Ethanol. Right. Now.

Remembering the BP oil spill, one year later

One year ago, the world watched as an environmental catastrophe unfolded in the Gulf of Mexico. This article recalls the event:

"On the night of April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a rig operated by Transocean Ltd.,  burst into flames as it was drilling a well for BP PLC., killing 11 workers on or near the drilling floor. The rest of the crew evacuated, but two days later the rig toppled into the Gulf and sank to the sea floor. The bodies were never recovered.

Over the next 85 days, 206 million gallons of oil -- 19 times more than the Exxon Valdez spilled -- spewed from the well. In response, the nation commandeered the largest offshore fleet of vessels since D-Day, and BP spent billions of dollars to clean up the mess, saving itself from collapse."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The photo gallery seen here is well worth the time to page through the 33 pictures, as a remembrance of the 11 lives tragically lost, and a recognition of "the real cost of oil."

Posted by: Kristin Brekke, Communications Director, American Coalition for Ethanol

Winning the future, with the help of ethanol

The American ethanol industry, comprised of farmers and small businesses, is ready and willing to help the U.S. “win the future” for the sake of our economic security, national security, and environmental protection.

President Obama delivered the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress last night, and we are grateful for his statement “clean-energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean-energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling.”

The American ethanol industry couldn’t agree more.  If Congress and the Administration take steps to remove Big Oil’s status-quo grip on the fuel market, corn ethanol and advanced biofuel will finally have the certainty to supply safer and more affordable fuel choices to consumers while creating jobs for the U.S.  That is why the E10 blend wall must be overcome with an approval for E15 in all cars and why policies that deploy more Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) and blender pumps should be implemented.

We are pleased that President Obama declared “we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels,” and note that American ethanol, the most widely available biofuel, is already displacing approximately 350 million barrels of foreign oil – essentially eliminating the need for the U.S. to purchase oil from Saudi Arabia.

The President rightly pointed out that Big Oil companies are profiting on their own, let alone the billions in taxpayer dollars they benefit from each year.  Redirecting oil company subsidies toward cleaner, safer, and better alternatives – such as American ethanol – is the kind of investment that will create the domestic jobs we need for the economy to recover and grow.

Finally, because there is no silver-bullet solution to reducing oil use, we appreciate the President’s goal to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.  Nonetheless, there are already nearly 9 million FFVs on the road.  These FFVs can run on any blend of ethanol and gasoline, and should number nearly 20 million by 2015. 

Steps to ensure there are more FFVs and that the owners of these vehicles have the opportunity to use ethanol-blended fuel need attention this year .

Posted by: Brian Jennings, Executive Vice President, American Coalition for Ethanol

 

Health benefits of ethanol are often overlooked

“The most important attribute of ethanol and the reason it is blended in nearly ten percent of all gasoline – it saves tens of thousands of lives annually – has gone completely unnoticed,” writes C. Boyden Gray, author of a new white paper on the health benefits of ethanol.

Mr. Gray was White House Counsel in the Administration of President George H.W. Bush and became one of the principal architects of the 1991 Clean Air Act Amendments.

“It is critically important to set the record straight, for a whole host of reasons ranging from energy security to public health to deficit spending and finally, to new jobs,” he states.

An article on ethanol's health benefits can be read in this month's Ethanol Today magazine.  Visit www.ethanoltoday.com and click on the November issue cover.  The article begins on page 36.  The white paper can be read and downloaded here.

EPA delays E15 decision once again

EPA is required by law to make a decision on the request to allow the use of cleaner burning blends of up to 15 percent ethanol, and by the time they actually make a decision, it will be a full year later than the law requires. Every addict needs enablers, but frankly we could not have imagined the Environmental Protection Agency would be one of the major defenders of the status quo that is now fouling beaches from Louisiana to Florida.

We also have to wonder who is influencing EPA when they agree it will be impossible to meet the Renewable Fuels Standard but refuse to remove the requirement that fuel contain a minimum of 90 percent petroleum. That decision can only be good news for the likes of BP and ExxonMobil, and anyone else who chooses to ignore the dangers of relying on unstable and hostile foreign regimes for our fuel, or the dangers of drilling two miles below the ocean.

