Ethanol Chronicles Launches Blog to Answer Fuel Critics
July 13, 2015
By Susanne Retka Schill
The Auto Channel recently launched the Ethanol Chronicles to aggregate questions and information on ethanol. The Auto Channel is a focused content channel covering all things automotive. A long-time champion for ethanol, copublisher Marc Rauch describes the almost-daily blog as “lively, spirited and sometimes humorous repartee concerning energy issues.”
Posts to the Ethanol Chronicles began July 2 and, according to a note introducing the blog, include questions and responses to comments emailed to Rauch and his partner Bob Gordon at The Auto Channel, as well as comments found on other outlets. “Following are some of the best of the banter sessions,” Rauch writes.
The first set of comments covers issues such as the irrelevancy of Btu as a measurement of ethanol performance compared to gasoline that gets into a lengthy dialogue about what a Btu measures and a discussion on engines. “The whole creation of Btu rating and understanding was to determine what it takes to heat water one degree. This was important (and still is important) when dealing with steam engines or water heaters or cooking using fire. Btus have no importance in internal combustion engines. Engine optimization is the key,” Rauch writes.
Other dialogues discuss “energy returned on energy invested,” subsidies, ethanol and oil’s relationships to food prices, impact on classic cars, and more.
The site has attracted other commentators. Bobby Likis, who also supports ethanol on his Car Clinic site and broadcasts, added information on his experiences with ethanol and the Ricardo EBDI ethanol-optimized engine. Another commentator included a video of to the Urban Air Initiative’s video of E0 and E10’s impacts on a Styrofoam cup.
Read the original story here.
The Voice of the People
July 7, 2015
By Bob Dinneen
One of the hallmarks of our nation’s representative democracy is that its public institutions are charged with implementing policies that take the best interests of the American people into account. In most instances, they do a fine job of ensuring that their policies are meeting the needs of the people. But, there are times when public interests and public policy clash. Such has been the case with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and its proposed implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
When Congress passed the RFS in 2007, it specified in the legislation the annual amount of biofuels that were to be blended with gasoline. In proposing renewable fuel volumes (RVOs) for 2014 through 2016 the EPA, however, has chosen to ignore the law and is proposing to cut the biofuels requirements by 20 percent, or a total of 11.3 billion gallons, over the course of three years. In making the decision to waive the congressionally mandated RFS volumes, the agency has relied on the false “blend wall” narrative that has been perpetuated by the oil industry which claims that ethanol has reached its saturation point at 10 percent ethanol blend (E10), and that higher level ethanol blends, like E15 and E85, are not yet available enough to justify higher blending requirements.
The EPA’s proposal shows that instead of looking out for the best interests of the public it is, instead, looking out for the interests of the oil industry. So it should come as no surprise to the agency that the public has been frustrated with its RFS proposal. And public frustration was on full display last month at a hearing that the EPA held in Kansas City, Kansas on the proposal. Media reports on the hearing state that approximately 230 of the 262 people that testified at the hearing were opposed to the EPA’s proposal and were supportive of the RFS as adopted by Congress in 2007.
Conrad Clement of Conrad Clement Farms summed up the feeling of those in attendance during his testimony when he called the RFS “America’s most successful policy in 40 years,” but charged that the EPA was “tearing [the RFS] apart.” Clement urged the EPA to “endorse the original RFS as it was.” Geoff Cooper, Senior Vice President for the Renewable Fuels Association, said in his remarks at the hearing that the EPA was “overstepping the bounds of its legal authority by proposing to partially waive the RFS based on perceived capacity constraints,” and that “nothing in the statute allows EPA to set the RVOs based on the so-called ‘blend wall’ or alleged infrastructure limitations.”
In a blog post he wrote shortly after the Kansas City hearing, Cooper deconstructed the myth that the “blend wall” is an impenetrable and immovable barrier, by pointing out that recently released data by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) showed that nearly half of our nation’s 50 states blew past the 10 percent ethanol level two years ago. “The data prove that augmenting E10 blending with even small amounts of higher-level blends like E85 and E15 can break through the so-called ‘blend wall,’ further diversifying a state’s fuel supply, and facilitating compliance with the congressionally enacted RFS volumes,” Cooper wrote.
