In the News
September 16, 2015
By Don Davis
Finding gasoline mixed with higher percentages of ethanol soon will be easier for Upper Midwest motorists.
A federal grant is due to help fund 620 new "blender pumps" around Minnesota that can dispense fuels with 15 percent to 85 percent ethanol content. That is third to the number of pumps the federal program will help install in Texas and Florida.
Other area states also are due for aid, including Iowa, with 187 pumps; Wisconsin, 120; North Dakota, 90; and South Dakota, 74. Nearly 5,000 blender pumps will be added across the country.
Nearly 200 million cars and light trucks built in 2001 and later can use the 15 percent blend, known as E15, federal authorities have determined.
Higher blends, such as E85, can be used by nearly 20 million flex-fuel vehicles made in recent years.
"It will not harm your emissions systems ... your engine," said Kevin Hennessy, Minnesota Agriculture Department biofuels manager. "My suggestion is to try it and see if you like it."
Ethanol generally is made from corn.
Most states followed Minnesota's lead in the 1980s and have required that gasoline include 10 percent ethanol, mostly due to its ability to cut pollution. In corn territory, some states have provided funding to help ethanol take off.
Few states have helped add blender pumps, but Minnesota has had a program in operation two years. More than 40 stations in the state have installed 120 pumps.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture grant announcement, to be followed in a couple of weeks with release of specific dollar amounts each state will receive, was greeted with enthusiasm in the corn belt.
"Corn farmers have scored a big point in our ongoing battle with big oil and its efforts to use its deep pockets and lobbying power to block the installation of flex-fuel infrastructure,” said Doug Albin, who farms near Clarkfield, Minn., and leads the Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council.
The council is among organizations, along with the state, that will provide money to match the federal grant.
Kelly Marczak of the American Lung Association said the increase in federal, state and private funds to improve the flex-fuel infrastructure demonstrates a strong demand across the country for cleaner, more affordable fuel.
Higher ethanol blends produce higher octane, less pollution and cost less.
Hennessy said that he filled his car's tank with E15 Wednesday morning, paying $2.01 a gallon.
However, while ethanol has benefits, it also produces less energy than pure gasoline and miles per gallon figures usually drop. Hennessy said E15 produces 98.2 percent of the energy of E10.
Existing Minnesota blender pumps are concentrated in the Twin Cities to get the most sales possible, but they also are in a variety of cities around the state including Perham, Pipestone, Bemidji and Willmar, Hennessy said.
The federally funded program also will be focused in the Twin Cities, he said, but it also will help pay for pumps in other parts of the state.
“Access to more pumps should provide consumers with more opportunities to use biofuels in their vehicles if that is their choice," U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said.
At the same time, the congressman added, studying how blended fuel sales go will help government officials determine whether to continue ethanol programs.
Iowa Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey said it is important to build the new infrastructure so Iowans may use more of the ethanol produced in their state.
While the ethanol production plant growth spurt of a few years ago has slowed, two new plants are under construction in the country and others on the drawing boards. One planned plant would be in central South Dakota, where Ringneck Energy hopes to build a $140 million operation.
Ringneck President Walt Wendland is traveling North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota to find investors. He has helped start two Iowa ethanol plants.
"You want to see those dividends go back into those communities," he said. "I don't want to see large oil companies owning these, or large corporations owning these plants. To me, it's about being able to add value and own a piece of these that's a great model."
Read the original story here: More Ethanol Choices on the Way for Minnesota Region
Sept 16, 2015
By Mike Bryan
Since the ethanol blend wall seems to be the current issue the U.S. EPA is struggling with, I have a crazy idea. Instead of setting a blend wall for ethanol, why not set a fossil fuel pollution cap (PC). After all, ethanol is not causing major pollution in our cities, it’s not damaging our environment, or polluting our oceans, rivers and streams and causing untold health issues for our citizens, fossil fuels have already cornered that market. It just seems like the EPA is doing everything possible to restrict the use of the wrong fuel. Fossil fuels have a proven track record of nasty effects from health to wars. I don’t recall seeing any health effects or wars that have been attributed to ethanol.
While seemingly an outlandish idea, having a fossil fuel PC would accomplish a number of key objectives for the country and the environment. Unless I’m mistaken, that should be the objective of the EPA, to help protect the citizens of this country through sound environmental policy. Policy that promotes a cleaner environment and better air quality, via minimizing the use of polluting fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel. Besides, the PC could also stand for the politically correct thing to do as we come into the 2016 election cycle.
It’s not terribly complicated. The government, led by the EPA, would enact legislation that caps the use of fossil fuels over the next 30 years to, say, 50 percent of its 2020 level. Let’s say that by 2020, fossil fuel use would be capped at 85 percent of the levels it is today. That would provide an opportunity for ethanol and biodiesel to meet those limits over the course of the next four years.
Then, during the following 10 years from 2020 to 2030, fossil fuel use would have to be reduced from the 2020 level to 70 percent. Following that, it would have to be reduced to 60 percent and, finally, by 2045 to 50 percent of the 2020 level. It’s a program that would accomplish many things for the environment, air pollution and for the economy as a whole. All by simply addressing the root cause of the problem.
It is difficult to imagine the impact such a policy would have on the economy of this country. Not just the rural economy, but the economy as a whole. We would not have to concern ourselves anymore about protecting our oil interests around the globe. We would reduce air pollution by at least 30 percent or more. We would go far toward achieving our global carbon reduction goals and improve the health and well-being of citizens from coast to coast. Combined that with the development of new vehicle technology such as electric and improved fuel economy and it may just be an achievable idea.
I know, I could have used this space to talk about something that actually has a chance of becoming policy, but one never knows. The EPA is simply focused on the wrong thing. It’s seems to be intent on restricting the use of a fuel that has contributed enormously to the environment, the economy and energy security, in favor of a fuel that has done almost the exact opposite.
The introduction of a fossil fuel PC is beyond my ability, but perhaps some of our Washington insiders ought to give it a think. Many things begin with a simple idea.
That’s the way I see it.
Read the original story here : Time To Cap Fossil Fuel Pollution
September 15, 2015
By Bob Dinneen
It’s that time of year again, when leaves make their seasonal color change and pumpkins are carefully placed on every porch. Another year is on its way out. Time, it seems, is never on our side; it’s always zipping by us faster than we expect. The ethanol industry had quite the significant “has it been this long?” moment in August when we celebrated the 10th anniversary of what is arguably our nation’s most successful energy policy: the renewable fuel standard (RFS). Over the past 10 years, the RFS has made an indelible impact on the nation’s economy, environment, and energy security.
The RFS is powering America’s rural economy in ways we could not have imagined before the Energy Policy Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. Since then, ethanol industry jobs have more than doubled, driving a threefold increase in annual ethanol production from plants nationwide to its historic height of 14.3 billion gallons in 2014. Farmers are now producing 25 bushels of corn per acre thanks to higher yields—all without expanding onto additional lands—and the doubling of corn prices has saved families from the brink of bankruptcy.
The RFS is, of course, a multifaceted program that was created to tackle critical energy issues gripping the nation at the time of its passage. In 2005, the United States imported three-fifths of its petroleum needs. Today, that number rests at just over a quarter. Notably, ethanol’s rise to claim 10 percent of the gasoline pool has virtually eliminated all gasoline import dependence. Last year, the Energy Information Administration found that ethanol displaced the gasoline equivalent of 512 million barrels of crude oil, which is more than all the oil America imports every year from Saudi Arabia.
But what is a comprehensive energy plan without a consideration of its environmental impact? Ethanol continues to be unquestionably cleaner than fossil fuels. Conventional ethanol is reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent compared to gasoline. That means less carbon monoxide, benzene and other toxic hydrocarbons are polluting our atmosphere. The lowered emissions each year equate to removing more than 8 million cars from the road. If cleaner tailpipe emissions aren’t already a draw, consumers can look forward to cheaper gas prices, thanks to ethanol. On average, ethanol saves drivers about a dollar per gallon at the pump.
The fact is the RFS is doing what Congress intended it to do 10 years ago. The American public recognizes that fact. The U.S. EPA, however, does not seem to want to hear about the public’s satisfaction with the program. Its proposal to drastically slash volumetric blending requirements for refiners proves that the agency instead prefers to listen to the same misinformation that the oil companies have been propagating for years. As the EPA witnessed at its June hearing Kansas City, support for the RFS at the ground level is ubiquitous and strong. EPA’s proposal will only reverse the program’s success in the name of Big Oil profits.