EPA could be accused of slow-walking this E15 decision, but that would imply that progress is being made. This decision has been pushed back an entire year, and has gone from making cleaner burning E15 available to all cars, to only 2001 and newer cars, and now possibly to only those made after 2007. Those vehicles were practically fresh off the assembly line when the data was submitted proving blends beyond E10 are safe for all vehicles, and now two years and millions of dollars have been wasted as EPA defends the status quo. Meanwhile, oil has been spilling from the Gulf of Mexico for 60 days and counting. What do government bureaucrats need to see to be convinced that our nation desperately needs take action to reduce our use of oil?

When ACE met with EPA in March of this year, we were told that by mid-year EPA was planning to approve E15 for 2001 and newer vehicles, a commitment the Agency put in writing in a December 1 letter. While there are many practical challenges to implementing E15 for only 2001 and newer vehicles, it may have been better than the status quo of being limited to only E10. But to add insult to injury, EPA is now indicating that they will consider E15 for only vehicles made after the 2007 model year – only 20 percent of the U.S. fleet. Even if every single vehicle made after 2007 used E15 every time it filled up, it would barely allow the U.S. to meet the 2012 Renewable Fuels Standard requirement.

As oil is ruining livelihoods and closing businesses, the economic and job-creation benefit of ethanol is being told it must wait in the wings. With the price of ethanol being almost a dollar less per gallon than gasoline today, EPA’s approval of a 5 percent increase in the ethanol content could save the U.S. more than $19 billion in fuel expenditures every year – almost as much as BP has committed so far to clean up the damage that oil has done in the Gulf.

ACE is encouraging all ethanol supporters to contact their Members of Congress to urge their support of legislation for more flexible fuel vehicles and blender pumps, such as S. 1627, the Harkin-Lugar ‘Consumer Fuels and Vehicles Choice Act.’ More FFVs and blender pumps would bring flexibility into the U.S. fuel system and give consumers greater fuel choice, while bypassing the bureaucracy that is preventing the cleaner alternative fuels from reaching the marketplace.

Posted by: Brian Jennings

Ethanol responds to new environmental group stall tactics

The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), and the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) today countered the tired claims of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) that American ethanol is not a sound investment.

Criticizing the tax incentive provided for the use of ethanol is a misleading exercise if proper context is not provided. A recent International Energy Agency report concluded the world spent $550 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels in 2008 alone. The approximately $4.5 billion spent to increase America’s use of domestically produced ethanol in 2008 is a bargain by comparison.

Equally misleading is a discussion of tax incentives without appropriately attributing increases in economic activity resulting from those incentives. In 2009 alone, U.S. ethanol production helped nearly 400,000 Americans keep their jobs or find a new one, added more than $15 billion to federal, state and local government tax revenues, and displaced more than 360 million barrels of imported oil.

“It’s disappointing that some in the environmental community continue to have an irrational and unsophisticated notion of how to reduce fossil fuel use,” said Brian Jennings, Executive Vice President of the American Coalition for Ethanol. “Some say the solution is to get rid of corn-based ethanol today, in hopes that some other potentially promising, but not yet commercialized fuel will be available tomorrow. The result would be more pain at the pump and more pollution for the planet. Ethanol is the only commercially available alternative to gasoline today, and removing it from our nation’s fuel supply would mean more oil use – and we ought to learn from the painful and ongoing lesson in the Gulf of Mexico that more oil is simply not a sustainable path.”

“It is unfortunate that groups purporting to represent the environment are still criticizing the only alternative fuel – domestic ethanol – that reduces our dependence on foreign oil,” said Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy.

“Family farmers in the U.S. have provided us with five record crops since 2005, and we're growing 20 percent more corn per acre than any other nation," said NCGA President Darrin Ihnen. "For American corn farmers, the ethanol industry provides the opportunity to add value added to our commodity while expanding the role of U.S. agriculture in our movement toward greater energy self-reliance. It needs and deserves the support it's getting in Washington.”

