Three Ethanol Tax Credits Are Extended For 2013

2013 begins on a positive note for the Ethanol,  Biofuel, and Wind Energy Industries as the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended three ethanol tax credits for 2013 and extended the Wind Energy production tax credit.

Growth Energy, the group leading national awareness of ethanol,  released the following statement:

“I commend both the Senate and the House of Representatives for recognizing the importance of renewable fuels and acting to extend both the cellulosic producer tax credit and the alternative fuel infrastructure tax credit through 2013…”

The full statement can be read on Growth Energy’s Website

The major ethanol benefactor of these tax credits is cellulosic ethanol, which is produced using non-edible portions of plant life and other non-food sources, which include municipal waste.  Although still in the development stages cellulosic ethanol has great potential to be a viable source of fuel for the future.   A number of full scale production plants are in development in the U.S. and globally a number of cellulosic plants are operating successfully.

Algae which has shown tremendous promise in scientific studies as an ethanol producing agent was also another ethanol source material added to the tax credit.  Biodiesel production tax credits were also extended for the next two years.

The Wind Industry had put a number of projects on hold until the tax credits were reinstated .  The benefits of these tax breaks for the Wind Industry may not be felt until 2014 when a lot of these projects are completed.

In 2012 the standard corn producing ethanol tax credit in the U.S. expired.  Since its expiration the ethanol industry has struggled, largely due to a drought, but it has been able to sustain itself and the implementation of E15 will further help it to succeed. The goal of the tax credits is to encourage the production of new renewable sources of fuel that could have potentially long term benefits in helping the U.S. achieve fuel independence.

2012 U.S. Presidential Candidates Mitt Romney (left) and Barack Obama (right).

With the 2012 U.S. Presidential election coming up on November 6th, some people might be wondering where the candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama stand on energy issues.  Energy issues would include oil and gas, ethanol, alternative energy, etc.  Here is a short list of energy sources and issues and where each candidate stands with them.

Oil

Obama – Has opened more coastal area and federal lands to oil production, and has increased regulations on oil companies. Wants to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies.  Wants to expand environmental regulations and green house gas regulations in regards to producing energy.

Romney – Supports opening more federal land for drilling.  Wants to reduce regulations that would preserve environmental gains, but not paralyze the industry.  Supports tax breaks for oil companies.

Natural Gas

Obama – Initially opposed the building of the Keystone Pipeline over concerns for the safety and health of American citizens.  Will reassess the pipeline at the beginning of 2013.  Wants to continue expanding shale gas drilling, and wants to follow up on federal safety standards for hydraulic fracturing.

Romney -  Supported the building of the Keystone Pipeline.  Wants to increase the amount of shale gas that is produced in the U.S. and wants to partner with Mexico and Canada in order to help do this.  Wants to help Europe develop shale gas so they can reduce their dependence on Russian gas.

Coal

Obama – Supports tougher rules for coal fired power plants.

Romney – Wants to streamline rules and regulations for coal plants.

Ethanol and Biofuels

Obama – Supports the Renewable Fuel Standard.  Wants to become energy independent and believes that by increasing biofuel production  over 300 million barrels of oil will be saved by 2022.  Supports increasing the blend of ethanol in gasoline and supports the development of biodiesel and other biofuels.

Romney -  Supports the Renewable Fuel Standard.  Wants the U.S. to become energy independent by 2020, and wants to eliminate regulatory barriers to the diversification of the fuel system.  No comments have been made on whether he would increase biofuel use in the U.S.

Nuclear Energy

Obama – Supports nuclear energy and the creation of more nuclear reactors.  Has used federal guarantees to reduce the cost of developing two new reactors in Georgia.

Romney – Supports nuclear energy and the creation of more nuclear reactors.  Wants to reform regulations on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and wants the commission to approve new designs for nuclear reactors within two years.

Alternative Energy

Obama – Announced 1 billion in tax credits for the production of alternative energy and trucks.  Supports alternate forms of fuel for vehicles, this includes ethanol, natural gas, and electric powered cars.  Also supports wind energy.

Romney – Supports renewable and alternative energy but not at the expense of traditional energy sources like oil, gas, and coal.  Would end the tax credit being given to wind energy producers.

Sources:

http://www.mnbiofuels.org/attachments/article/119/Candidate%20Positions%20on%20Biofuels%202012_2.pdf?utm_source=Final+of+Presidential+Candidate+Email&utm_campaign=Presidential+Candidate+Statements&utm_medium=email

http://2012election.procon.org/

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/candidates-energy-policy/p26796

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/29/obama-romney-climate-energy-records/1654979/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/29/obama-romney-climate-energy-records/1654979/

Great Biofuel Potential For A Non-Edible Plant

What is Arundo Donax?

