This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

Congress & Ethanol: Biofuels Love Gone Wrong?

Bill Chameides's picture
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
  • Member since 2018
  • 37 items added with 16,337 views
  • Apr 1, 2013 11:30 pm GMT
  • 699 views

Your access to Member Features is limited.

ethanol plantThe ethanol mandate in gasoline is starting to sting.

Trouble Brewing

In a news article published in Science magazine last week, journalist Robert Service writes: “This year is shaping up to be decisive for ‘cellulosic’ ethanol made from corn stalks and other agricultural waste, as oil companies and the ethanol industry clash over government mandates for the automotive fuel.”

What’s going on? Let’s start with a brief primer on the use of ethanol in America’s automobile.

As a libation, ethanol’s been around for a long, long time. As a fuel, it dates back to 1826 when it was first used in an internal combustion engine. Ethanol was also the fuel that ran the 1908 version of the Ford Model T. But “the decreasing cost of oil (and US prohibition)” among other factors turned Ford’s “fuel of the future” into a fuel of the past and, with the exception of World War II [pdf], there it remained for much of the mid-20th century where the fuel of choice on America’s roadways was ethanol-free gasoline.

Congress’s Love Affair With Ethanol

Starting in the late 1970s, however, ethanol began to creep its way back into our fuel tanks, at first in response to oil shortages [pdf] and the Clean Air Act’s mandated phase-out of leaded gasoline (ethanol supplanted lead as an additive to enhance octane). Demand for ethanol increased as Congress began actively encouraging and then mandating its use in cars. For example, a 1978 tax break for ethanol-blended gasoline was followed by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, whose requirements included the presence of an oxygenated compound such as ethanol in gasoline to produce cleaner automobile emissions and thus cleaner air.

More recently, Congress upped the ethanol ante with two renewable fuel standards: the 2005 Energy Policy Act “required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012” and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 greatly expanded the program by:

  • increasing the volume of renewable fuels from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022,
  • adding more renewable fuel categories each with separate volume requirements (including cellulosic ethanol targets of 100 million gallons in 2010 increasing to 16 billion gallons in 2022), and
  • applying life cycle greenhouse gas performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits less greenhouse gas emissions than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

Why the Love?

Knowing what’s behind Congress’s passion for ethanol as a fuel is not quite as inscrutable as knowing what sparks romantic love, so let’s look at some possibilities. First and perhaps foremost, ethanol is a homegrown energy source and one that was aided by a healthy tariff on imported ethanol that excluded Brazilian ethanol from competing in the U.S. market. It’s reasonable to assume Congress was considering national security. But that’s not all.

The desired air-quality improvements from the 1990 CAA were to be achieved, in part, by adding ethanol or a similarly oxygenated compound to the hydrocarbon chains of fossil fuels thus adding oxygen and encouraging a more complete and cleaner burn. But I’d take that with a bit salt. The evidence (see here and here) that that ethanol mandate actually led to significantly improved air quality is pretty thin.

That brings us to the renewable fuel standards. As summarized in a report [pdf] by the Congressional Research Service, the 2005 and 2007 mandates were aimed at alleviating our “increasing dependence on foreign sources of crude oil, concerns over global climate change, and the desire to promote domestic rural economies.” But like the air-quality mandate, there’s room for some skepticism here. For example, the climate benefits of ethanol have been challenged by a number of investigators (see here, here and here).

Which brings us to the other reason listed above: desire to promote domestic rural economies. Here I think we’ve found pay dirt — but not for any old rural economy, just the ones that grow corn.

Virtually all of today’s U.S.-produced ethanol comes from corn. So ethanol mandates raise the demand for corn — making it a commodity wanted not only for food but also for fuel. And so the result? Corn prices rise, and American corn growers benefit. Voting for the mandate means making the very powerful National Corn Growers Association happy. Voting against it, let alone trying to remove it, means risking the wrath of the lobby.