“America’s investment in domestic renewable fuels is only just beginning to pay dividends,” said RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen. “Current technologies are directly replacing oil-based fuels in American gas tanks and creating tens of thousands of jobs. New technologies are coming online that will expand ethanol’s economic benefit while continuing to improve the industry’s environmental footprint and energy security contribution. The environmental community remains shortsighted in its dismissal of ethanol, particularly as the devastating impacts of our oil addiction are currently on full display.”

Agricultural production and ethanol biorefining continue to become increasingly efficient. According to a recent article in the scientific journal Biotechnology Letters, ethanol production alone has seen a 28 percent reduction in energy use, a 32 percent reduction in water use, and a 5.3 percent increase in ethanol yields all in less than a decade. Conversely, deep water drilling and tar sands extraction continue to drive oil’s carbon footprint even higher.

This assault from EWG is just the latest in a line of impractical attacks the environmental community has launched against American ethanol production.  Recently, environmental activists suggested that ethanol use in America would reduce our oil consumption – a good thing – and thus drive down the world price of oil – also a good thing. As a result, other nations would use more oil. Ergo, according to their tortured logic, ethanol must be penalized for the carbon emissions from the increase in oil use in other nations. Curiously, EWG suggests that more could be gained from proper tire inflation and obeying the speed limit. Yet, under the current logic of the environmental community, all of those activities would have to be penalized for increasing oil use elsewhere. 

“No other option exists today that can match ethanol’s ability to reduce oil use in American vehicles,” the groups stated.  “Rather than erecting roadblocks, we would welcome the constructive input of the environmental community to expand our use of renewable fuels and reduce our need for oil. That starts by allowing the use of 15 percent ethanol blends.”

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.

The growing impacts of the oil spill

It is now estimated that 5,000 barrels of oil per day are being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, five times more than originally thought.  Some other sobering facts out today on the impact of the oil spill:

• As of this afternoon, the spill is 3 miles from land and 25 miles from the nearest populated area.  The company is spending $6 million per day in cleanup costs, and the total cost of cleanup could reach $8 billion.  Eleven-hundred people are working on the cleanup effort.

• The growing spill may cost the insurance industry up to $1.5 billion in claims.  Experts estimate that it may take 90 days to stop the leak in the well that's located 5,000 feet under water.

• The Louisiana Governor today declared a state of emergency, and Administration officials are calling it a "spill of national significance," allowing them to draw down resources from other areas to combat it.

Our nation's entire system of relying on oil has been an emergency waiting to happen, actually, but not so much about oil spills.  It has more to do with the length we'll go to for oil supplies and the really dirty environmental tradeoffs we're willing to accept so we don't have to change.

Posted by: Ron Lamberty

Why are environmental groups quiet on the oil spill?

As was the case a couple weeks ago when an oil tanker was gashed open trying to take a shortcut through the Great Barrier Reef, the silence of environmental groups has been deafening following the explosion and oil spill off the coast of Louisiana.

Even with a thousand barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico each day, even with an oil slick on the water the size of West Virginia, we're hearing nothing from the self-appointed defenders of the Earth.  Not a word.  This photo from NASA shows the slick when it was only half that size, closing in on two National Wildlife Refuges.  And not a word from any of the environmental groups.

Now they're evening talking about getting rid of the oil by burning it off.  That's right -- set the ocean on fire and get rid of the pollution in the water by turning it into air pollution.  No response from those groups that were created out of concern for clean water and clean air.

Perhaps we're a bit worked up about the environmental groups' lack of response to these environmental disasters because of all the energy they've spent lately condemning ethanol -- the cleanest motor fuel available today.  But when you look at who they've joined forces with recently, that lack of alarm over the oil spills starts to make more sense.

Last month a letter was written to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency urging them NOT to approve a 5% increase in the allowable ethanol content per gallon of gas, from E10 to E15.  In this letter, the Center for Coastal Conservation, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club signed the very same advocacy letter as the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the two largest oil industry groups in the U.S.

These environmental groups dislike ethanol because they've bought into the "indirect effects" arguments against ethanol, an unproven theory that suggests U.S. ethanol production might somehow possibly maybe indirectly cause more deforestation in the Amazon.  They know emissions from cars that burn ethanol are lower than emissions from cars that don't, and they know tailpipe emissions would be even lower if gas had 15% ethanol in it instead of 10%.  But they keep coming back to that rainforest theory, which, in the real world (not the anti-agriculture fuzzy-math world) is clearly disproven because actual deforestation rates have consistently dropped as the production of ethanol in the U.S. has increased.

All this focus on "indirect effects" and yet they are giving the very direct effects of oil a free pass.  How is it ok to ignore a 28,000-square-mile oil slick in the Gulf while devoting members' time and money to lobby against increasing the availability of the only alternative to that oil?  It makes no sense, and it's completely counterproductive to their efforts to protect the environment. 

People who consider themselves environmentalists should take a closer look at the organizations they support and what those organizations are really supporting.  No, ethanol is not perfect, but it is here today as a clean, renewable alternative to oil.  In fact, ethanol is the only viable alternative to gasoline today.  The bottom line is this: if you're not for more ethanol, you're for more oil.

Posted by: Ron Lamberty

Make "Earth Day" choices every day at the pump

It's good to recognize April 22 as "Earth Day," but it's even better if the attitude of caring for our Earth can be carried through in our actions every day of the year.  To me, one of the simplest ways to protect the planet is the choices we make at the gas pump.

It's a simple choice -- ethanol or oil.  And the reality is that ethanol is clean and getting cleaner, and oil is dirty and getting dirtier.  Consider these facts:

The efficiency of corn-based ethanol in the United States is improving nearly every day.  For example, between 2001 and 2008:

• Ethanol yield per bushel of corn increased by 6.4%
• Total energy use (fossil fuel and electricity) decreased 21.8%
• Grid electricity use decreased 15.7%
• Water consumption decreased 26.6%

(Source: Argonne National Laboratory)

The corn used as today's ethanol feedstock is becoming more environmentally friendly as well.  For example, between 1987 and 2007, corn's impacts dropped across all these categories:

• 37% less land needed to produce one bushel of corn
• 69% less soil loss per bushel
• 27% less irrigation water use per bushel
• 37% less energy used to produce one bushel
• 30% fewer emissions per bushel

(Source: National Corn Growers Association)

And as new sources of ethanol, like cellulosic ethanol, come online, the environmental benefits will be even better.  Corn-based ethanol today represents a 48% to 59% reduction in direct greenhouse gas emissions over gasoline, and cellulosic ethanol is expected to reduce emissions by twice again as much.  

In comparison, petroleum's profile is only getting worse.  As we use up the oil that's easy to get at, we must drill deeper and explore farther -- all at a greater cost to the environment.  Take the Canadian oil sands, for example. 

These photos from National Geographic speak a thousand words about where our oil is now coming from and the huge toll it has on the environment.  A few photo captions worth sharing:

"Canada's oil sands are layers of sticky, tarlike bitumen mixed with sand, clay, and water.  Around a hundred feet of oil must be stripped off to reach many deposits."

"About two tons of bitumen-laden sand are required to produce a single barrel of oil, but it's no straight line from the mine to the gas tank. After being separated from its sandy matrix in a hot water wash, bitumen is transferred to upgrading facilities like Syncrude's, where it is heated and processed in order to break its long, heavy chain of hydrocarbon molecules. Carbon is removed, hydrogen is added, and the new, lighter product is transformed into synthetic crude oil. From there the oil can be further refined into gasoline or jet fuel."

All of this before the oil is even turned into gasoline.  What kind of fuel do you want in your tank?  Think "Earth Day" next time you fill up, and choose ethanol-blended fuel.

Posted by: Kristin Brekke

It's just the beginning of higher corn yields

America's farmers grow 588 percent more corn per acre today than they did 80 years ago.  Isn't that an awesome statistic?

And this might be just the beginning, according to experts interviewed for the March/April issue of Ethanol Today.

