Corn-based ethanol took another blow from the scientific literature this week. University of Minnesota scientists published an article revealing that corn into E85 could require three times as much water as previously estimated. The bottom line: it takes more than 2,100 gallons of water to produce a single gallon of ethanol. That’s bad news for corn-etoh’s partisans; water supplies in the US are not exactly ample (as the NYT Mag pointed out a couple of years ago in its article, “The Future Is Drying Up“). Ethanol has also been bashed for competing with food, and for raising carbon emissions over a period of decades, rather than reducing them. The researchers, led by Sangwon Suh, note that the water needs vary widely depending on irrigation practices. In a dozen Corn Belt states, production of a gallon of E85 requires less than 100 gallons of water. I still wouldn’t buy any stock . . .
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)—the ethanol producer’s bestest best friend—is in a fight for its life. As the Wall Street Journal [sub] reports “The Environmental Protection Agency dealt a big blow to the ethanol industry earlier this year when it decreed that the corn-based fuel doesn’t have a much better carbon footprint than gasoline made with crude oil.” While the RFA lobbies the hell out of congress to subvert/get an exemption from the EPA’s final decree on the subject, they’re “counting the angels on the head of a pin” (quoth RFA CEO Bob Dinneen). Less poetically, what if peak oilers are right? If the supply of easily-extracted light sweet crude dries up, then it’s oil shale for us! And if you compare corn/theoretical sawgrass for fuel, well, then, huzzah! The RFA just happens to have a study that proves that ethanol beats the snot out of shale, carbon footprint-wise [download pdf here]. Unless you count the carbon needed to produce the tires of the tractor harvesting the corn. Unwind that!
Edmunds Inside Line reports that Alabama-based Cello Energy, which was supposed to produce 70 percent of the EPA’s 100m gallon/year cellulosic ethanol goal, has been convicted of fraud. A jury has awarded over $10m in damages to investors after witnesses testified that Cello’s supposedly biomass-derived fuel was actually petroleum based. Furthermore, it turns out that Cello only has the capability to produce 20m gallons of its putative biofuel per year. The EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) had banked on Cello to produce 70m gallons per annum. The downside? If (when) America’s cellulosic ethanol producers fail to meet the 100m gal/year mark inn 2010, the EPA could sell credits which would increase the biofuel’s price to $3/gallon. Current futures place the fuel’s value at $1.77/gallon. Alternatively, the EPA could postpone the ramp-up to 100m gal/year… but who’s expecting that to happen? Meanwhile, so-called “second-generation” biofuels continue to act as a subsidy magnet for an industry that is wholly addicted to feedstock-based fuels and government assistance.
Nationally, gas prices have risen nearly every day for the past 42 days. Some analysts expect that a return to $100 oil–and $4 gas–isn’t far behind. But Nebraska drivers are already saving money by filling up with E10.
“Nebraska drivers have already saved over $4.5 million in 2009 by buying E10,” said Todd Sneller, administrator of the Nebraska Ethanol Board. “If all the fuel sold in Nebraska in the past five years was E85, Nebraskans would have saved $2.6 billion.”
The E85 industry is tanking. Despite federal mandates designed to foist the fuel on a suspecting public, and Transportation Secretary Chu’s determination to make all new vehicles Flex-Fuel capable (EPA credits for everyone!), the E85 industry is on the brink of extinction. Consumer demand (such as it wasn’t) is plummeting. Meanwhile, environmentalists threaten to expose the corn-for-fuel process as, gasp, carbon-positive. Evidence of pumps with ten-foot pole marks comes to us from Minnesota, the state with the highest number of E85 outlets in the land. Here’s the Star Tribune’s report, which can’t resist using the boosterrific term “clean burning” whilst charting the corn-based fuel’s demise:
One wonders how many entries the Renewable Fuels Association received for their “online ethanol contest” designed to “get a new generation of Americans, mainly college students, engaged in the promotion and support of ethanol.” Domesticfuel.com claims that this video was chosen by “thousands of people across the country.” Oh, wait! “From there, a panel of judges selected the final winner, based on creativity, quality and relevance. McAfee won a Macbook Air computer for his winning entry.” Anyway, it looks like we’re a bit late to this “story.” Never mind. “The Fuel-Flex Challenge was sponsored by the Kansas Corn Commission, the Kentucky Corn Growers Association, the United Sorghum Checkoff Program and the Renewable Fuels Association. The fun will continue this summer with the launch of a new photo contest. Stay tuned for more details.” We will!
Energy Secretary Steven Chu gave a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, yesterday in which he argued that all cars sold in America should be E85 capable. “I’ve been told it costs about $100 in gaskets and fuel lines to turn a car so that it can go all the way to E85,” Chu is quoted as saying in the Des Moines Register. “But a new car, it would only cost $100 out of $15,000. Wouldn’t it be nice to put in those fuel lines and gaskets so that we can use any ratio we wanted?” Sure, if E85 were a viable alternative fuel, and not just an agricultural subsidy.
“Congress already made sure corn ethanol was protected from any scientific assessment of its impact on the environment when it passed the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. Buried in the law are provisions that exempt every gallon of corn ethanol from the requirement to reduce greenhouse gases that all other biofuels have to meet to qualify as a ‘renewable fuel.'” So reporteth Minnesota’s Startribune.com, while ripping hometown pol House Agriculture Committee Chairman, Collin Peterson, a new you-know-what. The paper’s plenty pissed at Petersen’s threat to torpedo Obama’s climate change legislation—unless the EPA gives ethanol a “get out of jail free” card for its tendency to increase global warming. Careful readers will now note the quote that initiated this blog and notice that Petersen’s asking for a free pass that the industry already enjoys. Never mind. Hell hath no fury like a legislator protecting his sponsors.
