GoodFuels

Deforestation debunked

Worried about Brazilian deforestation? Don’t blame ethanol.

Environmental activists and other anti-ethanol interests attempt to vilify biofuels in part out of their concerns about Amazon deforestation. But is ethanol the real culprit? A recent article from DTN reporter Kieran Gartlan exposes the real factors behind deforestation in Brazil.

Gartlan writes that U.S. corn exports have remained steady, U.S. soybean exports have increased and Brazilian acreage in both crops has remained steady or even decreased. At the same time, “Amazon deforestation has fallen for the past five years, from 10,588 square miles in 2004 to 4,620 square miles last year, according to figures from Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research (INPE).”

Gartlan also reports that “a study carried out by the Soybean Work Group (GTS) earlier this year showed that of 630 samples of deforested areas since July 2006 only 12 had gone to soybeans and 200 to cattle. The remaining 418, or 70 percent, were unused indicating that the main reason for cutting down trees was for timber and land grabbing.”

Clearly, the expansion of the biofuels industry worldwide, let alone in the U.S., has nothing to do with the motives of those clearing Amazon rainforest. Consider this another myth about ethanol busted.

The entire story, courtesy of DTN, can be read here.

Bob Dinneen in Huffington Post

Renewable Fuels Association’s CEO Bob Dinneen in his latest Huffington Post blog:

“As with his cover story last year, with the even-handed headline “The Clean Energy Scam” Grunwald’s (TIME author Michael Grunwald) recent article relies on a theory propounded by a source whom he describes as “Princeton scholar Tim Searchinger.” As Grunwald writes, the thesis that producing ethanol has “indirect effects on land use: when an acre of land is used to grow fuel instead of food, an extra acre somewhere else is probably going to be converted into farmland to grow food.” Moreover, he continues, “that acre may well be an acre of wetland or forest that would otherwise store loads of carbon.”

While he is indeed housed at Princeton University, Searchinger is an attorney by training, not a scientist, an economist, or an agronomist. So his assessment of the likelihood that the increased production of biofuels in the United States will require the despoiling of forests and wetlands which will deposit carbon in the atmosphere and promote global warming is as worthy of respectful attention as the views of any other attorney with a interest in economics, agriculture, and the environment.

Indeed, the EPA examination — and Grunwald’s journalism and Searchinger’s thesis even more so — ignore the actual alternative to biofuels: petroleum products. By exploring the “indirect land-use change” that may be caused by producing biofuels but not the comparable consequences of any other industry, including producing and using petroleum products, these stories and studies offer little illumination for the debates that must be held and the decisions that must be made.”

Dinneen goes in even more detail about the mistruths Grunwald talks about in his article. Definitely worth a read.

RFA CEO responds to BusinessWeek

Renewable Fuels Association head honcho Bob Dinneen has responded to an article from BuisnessWeek entitled “The Great Ethanol Scam”, available here:

“For someone like Ed Wallace, a member of the American Historical Society, to play fast and loose with facts and fail to consider the validity and reliability of his sources is as discouraging as it is shameful. Mr. Wallace’s reliance on anecdotes as science purposely misleads readers and creates unsubstantiated fear for motorists.

Much of the “evidence” cited in his opinion column dealing with the use of ethanol in vehicles is in fact the result of improper behavior by gasoline suppliers and retailers or improper fuel use and maintenance by vehicle owners. Little, if any, of his “evidence” is rooted in scientific data or study. To be clear, drivers should not use higher ethanol blends in vehicles not designed to utilize such fuels. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that all vehicles on the road can use more ethanol in gasoline than just 10 percent. Studies conducted by the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State University found no issues with material compatibility or drivability with blends of ethanol up to 20 percent in traditional vehicles.

Additionally, preliminary analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy supports those findings. It is entirely possible and well within the scope of the federal government to certify ethanol blends higher than 10 percent. While the Environmental Protection Agency is considering moving to 15 percent blends, it should move immediately to something in the range of 12 or 13 percent. The law and the science both support such an interim move while the full 15 percent waiver request is considered. Reliance on anecdotal stories to discredit the ethanol industry (not to mention the use of widely refuted and oil industry funded studies such as those done by Tad Patzek) is irresponsible journalism and a disservice to the readers of BusinessWeek.”

In defense of ethanol

Energy Business Daily, an energy market blog, has posted an interesting story today addressing four main criticisms of ethanol:

1. Little is gained with respect to reducing overall oil consumption in the U.S. and the world.

2. The enormous quantity of corn and soybeans diverted from the food chain in the process of manufacturing ethanol is creating serious food shortages throughout the world.

3. The amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted into the atmosphere in the production of corn ethanol exceeds the reduction of GHG achieved by using ethanol in place of gasoline.

4. The destruction of forests in various countries of the world in order to grow fuel crops is removing valuable CO2 absorption sinks from the earth resulting in greater amounts of CO2 going into the atmosphere, thereby exacerbating climate change.

The blog then goes on to address each of these complaints one by one, methodically pointing out unfair and/or wrong assumptions.

Their final conclusion?

Ethanol production from biomass is far and away a positive means of relieving our dependence on oil. According to the Energy Information Administration ethanol already represents about 9 percent of the total U.S. gasoline supply. Overall, its shortcomings are offset by its many advantages. Not only does it reduce our need for oil but it also provides many new domestic jobs, increases farmer liquidity, and lowers fuel prices (according to Merrill Lynch “without biofuel programs, the price of oil would be about $21 a barrel higher than it is now”). While ethanol is not without its faults, it is a positive contributor to our nation’s oil independence and should not be sold short.

Good read. Go here to read the entire blog.

Genius on April Fools Day

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” - Albert Einstein

According to a Genius, ethanol use really is helping to reduce in greenhouse gases on a global scale, contrary to what some “intelligent fools” may claim. That finding is from a report that was commissioned by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Bioenergy Task 39. The results were announced today by the Global Renewable Fuels Alliance (GRFA), an organization which represents over 60% of the global biofuels production from 30 countries.

Using a model for lifecycle assessment of transportation fuels called GHGenius, report author Don O’Connor examined greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from grain ethanol since 1995 and projected GHG reductions from ethanol out to 2015. The important conclusion was that GHG reductions will grow by over 100% from 1995 to 2015.

In addition, the research also found ethanol’s energy balance continues to improve as well. In 2005, the energy balance ratio for grain ethanol was estimated at 1:1.42, meaning every unit of energy used to produce ethanol returned 1.42 units of usable energy to the consumer. By 2015, the energy balance ratio is expected to be 1:1.93, a 55% increase in energy efficiency in just 10 years.

GRFA spokesperson Bliss Baker says the report clearly illustrates the improving environmental performance of ethanol compared to gasoline. “This report demonstrates that governments must develop energy policies that take into account the increasing efficiency of global ethanol production and do not rely on out-of-date data and out-dated straw man arguments,” said Baker.

“The rapid development of new technologies will make existing ethanol production as well as next generation biofuels increasingly beneficial to global energy and environmental goals,” Baker said. “The bottom line is simple: renewable fuels like ethanol are a simple and effective alternative to increased used of petroleum.”

Or, as Einstein once said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Read the entire report here.

Listen to audio from the press conference today announcing the report findings.