The RFS is just a decade old and its results have been wide-ranging and long-lasting. Ethanol production, corn yields, and the number of rural American jobs are up, while oil imports, greenhouse gas emissions and gas prices are down. At a time when the White House is making a concerted effort to move America beyond the 20th century kilns of the coal factories, biofuels are now more important than ever. The stability the RFS has brought to the ethanol industry has not only economically rejuvenated the nation, but it has driven the innovation necessary to propel advanced biofuels into the forefront. What was once a niche gasoline supplement has found its footing and is being recognized for what it is: the fuel of the future.
Read the original story "RFS: Doing What Congress Intended"
Press Release by Algenol and Protec Fuel
September 14, 2015
Offering ethanol made from algae for the first time commercially. Algenol and Protec Fuel have agreed to market and distribute ethanol from Algenol’s Fort Myers, Fla., commercial demonstration module. The two will also offer Algenol’s future 18 million gallons per year from its commercial plant, which is planned for development in Central Florida in 2016 and 2017. Protec Fuel will distribute and market the fuel for E15 and E85 applications for both retail stations and general public consumption, as well as fleet applications.
“This alliance is a logical step for Algenol as our commercial fuels are coming on-line,” says Algenol Founder and CEO Paul Woods. “We are excited about partnering with a successful, innovative renewable fuels distributor, who is knowledgeable in the regional and Florida ethanol market and has the expertise and relationships to grow the partnership nationally.”
“We know that advanced ethanol is a key element of the future of fuels, and we are excited to partner with Algenol, the leader in the development of algae-based fuels,” said Todd Garner, CEO, Protec Fuel. “The key components and priority of ethanol’s use are sustainability, cleaner air, and to provide the public with lower-cost fuel,” he said. “To be able to offer a fuel that can accomplish the three key components only bolsters this advanced biofuel’s future.”
This partnership will enable Algenol to leverage Protec’s established network of retail clients for the distribution of Algenol’s E85, E15 and other advanced biofuels, while also enhancing Protec’s proven ability to bring to market unique renewable fuels. The agreement encompasses E85 and E15 marketing and supply to Protec distribution network and to fuel terminals and other third parties, as warranted by market conditions. While the partnership will initially focus on Florida, the agreement provides for expansion into a national partnership scope as Algenol develops projects in other markets. Algenol’s Florida-based production facilities will provide both parties and their customers with a substantial margin advantage versus fuels shipped from out-of-state.
This agreement follows a series of successful commercialization milestones achieved by Algenol, which include its pathway approval by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2014, its organism approval by both the state of Florida and by the EPA in the same year, and the June 2015 completion of its 2-acre commercial demonstration module funded in part by a $25 million DOE Recovery Act grant. Algenol is producing ethanol meeting the D4806 ASTM specifications on a daily basis, and it can be sold commercially as E85.
Algenol has developed a patented technology using algae to produce the four most widely used fuels; ethanol, gasoline, het and diesel fuel, all for about $1.30 a gallon. The company captures, recycles and utilizes CO2 that is used as a feedstock for the algae, an approach specifically identified as a qualifying technology for reducing carbon emissions in the recently established Clean Power Plan. Its pathway reduces Greenhouse gas emissions by 69% per gallon compared to tradition gasoline according the official EPA pathway approval. A single 2,000 acre commercial Algenol module is equivalent to planting 40-million trees or removing 36-thousand cars from the road. Ethanol, used in gas pumps across the country, is typically made from the fermentation of sugars produced by plants such as corn and sugar cane. But through the innovation of using algae to convert Co2 emissions into fuels, Algenol has successfully developed a fossil fuel replacement with yields 20 times greater than that of corn.
Read the original press release: Algenol to Distribute Ethanol Commercially
September 13, 2015
By David Schaffer
The gas station at Penn Avenue and 67th Street in Richfield has carried various names over the past 50 years — Conoco, Mobil, U.S. Oil and others — as owners changed or marketing contracts lapsed.
Now, after two decades of local ownership by businessman Mark L. Olson, the station has been reborn as a local brand: Minnoco.
Across the Twin Cities region, 19 independent gas station owners like Olson have become Minnoco retailers in the past two years, freeing themselves from big oil companies while cutting costs and launching group marketing efforts. More Minnoco stations are coming.
“This is bringing together the independent operator that can’t put ads in the newspaper or on radio and TV,” said Olson, who converted his station to Minnoco in early August. “It brings everyone together to market the brand just like an SA [SuperAmerica] or a Holiday. That is what we are trying to do.”
Under the business model, station owners invest in their own station refurbishments and engage in joint marketing. Minnoco offers coupons for discounted gas and other products via newspaper inserts, social media, e-mail and minnoco.com. It plans an instant rewards program and a fundraising effort for a breast cancer charity this fall.
Minnoco was created by the Minnesota Service Station & Convenience Store Association, an industry trade group. Lance Klatt, executive director, said the goal is to get at least 50 stations under the Minnoco brand.
“We can market our brand how we want,” Klatt said. “It is a business model that makes sense. There are a lot of independent retailers that are hungry for a new image, the opportunity to control their own brand and to bring new fuel to the marketplace.”
The stations also gain from the buy-local movement. “You look at the logo and you know it is a Minnesota company,” said Michael Porter, an adjunct faculty member in marketing at the University of St. Thomas Minneapolis campus.
And in a nod to renewable fuels, Minnoco’s mostly green logo features a plant leaf.
Among the first to offer E15
Renewable fuel is an important piece of the Minnoco story, and it underscores the changing landscape of gasoline retailing.
All but two of the Minnoco stations sell “Unleaded Plus,” or E15, a blend of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline that can be used in 2001 and newer cars and trucks. The price typically is 10 cents less than regular fuel, which is 10 percent ethanol.
The ethanol industry has been trying to get more gas stations to sell E15, but it’s a challenge because oil companies have little incentive to upgrade pumps for renewable fuel blends that cut petroleum’s market share. So ethanol and corn-producer trade groups now offer grants to help stations with pump upgrades to sell a range of ethanol blends.
“It’s cleaner and it’s cheaper and the performance and fuel mileage is the same as regular gasoline if not better,” said Joel Hennen, who owns the Shakopee Minnoco station and is chairman of the Minnoco board of directors.
Big oil companies like BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil once owned gas stations, but have divested them over the past decade. Their names remain on about half of the nation’s gas retailers because they fund station improvements under long-term marketing deals.
Minnoco stations aren’t the only ones getting help from the renewable fuel industry to introduce E15, and higher ethanol blends like E30 and E85, which are for flexible-fuel vehicles. Mike O’Brien, vice president for market development at Growth Energy, an ethanol industry trade group, said other U.S. regional retailers adding such blends are Sheetz, Kum & Go, and Murphy USA.
“In order to get E15 into the marketplace, you have to go around the established markets,” said O’Brien, who is based in Minnesota.
Soon E15 will get another push from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is handing out $100 million in grants to upgrade 4,880 of pumps across the country. Of 21 states tentatively approved for grants last week, Minnesota is slated to get the third-largest share, enough for an estimated 620 pump upgrades.
Benefits, hidden and not
Station owners cite other benefits of severing alliances with big oil companies.
One plus is that stations are free to purchase gasoline from wholesalers at market prices generally lower than those offered by big oil brands, they said. This helps the stations compete against other convenience store chains, which already benefit from wholesale purchasing.
At major-brand stations, the independent owner is “essentially obligated to buy their gas and you can be roped in for seven to 15 years,” said Rick Bohnen, who converted one of his two stations on Penn Avenue in Minneapolis to a Minnoco. His other station is a BP.
Bohnen said Minnoco stations also get a break on credit card swipe fees, which can be a major expense at stations, typically costing 2.5 percent of every sale.
Porter, of St. Thomas, said that rebranding under the Minnoco logo can help station owners avoid the fallout from disasters like the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker grounding and oil spill off the coast of Alaska.
After such disasters, some consumers turn away from that oil brand, choosing to fill up elsewhere.
“Minnoco is closer to a hometown brand, and it is less likely to take the backfire from a Deepwater Horizon spill,” Porter said. “You are insulating yourself from that kind of backlash.”
