Ethanol Industry Wants to Join Forces With Car Makers
CNN is reporting that the ethanol industry’s top lobbying groups have sent a letter to the executives at Ford, GM and Chrysler, urging the Big Three to adopt widespread support for higher ethanol blends in gasoline and mandatory E85 flex fuel capability on all new cars.
The three ethanol groups — Growth Energy, the Renewable Fuels Association and the American Council on Renewable Energy — painted a bit of a doomsday picture for the Big Three in their letter, suggesting that the only way for the auto industry to avoid “dire consequences” is to “bring resourceful, innovative and practical solutions” to the table.
- » See also: Biofuels Breakthrough: Making Fuel From Air With Engineered Microbes
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
While it’s certainly true that the Big Three are direly in need of innovation (see my recent post on Nissan), I love how these ethanol groups spin it.
Not surprisingly, they claim that any plan to save the auto industry “should embrace and support implementation of the congressional mandate for use of ethanol” by supporting “a higher base blend of ethanol at either 15% or 20%” for all vehicles on the road and implementing a “mandatory Flex Fuel Vehicle (FFV) schedule that coincides with the Renewable Fuel Standard.”
Currently only E10 (10% ethanol/gas blend) is supported by the auto manufacturers in existing cars in the US. Additionally, flex fuel vehicles that can run on E85 have had a rather slow implementation with a noticeable lack of marketing. As a result, fueling stations around the country still have a dearth of E85 FFV-capable fuel pumps which means that no one is really taking advantage of the FFV capability.
Granted, these lobbying groups have a keen interest in pushing the ethanol agenda. Yet, while I don’t think corn ethanol is any where near the true energy and transportation solution we need, there’s no way to get to second generation ethanol (such as cellulosic ethanol — “celluline“) without initially building a first generation infrastructure.
Even so, a coalition of Detroit rust-belt and farming corn-belt lobbyists would be a scary thing to behold — a group that could have a ridiculous amount of sway if they play their cards right. Personally, I don’t think the two groups could ever make nice enough to work cohesively, but we are in extraordinary times and, rather than face extinction, both groups could become stronger through consolidation of power.
Image Credit: General Motors
Source: CNN (via Biofuels Digest)
One of the previous bloggers made a false claim when they compared corn ethanol with sugar ethanol. One acre of corn produces about 400 gallons of ethanol, plus distillers grains animal feed and corn oil. Distillers grain contains up to 19% corn oil, which can be extracted into food or fuel. One acre of sugar cane produces about 800 to 1,000 gallons of ethanol, plus bagasse fiber, sometimes burned for production power. Sugar cane is more efficient for producing ethanol. However, it does Not produce a high protein system for feeding animals, and it does Not produce oil that can be used for food or biodiesel fuel. Critics of ethanol typically omit information or use old outdated information, which distorts the truth.
The average return on American ethanol is now close to 2 to 1 and increasing constantly, as bio-refineries, feedstocks, and processes are being dramatically improved. Even more efficient corn ethanol production systems are now being built, as high as 3 to 1, such as ethanol refineries integrated with dairy farms and livestock feedlots. Some corn ethanol refineries are being equipped with cellulose capability. That will also make them energy self-sufficient. The new Levelland Hockley County Ethanol plant in Texas uses only sorghum as feedstock, and 10 ethanol refineries being built in Louisiana by Renergie use sweet sorghum as the feedstock. Others will use algae. These will be over 3 to 1 return.
Jeff,
I just wanted to say that I always enjoy reading your posts. It’s now “in vogue” to bash corn-based ethanol even though the bashing is usually based upon outdated and/or sometimes completely wrong information. I’ve read quite a few more-recent reports on the subject and the conclusion (which is probably itself somewhat outdated) seemed to be that we get at least 50% gain in energy from corn-based ethanol.
A Match Made in Heaven for Algae:
Here’s something significant that I would like to add:
Green Plains’ corn ethanol plant in Shenandoah, Iowa will be equipped with ALGAE production, based on a joint venture with BioProcess Algae LLC.
This will be the first corn ethanol refinery to produce algae, from their waste products: CO2, waste heat, and nutrient rich waste water effluent. The company says the CO2 will be sequestered into the animal feed and recycled into the food chain.
In addition to the potential to produce corn oil as food or fuel, the plant will produce algae oil as a biodiesel feedstock, perhaps for local farmers. More ethanol will be produced from the algae starch, and algae protein will be marketed side-by-side with high protein distillers grains. Thus Green Plains will produce 2 types of animal feed used to produce food: one from corn and one from algae. A new efficiency rating for the plant should be over 3 to 1 return. Integrate this with an adjacent dairy farm, feed lot, or fish farm, and it could be over 5 to 1 return.
Onsite processing of algae oil into biodiesel should also be a winner. Because the glycerin waste product could also be fed to the algae, and onsite ethanol can be used to process algae oil into biodiesel. No shipping alcohol to make biodiesel, and no having to dispose of the glycerin waste product.
Since we now have over 200 corn ethanol plants, with all the same waste products that algae loves, this represents a huge resource to expand biofuel production. With algae’s prolific growth rate, we may be able to triple or better the production of biodiesel, ethanol, and animal feed. Exploiting a symbiotic relationship between ethanol and biodiesel, and another symbiotic relationship between corn ethanol and algae.
This is why we should not discredit the corn ethanol industry, because it may prove to be a match made in heaven for blockbuster Algae.
