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

Guest Editorial: Ethanol must be part of energy independence

This guest editorial is from Mike Jerke, General Manager of Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. in Benson, Minnesota. It appears in the April edition of "ET Field Notes," the membership publication for members of the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE).

 

Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Mexico, China, Norway, Canada, Venezuela, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. These are, in order, the top oil producing countries in the world, and the United States imports between 50 to 70 percent of its oil – around 11 million barrels per day – from nine of them (only Iran is cut off from U.S. import dollars).

This worries me. Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez is openly hostile to the United States and has more than once threatened to halt oil exports to us. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates are known to funnel profits from oil into anti-Western Islamist education around the world. As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has noted, when we buy oil from them, we’re basically funding hostility against ourselves.

The bottom line, though, is this: since we consume far more oil than we produce, the health of our transportation system – and thus our economy as a whole – is dependent on governments and events far beyond our control. A shift in the marketplace here, a drop in production there, or political instability anywhere could quickly make $3 seem like a bargain price for a gallon of gas.

If this seems like an exaggeration, consider the oil embargo of 1973, when OPEC nations were able to quadruple the price of gasoline – and cause widespread economic damage to the United States and other nations – simply by reducing output. Even now, the current Oil Minister of Iran shrugs off any concern over oil at $120 per barrel (which translates into gas at $4 per gallon or more).

Nothing short of energy independence will alleviate my worry. If U.S. producers filled all the fuel needs of U.S. consumers, we wouldn’t have to worry about political unrest or, to use Friedman’s phrase, “petro-dictators” disrupting our transportation and economic systems.

But how do we get to energy independence? R. James Woolsey, foreign policy analyst and former CIA director, thinks we should increase the use of ethanol, methanol, and other non-gasoline fuels, along with other measures like making natural gas the fuel for fleet vehicles like trucks and buses, improving mileage standards, electrifying as much automotive transportation as possible, and expanding domestic oil exploration. I agree with Woolsey, but would add that only the ethanol industry has:
•    a well-developed and expanding infrastructure for manufacturing and distribution,
•    plants that consistently produce a profit while also increasing production,
•    the ability to claim one large country (Brazil) and a growing number of areas around the world as places that use ethanol to meet over 25% of their liquid fuel needs.

Ethanol, in other words, is more than a promising piece of the energy independence puzzle. It is an established source of our current energy supply, and it has proven that it can move the country toward a more reliable and sustainable energy future.

If we are willing to subject ourselves to routine economic shocks from undemocratic and unpredictable world players, then ethanol is an unneeded commodity. If we want to move toward energy independence, however, greater ethanol use and production – along with a sound federal ethanol policy – is a must.
   

Big Food's (very profitable) blame game

With oil prices currently around $95 a barrel, the cost of crude oil is about $2.25 a gallon. After it is refined, shipped, loaded, and delivered to a station, we pay $2.50 to $2.75 (plus around 50 cents in federal, state, and other taxes) for a gallon of their finished product.

Similarly, with corn at around six bucks a bushel, ethanol plants take about $2.25 in corn and, after it is refined, shipped, loaded, taxed and delivered to a station, it is also sold for around the same $2.50 a gallon.

Meanwhile, Big Food companies take the same $2.25 worth of corn and make it into 100 bucks worth of cornflakes, or several hundred dollars worth of candy or soft drinks. Then they have a little extra money so they can hire PR folks to blame ethanol and oil as the reason for high food prices.

In 2008 when the Grocery Manufacturers Association hired Glover Park to smear ethanol and blame the corn used (less than 3 percent of the world’s grain) in ethanol production, Big Food lamented the increased price of corn, said prices would go higher, and then raised their prices to prove they were right. The result? Record food company profits.

If I have ever said that Big Food is almost as bad as Big Oil, I take it back. They’re every bit as bad. Maybe worse.