Read the original story: Growing Minnoco Gas Station Brand is Fueled by Independent Operators
Global Renewable Fuels Alliance
Sept 11, 2015
The UN FAO has released data showing that global food prices have experience the steepest monthly drop since 2008, casting doubt upon concerns about the impact of ethanol production in food price increases. The recent decline in food prices has coincided with a period of record ethanol production expansion, reaching a high of 94 billion litres in 2014 from 83.5 billion litres in 2012, a 10% increase over this period. This contrast clearly demonstrates that increased ethanol production has not driven up food prices.
The UN FAO Food Price Index averaged 155.7 points in August, down 5.2% from July, representing the steepest monthly drop since December 2008 with virtually all major food commodities registering marked dips. This drop coincides with a fall in crude oil prices in July of 19%, closing at $48.25 per barrel on July 31.
The Global Renewable Fuels Alliance (GRFA) has for several years argued that the price of oil and energy inputs are the single most influential drivers of food and commodity prices. A number of international institutions including the World Bank, International Energy Agency (IEA) and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) have also recognised the strong relationship between oil prices and food prices.
A 2013 World Bank publication, Long-Term Drivers of Food Prices, concluded that almost two thirds of food price increases are caused by rising oil prices. The report states that between 1997-2012 the price of crude oil caused maize and wheat prices to increase by 52 percent and 64 percent, respectively. The report also found that biofuels had a negligible impact on food prices during this period.
The undeniable relationship between oil price and food price is outlined in this chart. The recent collapse of global crude oil prices has been followed by the collapse in the global food price index showing how reliant food prices are on the price of oil.
In a recent publication, the UN FAO conclude that increased biofuels demand has helped the agriculture sector by increasing agricultural productivity and output which has “ensured that the global supply of crops available for non-biofuel uses has continued to grow over the long term.”
In a speech this past January at the Global Forum for Food and agriculture the UN FAO Director-General Jose Graziano da Silva recognized biofuels as a key part of the global agriculture complex with social, agricultural and environmental benefits and outlined the potential for agriculture to accommodate mutually supportive food and biofuel production.
Read the original story here : UN Data Shows That Ethanol Is Not Causing Food Price Rises
Sept 4, 2015
By Bobby Likis
Recently, Lauren Fix appeared on the Jacki Daily Show and took aim at Ethanol. Really?
Perception / Myth / Ms. Fix:
Corn was not designed to run through engines; ethanol-blended fuels must have fuel additives to ensure burn (mentioning three brands specifically and stating that car owners need to add one of these additives to every tankful of E10); ethanol is so damaging that it is not used in race cars.
FACTS:
These overwhelming no-merit statements are not based on fact. Henry Ford's first car "1896 Quadricycle" ran on E100 (100% ethanol). And Mr. Ford's 1908 Model-T was America's first Flex-Fuel car. E15 is the most tested fuel ever...to the tune of the equivalent of 12 round trips to the moon (6 million miles). No discernable difference was found in engine wear between E15 and other test fuels in the tested model years (2001 and later). NASCAR powers its cars with E15 fuel (85% gasoline with 15% ethanol). Indy racecars run E98. Why 98% rather than 100%? Glad you asked. By adding 2% gasoline, pit crews would be able to see smoke in case there’s a fire. Ethanol burns so cleanly that 100% would be all but invisible to spot if a fire did break out, which can happen when cars going 225 mph run into each other or the wall. Speaking of clean burning, ethanol replaced MTBE (which replaced lead in gasoline) as an oxygenate. By adding 10% ethanol to gasoline, many cities are able to reach clean air requirements that otherwise would not be possible. Ford’s EcoBoost and GM’s Ecotec engines thirst for high octane, and ethanol delivers. Thousands of car owners across America who drive high-performance (but non-flex-fuel) vehicles on the street want an E85 option. One example is my General Manager who owns a 2015 Subaru WRX STI diligently searched for E85. Why? E85 adds another 70 HP and 100 lbft torque to the existing 346 HP, all-wheel vehicle. Ethanol - with its 113 octane rating - is an enabler of power & performance.
Perception / Myth / Ms. Fix:
Ethanol destroys Air Mass Sensors and O2 Sensors.
FACTS:
This statement is only not true, it’s impossible. Mass Air Flow Sensors & Oxygen (O2) Sensors were developed and designed to measure the total amount AIR flowing into an engine and the amount of OXYGEN leaving an engine through the exhaust, respectively. AIR and OXYGEN...gases, not fuel/liquid. Neither are part of the liquid fuel system. The Mass Air Sensor is mounted outside the engine and has absolutely no physical connection with its liquid fuel system. Nothing other than fresh-filtered air touches the Mass Air Flow Sensor. Simplified, this sensor’s job is analogous to that of ticket takers at the theater. They count the number of heads entering the theater while others (O2 sensors) count the per-ticket cash. Heads-in / cash-out should balance. By measuring how much air goes in and at what temperature, the vehicle’s on-board computer can compare how much air leaves the engine and adjust fuel flow volume. It’s that simple. And to underscore the ridiculousness of the “damage” myth is that an ethanol molecule itself contains 35% oxygen and it evaporates at 174° F, leaving zero trace of emissions.
Perception / Myth / Ms. Fix:
Ethanol causes phase separation (free-standing water in fuel)
FACTS:
Ms. Fix states that ethanol falls to the bottom of the fuel tank. Incorrect. When condensation occurs with temperature changes, WATER can (unlikely, but theoretically can) fall to the bottom of the fuel tank in an event called phase separation (water separating from fuel). Know which fuel best solves phase separation? Ethanol. All-hyrdrocarbon gasoline with NO ethanol can suspend about .15 teaspoon of water before it separates. E10 can suspend about 4 teaspoons – that’s over 26 times more – reducing the chance for water-related corrosion and engine misses. Yes, ethanol is the solution to the problem. Ironically, Ms. Fix refers to several companies offering fuel additives that keep condensation from freezing in very cold climates. Guess what the fuel additives are? Like ethanol, they’re alcohol-based compounds. Yes, really! Now that we’ve gotten to the details, let’s go back to the 10,000-ft view. Phase separation isn’t even an issue with today’s cars. At 70°F and 70% relative humidity, it takes almost 3 months for pure gasoline to phase separate. The danger of ethanol - with 26 times more water-suspending capability - phase separating in any practical environment is ridiculous. The math indicates that more than 5.8 years storage with “open” fuel caps would be required to cause phase separation with ethanol (compared to 2.7 months with pure gasoline). In any case, today’s secure gas caps (check-engine light warns if leaking) seal fuel vapors from escaping the tank and allow only the amount of air into the tank that is required to fill the void as the engine burns fuel from the tank. Even Mercury Marine states that “after the transition period from E0, E10 may actually be a superior marine fuel as it tends to keep low levels of water moving through the fuel system, keeping the system ‘dry.’”
Perception / Myth / Ms. Fix:
Ethanol destroys engines
FACTS:
Forty-four years as an automotive service shop owner, mechanic & engine builder with 200,000 vehicles in my ASE-Certified technicians’ bays...and not one engine was ruined because of ethanol. Verifiable fact. I suggest Ms. Fix read her history on fuels, specifically Ethyl (GM Kettering), Sir Harry Ricardo’s ethanol racing fuels...and John D. Rockefeller’s avid participation to rid the country of ethanol so his Standard Oil could become the fuel supplier for America. Yes, Prohibition was more than simply taking whiskey off the streets...it was also about taking alcohol (ethanol) off the streets. I could say it's a shame Ms. Fix is so uninformed, but shame doesn't quite fit her obvious lack of basic knowledge regarding ethanol...or gasoline for that matter. What was especially disturbing to me during this interview was that both host and guest made statements about "single women getting hurt" and breaking down in not-so-friendly neighborhoods. Cars break down…machines break down, but not because ethanol is in the tank. As for women, in my award winning automotive service shop (proudly enjoying 44 years success), almost 55% of our customers are women...and not one takes the above position. Rather, our women customers ask questions and are always interested in why their vehicle failed or what they might do today to help ensure their cars stay healthy/roadworthy tomorrow.
So, the world is not flat. And egregiously incorrect perceptions of ethanol need to be fixed. We as a country need to be power-moving toward economic independence, superior engine design, cleaner air and fuel economy. A future which Facts show that Ethanol enables.
Read the original story here : Bobby Likis Car Clinic : Ethanol Update
September 1, 2015
By Susanne Retka Schill
Ethanol supporters are responding to a new round of misinformation about ethanol.