I’ve said time and time again that there is nothing wrong with the RFS that cannot be fixed by what is right with the RFS. By any measure, the RFS has been a tremendous success: it has stimulated growth in biofuel production; revitalized rural economies; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; and lowered pump prices. The RFS has also reduced petroleum consumption and introduced competition into the fuel market, which is precisely why the oil industry opposes the program and is calling for its repeal.
I commend the EPA for going to the heart of the conversation and holding the hearing in the heartland of the nation, but the agency cannot simply discard the comments at the next convenient opportunity. The EPA must listen to the voice of the American people, who have an outspoken desire for a strong RFS, and not the oil industry.
- See more at: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/exchange/entry/the-voice-of-the-people/#sthash.BSkob3vX.dpufOne of the hallmarks of our nation's representative democracy is that its public institutions are charged with implementing policies that take the best interests of the American people into account. In most instances, they do a fine job of ensuring that their policies are meeting the needs of the people. But, there are times when public interests and public policy clash. Such has been the case with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and its proposed implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
When Congress passed the RFS in 2007, it specified in the legislation the annual amount of biofuels that were to be blended with gasoline. In proposing renewable fuel volumes (RVOs) for 2014 through 2016 the EPA, however, has chosen to ignore the law and is proposing to cut the biofuels requirements by 20 percent, or a total of 11.3 billion gallons, over the course of three years. In making the decision to waive the congressionally mandated RFS volumes, the agency has relied on the false "blend wall" narrative that has been perpetuated by the oil industry which claims that ethanol has reached its saturation point at 10 percent ethanol blend (E10), and that higher level ethanol blends, like E15 and E85, are not yet available enough to justify higher blending requirements.
The EPA's proposal shows that instead of looking out for the best interests of the public it is, instead, looking out for the interests of the oil industry. So it should come as no surprise to the agency that the public has been frustrated with its RFS proposal. And public frustration was on full display last month at a hearing that the EPA held in Kansas City, Kansas on the proposal. Media reports on the hearing state that approximately 230 of the 262 people that testified at the hearing were opposed to the EPA's proposal and were supportive of the RFS as adopted by Congress in 2007.
Conrad Clement of Conrad Clement Farms summed up the feeling of those in attendance during his testimony when he called the RFS "America's most successful policy in 40 years," but charged that the EPA was "tearing [the RFS] apart." Clement urged the EPA to "endorse the original RFS as it was." Geoff Cooper, Senior Vice President for the Renewable Fuels Association, said in his remarks at the hearing that the EPA was "overstepping the bounds of its legal authority by proposing to partially waive the RFS based on perceived capacity constraints," and that "nothing in the statute allows EPA to set the RVOs based on the so-called 'blend wall' or alleged infrastructure limitations."
In a blog post he wrote shortly after the Kansas City hearing, Cooper deconstructed the myth that the "blend wall" is an impenetrable and immovable barrier, by pointing out that recently released data by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) showed that nearly half of our nation's 50 states blew past the 10 percent ethanol level two years ago. "The data prove that augmenting E10 blending with even small amounts of higher-level blends like E85 and E15 can break through the so-called 'blend wall,' further diversifying a state's fuel supply, and facilitating compliance with the congressionally enacted RFS volumes," Cooper wrote.
I've said time and time again that there is nothing wrong with the RFS that cannot be fixed by what is right with the RFS. By any measure, the RFS has been a tremendous success: it has stimulated growth in biofuel production; revitalized rural economies; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; and lowered pump prices. The RFS has also reduced petroleum consumption and introduced competition into the fuel market, which is precisely why the oil industry opposes the program and is calling for its repeal.
I commend the EPA for going to the heart of the conversation and holding the hearing in the heartland of the nation, but the agency cannot simply discard the comments at the next convenient opportunity. The EPA must listen to the voice of the American people, who have an outspoken desire for a strong RFS, and not the oil industry.