Many believe corn yields could double again by mid-century.  In its strategic plan, the National Corn Growers Association says it's using a "conservative forecast" of 205 bushels per acre by 2020.  NCGA President and family farmer Darrin Ihnen notes in his ET guest editorial that the 24 winners of last year's national corn yield contest averaged yields of 300 bushels per acre or better.  That gives us a glimpse at what future yields may be possible.

Ethanol critics, take note -- with yield improvements like this, it does not require the tilling of more land to grow more corn.  With better seed genetics and new farming technologies, America's farmers are growing larger crops on the same amount of land.  In fact, last year's record corn crop was actually grown on 7 million fewer acres than were used to grow the previous record.  And it's important to note that these crops are being produced using fewer energy inputs and with less environmental impact.  In farming, just like in other industries, they're figuring out ways to do things more sustainably.

"The times, they are a-changin'," as the saying goes.  My dad says when he started farming in the late '50s, corn yields of 100 bushels per acre weren't even imaginable.  Today, triple-digit yields are the norm, even here in South Dakota where we're considered to be in the western part of the Corn Belt.  My husband and I are honored to be the fifth generation on my family's farm.  What will yields look like during our generation and the next?  I'm excited to be here as it all unfolds.

The world is a bigger place today, with a growing number of people and a larger population that can afford more protein in their diet.  We also need to diversify our energy supplies and wean ourselves from the petroleum-only diet.  What a better solution than to take this abundance of corn, use the starch to make renewable ethanol, and use the actual "food" portions of the kernel to create a high-protein livestock feed at the same production facility.  Seems like a win-win.

America's farmers are the most productive anywhere, and I know they're up to the task of producing the food, feed, fiber, and fuel that the world needs.  Go farmers!

Click on the cover image at the left to view the new digital version of Ethanol Today magazine.

Posted by: Kristin Brekke

What's going on in California?

If we’re talking ethanol, a lot.  California is the largest state market for ethanol, and decisions being made there are creating one of those “I’ve got good news and bad news” scenarios.  Which do you want first?

The good news is very good.  After years of using only a 5.7 percent ethanol blend (and still being the largest ethanol market), California now allows 10 percent ethanol per gallon of gasoline, and the state is in full switch-over mode to E10.  Drivers there probably didn’t even notice the difference, but they now are the benefiting from having almost twice as much clean burning, renewable ethanol in their tanks.  This is good news for those motorists, for the state’s air quality, and for America’s ethanol producers who have a newly expanded market.

However.  There is this matter of the LCFS – low carbon fuel standard.  The bad news is that the California Air Resources Board is insisting on charging biofuels with “indirect effects” while charging all other fuels with only “direct effects.”  Hardly seems fair.  If the LCFS moves forward as written, corn-based ethanol may not qualify as a low-carbon fuel for use in California.  This article in the Aberdeen, SD American News goes into more detail about the potential implications.

Ethanol Today magazine is featuring this issue in its March/April edition.  Read more in "Ethanol in California: Past Success, Future Questions" now available online.

Posted by: Kristin Brekke

The only alternative to oil with potential is ethanol

I wrote this column in response to an editorial in the Rochester, MN Post-Bulletin.  The column in its entirety may be read here.

Bill Boyne's Jan. 13 column criticizing ethanol was so dreadfully jam-packed with fictitious blather, it read either like a piece Big Oil might have penned or as something that is uninformed about how transportation fuels really work.

There are many reasons to support ethanol, today and tomorrow, especially when it is the only alternative to oil that is improving conditions in our nation today and has the potential to do even more good in the future.

Boyne expresses concern about air pollution, but apparently doesn't know that fossil-fuel based gasoline remains the largest source of man-made carcinogens and the number one source of toxic emissions, according to the EPA. Ethanol burns cleaner than fossil fuels, period. Blending ethanol into gasoline reduces harmful tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and other ozone-forming pollutants. Making sure ethanol has a future in our fuel supply is a must-do for the sake of America's environment and for all who breathe the air.