Before Labor Day, the Boat Owners Association of the United States announced the results of an informal survey that found a “vast majority” want ethanol-free gas, but only about half of respondents say it is available at marinas and gas stations. The news release went on to say “to keep up with the RFS mandate, in 2010 the EPA permitted E15,” and that, though it is prohibited for use in marine engines and other small engines and vehicles made before 2001, “it can now be found in 24 states.” The group encouraged boaters and small engine owners to ask Congress “to amend the RFS to ensure future gasoline supply in the U.S. works for all engines.”
The Renewable Fuels Association released a statement assuring boat owners that E10 is safe for boat engines. “The poll results are, unfortunately, a clear indication that the myths surrounding boating and ethanol continue to exist,” said Bob Dinneen, president and CEO. “The National Marine Manufacturers Association has engaged in a relentless misinformation campaign regarding E15 and, in doing so, has confused the issue. It is simply not true that ethanol and boat engines do not mix. E10 is safe for boat engines. In fact, every boat manufacturer warrants the use of ethanol-blended fuel with up to 10 percent ethanol. So boaters should not have any worries about filling their engines with E10 over the Labor Day holiday.”
The American Motorcycle Association sponsored its own poll “that finds likely 2016 voters have widespread and serious concern about ethanol’s unintended consequences—including damage to engines, land conversion and food prices.”
The findings cited in the association’s news release included:
“Poll results show that a majority of voters nationwide have serious concerns about the effects of the RFS: - 78 percent of those polled had serious concerns that higher blends of ethanol such as E-15 can cause severe damage in cars, motorcycles, boats, lawn equipment and other small engines. - 73 percent of polled voters had serious concerns about an EPA analysis showing that emissions that contribute to climate change are 28 percent higher from corn ethanol than pure gasoline. - 77 percent of those polled had serious concerns about corn ethanol production consuming 34 times more water than pure gasoline. - 80 percent of polled voters had serious concerns about how diverting corn to produce ethanol could increase food prices.”
Responding to similar distortions, Mark Rauch at The Auto Channel wrote a comprehensive critique to “expert” advice being given by automotive media personality Lauren Fix on a recent interview on the radio Jacki Daily Show. The lengthy blog, “Lauren Fix Takes Ethanol Opposition To New Level Of Stupidity,” responds to specific errors in detail regarding such things as ethanol not being used in race cars, corrosion issues and phase separation, among other things.
Read the original story "Ethanol Supporters Respond to Spate of Misinformation"
More...
August 29, 2015
By Ellie Musselman
MORRIS, Minn - The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) has awarded Morris-based ethanol plant DENCO II a $750,000 grant to purchase three pieces of equipment intended to increase energy efficiency.
Mick Miller, DENCO II General Manager, told the Morris City Council this past week that the company will add a fifth fermentation tank, an additional hammer mill, and an addition to the plant’s cooling tower. The total project will cost between $1.5-1.6 million. The grant will go through the city, Miller told councilmembers, “the matching portion will come privately from Denco II. There will be no expenses on the city.”
This is the second grant awarded by DEED to the company through the plant’s public-private partnership with the city. The city will own the equipment for twelve years before ownership passes to DENCO II. The project qualifies for DEED funding because its goal is to maintain or increase employment in Morris. The plant currently has 35 full time employees.
A resolution to call for bids on the project was unanimously approved by the city council. Mayor Sheldon Giese said, “It’s always a win-win when we can work with local businesses.”
Read the original story: "Denco II Received DEED Grant"
Aug 30, 2015
By Nathan Bechtold
LAKE OF THE OZARKS, Mo. — With acclaimed drivers Myrick Coil and John Cosker in the cockpit, Don Onken’s 50-foot Mystic American Ethanol is this year’s Shootout champion. Onken’s yellow and black catamaran hit 208 mph on the first day of the two-day race, running the traditional one-mile stretch past tens of thousands of crowds who lined the race course in a miles-long flotilla.
The Mystic sports four engines that burn pure ethanol and put out more than 1,700 HP apiece. That puts American Ethanol at around 7,000 HP.
Shootout fans have seen this boat before: it was formerly dubbed Recycler, a tribute to Onken's highly successful oil filter recycling business.
Onken is a boat racer at heart. He drove the Mr. Goodwrench boat for several years in the 1990s, and then stepped out of the cockpit and into the role of entrepreneur. Having built a successful oil filter recycling business in Illinois, Onken brought gear-head Keith Eickert’s Lightning Performance line into his family of companies. And that partnership has propelled Lightning Performance Group to the top of the powerboating world.
Recycler raced at the Shootout in 2013 and 2014, but topped out well below 200 mph.
This year, the rebooted American Recycler came ready to race, and now Coil, Cosker, Onken and the bright yellow Mystic have secured their place in Shootout history.
Read the original story here : 'American Ethanol' Is Shootout Top Gun With 208 Mph
Aug 28, 2015
By Marc Rauch
In January 2013, I wrote an editorial lambasting several critics of ethanol. The primary antagonist of the piece is AAA, but a close second is the automotive media personality Lauren Fix, who uses "The Car Coach" as her tagline nick name. The title of that editorial is "AAA Blunder on Ethanol Sets Off Firestorm of Criticism."
The editorial has it's roots in a couple of AAA press that denigrate ethanol. Those press releases were incorrect and stupid. It was bad enough that AAA made stupid statements, but then Melissa Francis, host of FOX News' "MONEY" show added stupid juice to the fire by inviting Ms. Fix to come on as guest to explain and expand upon the stupid AAA press releases.
Allow me to explain my consistent use of the word "stupid." Some readers will think, "Gosh, Marc is awfully childish in calling all of these people stupid; can't he express himself any better?"
Yes, I can express myself better, and I did so in the very long aforementioned 2013 editorial, which you can read by clicking on the link in the first paragraph. The reason I'm using stupid so liberally is because I believe in the power of single words to create a mood, or to express a complex thought that would otherwise require many words or even several paragraphs to describe. Therefore, "stupid" says it all, and if you read the 2013 editorial I'm confident that you'll come away saying: AAA was stupid, FOX and Ms. Francis were stupid, and Lauren Fix was stupid. For the sake of brevity, I will use "stupid" many times in the ensuing paragraphs.
At the time that The Auto Channel published the story, I sent Ms. Fix several emails questioning her on your statements, and then alerting her to my editorial. I gave her abundant opportunity to respond and either provide supportive information for her stupid comments or to recant the comments. She has never responded. Moreover, while we had often received press releases or stories from Ms. Fix for publication on TACH, she stopped sending us anything.
On a number of occasions I've been at automotive press events at the same time as Ms. Fix, and we were often in very close proximity (sometimes only one seat away). She's never taken the opportunity to say anything to me, or to make any finger-hand gesture - at least she hasn't to my knowledge. I mention this just to make it clear that she had exceedingly ample opportunity to respond or explain. Hey, maybe I'm the one who's wrong about ethanol? You'd think that since she's The Car Coach that if I was wrong that she would coach me on the truth.
In any event, here we are, more than two and a half years later, and I find out that Ms. Fix was recently a guest on an online radio show called "The Jacki Daily Show," hosted by a very attractive woman named Jacki Pick.
Ms. Pick has a very impressive resume. She's an attorney; she's served on some Congressional committees in Washington; she has two decades of experience directly related to energy and the environment; and she was a vice president of a national bank. WOW!
So I made myself a Yankee-rita (that's a Margarita with American made corn whisky instead of Tequilla), sat down at the computer, and typed in The Jacki Daily Show URL. I was looking forward to hear if Lauren Fix learned anything since her FOX-News appearance (I was even imaging that I'd hear Ms. Fix say something like "Thanks to Marc Rauch and The Auto Channel, I now know that I was wrong about ethanol").
By the way, The Jacki Daily Show episode is titled "Pipeline Benefits and Ethanol's Drawbacks," and you can listen to the entire show by CLICKING HERE.
Well, I didn't hear my name or any veiled reference to having had some correspondence with someone (me) that was critical of her past comments about ethanol. I would say that if it was possible to attend stupid classes, Ms. Fix went back to school and now holds a Masters in Stupid. But I'm jumping ahead of myself.
The Jacki Daily Show begins with a recorded disclaimer that she (Jacki Pick) uses all her experience to present an independent view that brings "America great energy security," and she follows it up by saying that her opinions are her own and free from any outside influence.
I was hopeful.