It doesn’t take a lot of knowledge about markets and economics to understand that when government farm payments are at their highest, while those payments help farmers manage market volatility, they are also keeping Big Food companies’ costs artificially low. It is easy to see why Big Food would rather go back to the days when they paid two bucks for corn and you and I paid the rest of the bill with tax dollars.

What is hard to understand is how all of these ethanol detractors think that paying less for corn will encourage farmers to grow more of it. Ethanol production is causing more corn to be grown – more food is available because ethanol has created real markets for corn. As a bonus, ethanol adds to the fuel supply and helps moderate oil prices.

When oil prices go up, people carpool, take public transportation, ride a bike, walk, or stay home. When food prices go up, people don’t have options like that. If Big Food – with its shiny new mega-stores, elaborate packaging, and ultra-high prices on actual healthy food – is truly concerned about people being able to afford to eat, the solution is simple:

Quit charging so much.

Posted by: Ron Lamberty, Vice President / Market Development, American Coalition for Ethanol

Ethanol land use change drops under new Purdue modeling

Dr. Wallace Tyner of Purdue University’s Department of Agricultural Economics made his second appearance at an American Coalition for Ethanol conference, his presentation this year a follow up to 2009 where he discussed his department’s new GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project) modeling for biofuels and land use change. 

Dr. Tyner first discussed the E10 Blend Wall and the impact it will have on the next generations of biofuels.

“We are at the blend wall,” Tyner said.  “It is literally a wall.  You cannot technically go beyond that wall.”

Because corn-based ethanol has now filled the allowable marketplace, the break-even price is now based on corn instead of being linked with gasoline as it has been in the past, he explained.

Dr. Tyner also explained that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made a fundamental change in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in its February 2010 final ruling.  The agency changed the metric on the rule, effectively converting the RFS from a volumetric basis to an energy basis.  The RFS now calls for 36 billion gallons of “ethanol equivalent.”  All possible biofuels – bio-gasoline, algae, etc. – are all given an “ethanol equivalent” rating – bio-gasoline is given a 1.5 gallon rating, for example.  This could actually lower the total amount of biofuel being used in the U.S. under the RFS>

Regarding the E10 Blend Wall, Tyner said that it is firmly standing in the way of cellulosic ethanol development.

“There’s no room at the inn for cellulose-based ethanol,” he said.  “If we stay at E10, you can forget about cellulose-based ethanol.”

Even if EPA regulations are changed to allow E15, it might only increase the ethanol blending limit to 19 billion gallons.  If corn ethanol is limited at 15 billion gallons and “other advanced” biofuels are given 4 billion gallons, as stated in the RFS, there is still no room for the growth of cellulosic ethanol.

“Even if we go to E15, there’s no room at the inn for cellulose,” Tyner said.  “The implications of the blend wall are much farther than just corn ethanol alone.”

Dr. Tyner has been working on the issue of land-use change for about three years, a timeframe he says isn’t actually very long given the complexity of the issue.  He has developed the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to study how biofuels impact land use, and this year they have made updates to the model based on some new information.

Changes to the Purdue GTAP model include:

• Three major biofuels have been incorporated into the model: corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, and biodiesel.

• Cropland pasture and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land have been added, not accounted for in previous work.

• Energy sector demand and supply have been re-estimated and calibrated to 2006.

• Distillers grain has been added to the model, including its treatment, production, consumption, and trade – Tyner called this a “significant improvement”

• The structure of the livestock sector has been modified to better reflect its actual functioning

• A corn yield response to higher prices has been built into the model.

• A change has been made to the way the model treats new land brought into production, better reflecting the actual productivity of the new land.

Dr. Tyner showed the evolution of the GTAP results, from the beginning of the model to now with these updates and improvements to the data.  The modeling in January 2009 showed that .27 hectares of land were needed (globally) for every 1,000 gallons of biofuel.  In August 2010, the improved modeling shows that only .13 hectares are needed – less than half of their earlier estimate.