Arundo Donax is a large cane plant that is native to Asia and parts of Africa.  It is currently showing great potential as a biofuel producing plant, and as a feedstock for producing cellulosic ethanol.  Despite being native to these portions of the world humans have brought it to Europe and North America, showing that it can thrive in versatile climates.

The stem of the Arundo Donax plant is very durable and sturdy and has been used throughout human history to make fishing poles, walking sticks, and many different types of flutes.  Currently they are used to make the reeds for woodwind instruments like the clarinet, saxophone, oboe, and bassoon, but recent studies are showing the potential this plant has to be converted into biofuel.

Arundo Donax has great biofuel potential because of how large the plant is and how fast it can grow.  Arundo Donax grows to heights between 20 and 33 feet tall on average, and can be harvested twice a year per field it is grown on.  Large amounts of fertilizer are NOT needed to grow this plant, and additionally it is also resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses.   This means it does not require a lot of pesticide thus saving farmers or growers of this plant a considerable amount of money.

Arundo Donax has also shown to offer protection against soil erosion and land degradation, and it even has even adapted to grow in saline (salt) land and water.  This ability to grow in harsher conditions and on harsher lands means that Arundo Donax will not need fertile land that is required to grow food crops, another major benefit.

States in GREEN are locations where Arundo Donax grows in the U.S.

Arundo Donax yields approximately 8,000-8,400 BTU’s of energy per pound, and about 20-25 tons of the plant can be produced per acre.  These energy yields plus its ability to grow in difficult areas makes this plant a great choice for producing biofuel.

Arundo Donax is already beginning to be applied to biofuel production.  Midway through 2012, construction on the largest cellulosic ethanol facility in the world will be completed in Italy.  The Crescentino Plant will be able to produce over 13 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol a year.  The primary feedstock for this plant will be Arundo Donax.

As the world continues to look towards alternative forms of energy, Arundo Donax looks to be another potential and realistic source of alternative energy.

Sources:

http://www.chemicals-technology.com/projects/mg-ethanol/

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ardo4

http://www.biggreenenergy.com/default.aspx?tabid=4269

Part 3:  Trends in Ethanol Energy Gains and the Energy Contributions of Ethanol Co-Products

This is the final blog article that discusses ethanol’s ability to produce energy gains.  The previous two articles focused on proving that ethanol is currently producing positive energy gains and proving that the primary research done by David Pimentel (research that claims ethanol is producing a net energy loss) is very flawed.

Ethanol has been producing positive energy gains for the past couple of decades as well as reducing the amount of energy needed to produce ethanol.  Technology has improved the efficiency of ethanol plants currently and will continue to do so as we move towards the future. In addition to improving the technology in ethanol production, ethanol also produces a number of co-products besides fuel that also increase the total energy yields of ethanol plants.  Both of these factors play a large role in ethanol producing positive energy gains.

Technology has improved many different areas in ethanol production.  Studies show that it took 5.8 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol in 1998, in 2010 it took 2.7 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.  This in turn helped to improve the BTU’s of ethanol produced ratio to BTU’s of energy used to produce ethanol.  Positive ethanol energy gains have increased from 1.37 BTU’s of energy in 1996 to 2.3 BTU’s of energy in 2005.

Note: BTU stands for British Thermal Unit, it measures how much energy is required to heat 1lb of water (or .11 gallons of water) from 39 degrees Fahrenheit.  1BTU=1055 Joules of Energy

In the 2010 NREL  report Current State of the U.S. Ethanol Industry ethanol producers had reduced water consumption by 26.6% from the years 2001 to 2006.  The report went on to say a typical sized ethanol plant uses as much water as town of 5,000 people or as much water as an average sized golf course.

Dr. Steffen Mueller at the University of Illinois at Chicago has researched how ethanol plants have become more energy efficient.   His study found ethanol plants have been able to reduce the amount of electricity they use by 32% from the years 2001 to 2008.

Meuller’s study also found that dry mill ethanol plants had reduced thermal energy by 28% since 2001.  Dry mill ethanol plants were using  26,000 BTU’s of energy on average to produce a gallon of ethanol.  A gallon of ethanol yields approximately 77,000 BTU’s of energy.

Note: Dry mill ethanol plants represent over 90% of the current ethanol plants in operation in the United States.  The remaining 10% are called Wet Mill Plants.