The live part of the show didn't start with Ms. Pick introducing Ms. Fix. Instead Ms. Pick led off by reading an email from Brian Williams, Legislative Director of The National Center For Policy Analysis. Coincidentally, Jacki Pick is the COO of this National Center.
She reads, "I ruined a weed trimmer and a chainsaw on this stupid E15 ethanol gasoline." (See that, everyone uses the word "stupid.")
I was in mid swallow of my Yankee-rita but the stupidity of the statement made me do a spit-take (look it up). This guy, this Legislative Director, said that he ruined a weed trimmer and chainsaw by using E15! Where the heck did he find E15, and what the heck made him want to use E15 in his weed trimmer and chainsaw? If he's based in Dallas where the "National Center" is, I doubt that E15 is available. I also don't think it's especially easy to find in the DC area, if that's where he's based. Additionally, any pumps that do offer E15 have warning labels that clearly state that E15 should NOT be used in gasoline-powered equipment, such as weed whackers and chainsaws. So was he lying? Did he intentionally not follow instructions? In other words, did he intentionally drink a bottle of Liquid Draino just to see what would happen, even though the label clearly states that it is poison to drink? Is he a liar or just dumb (I switched up on 'stupid' for the sake of variety).
Now you would think that Jacki Pick being as schooled in energy as she is, and as intelligent as her resume seems to indicate that she is, that she would have either laughed or at least said something teasingly flippant about her colleague's ridiculous statement and misuse of E15. She didn't, she followed it up by talking about how bad ethanol is.
Then Ms. Pick goes on to explain that she doesn't really know anything about ethanol, because she's "a fossil fuel person." But, she tells the audience, she did do some research. Now, armed with that research, she tells us that she learned that E15 is not even approved for 95% of the gasoline-powered vehicles on the road...that's how bad she says that E15 is.
Unfortunately she must have done her research at the stupid school where Lauren Fix earned her Masters Degree in Stupidity.
On an official basis, E15 is approved by the EPA to be used in all gasoline-powered passenger vehicles manufactured in or after 2001. The vast majority of gasoline-powered vehicles on the road in America were manufactured in or after 2001. This accounts for 75% of all cars and trucks on the road today. This means that the 95% statement is woefully incorrect
Not even 2 minutes into the show and I've heard three incredibly stupid statements.
Ms. Pick then tells the audience that the use of E15 will cause mechanical trouble and she gives us a fear-mongering tale about how as a single woman she doesn't want her car to breakdown is some desolate rural area or grungy urban area. Not satisfied with that incredibly stupid statement, she then jumps to a warning that your boat could get stuck in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico if it's using E15, causing the Coast Guard to waste it's valuable time rescuing you. She might as well just say "You don't want to get stuck in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico without a boat; it would make as much sense. It did make me wonder if she thinks that by only using gasoline that her car would be impervious to breaking down in unsavory neighborhoods?
Jacki Pick said she did some research. Where did she conduct this research? What were the resources? She's a lawyer, lawyers are supposed to know how to conduct research.
And remember, Lauren Fix hasn't been introduced in the program yet!
By the way, I just checked a current list of states where E15 is available. Of the five U.S. states that share coastline on the Gulf of Mexico, only Florida and Alabama offer E15. So if you live in Texas and you want to take your boat on the Gulf using E15, you'd have to first travel through Louisiana and Mississippi to get to Alabama. And let's say you live in Florida or Alabama, what do you think the chances are of finding an E15 pump at a marina in either of those states? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing 0%. So how likely are you to be stuck in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico because you put E15 in the fuel tank: 0% would be my guess again.
At this point I had to go back and re-read Ms. Pick's resume because I think, "either the corn whisky in my Yankee-rita was too strong, or it wasn't strong enough."
Ms. Pick closes out her monologue by casting doubt of whether anyone in the government is an expert on the subject. She then uses this as the bridge to introduce Lauren Fix, who she says is an expert on the subject, and she calls her "America's Top Woman in Car Care, Education and Auto Industry News; as well as being an "Automotive Expert."
Ms. Fix comes on the show and immediately says that "this is a very serious subject" and that she's been "fighting it for years." Based upon her on-air comments two years ago on FOX-News she must mean that she's been lying about the subject for years.
I don't know how much Ms. Fix knows about car care; she may be the best car detailer in the world. She may be able to refill window washing solution in record time. But I will tell you this, if you can use her knowledge of ethanol as the benchmark of what she knows about the automotive industry, then Lauren Fix is America's Stupidest Women in Car Care, Education and Auto Industry News.
Wait, I take that back. I don't want to let this be a gender issue. This is bigger then just male-female. I'd say that if you can use her knowledge of ethanol as the benchmark, then Lauren Fix is America's Stupidest Person in Car Care, Education and Auto Industry News. Maybe she's the stupidest automotive person in the entire English speaking world. How can she be an expert when she doesn't know what she's talking about?
Lauren Fix then immediately says "ethanol is so damaging to your vehicle" and that "we don't use it in race cars." Let me repeat that, Ms. Fix says that "ethanol is so damaging to your vehicle...that we don't use it in race cars."
Lauren Fix is supposed to be "America's Top Woman in Care, Education and Auto Industry News and Automotive Expert," but she doesn't know that ethanol fuels have been used in race cars for a century and a half. For the past few years, NASCAR, America's #1 motor sports association, only uses E15 in their Sprint Cup Series and SuperTruck racing series. Ethanol fuels have also been used in IndyCar racing, drag racing and boat racing.
And Ms. Fix says we have ethanol-gasoline blended fuels "just because some politician has a deal going with another one."
No, Ms. Fix, it's taken this long to get ethanol added to gasoline because some politicians had a deal with the oil industry and General Motors to literally ram poisonous leaded gasoline down our throats for seven decades. This was the status quo until the evidence against tetraethyl lead was so overwhelming that it was finally banned from everyday automobile fuel. The solution to replace tetraethyl lead should have been ethanol, but Big Oil persuaded the politicians to allow another poisonous ingredient, MTBE (which is made from petroleum oil). After discovering that MTBE was also poison, it too was banned and ethanol was given it's chance to re-emerge on the public scene. And since that time, ethanol-gasoline blends have played a significant part in clearing the air in cities like Los Angeles and New York.
At this point, I'm less than 5 minutes into the show. If I wasn't already bald I would have pulled my hair out.
Now Ms. Pick asks Ms. Fix how much damage ethanol will do to modern passenger cars and trucks. Ms. Fix responds that it will cost thousands of dollars because ethanol is very, very corrosive. Of course no studies are cited to support the conclusion that ethanol will damage modern cars, and neither rocket scientist brings up the fact that government and private studies by the most prestigious laboratories have stated again and again that ethanol-gasoline blends will not damage modern gasoline-powered passenger cars and trucks.
The corrosive issue makes me laugh, not another spit-take laugh, but the kind of laugh that Bugs Bunny makes when he chuckles about the stupidity of his adversary and says, "What a maroon."
Yes, ethanol is a corrosive liquid, but so is gasoline. Solar rays are corrosive; air is also corrosive; and of course water is one of the most corrosive liquids on Earth. The not-so-secret secret is to use materials that are resistant to the substance you are dealing with.
Take water for instance: We can't live without it and we consume it as if it has no corrosive characteristics whatsoever. We swim and bathe in water, including the most corrosive of all water, salt water. It's not that the water we consume and bathe in is not corrosive, it's that our bodies are not very susceptible to water corrosion.
It's the same with engine fuels. You can't just put gasoline in any old container, it must be a container that is not susceptible to gasoline corrosion. The same is true for alcohol (ethanol). Everyone knows that you can leave scotch, rum, vodka, whiskey and brandy in a glass bottle or metal flask in your home for years and there will be no degradation of the alcohol nor the container during that time. There will also be no so-called "phase separation," even if you leave the top off the bottle - although you will lose some or all of the liquid because of evaporation.
The same is true of rubbing alcohol, regardless of what the rubbing alcohol is made from. Some rubbing alcohols are just regular grain alcohols with a denaturizing ingredient to render it non-drinkable. And if you have rubbing alcohol in your home chances are that it's in a plastic bottle. The question to then ask is why doesn't the alcohol eat away at the plastic bottle? The answer is because these bottles were manufactured to be resistant to ethanol's solvent characteristics.