“All of these changes in the model and improvements in the database have led us to conclude that the land-use implications are much smaller than we had estimated recently,” Tyner said.

He pointed out that the Purdue estimate is substantially less than Tim Searchinger’s much-publicized research on land-use change.  Searchinger’s results found that .75 hectares of land are needed, compared to Purdue’s .13 hectares.

“In terms of land use change based on greenhouse gas emissions, the results that we’re getting today are fourteen percent of the results Tim Searchinger got in his original work,” Tyner said.

Dr. Tyner said he is a proponent of changing the way the emissions of gasoline and biofuels are compared.  Currently the law in California and at the U.S. EPA compares averages, not marginals.  He believes it’s more fair to compare the most recent ethanol plant built with the most recent oil extracted, which is likely oil from the Canadian tar sands.  Using averages ignores the fact that ethanol is increasingly efficient while oil is increasingly damaging to the environment as it becomes harder and more costly to extract.

Dr. Tyner acknowledged that land use change is a controversial topic.  Some say it’s not even possible to measure these things, but he believes that with one-third of the corn crop going to ethanol, it is important to use the best science available to try to accurately measure any land use change. 

“What we’ve tried to do to the best of our ability, and to the best data available, is to estimate these,” Tyner said.  “They are still highly uncertain.  I do this work all the time, and I’m the first to tell you that these estimates are highly uncertain.”

Dr. Tyner said that, in terms of public policy, this GTAP modeling work can be helpful in how the EPA is implementing the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) and the threshold tests for greenhouse gas emissions.  However, what the California Air Resources Board is doing with its Low Carbon Fuel Standard is an entirely different story, he said, because they are using the measure in the value of implementing the policy.  Every tenth of a percent of carbon under the CARB rules can make a huge difference. 

“We cannot measure it accurately enough to withstand almost any court case test,” Tyner said.  “It depends on how you use the information, in my view, whether or not it’s something that’s useful in the debate.”

Energy legislation needs to include these two provisions

The American Coalition for Ethanol, the National Corn Growers Association, and the Renewable Fuels Association wrote a letter today to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, encouraging him to include two key provisions in upcoming energy legislation - S. 1627, the Consumer Fuels and Vehicles Choice Act, and S. 3231, the Green Jobs Act.

"As you work to develop legislation to address the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico and
meet America’s many other energy challenges, we are writing to encourage you to include two bills in
your broad energy legislation that will promote the further production and use of biofuels in the United
States and thus help wean us off our dependence on oil: 1) the Consumer Fuels and Vehicle Choice Act
(CHOICE Act), S. 1627, and 2) the Grow Renewable Energy from Ethanol Naturally Jobs Act, or 'GREEN
Jobs Act,' of 2010, S. 3231."

Read the letter in its entirety 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 offers big savings for motorists over Memorial Day holiday

With ethanol trading for nearly a dollar less than gasoline at the rack, motorists can capture those savings at the pump by choosing ethanol-blended fuel.  The savings over the recent Memorial Day holiday were significant.

According to fuel price data* published May 24, the E10 blend is an average 9.5 cents per gallon lower than straight gasoline right now.  Based on AAA’s expected travel distances** for the holiday weekend and a national average gas price of $2.85 per gallon, this 9.5 cent discount for E10 could have equaled $95.8 million in savings nationwide.

The savings on E15 would be nearly 14 cents per gallon.  If the E15 blend was available nationwide, the total savings for motorists this holiday weekend could reach $138 million.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to make its ruling this summer on whether to allow all consumers access to the 15 percent ethanol blend.

At the current ethanol price, the E30 blend is 28.5 cents per gallon less than gasoline, and E85 is 75 cents less per gallon.

“Every little bit of cost savings helps in a tight economy, and American families are saving money at the pump thanks to the availability of ethanol,” said Ron Lamberty, Vice President / Market Development for the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), the nation’s largest grassroots ethanol association.  “With the wide spread right now between ethanol and gasoline prices, the higher the ethanol content per gallon of your fuel, the higher the savings.”