Despite Obama’s clear support for ethanol, refineries continue to drop like flies. UPI reports that four Pacific Ethanol Inc subisdiary refineries have filed bankruptcy documents in Delaware. High corn prices and low fuel prices continue to kill the market for ethanol (such as it is); apparently the evil grocery lobby is still hard at work. Ethanol refiners are reporting around 30 cent per-gallon losses. (Interactive map of ethanol pumps found here.)
President Obama gave the dying ethanol industry a huge shot in the arm Tuesday when he announced that over $780 million of stimulus money will be spent on biofuel “research and commercialization,” guided by an all-new Biofuels Interagency Working Group. Think of a giant, government-funded R&D/marketing department for the ethanol industry, and you’ll have some idea of what we’re looking at. “We need to work in concert with the industry to figure out how to do a better job to create a market for biofuels, how to increase the use of flex-fuel vehicles, how we can assist those who market, and to coordinate the infrastructure, and do all this in a sustainable way,” says Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack. Unfortunately “creating a market” isn’t easy. The US already spends more on ethanol subsidies than any other renewable energy source, and has been rewarded only with crashing ethanol demand and rampant refinery bankruptcies. Good thing hope springs eternal in the breast of K Street.
The EPA is currently soliciting comment on a proposed waiver to allow 15 percent ethanol blends (E15), and despite enduring a year of hard knocks, the ethanol lobby is making a desperate stand to reverse its declining fortunes. Peruse already-submitted comments, and you’ll notice that Growth Energy (the new K-Street tip of the ethanol spear) dominates the list with a host of spurious “supporting materials.” The group’s main argument (PDF) is fine-tuned for the jobs-crazed economic-political climate, centering around the assertion that “according to one estimate, allowing blending of E15 has the potential to create at least 135,000 jobs.” Which sounds great as long as you don’t look at the “hidden” cost of increasing blending credit receipts. Needless to say, Growth Energy isn’t asking anyone to go there, having helpfully created some talking points to help make commenting easier. We suggest commenting on the proposed waiver as well, but rather than dutifully regurgitating GE’s talking points why don’t you go through our E85 archive first. Or check out a few recent news stories after the jump which illustrate our unrelenting skepticism of so called intermediate ethanol blends.
It’s been a while since we’ve run an E85 BOTD. The big news on the corn-for-fuel front: the E85 lobby is pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow states to raise the minimum required amount of ethanol from 10 to 15 percent. For some reason, Agweek seems to think ethanol producers haven’t yet hit “the blend wall”: the point at which there’s more ethanol than demand. (The fact huge swaths of the food-for-fuel industry have gone bust may have provided a clue). But at least they acknowledge the Everest ahead. “Many environmental and consumer groups and small engine and car manufacturers are concerned that the increased blend rate might damage pollution control equipment, reduce air quality, and undermine vehicle and equipment performance and warranties. The EPA and Department of Energy are currently testing the effects of higher blend rates on engine performance and emissions.” We’ll keep an eye on that one. Meanwhile, the Minnesota Auditor’s office has had a look at the state’s $93 million worth of ethanol subsidies and asked the logical question WTF is that all about?
Two recent developments have tarnished whatever green reputation ethanol has left. First, the news that corn-derived ethanol requires up to three times more water to produce than previously thought has cast a spotlight on the industry, especially in the dry west and southwest. A new study published by the American Chemical Society reports that previous estimates of water used to produce ethanol are inaccurate. The article’s abstract:
Green Car Congress reports that an “Open Fuel Standards Act” has been introduced which would require half of all light duty vehicles sold in the US to be flex-fuel capable. The legislation would ramp up requirements to mandate 80 percent flex-fuel capability by 2015. Since ethanol has been running into trouble of late, the industry’s plan now centers on forcing OEMs to bring flex-fuel capability across their lineups, which supporters say will drive greater availability of E85 pumps. The plan would also enable the proliferation of mid-range ethanol blends like E20 and E30, since E85-capable flex-fuel vehicles would also be able to run on the intermediate blends that the ethanol industry so desperately wants to become mainstream. The only waivers for this mandate would be for OEMs who can prove that ethanol fuels prevent plug-in hybrids and other alt-energy vehicles to flunk state emission standards. Meanwhile, as rules are being written for the Renewable Fuel Standard, and a group of Senators are moving to prevent the use of indirect land use change (ILUC) to calculate the total GHG output of biofuels.
This time the bearer of good news is retired General Wesley Clark and his “Growth Energy” K-Street advocacy group. The special K says increasing the ethanol blend limit to E15 could create 136,101 new jobs and inject $24.4b into the US economy annually. How? According to the firm’s appalling report, bumping the federal blending mandate to E15 would double the “demand” for ethanol. As the report notes, in the mother of all Freudian slips “6 bgy of production capacity would be required to produce 20.4 bgy of ethanol (including current reserve capacity). This level of expansion could be met by the construction and operations of 60 100 bgy corn ethanol plants (emphasis added).” Of course they meant 60 100 mgy plants, but numbers have just become so darn confusing since billion became the new million.
Recent Comments