During prohibition (when alcohol was supposedly not available in America) and in the decades subsequent to the end of prohibition, automobile parts makers used materials that were not highly susceptible to gasoline corrosion. The parts didn't not corrode because the gasoline was not corrosive, but because of the materials used. If ethanol fuel or blends had been America's primary engine fuels then auto parts manufacturers would have used parts that were resistant to ethanol.
Incidentally, in those regions of the world (like England) where ethanol-gasoline blends were available, they didn't experience any greater problems using the ethanol-gasoline blends because the automobiles built for use in those countries used parts that were resistant to gasoline and to ethanol.
So when ethanol-gasoline blends were being introduced into America it was necessary to build all new cars with ethanol resistant engine and fuel system parts. Since that time, the mid 1990's, engines and fuel systems built with ethanol resistant parts do not experience the problems that older internal combustion engines might experience.
Why doesn't the person described as an "automotive expert" and called "America's Top Woman in Car Care, Education and Auto Industry News" know this information? Why doesn't she know it as a result of my 2013 editorial, in addition to numerous other critical editorials that were published as a result of her FOX-News appearance. Clearly, she has no contradictory information, because if she did she would have either sent it to me or, if she didn't want to communicate with me, publish it where it could be seen by the industry and public.
Ms. Fix describes ethanol phase separation problems that can occur just from driving around town doing errands. This doesn't happen.
She says water collects at the bottom because the ethanol absorbs water from the air and then it sits at the bottom of the fuel tank in a warm car. This does not happen. If water forms in a fuel tank it's because of condensation - not because ethanol has any magical water-magnet qualities - ethanol helps to get rid of the water. Prior to having E10 gasoline, if water formed in your fuel tank from condensation you would have poured ethanol into the tank to get rid of it. Yes, that's right, condensation occurred prior to the advent of E10, E15, or E85. Condensation occurs naturally, and it's been occurring for billions of years.
Studies conducted by Mercury Marine, one of the world's largest manufacturers of smaller marine engines, had this to say about so-called ethanol phase separation and absorption of water from the air:
"There is no active transfer mechanism for ethanol molecules to reach out and 'grab' water molecules out of the air."
"E10 may actually be a superior marine fuel as it tends to keep low levels of water moving through the fuel system, keeping the system 'dry'."
And funnily enough, Mercury Marine recommends that if you're going to leave your engine idle for extended periods, other than removing all the fuel, you should fill the tank with E10 to reduce the amount of exchange with the air that may bring in condensation.
Incidentally, I'm using the Mercury Marine information because it's often claimed that ethanol-gasoline blends in boats can cause greater problems then it supposedly causes in road vehicles.
Lauren Fix says it will cost thousands of dollars to fix the problems caused by ethanol. I nod my head in semi-agreement, but not for the reason she might wish.
Do you know why it might cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to fix problems attributed to ethanol? Because there are car mechanics as stupid and uninformed as she is. So they invent the problems, and if they're unscrupulous in addition to being stupid, then they really sock it to you.
Nearing the 6-minute mark of the show, Ms. Fix announces that the oil companies use lower octane gasoline to dumb-down ethanol-gasoline blends because of the excessive corrosion caused by ethanol's naturally higher levels. This is not what is happening.
Ethanol has an octane rating over 110. So if you blend ethanol with 87 octane regular gasoline the octane rating of the blend would naturally be higher than the regular gasoline by itself. E10 gasoline should have an octane rating of about 89. But if the gasoline companies allow E10 to have 89 octane then they not only lose money on every gallon of 87 octane fuel that contains 10% ethanol, they would lose the opportunity to sell a mid-level 89 octane fuel at a higher price. So they intentionally dumb down the octane level of the gasoline they use in the blends so that they're not giving away the extra 2 octane points for free. It's merely a case of the oil companies trying to earn a few pennies more per gallon, it's not a corrosion issue.
You can use 89 octane gasoline in a car designated as an 87 octane car and the higher octane will not cause your engine or fuel system to corrode simply because of the higher octane. And of course, the same scenario is true when you step up to premium 93 octane gasoline. The oil company doesn't give you 90% of 93 octane gasoline blended with 10% of 110 octane ethanol. They use gasoline with a lower octane rating to save a few pennies per gallon.
I think an automotive expert should know this kind of information. If you're a "Top Person in Car Care, Education and Auto Industry News" just because you're really good at knowing how to clean white wall tires, then maybe you wouldn't know about octane levels and such. In that case, don't pass yourself off as an expert on the subject, and definitely don't let other people falsely introduce you as an expert.
Moving on, and we're now only at about the 7-minute mark, Lauren Fix talks about receiving lots of letters from people who had their warranties voided because they used the wrong fuel. She's implying that the vehicle owners used something other than E10 fuel in their new vehicles; they then developed engine or fuel system trouble; and when they went to the dealer to get it fixed the dealer refused to do the service under the warranty.
If the vehicle is still under manufacturer warranty, then it means that the vehicle had to have been made sometime within the last few years. If that's the case, then it means that the vehicle is warranted for E10. If the vehicle is flex-fuel, then it is warranted for anything up to and including E85. Therefore it seems preposterous for Ms. Fix to claim that she's received such letters from vehicle owners. The only option is that the vehicle owners used E15 or E85 in a non-flex fuel car. If the claim is that they used E15, I'd like to know where and how these people found the E15, since it is so very limited. In short, I think that the claim that Ms. Fix receives so many letters for this problem is a gross exaggeration, bordering on an outright lie.
Aside from anything else, I challenge the claim that new vehicle owners with valid warranties experienced any problems from using E15, assuming they could find it. Studies conducted by the most prestigious laboratories have clearly stated that E15 will not have any effect on any modern gasoline-powered passenger cars and trucks. Moreover, I know from years of personal experience in using splash blended E20, E30, E40, and E50 in non-flex fuel cars that it causes no ill effects (splash blending is when a consumer manually does his/her own blending by pumping a quantity from an E85 pump and then pumping in a quantity from an E10 pump).
If the people that Lauren Fix is talking about filled their non-flex fuel vehicles with E85, then the only problem they might have experienced would have been that the Check Engine light illuminated and/or they experienced some rough running because the on-board computer didn't know how to handle the E85. Both of these problems are temporary, and the vehicle would have automatically resumed normal operation after refilling with the correct fuel.
Is it possible that a vehicle owner accidentally used E85 instead of E10 in their non-flex fuel vehicle? Sure, but it's also possible for a person to accidentally use diesel or plain water instead of E10. In instances like these the problem is not the fuel, it's the individual.
For the next couple of minutes of the show Ms. Fix repeats her nonsense about ethanol causing corrosion problems in new and old cars. As newer, she cites cars going back to the early 2000's; and for older she's talking about cars from the 1960's and earlier. Keep in mind that by the mid 1990's cars made for America had to use parts that were not susceptible to ethanol corrosion.
For older cars, ethanol can cause a problem. But then everything can cause a problem, they're old cars. She makes it sound as if in the pre-ethanol days that vehicles didn't regularly require repairs, maintenance, and replacement parts. She makes it sound as if ethanol-free gasoline is a soothing, life-giving elixir that gently encourages an engine to run. Gasoline is a highly combustible liquid. Using gasoline in a vehicle causes thousand of small explosions to occur in every minute. Parts wear down; they break under stress; explosions cause stress. Why does a so-called automotive expert not know this?
Why does a so-called independent automotive expert, and a so-called independent energy consultant have to lie or invent derogatory stories about ethanol? What's the point?
At about 11 minutes into the show Ms. Fix brings up the grand old canard about ethanol having 30% less energy than gasoline so that you get far less miles per gallon of ethanol or an ethanol-gasoline blend than you would from ethanol-free gasoline. In my opinion, using the "BTU" energy-content issue to explain why there is a difference in MPG when you use ethanol is the litmus test that proves a person's ignorance of the overall issue.
Using ethanol or an ethanol-gasoline blend in a gasoline optimized vehicle will deliver fewer miles per gallon. However, the lower MPG is not because of the difference in BTUs, it's simply because the engine is OPTIMIZED to run on gasoline. A comparable engine OPTIMIZED to run on ethanol will deliver the same or better MPG. If you don't know this then you don't know what the issue is about. If you ignore the facts and continue to state information that is irrelevant, then you are a liar or a fraud.
Next, Lauren Fix promotes some products that "stabilize" ethanol and makes your engine run better. Here's what Mercury Marine had to say about ethanol additives:
"No fuel additive can prevent ethanol from acting as a solvent. No chemical agent can be added to E0-E10 gasoline, in a reasonable quantity, that will recombine a phase separated layer. Fuel cannot be rejuvenated."