Read the original story here
Scientists Study Ways to Integrate Biofuels and Food Crops on Farms
July 7 2015
By Paul Marathe
We ask a lot of the land: feed the world with crops, power the world with bioenergy, retain nutrients so they don’t pollute our water and air. To help landscapes answer these high demands, scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory are designing ways to improve—and hopefully optimize—land use.
In collaboration with the farming community of the Indian Creek Watershed in central Illinois, these researchers are finding ways to simultaneously meet three objectives: maximize a farmer’s production, grow feedstock for bioenergy and protect the environment. These goals, as it turns out, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
All it takes is a multifunctional landscape, where resources are allocated efficiently and crops are situated in their ideal soil and landscape position. Planting bioenergy crops like willows or switchgrass in rows where commodity crops are having difficulty growing could both provide biomass feedstock and also limit the runoff of nitrogen fertilizer into waterways — all without hurting a farmer’s profits. This is what a group of Argonne scientists has discovered through careful data collection and modeling at a cornfield in Fairbury.
“The issue we’re working to address is how to design bioenergy systems that are sustainable” said Cristina Negri, principal agronomist and environmental engineer at Argonne. “It’s not idealistic. We wanted to show that it’s doable; if we design for specific outcomes, we’ll see real results.”
So Negri and her team created a pilot farm site that balances the priorities of economic feasibility, bioenergy and environmental health.
Meeting this challenge called for a change in perspective. Rather than looking at whole fields as the unit of planting decisions, researchers analyzed subareas of the cornfield. They found that subareas with the lowest yield also had the lowest nitrogen retention. These sections of land are doubly taxing — unprofitable for the farmer and damaging to the environment.
Negri explained what happens in the underproductive land: “Imagine pouring a nice, nutrient-rich solution through a fertile soil with plants growing in it,” she said. These nutrients would be retained by the soil long enough to be taken up by plants, minimizing any leakage. “Now imagine pouring this same solution through a colander: If nutrients filter through the soil too quickly, they’re no longer available for plants. The corn grows less, and more nitrogen is leached into groundwater.”
But planting bioenergy crops in the colander-like soil could solve both problems — environmental and economic — as the Argonne team showed with the Denitrification Decomposition simulation.
Willows and switchgrass are perennial bioenergy crops, meaning their life cycle spans multiple years. These plants have a more extensive root system than annual plants, which start their growth from scratch every year. Deeper roots are better able to absorb nitrogen as it seeps deeper into the soil.
The loss of nitrogen from agricultural land is a major environmental concern. If not retained by soil or taken up by plants, nitrogen escapes into air or water. It is released into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with 310 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. Nitrate leaking into water spurs oxygen depletion that harms aquatic ecosystems and can lead to toxic algal blooms, as seen in Lake Erie. The Fairbury cornfield is located within the Indian Creek Watershed, draining to the Vermilion River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico, which for years has been suffering from oxygen depletion caused by nutrient runoff.
While scientists may be invested in energy and environment, the team recognized that farmers — the true agents of change — have to think first and foremost about their economic bottom line.
“Across the entire field your farm might be profitable, but by collecting more specific data we can identify subareas where the farmer is not recovering his or her investment,” said Argonne postdoctoral researcher Herbert Ssegane.
The money lost comes from farmers cropping and applying expensive nitrogen fertilizers to patches of the field that are just not producing enough. Inserting rows of bioenergy crops where there is low corn yield means the farmer is not sacrificing substantial profit from row crops. As a cost-saving bonus, the deep-rooted bioenergy crops naturally accumulate the lost nitrogen as a free fertilizer.
Argonne scientists planted willows at the Fairbury site in 2013 and will continue collecting data through next year to see how results compare to their predictions. “We’ve already reached a 28 percent reduction in nitrate, even with two full growing seasons still ahead of us,” Ssegane said. Willow growth has also been good, without the researchers applying any fertilizer.
