations, the compromises required in order to get things though Congress and pressures from a vast array of lobby groups, all with very convincing stories.

I don’t pay a lot of attention to what is said on the campaign trail about ethanol, because I don’t think it makes a lot of difference. What makes a difference is what’s in their heart. Unfortunately it’s difficult to know that unless they have some voting or other public track record of either support or opposition. Looking at a number of candidates, what they say about ethanol in Iowa and what their track record is, are two different things. Some have no track record at all on ethanol and it becomes almost impossible to know if they are simply saying what Iowans and others want to hear. Maybe we should listen to them when they are campaigning in the coal country of Kentucky or in the oil producing states of Oklahoma or Texas. Renewable energy would likely not be on their list of topics.

So I’ll let the political insiders make the call on which candidate is best suited from a renewable energy perspective. For me, I’m not sure it makes a gnat’s worth of difference.

That’s the way I see it.

Read the original story: Promises Made In Iowa

Dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) are a highly sought-after feed due to its high-energy, mid-protein and high digestible phosphorus content and long shelf life.

Renewable Fuels Association

January 13, 2016

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) vehicle emissions modeling system is inadequate and unreliable as a tool for estimating the exhaust emissions of gasoline blends containing more than 10 percent ethanol, according to a new comprehensive third-party evaluation of the model.

The evaluation of EPA’s latest Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2014) model was conducted by scientists from Wyle Laboratories, Inc., and Volpe (part of the U.S. Department of Transportation), and commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Foundation.

“Overall, it was found that the predictive emissions results generated by MOVES2014 for mid-level ethanol blends were sometimes inconsistent with other emissions results from the scientific literature for both exhaust emissions and evaporative emissions,” according to the study. “…results and trends from MOVES2014 for certain pollutants are often contrary to the findings of other studies and reports in the literature.”

Of particular concern is that the MOVES2014 model predicts increased exhaust emissions of nitrogen components and particulate matter as the ethanol content in gasoline increases, even though real-world emissions testing based on mid-level ethanol blends has shown distinctly opposite trends. “The results from other researchers often show ethanol-related emissions trends that are different than the MOVES2014 results obtained for this study…” the study found. “In some cases not only were magnitudes different but different [directional] trends were presented.”

The study’s authors suggest the MOVES2014 model’s questionable predictions for certain emissions likely result from the use of data that misrepresents the actual parameters and composition of mid-level ethanol blends. Specifically, the default ethanol blend data in the model is based on arcane “match blending” methods intended to “match” specific fuel parameters, rather than “splash blending” methods that are used in the real world. According to the study, “…real-world splash blends may not have the same attributes as the modeled default match blends used in MOVES, and actual emissions may be different than the emissions predictions from MOVES.”

These likely distortions are then multiplied through the use of overly restrictive adjustment factors and equations. The authors write that “…the trends used to determine constants in the model’s equations may need to consider many more variables than are now being considered,” and “the adjustment factor approach may need to be more robust and consider the changes to emissions as a function of all properties, not independently.”

In an attempt to simulate the emissions of mid-level ethanol blends created using real-world “splash blending” practices, the Wyle and Volpe scientists performed an analysis where certain fuel parameters were modified. However, the model still produced questionable results that suggested increases in emissions of nitrogen components and PM as ethanol content increases.

To correct the deficiencies with the MOVES2014 model, the authors recommend obtaining new mid-level ethanol blend emissions data using blends that better represent real-world fuel properties and blending practices. They write that “…additional vehicle exhaust testing from mid-level ethanol blends with well-defined fuel properties is recommended.”

Commenting on the findings of the new study, RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen said:

“This is more than an academic exercise. The MOVES model is used by state regulators to assess air quality and determine their progress and compliance with national emissions standards. It is thus essential that EPA’s model be accurate and based on sound science. Unfortunately, this analysis concludes that just like EPA’s now dated and misguided carbon intensity modeling for ethanol, the MOVES model is fundamentally flawed and biased against ethanol.”

To read the evaluation, click here.

Read the original story: New Study Questions Reliability of Ethanol Results from EPA Vehicle Emissions Model

Minneapolis Star Tribune

January 10, 2016

By Jose A. DelReal

OTTUMWA, IOWA – GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is escalating his criticism of rival Sen. Ted Cruz in Iowa, painting him as a political follower beholden to pro-oil special interests and the donor class.

Trump's strategy: to raise further questions about Cruz's stance on ethanol — an important industry in the Hawkeye State — in the final weeks before the Feb. 1 caucuses. Cruz has faced renewed scrutiny over his opposition to the 2005 Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires gasoline to be blended with amounts of corn ethanol and is set to expire in 2022.