Actually Jeff what you just posted is why a lot of people do bash the corn ethanol world. They have the potential to be an efficient supplier of fuel, but are just now breaking away from the government tit and looking for a way to be economically viable. The Corn-Algae combo would be great if they would take that step.
The original BLOG did not reveal the real issue with the ethanol producers and Detroit. Most comments are off point but Mark, CNCMike and Jeff made some good points. Already in 2008 more ethanol was produced and used at a rate greater than that mandated in the RFS. This presents the ‘Blend Wall’ problem. Due to distribution infrastructure deficiencies, the midwest already has more ethanol than it can blend at 10%. Last month, to fix this problem, EPA upped the allowable blend to 10.25% without explicit auto maker approval. The EPA wants to establish new blend standards by January 20. The ethanol industry doesn’t want Detroit to object.
The problem is that there is a solution that neither the ethanol industry nor Detroit seems willing to get behind, maybe because of BIG oil power. Big oil wants to maintain control of the liquid fuel market (and collect the $.50 blending credit - it doesn’t go to the ethanol producers, but the blenders). They are willing to let a bit more go to ethanol if they can keep their $.50 bribe.
The correct blending protocol, however, is to deliver the ethanol to the retailers and blend it at the pump. There are presently 185 such retail blenders in the midwest. This has many advantages. First, because of lowered milage, E85 hasn’t been a break even fuel cost wise since the early 80’s. Anyone putting E85 in their flex-fuel vehicle is doing it because of altruism, not his pocketbook. However, most if not all flex-fuel vehicles will getter better milage than unleaded at some mid-range blend. E23 - E30 seems to be the ’sweet spot’. This is also true of any electronically fuel injected vehicle. I get over 50MPG (no hyper driving) in my Prius using E25. This is 12% better than EPA estimates and is illegal because of EPA blending protocol. Reprograming computer chips could attain a 10 - 15% increase in milage in any vehicle which is a 19-24% increase in thermal efficiency. (This is similar to Jeff’s suggestion of injecting hydrogen into the intake manifold. You run your engine lean with a combustion enhancer.)
Having E100 at the retailer allows for a distribution infrastructure with flexibility where existing vehicles can be retrofitted, new dedicated ethanol engines can be introduces like Mark suggested or new technologies like ethanol fuel cells can be introduced. This is a place where consumers deserve a choice. This blending decision will be made soon. Installing equipment compatible with E100 will be moderately costly for the retailer. This is an approach that could be an Obama ‘double dip’. Government support for these conversions would give an immediate, though small, economic boost while establishing a blending protocol that could quickly result in a 10% or better reduction in oil imports.
Detroit, Madison Avenue and Big Oil exist on disinformation. They pretened to give us what we have been lead to believe we want (SUV’s?), when in reality it’s more like “This is our product, now let’s make the public believe they want it!”
They produce pathetically inefficient “FlexFuel” vehicles for the “feel good” crowd. Due to their low compression ratio (approx. 8.5 to 1), these vehicles do not run worth a tinker’s damn on E85, thus perpetuating the myths about ethanol that their Big Oil bedmates find so helpful.
GM’s “Yellow Cap” campaign is another good example of how Detroit bamboozles consumers. If you bought one of their gas guzzlers over the past few years, they send you a cute little yellow gas cap for the GM urban assault vehicle (a.k.a. SUV) you bought, saying “By the way, did you know your vehicle can already run on E85?” This, after all the gas price hikes have taken place.
In other words, the consumer COULD have been running on E85 @ $2.65 per gallon (however inefficiently) the whole time they were having to pay nearly $4.00 per gallon for Big Oil’s product.
Hmmm….collusion, ya think? The two are joined at the hip, why would we expect anything else from these mutant siamese twins.
They remind me of the old Lily Tomlin skit about what her telephone operator character (forgot the name) said “We’re the phone company (inseart Big Oil & Detriot). We don’t care, because we don’t have to!”
Okay, that’s my rant.
CNCMike….I’ve read several of your posts, and it’s clear that you are mechanically saavy. I am developing a business plan to produce E85 powered crate engines. I would really welcome any discussion with you about the effects, pro or con, of ethanol on the engine. Is there some way to communicate off this site, via email?
To follow up on Jeff’s corn/algae symbiosis, there is symbiosis beyond the fuel relations. Corn has next to no Omega3 lipids. Animals cannot be successfully raised on DDG feed alone and are presently supplemented with soybean for its moderate omega3 content. Selecting an algae that has an appropriate balance between oil production and omega3 content will make a more balanced feed.
Nutritionists tell us that we should have a 4 to 1 ration of omega6 to omega3 but most Americans are at a 10 to 1 up to a 40 to 1 ratio. Most nutritionists don’t even count beef and pork as having any omega3 content. Hence the view of the ‘natural food’ people that animals need to be pasture fed because it is the original photosynthesis cells of grass or algae that produce and contain omega3. The other major lipid missing would then be lysine which is necessary for rapid weight gain. It can be found in the DDG of barley based ethanol so a fairly complete diet can be produced from DDG’s if the right feed stock is used in appropriate proportions.
The total range of products from farm based ethanol needs to be considered and there are some wonderful opportunities out there. The one down side to corn is that high yields are dependent on significant nitrogen fertilization. This can result in runoff damaging streams and our waterways. But there are good ethanol feed-stock plants that can help solve that problem too. Anybody have any information on no till farming and co-cropping?
Great stuff Jeff, what are your sources?