And then there’s Iowa. Ever wonder why in recent memory there’s near-unanimous support for ethanol mandates among presidential candidates? Could it have anything to do with the all-important caucuses in Iowa, a state also known as the Corn State where 90 percent of its land is agricultural?

With all those reasons going for it, you’d think the 2007 ethanol mandate would be sitting pretty. In fact, as noted by Service in that Science article, the mandate is in serious trouble.

Problem #1: Plenty of Ethanol, Not Enough Gasoline

Times change. In 2007 a trend was clear — gasoline consumption was on the rise. For an ethanol mandate to have teeth over time, the amount of ethanol produced, Congress reasoned, would also need to increase over time. And so federal mandates [pdf] required that the total volume of renewable fuel would increase (from 9 billion gallons to 36 billion gallons) with corn ethanol maxing out at 15 billion gallons per year.

The problem is that gasoline consumption did not increase as anticipated (see graphic below). First came the economic downturn of 2008 and then a hankering for more fuel-efficient cars. As a result, since peaking in late 2007, U.S. gasoline consumption has slowly declined (see graphic).

Used with permission by McClellan Financial Publications

Used with permission by McClellan Financial Publications

 

That’s generally good news. But for the ethanol mandate … not so much. The vast majority of U.S. cars are designed to use a fuel mix that contains no more than 10 percent ethanol, and most gas stations are set up for gasoline with a maximum ethanol content of 10 percent. So consider what happens if total gasoline consumption goes down while the total amount of ethanol required to be mixed with the gasoline increases? Eventually you hit what is known as the “ethanol blend wall” where any addition of ethanol to the mix will result in a fuel that is more than 10 percent ethanol. (See here and here [pdf].)

So how close is that ethanol blend wall? For all intents and purposes we’ve hit it. In 2012, the Energy Information Administration reports [pdf], the average ethanol content in U.S. gasoline was 9.7 percent. (See graphic).

biofuels chart

(From EIA’s Biofuels Issues and Trends [pdf], October 2012)

 

Suffice it to say, something’s gotta give. Either American cars need a mandated retrofit that would allow for a higher percentage of ethanol (just how expensive such a retrofit would be is up for debate — see here and here) or the 2007 mandate needs to be relaxed.

Problem #2: Not Enough of the Good Stuff (Cellulosic Ethanol)

Corn ethanol, like most alcoholic beverages, is produced from a plant’s starches and sugars. (Ethanol is “denatured “ to make it undrinkable.) But it’s corn ethanol’s cousin cellulosic ethanol – which is derived from a plant’s inedible cellulose (a major rigid component of plants) — that’s generally viewed as the ethanol of the future. Why? Plants have far more cellulose than starches and sugars. And so there’s much more stuff available to produce cellulosic ethanol than corn ethanol. At least in theory we can produce a lot more cellulosic ethanol than corn ethanol.

That’s in theory. In practice it hasn’t yet worked out that way. Turning cellulose into ethanol is a difficult task, made even more difficult with commercial viability as a goal. Giving a legislative leg-up is one way to overcome the hurdles of developing a commercial enterprise — and that’s essentially what the federally mandated increases in cellulosic ethanol in gasoline blends were intended in part to do but they have not worked.

The industry has simply not been able to make enough cellulosic ethanol to meet the mandates. In 2012, for example, instead of the 8.65 million gallons required by the Environmental Protection Agency, just 20,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol were produced. Normally refiners would be required to purchase credits to make up the difference, but the American Petroleum Industry took EPA to court — and won (see decision [pdf]). EPA later eliminated the 2012 requirements ($ub req’ed). Meanwhile, the mandated totals for 2013 are expected to be challenged in court, even though 2013 is the year cellulosic fuel is expected by the biofuel industry to make good.

The Ethanol Mandate on the Ropes

So what’s in store? In his article in Science Service predicts a knock-down, drag-out fight “pitting the world’s largest oil and car companies against giant agricultural firms and Midwest farmers.” And the oil industry is primed for the kill with Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, now calling for the repeal of the renewable fuel standards. Meanwhile several bills floating through Congress aim to slash the cellulosic ethanol mandate.