Ethanol's environmental benefits remain true even when looking at its lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contrary to what the cynics would have you believe. The most recent study of ethanol's lifecycle emissions shows that modern corn-based ethanol reduces GHG emissions 48 to 59 percent below gasoline. This is a significant reduction and will only improve as new technologies come online.

Indeed ethanol's best days are ahead and if we embrace the request pending before EPA to grant up to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline. Job creation in America can be driven by the color green – just look at the example of expanding ethanol production. The economic activity surrounding the U.S. ethanol industry supported the creation of nearly 500,000 jobs in all sectors of the economy, and moving to E15 would create another 130,000 jobs.

Boyne evidently believes abandoning ethanol today will usher in a utopia of electric cars zooming up and down the roadways. Yet, for the potential benefits, electrification of autos is years from prime time, so the practical result of moving from ethanol today would mean greater reliance on foreign oil. A recent report by the Center for American Progress indicates the United States is spending $1 billion a day on overseas oil. Ten of the countries we buy oil from are on the U.S. State Department's Travel Warning List, meaning they are dangerous and unstable.

Ethanol is as an alternative to buying oil from these foreign nations, an alternative that's here today instead of a future technology that might still be decades away from reaching the consumer.

And what about the trendy criticism Boyne latches onto, that corn ethanol forces so-called land use changes to occur which create friction for food needs and the environment? A record U.S. corn crop was grown in 2007 of 13.1 billion bushels. The 2009 corn crop surpassed that at 13.2 billion bushels.It's important to note that the new record of 13.2 billion bushels was grown on 7.1 million fewer acres than were used to grow the previous record. Land use changes indeed occurred – fewer acres used to produce more corn.

Thanks to new technologies, increasing corn yields mean farmers can be more productive on the same amount of land – supplying plenty of corn for feed, food, and fuel. The idea of the "large-scale conversion of forest and grassland to corn production" simply is not true. The hard work and ingenuity of America's farmers and entrepreneurs has built an ethanol industry in this country, one that has proven benefits today and a bright future tomorrow.

Posted by: Brian Jennings

Brian is the executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), the nation's largest ethanol advocacy association with 1500 grassroots members nationwide.

U.S. EPA announces RFS2 rules, improved GHG emissions rating for corn-based ethanol

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced the proposed regulations for the Renewable Fuels Standard 2, including a revision in the calculation of lifecycle emissions from corn-based ethanol. Hear from the American Coalition for Ethanol's Brian Jennings:

Amazon deforestation is on the decline, while U.S. ethanol production increases

The theory of "indirect land use change" maintains that if an acre of corn in the United States is used for ethanol production, an acre elsewhere in the world will be converted to agriculture to make up for it -- and much of the focus has been on the sensitive ecosystem of the Amazon.

Is ethanol responsible for the deforestation of the Amazon?  No, and that statement is backed by recent data out of Brazil.  

Brazil's government has announced that annual deforestation rates have fallen to their lowest level in more than 20 years. This year's rate is almost half of that of the previous 12 months, and the lowest since records began to be kept in 1988.  Read the full Christian Science Monitor article here.  This is good news for the conservation of this precious resource. 

It must also be noted that this drastic decline in Amazon deforestation is occurring at the same time that ethanol production in the U.S. is growing to record levels.  Even after weathering difficult financial conditions, the U.S. is on pace to produce an all-time record amount of ethanol this year for use as clean-burning transportation fuel. 

This chart helps us view the relationship between deforestation and U.S. ethanol production:

From 2004 to 2008, U.S. ethanol production has nearly tripled, from 3.4 billion gallons annually to more than 9 billion gallons.  During this same time, deforestation has made just as steep a move -- in the opposite direction.

Biofuel critics' claims that ethanol is responsible for these kinds of international land use changes are simply not corroborated by on-the-ground evidence -- quite the opposite, actually.  We agree that the environmental impact of all types of energy sources needs to be considered, but we insist that these policy decisions be based on sound science.  Let's give ethanol some credit for the positives it has brought to our country economy, environment, and energy security, instead of making charges against it that are simply not valid.