These improvements in technology have helped to increase ethanol’s energy outputs.  In addition to improvements in technology ethanol production allows the production of co-products.  These products which can also be factored into ethanol total production include:

• Distiller’s Grains -These are used as animal feed.  28% of corn used to produce ethanol is recycled and reused as animal feed.   Ethanol production currently gets around 16lbs of distiller grains from each bushel of corn. (1 bushel of corn = 56lbs).
• Carbon Dioxide – This is another by-product of ethanol production.  During the distillation process C02 is produced, this gas is usually resold to soda companies or any other company that produces carbonated beverages.

All of these technological trends show that ethanol is creating energy gains.  As the ethanol industry continues to grow the technology to produce ethanol will continue to get more efficient which will give the world a renewable, effective, and efficient energy source.

Sources:

Pimentel/Patzek Article Oil Ties and Arguments  http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/articles/ethanol_industry_refutes_david_pimentel_s_study_showing_negative_energy_balance_for_ethanol-27165.html

2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture Study http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

Pimentel Claims: http://www.freelists.org/post/biofuels-forum/Key-Differences-between-PimentelPatzek-Study-and-Other-Studies,1

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/PimentelComments4_5_05.pdf

National Renewable Energy Laboratory See Section 7.1 Net Energy Balance http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/pdfs/doe-02-5025.pdf

USDA Switchgrass yields http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

U.S. Ethanol Distiller Grains http://growthenergy.org/images/reports/ethanol_livestock.pdf

Dry Mill Ethanol Efficiency Gains http://www.ethanolrfa.org/exchange/entry/from-farm-to-biorefinery-ethanol-production-efficiency-improves/

Dry Mill Ethanol Efficiency (Thermal Energy) http://www.ethanolrfa.org/news/entry/dry-mill-ethanol-production-shows-significant-improvements-in-efficien/

2.1.1.1 DGS in the U.S. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/527.pdf

Part 2: Disputing Pimentel’s Ethanol Research

This is the second article in a three part series that focuses on debunking the myth that ethanol production creates a net energy loss.

Last weeks article focused on this myth’s origin and its strongest supporters  David Pimentel and Tad Patzek.  This week will focus on debunking the some of the inconsistencies found in their research compared to the results of other studies done on ethanol energy outputs, and it will discuss some of the key energy omissions from Pimentel’s/Patzek’s 2001 study.

Below is  a  list of the Pimentel Study’s most glaring problems along with rebuttals to why they are problems.

1. Pimentel – Ethanol production yields a 29% loss in energy when produced from corn
•    The U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab found a producing ethanol yielded a 30% gain in Energy when comparing 1BTI of fossil fuel to 1BTU ethanol.  This study was done shortly after Pimentel’s Study.
•    In the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 2010 report Current State of the U.S. Ethanol Industry the NREL finds the following
1.  The net energy balance of corn ethanol has increased from 1.76 BTU’s to 2.3 BTU’s since 2004.
2.  For every BTU of energy required to make ethanol, 2.3
   BTU’s of energy are produced.
3. Over the past 20 years ethanol yields have increased over 10% and corn yields have increased 39%.
2. Pimentel – Between 45% to 57% more energy would be lost in producing ethanol from wood or switchgrass
•    The United States Department of Agriculture conducted a study on switchgrass and found that it had a 540% energy yield, meaning it produced 540% more energy than it took to produce it.
3. Pimentel’s study uses outdated information or incorrect  data
•    Pimentel uses data for corn yields that exists before 1992.
•    Pimentel uses values for measuring energy to produce ethanol that were used in the 1980′s.
•    Pimentel uses 1990 world-wide values, not recent U.S. values for his figures determining how much energy is needed to produce fertilizer.
4. Pimentel’s study omits crucial data that could help determine ethanol’s energy production
•    Pimentel does not factor in dried distiller grains into ethanol’s energy output.  1/3 of all ethanol produced gets reused as distiller grains, which in turn is used to make animal feed.  This is huge source of energy not included in Pimentel’s study.

Pimentel’s study has many flaws making it an unreliable source of information.  His findings have been discredited by many scientists and government agencies within the U.S.  Next week will be part three of this series which will discuss the energy ethanol is currently producing and what the ethanol industry is expected to produce.

Sources:

Pimentel/Patzek Article Oil Ties and Arguments  http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/articles/ethanol_industry_refutes_david_pimentel_s_study_showing_negative_energy_balance_for_ethanol-27165.html

2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture Study http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

Pimentel Claims: http://www.freelists.org/post/biofuels-forum/Key-Differences-between-PimentelPatzek-Study-and-Other-Studies,1

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/PimentelComments4_5_05.pdf

National Renewable Energy Laboratory See Section 7.1 Net Energy Balance http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/pdfs/doe-02-5025.pdf

USDA Switchgrass yields http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

U.S. Ethanol Distiller Grains http://growthenergy.org/images/reports/ethanol_livestock.pdf