According to Ssegane, this project is about proving a concept. It shows farmers that strategic planting of bioenergy crops can increase productivity and save money, while demonstrating to the scientific community that bioenergy will be sustainable if we match plants to their optimal position within a landscape.
“Before this work, the popular idea was ‘dedicated fields,’ where you might convert a large area from corn to switchgrass,” Ssegane said. “But dedicated fields of bioenergy crops are currently inviable in an agricultural setting where the economy is tied to grain. What does pass the cost-benefit test is converting underproductive subareas to an alternative crop.”
A multifunctional landscape finds the happy, efficient medium between a dedicated bioenergy field and a farm growing continuous acres of the same cash crop.
The scientists are exploring how these design principles can be scaled up to the entire watershed. Eventually, they hope this research informs agricultural planning for scientists and farmers alike.
“Multifunctional landscapes: Site characterization and field-scale design to incorporate biomass production into an agricultural system,” the most recent paper analyzing data from Fairbury, was published in the journal Biomass and Bioenergy. Funding for this research comes from the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office.
Read the original story here.
Renewable Fuel Policy Lagging
July 6, 2015
By Ken McCauley
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is critical for small, rural farms in America’s heartland. The renewable fuel industry stimulates job growth, spurs investment and drives down costs at the pump. Why, then, do so many oppose this critical component to domestic renewable fuel growth?
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Congress established the RFS to promote energy security by increasing the percentage of domestic renewable fuels (like ethanol) used in transportation fuel. The RFS led to the emergence of a burgeoning biofuels industry, harnessing the energy from natural, domestic products like corn to produce ethanol. The program works by imposing a yearly requirement on refiners and importers of fuel to include an increasing percentage of renewable fuel, called Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs).
Each year since enactment, the RVOs were to be slightly increased, as the industry adjusted and infrastructure and technology were developed to keep up. However, in recent years, the EPA has dropped the ball. The agency neglected to issue RVOs for the past three years, causing confusion and uncertainty in the marketplace.
In late May, the EPA finally released its proposed RVO numbers for 2014, 2015 and 2016. The levels were much lower than Congress intended when it passed the standard in 2005. The comment period on the proposed levels extends until July 27. We must urge the EPA to reconsider and push for higher levels.
The initial enactment of the RFS spurred companies to invest billions into the industry, causing renewable fuel production to triple, driving oil import levels down to their lowest in decades and significantly decreasing our carbon emissions into the atmosphere. However, EPA’s failure to issue RVOs in a timely manner has had a chilling effect on the industry, causing investment to shrink by almost $14 billion in the past two years and putting American jobs at risk.
American farmers stepped up when called upon, increasing production levels of corn ethanol to meet the growing standards. We restructured our production plants and ways of life to help wean the United States off foreign oil from unfriendly nations, resulting in billions being injected into a new industry. But now, the EPA is submitting to the demands of Big Oil — with newly proposed RVOs disappointing, at best — after not issuing standards for the past three years. Instead of letting the oil industry rewrite the rules of renewable fuel, the EPA should uphold its end of the deal.
A recent economic impact report commissioned by Fuels America tracked the data, showing that the RFS has stimulated $4.1 billion dollars in economic activity annually in Kansas.
The renewable fuel industry supports 16,620 jobs and generates $1 billion in wages annually in Kansas. It has created job growth for the tens of thousands of people who work on the 400,000 farms across America that grow corn. Of last year’s total corn production, a staggering 35 percent of the 14 billion bushels of domestic corn production went to produce corn ethanol.
Cuts in the RVO will have serious consequences across the board, specifically in the American heartland, and would adversely impact our agricultural economy. It could have ripple effects on the rest of our economy, as well, with higher prices at the pump. Environmentally, it could lead to a reversal of the past decade of decreases in carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
The RFS represents a highly successful energy policy that has created American jobs, decreased our reliance on foreign fuel and contributed to a cleaner environment. We must encourage the EPA to reconsider and reinstate strong renewable fuel volumes, for the good of our economy, our national security and our environment.