As I mentioned earlier, I'm using the information from Mercury Marine because it has often been claimed that boats suffer from ill effects of ethanol far worse than cars and trucks. But if E10 is actually better for a boat engine and fuel system than E0, then it must be better than E0 in a late model car or truck.
For the next few minutes we get treated to a Lauren Fix/Jacki Pick discourse on the political reasons for using corn and growing corn. I'll simply say that if Ms. Fix and Ms. Pick are incapable of understand how internal combustion engines and fuels work, then they have no business explaining the economics of farming. When Ms. Fix mentioned that she's trying to reach out to an unnamed national politician who supports E30 so that she can educate him, you just have to wonder how she gets through the day without constantly bumping into walls.
The entire interview with Lauren Fix, including the initial opening remarks by Jacki Pick runs about 25 minutes. The interview that Lauren Fix did with FOX News in 2013 was about 6 minutes. It's safe to say that the Jacki Pick interview was 4 times stupider simply because it's 4 times longer. But really it was far worse than just 4 times stupider because Lauren Fix was able to show how little she knows about more aspects of the issue. And again, considering that this interview took place more than two and a half years after the FOX News interview, Ms. Fix should have learned something truthful during that time.
If you're interested in fuels, energy, vehicles, business or farming, you should listen to this interview. If you disagree with me please send me an email or use the LiveFyre discussion box at the bottom of the page.
If you want more information about ethanol or any alternative fuel use the search box near the top of the page. If you want to read the 58-page report and review I wrote about Robert Bryce and his book "GUSHER OF LIES" then just CLICK HERE. In this report I destroy, point by point, all of the ridiculous lies and information that Mr. Bryce has been peddling for years.
Read the original story here : Lauren Fix Takes Ethanol Opposition To New Level Of Stupidity
Aug 26, 2015
By U.S Grain Council
This marketing year’s U.S. ethanol exports are expected to be the second largest on record as ethanol export promotion efforts ramp up by the U.S. Grains Council (USGC) and its partners Growth Energy, the Renewable Fuels Association and USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service.
“Efforts to promote increased exports of U.S. ethanol are showing progress, with global ethanol exports during the first 10 months of the current marketing year posting an 11 percent gain over last year’s numbers,” said USGC Chief Economist Mike Dwyer. “The Council now expects full year 2014/2015 ethanol exports to reach 850 million gallons and to be valued at $1.9 billion, up from 768 million gallons just last year.”
While 2015 exports of U.S. ethanol to Canada – the top international customer - are down 26 percent on a volume basis, all other major markets have shown increases due to strong demand and U.S. ethanol supplies that are competitively priced.
The second and third largest importers, Brazil and the Philippines, have grown 71 percent and 44 percent respectively to 135 million gallons and 71.2 million gallons. India and the United Arab Emirates round out the top five export markets for U.S. ethanol.
Other markets seeing significant growth during the first 10 months of 2014/2015 include Korea, Mexico, the European Union and Tunisia.
Korea, which imports U.S. ethanol primarily for industrial purposes, has increased imports of U.S. ethanol by 94 percent to 42.3 million gallons, and Mexico's imports have grown by 17 percent to 26.1 million gallons.
Tunisia’s imports of ethanol have increased 224 percent over 2014 tallies to a total of 30.7 million gallons. Despite stiff anti-dumping duties imposed on U.S. ethanol entering the EU, U.S. exports are up 27 percent in the first 10 months compared to 2013/2014 volumes, totaling 41.5 million gallons.
While this success is a good starting point, there is still much work to be done to keep ethanol exports growing. The Council and its partners have plans for ongoing work to promote U.S. ethanol as a clean-burning source of fuel to buyers and end-users around the globe including assessments in potential new markets; buyer team visits to the United States; and a series of workshops focusing on the environmental and economic benefits of ethanol use.
Read the original story here : USGC Reports Progress In Ethanol Export Promotion
August 21, 2015
By the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council
While the leaves on the trees have yet to turn color, and the cold blast of winter remains a distant memory to some, the change of seasons could yield new economic opportunities for Minnesota’s biodiesel industry.
At a forum sponsored by the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council, attendees listened as a diverse group of energy influencers described Bioheat, a blend of biodiesel and heating oil, as a 21st century heating oil that promises to increase the diversity of the U.S. energy supply. In the soybean fields of Minnesota, farmers are growing that diversity.
“Biodiesel has earned its stripes as a transportation fuel,” said Tom Slunecka, CEO of the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council. “The heating oil market represents an exciting opportunity for Minnesota to continue its role as a leader in renewable energy.”
New markets and uses for biodiesel offer significant potential for U.S. soybean farmers and the entire biodiesel industry. Within the biodiesel market, soybean oil has a 50 percent share. Heating oil is well established in many of the New England states such as Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire as heating oil has traditionally provided an economical way to meet the heating needs of homes, multifamily dwellings, and small businesses. A homeowner can use 1,000 gallons over the season. Bioheat has positive environmental attributes. According to a report released by the National Oilheat Research Alliance, biodiesel blends at 20 percent (B20) with ultra-low sulfur heating oil are lower in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than natural gas when evaluated over 100 years, while blends of 2 percent (B2) or more are lower in GHG than natural gas when evaluated over 20 years.
The report also found that biodiesel blended at 5 percent would require approximately 300 MMgy. Assuming the biodiesel industry average of 50 MMgy per plant, Bioheat would be responsible for six plants built and continuously operated. Thus, nearly 270 full time jobs can be directly attributed to Bioheat.
“Biodiesel blending into home heating oil has proven to be a winner,” said Paul Nazzaro, CEO of the Nazzaro Group and advisor to the National Biodiesel Board. “With a decade of technical and market positioning on the record, continued support from biodiesel stakeholders like Minnesota Soybean will be imperative to keep this momentum intact to ensure biodiesel producers have a healthy and growing market to move their production allocations long term.”
Read the original story: Minnesota Poised to Play a Role in Next-Generation Heating Oil
Aug 24, 2015
By Dave Shaffer
A four-year patent battle over a promising corn-based alcohol called isobutanol ended Monday, boosting prospects for the world’s only producer in Luverne, Minn.
Under the agreement, Gevo, based in Englewood, Colo., and Butamax, a Wilmington, Del., venture of BP and Dupont, have cross-licensed their technologies. The royalty structure gives each company explicit incentives to expand separate market segments for isobutanol — for the benefit of both companies.
“That is the strange thing about this and the world of business — they are now our friends,” Gevo CEO Pat Gruber said of his competitor in an interview. “We wish them success. Go, Butamax, go, and develop the marketplace. That makes more markets for us.”
Isobutanol is a chemical cousin of ethanol, and is produced using fermentation. It can be blended with gasoline at up to a 16 percent ratio for use in engines, and does not have the same issues as ethanol in boat motors and small engines. It also can be turned into jet fuel, solvents and other chemicals such as paraxylene used to produce plastic pop bottles.
The agreement calls for Butamax to take the lead winning regulatory approvals to open up markets for isobutanol-blended gasoline in on-the-road vehicles. Meanwhile, Gevo will develop the jet fuel market. Gevo has sold isobutanol-based jet fuel to the U.S. military, and has won marine-industry endorsement of isobutanol-blended gasoline. No royalties will be paid by either company for the first 30 million gallons produced annually by each company or for any sales as off-road vehicle fuel or to make solvents.
Both companies have been suing each other, mostly in U.S. District Court of Delaware, since early 2011. At one point, Gruber said, more than 10 lawsuits were underway. He said litigation accounted for 30 percent to 40 percent of Gevo’s monthly cash burn, and even more during trials, although the exact figure hasn’t been disclosed.
Now that the legal expenses have ended, “it is the equivalent of putting money on our balance sheet that we can use for other things,” Gruber said.
He said Gevo plans to invest in distillation columns at Luverne to achieve continuous isobutanol production. Until now, the product has been fermented in batches in Luverne and distilled elsewhere. Gevo has a Texas facility to convert isobutanol to jet fuel.
Butamax has a demonstration plant in United Kingdom, but has not begun commercial-scale isobutanol production. When Highwater Ethanol, a farmer-owned ethanol plant in Lamberton, Minn., installed equipment to separate corn oil last year, it chose technology from Butamax. Neither Highwater nor Butamax on Monday would discuss whether further investment is planned to begin isobutanol production.