"As you know, my primary opponent in Iowa — only in Iowa, because Ted actually isn't doing very well in New Hampshire, but in Iowa he's doing well — was totally opposed to ethanol and the ethanol industry because he's with the oil industry. He's from Texas, I guess that makes sense," Trump said Saturday at a rally in Ottumwa.

His criticism comes amid a growing battle between the two candidates for the top spot in polls of Iowa voters. A Fox News survey of Iowa voters had Cruz leading Trump among likely GOP caucusgorers, 27 percent to 23 percent.

While touting his own ­support for the industry, Trump said he believes Cruz's position on ethanol has undergone "a very big change." Cruz has softened his position in recent years, calling for legislation that would gradually phase out the ethanol blending requirement.

"He was getting clobbered and all of a sudden he said, 'Uh, oh, I'm for ethanol.' You can't do that. You can't do that. With three weeks to go, you're not allowed to do that. Nobody really believes it," Trump said.

Supporters and spectators waited outside of the Bridge View Center in Ottumwa — a small town in southern Iowa — where a harsh cold wind blew as they waited for a chance to hear one of Trump's notoriously raucous speeches. Though the crowd capacity in the auditorium was about 650, according to police, the overflow area held about 1,000.

Trump has a series of stops in Iowa planned for the next three weeks leading to the caucuses. This is a contrast to his previous campaigning in Iowa, where he has darted in for occasional rallies before huge crowds, relying on TV news coverage to reach Iowans.

Trump's rallies Saturday afternoon in Ottumwa and Clear Lake came after an 11-day absence from the state.

"Next couple of weeks, I'm going to be seeing you so much that you're going to be so sick of me," Trump said at the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake.

Read the original story: Trump Accuses Cruz of Flip-Flopping on Ethanol

Ethanol Producer Magazine

January 6, 2016

By Erin Voegele

Representatives of the ethanol industry are speaking out to criticize comments on the renewable fuel standard (RFS) made by American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard during a recent speech.

On Jan. 5, Gerard delivered the keynote address at API’s sixth annual State of American Energy event. During the speech, he called for the RFS to be repealed or significantly amended. “It is relic of our nation’s era of energy dependency that poses a direct threat to our nation’s economy, risks reversal of important environmental improvements and could raise energy costs for American consumers,” he said.

Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen has spoken out to reject Gerard’s claims.  “I’m not sure what reality Jack is living in, but it is clear that he believes API’s actions and policies are making our nation more energy secure when nothing could be further from the truth,” Dinneen said. “Perhaps he has convinced himself that fracking will provide the answer to all of our nation’s energy needs. What Jack conveniently failed to mention is that as oil prices have crashed, so has the rig count. The number of active U.S. oil rigs has plunged 67 percent from its peak in 2014. Last week’s rig count was actually the lowest since May 2010, according to the oil field services firm Baker Hughes. If Jack spent time living in the real world, instead of his revisionist reality, he would find himself whistling past the graveyards of shuttered wells that have been abandoned in the bust that inevitably follows a temporary boom of an oil well.”

“Even though U.S. oil production has risen in recent years, U.S. refiners still import a substantial amount of crude oil,” Dinneen continued. “In 2015, U.S. refiners processed roughly 16 million barrels per day, while crude oil imports averaged about 7.3 million barrels per day. This means that roughly 45 percent of the oil processed by U.S refineries came from imports. And about one-third of our nation’s imports came from OPEC nations with Russia and Columbia also serving as major suppliers.”

 “The fact is our nation needs domestically-produced clean burning renewable fuels now more than ever,” Dinneen said. “Ethanol plants strengthen communities, they do not abandon them. Ethanol jobs are as stable and renewable as the fuel itself. Jack needs to wrap his arms around the fact that the era of unconstrained energy consumption is the real relic, and no longer exists. Renewable energy resources like ethanol provide the only real hope of a more sustainable energy, environmental, and economic future.”

Growth Energy co-chair Tom Buis has also spoken out to criticize Gerard’s comments. “API’s ‘State of American Energy’ speech, brought to you by Big Oil, is nothing new,” he said “While oil companies talk about the future of energy in this country, they seem fixated on a finite resource and fail to acknowledge that renewable fuels play a critical role in meeting the nation’s growing energy needs.

“Year after year, API attempts to drive the narrative that the renewable fuel standard (RFS) must be reformed or repealed,” Buis said. “This argument is fundamentally flawed. The claims that renewable fuels will increase the cost of energy or that they are worse for the environment are simply ridiculous. Countless independent studies have shown that renewable fuels like ethanol help drive down the cost of fuel. Furthermore, when it comes environmental damage, no one has a worse record than oil companies. Their record of ecological disasters is extensive and deeply troubling.”