Read the original story here
Biofuels are better for environment, rural economy
June 27, 2015
By Doug Peterson
Consumers across the nation have embraced the option of purchasing foods that are produced either through a natural or organic process, in hopes of providing the best and tastiest energy source possible for their bodies. Indeed, this market has grown from being nearly nonexistent several decades ago to occupying a considerable portion of shelf space in most major grocery chains.
In that same light, there are now fuel options available that are cleaner, greener, healthier and renewable, and thus not only better for our planet but also the air we breathe and the water we drink. To that end, Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2008 in hopes of slowly weaning this nation off of its dirty oil addiction and onto a renewable, healthier source of fuel. That law has not only benefited this nation's overall environment and thus our health, but has also been a major economic boon to farmers and the rural economies they support.
The RFS mandated that 36 billion gallons of ethanol — the lion's share of which comes from corn — be blended into the U.S. gasoline supply by 2022. Almost out of thin air, a new domestic market for U.S. corn was created, boosting prices for not only corn farmers but those who raised other commodities as well. For generations, corn prices had been flat and farmers were making less and less in real dollars as corn prices lagged behind input prices. The RFS turned that equation on its head.
Farmers are the engines that drive rural America's economy, and when they have extra money in their pockets, they spend it on upgrading equipment, improving their land and investing in farm infrastructure.
The passage of the RFS also sparked a surge of investment in rural America, primarily in building new ethanol plants to produce enough biofuels to meet the mandate. In fact, today there are at least 18 ethanol plants in Minnesota, providing a reliable market for farmers and reliable jobs for American workers. Nationally in 2014, the RFS supported 83,949 direct and 295,265 indirect jobs, many in rural America.
With the advent of homegrown biofuels, this nation is not only purchasing less petroleum products from countries who really don't like us, but we're also saving consumers money. A recent study from Iowa State University showed that domestic ethanol saved consumers an average of $1.09 per gallon in 2011. Money that once flowed to the Middle East and elsewhere is now remaining in Minnesota and being spent on durable goods.
There is no question that American made, farm-raised biofuels are also much friendlier to the environment. A recent study by Argonne National Laboratory finds that corn ethanol greenhouse gas emissions are 34 percent lower than those of regular gasoline. And that is better for humanity's long-term prospects on this planet.
Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency, the government agency tasked with overseeing the RFS, has failed to adhere to the production targets set by Congress in the law. As a result, investments are turning away from the renewable fuel sector at a time when the industry should be expanding, not contracting.
Both cellulosic ethanol and advanced biofuels have now reached commercial status and offer the greatest potential for environmental benefits, but delays in issuing volume targets have caused an estimated $13.7 billion gap in capital investment needed to comply with the volume targets set in the statutes that enacted the RFS.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the fact that growing corn in the Midwest is much better for the country than drilling for oil in the Arctic or off the fragile coastal areas of our nation. And the promise of new kinds of advanced biofuels holds even greater promise down the road. The EPA needs to adhere to the targets set forth by Congress and allow America's hardworking farmers to do their part in our quest for energy independence.
Read the original story here.
Urban Air Initiative: Ethanol Reduces Engine Wear
June 29, 2015
By
The Urban Air Initiative (UAI) has released a study that finds ethanol free gasoline blends actually increase the wear and tear on engines including hoses, seals and fuel tanks. In other words, the data supports ethanol blends lead to cleaner engines. The findings were presented at the semi-annual meeting of ASTM by Steve Vander Griend, technical director for UAI who also works for ICM.
The report demonstrated that high aromatic content of gasoline, including toxic aromatics like benzene and toluene, negatively impact engine parts. Vander Griend explained in his presentation that the toxic aromatics create a significant increase in the escape of harmful emissions that can have a devastating impact on public health as these are considered by the Environmental Protection Agency has known and suspected carcinogens.
“What we are seeing is that benzene and toluene are increasing permeation, which means increasing the amount of fuel vapors that seep from a vehicle. For anyone who has a garage at home and smells gasoline, vapors are escaping through the vehicles fuel system or small engine gas tank,” said Vander Griend.