“Motorists deserve to have access to these cost-effective fuels at the pump instead of just being limited by government red tape and Big Oil’s grip on the market,” said Brian Jennings, Executive Vice President of ACE.  “We need to give consumers the power to choose whatever fuel is most affordable by making flexible fuel vehicles and blender pumps more widely available.”

* Source: Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) Chicago Average Rack Price for the week ending May 21, 2010

** Source: AAA Memorial Day 2010 Travel Forecast, May 20, 2010

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.

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

A thank you to veterans, and a hope for energy security through homegrown fuels

A sincere thank you from the American Coalition for Ethanol to all veterans -- past, present, and future -- for your service and sacrifice.  Let us remember these heroes this Veterans Day and every day.

Our hope is that through the spirit and ingenuity of America's farmers and entrepreneurs, this nation can stand more self-sufficient in the face of its energy needs.  Clean, renewable, homegrown fuels like ethanol mean a future of greater energy security for all.

The direct effects of oil, strikingly depicted on screen and in photographs

In the midst of so much talk of the "indirect effects" attributed to biofuels, there are two new opportunities to view the real impact of petroleum -- on screen and in photographs.

"Crude: The Real Price of Oil" is a film by Joe Berlinger that tells the story of the indigenous people of Educador vs. U.S. oil giant Chevron.  The plaintiffs claim that Texaco (merged with Chevron in 2001) spent three decades contaminating one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth, poisoning the water, air, land, and people.  Please take a few minutes to view the movie trailer here www.crudethemovie.com and then visit www.ethanolcollective.com to share your thoughts on the discussion board.

Renowned photographer Edward Burtynsky is currently displaying his work "Oil" at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, DC.  From 1997 through 2009 he traveled internationally to chronicle the production, distribution, and use of oil.  The photographs are striking and well worth your time to view them online at this site: http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/press_burtynsky/.

Flex-fuel SUV vs. gas-electric hybrid: the surprising oil comparison

In any conversation about efficiency or energy consumption, few would believe that a sport utility vehicle could be considered superior to a gas-electric hybrid car.  If your goal is to burn less oil, however, you should choose the SUV – specifically a flex-fuel model running on E85.

To travel a year’s worth of miles, a Prius, for example, may consume 300 gallons of gasoline (15,000 miles @ 50 mpg).  To travel that same year’s worth of miles, a Tahoe, for example, may consume 1000 gallons of fuel (15,000 miles @ 15 mpg) – but if the SUV runs on E85 for those miles, it consumes only 150 gallons of actual gasoline (15% of the fuel is gasoline, 85% is renewable ethanol).  The hybrid car in this example consumes twice as much oil as the ethanol-powered SUV.

The future will likely hold a variety of ways for all of us energy-consumers to cut our fossil fuel habit, but here is an important point that often gets overlooked – ethanol is here today as a clean replacement for gasoline from petroleum, and higher ethanol blends like E85 are the fastest way to slash the oil consumption in your daily driving.  

Sound science and a fair playing field

The American Coalition for Ethanol recently submitted official comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the proposed rule for the Renewable Fuels Standard.  This "RFS2" has been a point of concern, specifically the EPA's inclusion of the controversial "international land use change" (ILUC) theory in the proposed rule.  It's also concerning that EPA appointed Tim Searchinger, the lawyer who is the very architect of the ILUC theory, a seat on the peer-review panel.  These so-called "indirect effects" are new, untested, unreliable, and controversial computer-generated predictions that are, at this time, being selectively applied only to corn ethanol. 

In our comments, ACE asked that EPA insist on greater scientific consensus and real-world data before moving forward to apply these penalties to biofuels in the final rule.  And if EPA insists on applying indirect effects, these effects should be applied to all fuels – not just ethanol.  This includes undertaking a complete lifecycle assessment of the indirect emissions association with petroleum.  Sound science and fair playing field is all we’re asking.