But Highwater CEO Brian Kletscher, who is president of the Minnesota Biofuels Association, said the settlement is good for the industry.
“It is good to see two companies working together,” he said. “I hope it will be a good thing and get us out of the development stage and into new biofuels in the country.”
Gevo acquired the Luverne ethanol plant in 2010, installed its technology and expected to be producing 500 million gallons of isobutanol annually at multiple sites by now. But making commercial quantities proved to be a challenge. Two years ago, Gevo resumed making ethanol in the Luverne plant but continued to work on isobutanol production.
In the meantime, Gevo has accumulated a deficit of $325 million, including $22 million in net losses in the first half of this year. It had $22.5 million in cash at the end of June, and said it would seek to raise more investment to keep going.
Gevo’s stock, which had briefly slipped to less than $2 per share earlier this year, rose 4 percent Monday, closing at $2.38 per share.
Read the original story here : Ending Years Of Litigation, Gevo And Butamax To Work On Creating Markets For New Biofuel
Aug 21, 2015
By Holly Jessen
The argument that consumers don’t want E15 because they aren’t asking for it doesn’t ring true with Ron Lamberty, senior vice president for the American Coalition for Ethanol. At the ACE conference, held Aug. 19-21 in Omaha, Lamberty brought up a Steve Jobs quote while speaking on Aug. 20, saying “A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”
That jives with the experience of retail gas station owners who have added E15 and other higher blends to their fuel offerings. Lamberty brought up Charlie Good, a Nevada, Iowa gas station owner, who sells 18 percent ethanol by total volume, blasting through the so-called blend wall. He also has premium fuel with no ethanol content, which is only 2 percent of his total sales, even though it is sold at twice the number of fueling positions as ethanol blended fuels.
Lamberty also gave audience members updated numbers from Bruce Vollan, a South Dakota gas station owner who has talked multiple times about his success selling ethanol blended fuels. In the last few months, 23 percent of sales have been E85, 21 percent E15, 9 percent E30 and 2 percent E50. The final 45 percent of sales is E10. Looking at these and other numbers from retailers offering ethanol blended fuels, it’s clear that what people don’t want is premium gasoline, Lamberty said.
Jim Pirolli, vice president of fuels for Kum & Go, and Todd Garner, CEO of Protec, spoke as part of a presentation titled “Flex Fuel Forward.” Pirolli revealed that Kum & Go has a long history of selling alternative fuels. In the 70s the company started the tradition by offering E10, or gasohol, as it was called at the time.
In 1997, the company started selling E85, and currently offers it at 170 locations. In fact, 95 percent of Kum & Go’s customers buying E85 are there because they know the company offers that E85, he said. Another tidbit of information offered at the meeting was that, about six months ago, Kum & Go began purchasing E85 directly from Iowa ethanol plant Absolute Energy LLC. It cuts the middleman out and allows it to offer E85 to its customers in that area for a lower price, Pirolli said.
This year, the company has started adding E15. The fuel is now offered at seven sites and will be at 60 more by the end of the year. “We are already associated with E85, we feel like E15 is going to be a great step for us,” he said.
Garner gave a brief overview of what the company does, including, among other things, offering small to midsize gas retailers help with fuel logistics, E85 and E15 blending and supply plus station infrastructure conversion or construction. About eight months ago, the company started work to roll out E15 at multiple gas stations outside the Midwest with Prime the Pump funding, an initiative of the ethanol industry.
Lamberty pointed to the way Protec works with gas station retailers as being similar to the model retailers are used to from the oil industry. The way the oil industry has done it is to tell retailers what equipment upgrades would be required, the cost and then say they would pay for those upgrades in return for a contract that the retailer would purchase fuel from that supplier for a period of time, such as 10 years. “That’s the model the oil companies had used to get brands,” he said, adding later that “We as the ethanol industry need to do something similar.”
Another presenter was Kristi Moriarty, senior analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who spoke about work NREL did that concluded that many refueling equipment products are compatible with E15, meaning retailers can sell E15 out of existing equipment with minimal cost. “We hope that this report helps [retail gas] stations get there,” she said.
She also pointed to an upcoming opportunity for retailers to upgrade to refueling equipment compatible with higher ethanol blends. Retailers face a requirement targeted for October 2017 to upgrade fuel dispensers to accept new credit cards, which contain chips, rather than the magnetic strips common today. Although some will simply upgrade their existing pumps, some retailers will put in new dispensers. “Hopefully that will lead to a lot more compatible equipment,” she said.
Garner expanded on this point by saying that many older retail stations will have no choice but to put in new dispensers. He added that yes, choosing a blender pump, compatible with higher ethanol blends will cost more, but it will also set that retail station apart from the competition.
A related topic of importance at the conference was the renewable fuel standard (RFS) renewable obligation volume (RVO) numbers. Brian Jennings, executive vice president of ACE, pointed out that of the 200 people that testified at a Kansas City U.S. EPA hearing on the proposed rule for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 RFS RVO numbers, more than 100 of them were from ACE member companies. The question now is, “What if the EPA drives the RFS in the ditch?” he said. “Do we take them to court? Maybe. We’ll see.” In the meantime, the industry needs to keep building momentum on other demand drivers for ethanol.
On Aug. 21, the last day of the event, Chris Novak, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association, touched on the same topic. NCGA believes the EPA has violated the law and used incorrect methodology to calculate the RVO numbers. “We are looking at what legal options we have to challenge that rule,” he says.
Also presenting on Aug. 21 were Delayne Johnson, CEO of Quad County Corn Processors, Jeff Oeastmann, president and CEO of East Kansas Agri-Energy, and Ray Defenbaugh, president, CEO and chairman of Big River Recourses LLC. They were on a panel titled “Quiet Ingenuity, Bold Advance,” which was also the theme of the conference. Johnson spoke about producing cellulosic ethanol from corn fiber while Oeastman and Defenbaugh spoke about the projects currently under construction by their companies, a bolt-on renewable diesel and zein production facilities, respectively.
Read the original story here : E15, E85 At Retail Gas Stations Highlighted At ACE Conference
Aug 20, 2015
By Mike Bryan
Most of us find it strange and frustrating that we are continually at loggerheads with the U.S. EPA over a variety of issues pertaining to the use of higher blends of ethanol and the continuation of the renewable fuels standard (RFS). But it should not come as any surprise, because when we look at the relationship between the EPA and ethanol, there is a long history of antagonism and sometimes outward hostility by the EPA toward ethanol.
There probably has not been a liquid fuel that has endured more testing by the EPA than ethanol. There have been no automotive fuels, that I am aware of that have had as many stumbling blocks put in front of them by the EPA as ethanol.
Look at the history—evaporative emissions, permeation, NOx emissions, formaldehyde, land use, fuel economy testing, pump labeling—the list is almost endless. Most, if not all, of these were issues generated by the EPA with oil industry prodding. As a result, many of these draconian policies and ideas were adopted on a state level, with California being the most prominent.
Some would argue that the oil industry was forced to reduce emissions as well, with the most significant being octane enhancers like benzene, toluene and xylene (BTX). While that was, in fact, the case, ethanol provided an easy answer. It boosted the octane and replaced large amounts of BTX in gasoline with a clean, domestically produced, renewable energy. The oil industry over the years has essentially had a free ride, thanks to the EPA and federal and state governments.
Even today, the tax incentive for ethanol was stripped away, but remains in place for an industry that extracts hundreds of billions of dollars in profit every year from the American consumer. The oil industry has not substantially changed its methods of production in the past hundred years. I guess the EPA has simply grandfathered in their right to pollute.
The truth be known, the auto industry has done far more to reduce pollution than the oil industry has ever had to do. Tighter restrictions of automotive emissions and their continued quest for better, more fuel-efficient and cleaner automobiles should put the oil industry to shame. Yet, oil gets the EPA’s nod of approval over and over, while at the same time the EPA seems to do everything it can to further restrict the use of ethanol.
Way back when, I naively thought that ethanol would become the fuel of choice for the EPA and they would be allies in turning the tide away from oil. In fact, just the opposite has been true. The EPA has fought ethanol tooth and nail all the way and has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting ethanol blends as a major contributor to cleaner air and energy security.
With allies like the EPA, we certainly don’t need enemies.
That’s the way I see it.
Read the original story : EPA More Enemy Than Ally To Ethanol