We’ll have to wait to see, but it could be that the Congressional romance with ethanol will turn out to be a perfect love gone wrong.

Bill Chameides's picture
Thank Bill for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Apr 1, 2013

Having never been a supporter of fermented corn sugar as an energy concept, it would be too much trouble untangling this PR mess.

But some facts deserve note. The biggest US food problem is obesity. So feeding sugar to yeast to make protein helps sell hamburgers in China. And that helps us buy imported oil.

The “blend wall” the oil industry complains about makes one suspect their chemistry skills have been replaced by PR skills. Alcohols nicely react with low grade oils. No “blending” required.

Ultimately, the oil industry will shatter enough of the earth’s crust and prices will rise high enough so people will know their PR just isn’t going to cut it. So I don’t pay too much attention to the D.C. games.

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Apr 1, 2013

Bill, the “Biofuels Gone Wrong” is better described as the “Ethanol Industry Fails to Deliver”.  As you probably are aware the Ethanol Industry convinced Congress and President Bush that producing cellulosic ethanol advance biofuels (from switchgrass, corn stover or wood) was fully possibly within a couple years.  The Federal Government passed EISA 2007 and the new advanced biofuel renewable fuel standard (RFS2 blending requirements) based on this promise to deliver.  As you state the Ethanol Industry has yet to deliver even at reduced volumes (well below EISA 2007 original targets) established each year by the EPA.

So what’s in the store?  The EPA mandating that the Petroleum Industry blend cellulosic ethanol that does not exist and trying to fine the Industry for not blending this non-existent advanced biofuel.  This is not a drag-out fight between Big Oil and the Big Three Auto against Farming stover marketing (corn grain production by-product/waste materials), it’s a failure of a supposed promising new ‘non-corn’ Ethanol Industry to develop and commercialize the new required advanced biofuel technologies as promised in the past.

If you study the current level of cellulosic ethanol development you might find that this strategy is also inconsistent with energy security and climate concerns (the original purpose of the RFS2).  The current state-of-development has cellulosic ethanol with significantly negative ‘net energy values’ (consumes more fossil fuels energy than produced in the finished ethanol; not to mention extremely high costs) and it does not comply with EISA 2007 full lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements of 60% less than the petroleum gasoline it’s supposed to displace.

No, it’s not a love affair issue gone wrong, it’s a failure to deliver an advanced biofuel that actually and cost effectively reduces U.S. petroleum imports and carbon emissions.

Simon Friedrich's picture
Simon Friedrich on Apr 2, 2013

John,

Is there in theory an energy efficient pathway for converting cellulosic into ethanol?

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Apr 2, 2013

Simon, when and if someone develops a more efficient process to breakdown the crystalline-lignocellulose and cellulosic biomass into the free sugars used for fermentation into ethanol, the answer is yes.  This will require major breakthroughs in the pretreatment chemicals, enzymes, and possibly genetically altered fermentation yeasts.  Other needed improvements such as raw feed size reduction (cutting/grinding), intermediate co-product separation, and purifying the ethanol product should be less challenging, but definitely needed to improve the overall bio-refinery conversion process energy efficiency (and net energy value). 

I hope this is helpful

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Apr 2, 2013

An energy enhancement pathway to convert cellulose to reactive alcohols might be called “solar biofuels.” It is modeled after fire, where red hot derived photons convert materials like wood to fuel available for combustion in the presence of Oxygen. No Oxygen, no fire, so red hot comes from solar energy stored into the new fuel. No Sulfuric acid, no enzymes, just heat. This was discussed about a decade ago at the University of Minnesota Department of Physics. The University of Minnesota Agriculture School is where the ethanol people are. An energy vs. food debate.

This is perhaps one of the reasons the balk on cellulosic ethanol via fermentation. There are now better fuel patways that also now include Canadian tar and federal energy development law.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »