Ethanol. Right. Now.

American consumers deserve fuel choice

This op-ed was written by Lars Herseth, President of the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE).  It was published in the Omaha World-Herald on Saturday, May 8 in the "Midlands Voices" section.

As a farmer, rancher, businessman, former lawmaker, and current president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, it won’t surprise you that I support making renewable and homegrown fuels more widely available.  But just like you, I am also a consumer.

I believe that American motorists should have lots of choices at the pump – including fuel not blended with ethanol.

You may have read that statement twice, knowing that I am the president of ACE, a grassroots advocacy association for ethanol.  But ACE members believe that motorists deserve the right to choose what fuel to put in their cars, and we’re not afraid to have our fuel of choice – ethanol – compete with petroleum.  When consumers are given meaningful choices at the pump, we are confident they will choose ethanol.

Today, ethanol-blended fuel is the most affordable and clean-burning alternative to gasoline.  And more importantly, unlike some other promising alternative fuels, we don’t have to wait for ethanol because it is here now as the only commercially viable substitute for fossil fuels. 

ACE has partnered with others to support a waiver pending before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow up to 15 percent ethanol per gallon of gasoline.  We have done so because today EPA arbitrarily restricts the volume of ethanol that can be blended into a gallon of gasoline to just 10 percent, and because our competitors work hard to block ethanol from gaining additional market access.

If EPA approves E15, consumers would pay less for fuel because wholesale prices for ethanol are currently at a significant discount to gasoline – in some places a dollar less per gallon.  Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that when EPA does approve E15 it will be on a limited basis, restricting its use to only model year 2001 and newer cars.  We are concerned this will cause unnecessary confusion for consumers and may even prevent station owners from choosing to offer the fuel.

So, in anticipation of an inadequate EPA decision on E15, ACE believes the focus should be on consumer fuel choice.  The power of fuel choice needs to be transferred from Big Oil back to the consumer, and the most straightforward way to do so is the combination of Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) and blender pumps.

If every automobile sold in the U.S. were an FFV, which is capable of using virtually any blend of ethanol and gasoline, we know ethanol will compete at the pump.  Similarly, blender pumps, which dispense ethanol-gasoline blends at various percentages at the retail level, empower consumers to choose the most affordable and reliable blend of fuel for their car.

To this end, ACE supports S. 1627, the “Consumer Fuels and Vehicle Choice Act,” legislation by Senators Tom Harkin and Richard Lugar to provide more FFVs and blender pumps.  ACE has launched an online petition at www.ethanol.org/petition, giving consumers a chance to express their support for this bill and for freedom of fuel choice at the pump.  I encourage you to sign the fuel choice petition today.

The longer we wait to provide Americans with real fuel choice, the more consumers will pay at the pump, the more the environment will suffer, and the more our nation will rely on foreign sources of oil.  Please make your voice heard at www.ethanol.org/petition.

What is an ethanol blender pump, and where can I find one?

Blender pumps are coming up more and more often in conversations about renewable fuels, so I thought it might be useful to pull together some basic blender pump information in one location -- including a link to a map of current U.S. blender pump locations.

Blender pump basics:

Blender pumps give motorists more choices at the pump by offering a variety of ethanol blends between E10 and E85, as seen here.

A blender pump looks like a standard gasoline dispenser and takes up the same amount of space, but features two underground tanks -- one with unleaded and one with E85.  The two fuels are blended in the appropriate percentages to create mid-level ethanol blends such as E20, E30, or E50, in addition to E10 and E85.

This map of U.S. blender pump locations is maintained by the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE).

Links for more information about blender pumps:

• Section on Ethanol.org: http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=91&parentid=8
• The national "Blend Your Own Ethanol" campaign, led by ACE and the Renewable Fuels Association: www.byoethanol.com
• A diagram of a blender pump: http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=84&parentid=29 

Ron Lamberty ([email protected]) or Lacey Dixon ([email protected]) at the American Coalition for Ethanol can be your point of contact for any questions about mid-level ethanol blends or blender pumps.

New information on corn ethanol and indirect land use change

New research finds that the amount of "land use emissions" from corn-based ethanol is less than half of the figure used as the basis for California's low carbon fuel standard (LCFS).  The new report from Purdue University is an update to its Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model, the model used by the California Air Resources Board to form the LCFS.

The GTAP model was updated in several ways, including to update the global economic database from 2001 to 2006 figures, expanding the amount and types of land included in the analysis, increasing the value of ethanol's co-product distillers grain as an animal feed, assuming a conservative increase in crop yields, and changing assumptions about how and when carbon is released from harvested trees.

The result: average "land use emissions" from corn ethanol are 13.9 grams CO2-equivalent per megajoule (g/MJ) instead of the 30 g/MJ used by California for the LCFS.  This is a pretty significant difference.

Wallace Tyner of Purdue, lead author on the study, was quoted by Hoosier Ag Today as saying, "...the original work was sort of a first cut, and we needed to take a more thorough, careful look with new data, new modeling approaches, and model parameters."

What does all this mean?  It means the California Air Resources Board needs to take a look at this new information and update their modeling to include this better data.  It also means that the science of "indirect land use change" is still very new and full of uncertainties.  Even the Purdue researchers state in the report that "... one cannot escape the conclusion that modeling land use change is quite uncertain."  It means much more research is needed on "indirect land use change" before policies should use it as a basis for far-reaching decisions.

And there's still the question of why CARB is choosing to selectively apply indirect land use charges only to biofuels and not to petroleum.  A blog post for another day...

Read the full report, "Land Use Changes and Consequent CO2 Emissions Due to U.S. Corn Ethanol Production: A Comprehensive Analysis," by Tyner et al, April 2010.

Posted by: Kristin Brekke

On the Farm: Preparing for spring planting

As I've shared a little bit here on this blog and through my editor's notes in Ethanol Today magazine, my husband and I farm with my parents here near Willow Lake, South Dakota, in the northeastern part of the state.  We're the fifth generation on the family farm, which was established in 1895.  We raise corn, soybeans, wheat, alfalfa, and a few Black Angus cattle.  With fewer Americans living on farms, or even having the opportunity to see or visit a farm, the misunderstandings and misconceptions about modern agriculture are growing. 

You can see this in many people's lack of basic knowledge about where food comes from, and in conversations surrounding things like ethanol, where people believe that farmers are selling food to be made into ethanol, or that farmers are plowing up all their grassland to plant to corn.  Agriculture and ethanol production are much more positive than they are often portrayed by the media, and here we hope to give at least a small glimpse into what happens on your everyday, average family farm. 

Spring has arrived, and that means one thing... let's plant!

Actually, there's a lot of work that happens before any planting can begin.  With corn, for example, we start thinking about which seed varieties to plant even before last year's crop is harvested.  Seed companies have test plots that show new varieties of seed and how they perform, and you can visit them in the fall and get the data you need to make decisions about what to plant on your own farm.  We decide on what kind of corn to plant and purchase most of the seed even before year's end. 

This picture shows what a corn field looks like just after it's harvested.    

This is called stover, and it's the corn stalks and leaves left over after the combine goes through the field to pick the ears of corn.  We leave this on the field because the nutrients in the stover are good for the health of the soil, and it also preserves moisture in the soil and prevent erosion -- similar to how mulch works in your garden. 

The photo below shows two of our fields -- the left one had corn on it last year, and the right one had soybeans on it last year.  The field on the right has just been tilled and is ready for planting. 

Since soybeans were grown there last year, we'll plant corn there this year.  Likewise, the the corn field will this year get soybeans.  Crop rotation is a good way to take care of the soil.  

Just like in any business, they're figuring out better ways to do things all the time.  Twenty-five years ago, plowing your fields was common practice.  Today, research has shown that less tilling is better for the soil, so most farmers use minimum-till or even no-till practices.  We go over the fields as few times as possible, which saves time, saves fuel, and keeps the soil quality at its best.

As you can see by the picture, we're facing a rainy forecast, so we're working hard to get field work done before the rain comes.  Next week I'll post pictures of the corn being planted.

When I was little, I had a t-shirt that said "Proud to be a farmer's daughter."  Today I'm proud to be a farmer's daughter, a farmer's wife, and farmer myself.  And I'm proud that some of the corn we grow here goes to make ethanol, which is the cleanest and best fuel choice out there today. 

Posted by: Kristin Brekke

Guest editorial in response to "Beyond Corn Ethanol" series

This op-ed was written by American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) member Ron Fagen, President & CEO of Fagen Inc. of Granite Falls, MN.

A recent op-ed alleging that “the ethanol boom is over” and that “policies to further the corn ethanol industry should not be supported” demands a response, both because it is patently untrue and because my words were twisted and taken out of context to justify the editorialist’s opinion about corn ethanol.  I respect that everyone is entitled to their own opinions.  But, in the case of the op-ed titled “Beyond Corn Ethanol” published on April 28, 2010 by Minnesota 2020, neither the opinions nor the so-called facts expressed were accurate. 

It’s true that Fagen Inc. has partnered with farmers to build more than half of all the ethanol plants in the U.S.  It’s also true that technology innovations have enabled corn farmers and ethanol producers to become incredibly efficient stewards of resources.  Today, corn farmers use fewer inputs and less energy on fewer acres of land to produce more bushels of corn than ever before.  Case in point:  in 2009, U.S. farmers planted 7 million fewer acres of corn than in 2007, but they produced more corn than in the previous record year of 2007 thanks to technology and yield increases.  At the same time, ethanol plants have reduced energy and water use to become more sustainable and efficient.  University studies indicate that one gallon of ethanol contains more than two times the amount of energy used to make it.

So it is not accurate – in fact, it is downright misleading – to suggest corn ethanol has no future.  Today, ethanol-blended fuel is the most affordable and clean-burning alternative to gasoline.  And more importantly, unlike some other promising alternative fuels, we don’t have to wait for more ethanol because it is here now as the only commercially viable substitute to fossil fuels.  In fact, this year U.S. ethanol producers will rank as our nation’s third largest supplier of fuel on a gasoline-equivalent basis, behind only Canada and Saudi Arabia, and ahead of Venezuela.
 
Ethanol has also triggered more economic prosperity in rural America than anything else in my lifetime.  It has enabled corn farmers to earn more for their crops, and ethanol has given farmers and rural citizens the opportunity to invest in locally owned production facilities, operations where the profits stay in rural America.  According to a report issued by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture in 2008, the combined impact of corn and ethanol production in Minnesota has generated $6 billion in economic activity and impacted 26,000 jobs.  Nationwide, ethanol supports 400,000 jobs across the U.S. economy and generates more than $50 billion to our Gross Domestic Product.
 
At the same time ethanol is becoming more efficient and making a positive difference for the environment and U.S. energy security, oil is making a difference too – a dangerous difference.  At present, 5000 barrels of oil per day are leaking from a deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico and the spill is polluting the shores of the U.S. Gulf Coast, threatening wildlife and the environment.  
 
I run a construction company, and I am actively engaged in the development of renewable energy from ethanol to wind to biomass power production facilities.  The opinion piece suggests that I have “changed focus” by moving away from corn ethanol and that this should send a message to policy makers to shift away from supporting corn ethanol as well.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  My family and my company fully support the growth of ethanol and welcome the opportunity to construct more ethanol plants.  Unfortunately, government bureaucracy currently limits corn ethanol from expanding and today’s installed capacity for corn ethanol is maxed out under current law.  In other words, the ethanol plants in operation and currently under construction in the U.S. have the capability to exceed the 15 billion gallon per year limit of production included in the 2007 Energy Bill.  That’s right, Congress has capped the volume of corn ethanol by allowing no more than 15 billion gallons of production to qualify for the Renewable Fuels Standard.  What’s more, at present the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arbitrarily restricts the volume of ethanol that can be blended into a gallon of gasoline to just 10 percent.  I am working with others to tackle these problems, but until or unless EPA allows more ethanol in gasoline or Congress acts, there isn’t any market space available to build new plants.  
 
It is important to note that public policy is not only holding corn ethanol back from unleashing its ability to provide the U.S. with cleaner and more affordable fuel, but these restrictions also prevent the “next-generation” of biofuels from becoming commercially available.  I support both corn ethanol and advanced biofuels and am disappointed that some try to pit corn ethanol against advanced biofuel – we need both.  As we employ technology to drive down the process and capital costs associated with advanced biofuel, let’s take advantage of the benefits of corn ethanol.
 
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the amount of corn currently stored on farms in the U.S. is about 4.6 billion bushels, which is larger than the amount of corn that is expected to be processed into ethanol during the 2009/2010 marketing year.  U.S. farmers can produce enough corn for feed, fuel, and food, and U.S. ethanol producers can efficiently distill corn into clean-burning renewable fuel and high-value livestock feed through distillers grains.  
 
Entrepreneurs in the U.S. are capable of replacing foreign oil with corn ethanol and advanced biofuels from a variety of sources, but only if the policy limitations are addressed by Congress and the Administration.  That’s where we ought to focus.