“They claim the RFS is a ‘relic’ that is no longer useful, but the fact is that the RFS has been a resounding success, doing exactly what it was intended to do when a bipartisan Congress passed it over a decade ago,” Buis continued. “The RFS is the most successful energy policy this nation has enacted in the last 40 years. Not only is it creating jobs, it is revitalizing rural economies, reducing harmful emissions, improving our environment and reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuel. Additionally, it is providing consumers with a choice at the pump.”

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw noted the API continues to defend its special tax preferences while attacking the RFS. “You can’t help but laugh when API wraps themselves in the banner of market competition while advocating just the opposite, “he said. “They’ve done that for so long you get the feeling they actually have started to believe their own false rhetoric.”

“Big Oil simply does not want consumers to have the choice of higher ethanol blends because oil can’t compete in a free market,” Shaw continued.  “Ethanol blends are cheaper, cleaner, and higher octane.  Ask the pioneering retailers who give their customers a choice and the picture is clear—consumers prefer cheaper, cleaner E15 and E85.”

“Despite API’s claims that its oil monopoly worldview is gaining political support, the facts on the ground are clear.  First, the only vote in Congress to repeal the RFS failed by a 2 to 1 margin in the Senate Banking Committee,” Shaw said. “And here in Iowa, 12 out of the 14 candidates running for president have pledged to—at a minimum—support the Congressional RFS schedule through 2022 and to insist on a level playing field thereafter.  Quite frankly, we are likely closer to the end of Big Oil’s Century of Subsidies than to API’s goal of repealing the RFS.”

Read the original story: Ethanol Industry Reacts to API Criticism of RFS

Ethanol Producer Magazine

January 5, 2016

By America's Renewable Future

America’s Renewable Future recently released its final candidate report card. The report card places each presidential contender into a good or bad category based on their support for the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS). ARF will use the report card to let more than 50,000 pledged caucus-goers and Iowans know which candidates will protect the state’s economy or which will be job killers. The tactics used will be a combination of grassroots and paid efforts.

Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul stand out as the bad candidates on the report card, while the rest of the candidates on both sides of the aisle are graded as good. The report card designates a “good” candidate as one who has demonstrated support for the RFS and Iowa farmers and a “bad” candidate as one who has stood against Iowa farmers and the RFS.

The organization has gone after Cruz prior to the release of the report card on statewide radio for his hypocrisy on support for oil subsidies. The efforts will resume after the holidays. In addition to paid media, ARF’s grassroots organization covers the state’s 99 counties with 17 field staffers who have organized over 1,000 events around the state. From test plot events and RV stops at biofuel plants and co-ops to county fairs and farmers’ markets. From our urban centers in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids to the smallest rural towns, ARF has been getting its message out to Iowans. A message that’s resonating with Iowa caucus-goers with 61 percent of republicans and 76 percent percent of democrats saying they support the RFS.

“Ted Cruz is dangerous to Iowa and thousands of Iowa jobs,” said Eric Branstad, ARF state director. “Our economy depends on a strong RFS and Iowans count on $5 billion in wages thanks to it, Ted Cruz wants to kill their jobs and we are going to make sure every Iowan knows that.”

Read the original story: ARF Releases Candidate Report Card on RFS Support

Ethanol Producer Magazine

December 29, 2015

By Iowa Renewable Fuels Association

The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association recently announced that Iowa’s 43 ethanol plants produced over 4 billion gallons during 2015, up slightly from 3.9 billion gallons in 2014. Iowa continues to be the number one ethanol producing state, and is estimated to account for roughly 27 percent of national ethanol production in 2015. The increase came from efficiency gains and debottlenecking at existing plants, as well as ethanol production from cellulosic feedstocks such as corn stover and corn kernel fiber.

“While Iowa took a modest step forward in production this year, we have the corn supplies to really expand ethanol production,” said IRFA Executive Director Monte Shaw. “What we don’t have is access to the market for higher ethanol blends. The USDA blender pump grant program will help move the needle forward in 2016 and we hope the EPA will get the RFS back on track when they propose the RFS levels for 2017.  If we can crack the petroleum monopoly on fuel choice, it will benefit consumers, farmers and the environment.”

Iowa is the nation’s leader in renewable fuels production. Iowa has 43 ethanol refineries capable of producing 3.9 billion gallons annually, including nearly 55 million gallons of annual cellulosic ethanol production capacity. In addition, Iowa has 12 biodiesel facilities with the capacity to produce nearly 315 million gallons annually.

The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association was formed in 2002 to represent the state’s liquid renewable fuels industry. The trade group fosters the development and growth of the renewable fuels industry in Iowa through education, promotion, legislation and infrastructure development.

Read the original story: Iowa Sets Ethanol Production Record at 4 Billion Gallons in 2015