Also during his presentation Vander Griend explained that extensive testing was conducted on fuel lines, gas containers, and plastic components. The materials were each soaked in straight gasoline (E0) and a 10 percent ethanol blend (E10) for extended periods of time. In every case, said Vander Griend, the ethanol free gasoline increased the damage to fuel lines, gas containers, and plastic components, while the materials soaked in E10 were impacted less.
“The notion that somehow ethanol free gasoline is a superior product could not be further from the truth,” continued Vander Griend. “In our home town of Wichita [Kansas], the average E0 has 46% more benzene and toluene by volume than the same 87 octane blend with ethanol. The fuel costs more and presents a mechanical and health risk that is incorrectly being attributed to ethanol.”
Vander Griend called on ASTM to establish a task force to define maximum levels of aromatics in gasoline and to establish standards for the use of toluene as a blend component and ASTM said it will begin to study the aromatic levels of gasoline.
Read the original story here: Urban Air Initiative: Ethanol Reduces Engine Wear
Testimony by Randy Doyal to the EPA
June 26, 2015
By Randy Doyal
Good morning,
My name is Randy Doyal and I am the CEO of Al-Corn Clean Fuel, a farmer-owned corn ethanol facility in Claremont, Minnesota, that produces 50 million gallons of fuel ethanol per year. I also currently serve as the Chairman of the Renewable Fuels Association.
Al-Corn Clean Fuel was founded as a cooperative in 1994 by local farmers who endeavored to add value to their corn crop, stimulate the local economy, and contribute to enhanced energy security and a cleaner environment.
We are adamantly opposed to EPA’s proposed rule reducing the 2014–2016 renewable volume obligations from the levels envisioned by Congress. The Renewable Fuel Standard has been a tremendous success and has worked exactly as intended to drive growth in biofuel production and consumption. The program has played a pivotal role in reducing petroleum imports, lowering gas prices, improving air quality, and strengthening the economic health of rural America. We simply do not understand why EPA is proposing to move backward on a program that has undoubtedly delivered on its promise.
Moreover, the Clean Air Act statute does not permit EPA to take into account “factors that affect consumption,” such as purported infrastructure constraints or the so-called “blend wall,” in determining whether to grant a general waiver of the RFS. By embracing the “blend wall” concept, the EPA proposal not only violates the law, but also undermines the incentive to expand biofuel production and distribution capacity, and allows oil companies to blend only as much renewable fuel as they are comfortable using.
Even though gasoline consumption may be slightly lower today than Congress anticipated in 2007 when the RFS2 was adopted, it was always the intent of the program to push well beyond the so-called “blend wall” and increase the share of renewable fuels in our nation’s fuel supply.
EPA may grant a waiver based on an “inadequate domestic supply” of “renewable fuel” only if the biofuels industry lacks the capability to produce the required volumes of renewable fuel needed to meet the statutory requirements. But that is clearly not the situation today, given record production in 2014 and the forecasted supply of ethanol and carryover RIN credits in 2015 and 2016.
It also strikes us as illogical that EPA would ignore RIN stocks in determining whether supply is “adequate” to meet statutory volumes. Because carryover RINs represent physical gallons that are—or were—in the fuel supply, they must be included in calculating the proper RVOs.
Over the past 10 years, the RFS has provided the stability and certainty needed for our business to invest in multiple expansion projects, as well as new technologies to increase production efficiencies, decrease environmental impacts, and diversify product streams.
We are greatly concerned that backtracking on the RFS, as EPA is proposing to do, will cause RIN stocks to swell to burdensome levels, undermining further innovations and investments in ethanol production and distribution.
On behalf of both Al-Corn Clean Fuel and the RFA, I urge you to get the RFS back on track. We encourage you to abandon the illegal “blend wall” methodology and let farmers and ethanol producers respond to the challenge set forth by Congress in 2007.
Thank you.
Randy Doyal
CEO at Al-Corn Clean Fuel; Claremont Renewable Energy, Chairman Renewable Fuels Association
Read the original testimony here