GoodFuels

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.

Grassley Fears EPA is “Putting Garbage In”

The technical term is GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out - originally coined as computer jargon but now “commonly used to describe failures in human decision making due to faulty, incomplete, or imprecise data.”

Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is afraid that the Environmental Protection Agency could fall prey to the GIGO syndrome in trying to reach a conclusion on the inexact science of “indirect land use changes.”

“There are a number of assumptions that can affect the conclusions about indirect land use changes. With any model, if you put garbage in, you’ll get garbage out. I want to make sure that the EPA isn’t putting garbage in,” Grassley said on the Senate floor Monday.

I’m afraid the climate folks at the EPA are heading in the wrong direction on this. I don’t think they’re bad people, but I’m afraid they don’t understand how American agriculture works. I don’t think they’re aware of the significant crop yield improvements we’ve seen in recent years or the great potential over the next 20 years. I also don’t think they fully understand the benefit of valuable ethanol byproducts, which further reduce the effective land used for fuels production.

It defies common sense that the EPA would publish a proposed rulemaking with harmful conclusions for biofuels based on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions. The EPA’s actions, if based on erroneous land use assumptions, could hinder biofuels development and extend America’s dependence on dirtier fossil fuels.

Grassley joined 11 other senators last week in a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, urging her to refrain from making a “premature ethanol emissions regulation” that would result in regulations which assume greater U.S. biofuels use would increase carbon dioxide emissions.

While the EPA is required by law under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to consider indirect land use changes, the fact is that what the legislation requires is currently impossible because there are no generally accepted methods for determining indirect land use - and there may never be. Maybe Congress and the administration should take a second look at this whole issue and consider putting it out with the garbage.

Listen to Sound Science

Over 100 scientists are asking the state of California to listen to them before making any rash decisions when it comes to the development of its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).

A total of 111 top scientists affiliated with research labs such as the National Academy of Sciences, UC-Berkeley, Sandia National Labs, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and MIT sent a letter to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today opposing the “selective enforcement of indirect effects.”

They are questioning the approach taken by the California Air Resources Board which singles out biofuels for “indirect effects,” claiming that petroleum products result in lower carbon emissions. Under the proposal, all fuels are assigned a “carbon score” to reward the least carbon intensive fuels. But only biofuels are being singled out for so-called “indirect effects,” which thereby gives petroleum products a better carbon score and a competitive advantage.

The scientists have some pretty good points. First of all, they point out that the science regarding indirect land use is far too limited and uncertain at this point for regulatory enforcement. Secondly, they note that indirect effects are often misunderstood and should not be enforced selectively.

In other words, no sound science currently exists that can accurately determine indirect land use and even if it did, it should be applied to all fuels, not just biofuels.

Let’s hope the California Air Resources Board gets its collective fingers out of its ears and listens at least to common sense, if not sound science.