Awash in Ethanol
By Don | November 28, 2009
A congressional mandate that sharply increased the use of ethanol is falling short of its desired goal.
From the New York Times
Two years ago, Congress ordered the nation’s gasoline refiners to do something that is turning out to be mathematically impossible.
To please the farm lobby and to help wean the nation off oil, Congress mandated that refiners blend a rising volume of ethanol and other biofuels into gasoline. They are supposed to use at least 15 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012, up from less than seven billion gallons in 2007.
But nobody at the time counted on fuel demand falling in the United States, which is what has happened during the recession. And that decline could well continue, as cars become more efficient under other recent government mandates.
At the maximum allowable blend, in which gasoline at the pump contains 10 percent ethanol, updated projections suggest that the country is unlikely to be able to use all the ethanol that Congress has ordered up. So something has to give.
“The market is full,” said Jeff Broin, chief executive of Poet, a company in Sioux Falls, S.D., that produces ethanol.
In theory, the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to solve this problem by tweaking the mandates imposed by Congress, and it may act as early as next week.
Each potential solution would anger one interest group or another, so the agency has been subjected to fierce lobbying, including from members of Congress lining up behind various factions. One possibility is to raise the maximum proportion of ethanol in gasoline to 15 or 20 percent.
But that idea is opposed by some carmakers and pollution experts. They contend that high ethanol blends can cause damage to cars, including making catalytic converters run hotter.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says it believes this could cause the converters, components that help control pollution, to fail at around 50,000 miles. They are supposed to last for 120,000 to 150,000 miles. “We are sensitive to the issues facing the ethanol industry, but the government must make decisions based on sound science,” said Dave McCurdy, president and chief executive of the alliance, in a letter to the E.P.A.
Another possibility is that the agency could waive the mandates requiring use of a large volume of biofuels. But that would anger farmers, who sell a great deal of corn to ethanol factories, and the members of Congress who represent them. It might also undermine the efforts of companies that are investing millions in factories to make ethanol from waste materials, like corncobs, straw and garbage.
“Ethanol is the only viable, competitive alternative to foreign oil,” said Tom Buis, chief executive of Growth Energy, the ethanol trade group that filed the petition with the E.P.A. to increase the blending percentage. “If we’re going to become less dependent on foreign oil, we’ve got to move forward.”
A third possibility is that the E.P.A. could announce that it is waiting for more data on how cars perform at higher blends, but that would merely put off the hard decision.
When Congress wrote the rules, in 2007, gasoline consumption had been growing for years, and it looked as if the nation would be able to use considerably more ethanol in the future. Gasoline consumption hit a peak of 3.4 billion barrels that year.
But gasoline demand fell in 2008, after soaring gas prices early in the year were followed by the economic crisis. Consumption was slightly less than 3.3 billion barrels last year, and it could end 2009 at about the same level.
With consumers buying more fuel-efficient cars these days, and carmakers rushing to bring even more of those to market, gasoline demand may not recover much in coming years, even as ethanol production soars.
As of yet, not all gasoline is blended with 10 percent ethanol, but that saturation point is rapidly approaching. Under the present rules, the nation could hit the upper limit of its ability to consume ethanol in 2011.
Mr. Buis and others argue that Congress or the E.P.A. must do something if the country is to move to a new generation of biofuels that do not compete with food crops. The possibilities include ethanol made from wood chips, waste paper or agricultural waste like straw and corncobs.
One of the first effects of the mandate was a sharp rise in corn prices as farmers diverted food crops to fuel thanks largely in part to a 51-cent tax credit refiners receive for every gallon of ethanol they use. Corn prices have since stabilized as supply exceeded demand and many refiners went bust.
Even enviornmentalists aren't sold on ethanol as there is evidence to suggest that producing it uses more energy than it saves and may not reduce greenhouse gas emissions which is the central focus of the greens.
Ethanol like other forms of renewable energy are not currently economically viable without large government subsidies yet Congress continues to push their green agenda at a high cost to taxpayers.
In a time of record deficits Congress needs to let the market decide whether or not ethanol should be a part of our energy plan and not let politics get in the way.
Post #2482
3 Comments | Post a Comment
“Way to go Eco-terrorists”? Thom, read up on the history of this, will ya? The roots of government support for ethanol traces back to the late 1970s, when the country was obsessed with energy security. Along came Archer Daniels Midland, with a home-grown “solution”, and the era of subsidized ethanol was born. Midwestern politicians of both parties jumped behind the bandwagon, and have been pushing it ever since. George W. Bush—hardly somebody considered to be a signed up member of the Green Party—was super keen on ethanol ... and not just the kind dispensed in bottles.
Read again what Don wrote: “Even enviornmentalists aren’t sold on ethanol as there is evidence to suggest that producing it uses more energy than it saves and may not reduce greenhouse gas emissions which is the central focus of the greens.” Almost no greens endorse corn ethanol. If you want to point a finger for the ethanol fiasco, point it at the senators from Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska and Minnesota.
ADM has corrupted EVERY one they have lobbied, including John McCain. The threat of ethanol in aviation and marine fuel supplies is unacceptable. It {ethanol) has no place in our society on numerous grounds, and especially considering the TAX $$$ spent on bogus science.
I suggest people educate themselves on the dire circumstances our government is trying to put us in.
CLEAN ENERGY IS A DIRTY LIE.
Gusher of LIES by Robert Bryce
Energy independence is impossible, currently. We are BEHIND the curve on power generation and we will cripple our economic future if we continue to support GREEN HELL policies.
November 30 at 7:32 pm | #1 | Link
I have been checking fuel economy, in the past I did not see enough MPH increase to offset mid-octane (89) gasoline. Now I see a dramatic 10% increase from the higher octane. I have tested 3 different vehicles and all are consistant. The watered down regular has cost us more and increased the usage. We are paying tax by the gallon & FICA which has been used to subsidise the Ethanol Industry. It’s a double wammy. Way to go Eco-terrorists.