Overview of the Renewable Fuel Standard & Why It Is Good 4 the Climate- Center for American Progress

[Bill USA]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2013/12/11/80873/an-overview-of-the-renewable-fuel-standard-and-why-it-is-good-for-the-climate/

~~
~~

According to a peer-reviewed study by Argonne National Laboratory, corn ethanol, on average, lowers greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent compared to conventional gasoline.* The study took into account corn ethanol’s full production lifecycle, including fertilizer production, diesel used for farming, the transport of corn to the ethanol plant, the energy used to produce ethanol at the plant, the transport of ethanol to the market, and land-use changes.

~~
~~

President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan calls for the increased use of biofuels as a means of building a 21st-century transportation sector and reducing carbon pollution. Responsible for nearly 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, the transportation sector is the second-largest contributor of carbon pollution, behind electricity production. More than 84 percent of transportation emissions are from fossil-fuel combustion in on-road vehicles, such as cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles. Therefore, slashing pollution from these vehicles is essential to meeting the 2020 goal of a 17 percent reduction of greenhouse gas pollution below 2005 levels.


The RFS is a valuable policy that is creating a market for cleaner-burning biofuels that will reduce carbon pollution in the transportation sector and help address the urgent threat of climate change. Although the transition to advanced biofuels has been slower than anyone anticipated, the industry is on the cusp of explosive growth.

The development of advanced biofuels will only continue with the market certainty provided by the RFS, which enables companies to invest in the development and commercialization of cellulosic and advanced biofuels that are half as dirty as conventional fuels. Without the RFS, the diversification of fuel sources, the investment in advanced biofuels, and the effectiveness of U.S. climate policy will be severely limited. Through the RFS and the development of much cleaner biofuels, the United States can continue to reduce petroleum use, enhance energy security, and effectively address climate change.

* note that the 34% GHG reduction assumes a fuel efficiency that is 65% of gasoline's. It is not necessary to be confined to using FFVs which are not optimized for high octane ethanol fuel. Fuel efficiencies of 15% and 30% greater than that of gasoline's are possible which would result in a GHG reduction of 63% and 66% respectively._Bill USA

[4dsc]

1. Food for fuel is immoral

that is all.

[Bill USA]

2. I suppose this is supposed to be a claim that corn ethanol is driving up food prices. Corn ~ 1.6%

of retail food prices. PEtroleum is about 5% - 6% of retail food prices. While demand for corn impacts corn prices the supply of ethanol reduces oil prices.

http://www.badgerstateethanol.com/documents/news_FoodPrices_FactSheetB.pdf

Oil Prices and Other Major Factors Drive up Food Prices

Fact Sheet

Oil Prices and Other Major Factors Drive up Food Prices

According to the U.S. Government, economists and other analysts, the following factors are responsible for most of the increase in world food prices: higher oil and gas prices leading to increased costs of fertilizer, harvest, and transportation; increased demand as developing countries grow and people improve their diets; two years of bad weather and drought leading to poor harvests in parts of the world; and export restrictions imposed by some countries.1 Other factors include commodity speculation,2 the decline in the value of the dollar, and the increase in biofuel production.



Overall Higher Energy Costs Are a Major Cause of Higher Food Prices

Record prices for diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas, and other forms of energy increase costs throughout the food production and marketing chain. According to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, “a 10% gain in energy prices could contribute 5.2% to retail food prices.”3 An April 2008 study by economists at Texas A&M University concluded, “The underlying force driving changes in the agricultural industry, along with the economy as a whole, is overall higher energy costs, evidence by $100 per barrel oil.”4 96% of Food Price Rise in 2008 Has Nothing to Do with Biofuels

According to the Department of Energy, during the first 4 months of 2008, the all food CPI increased by 4.8 percent, with increased ethanol and biodiesel consumption accounting for only about 4-5 percent of the total increase while other factors accounted for 95-96 percent of the increase. In 2007, 97% of food price increases had nothing to do with ethanol.5 Further, ethanol has contributed only 3% of the 45% increase in global food prices, according to the Department of Energy. In terms of increased costs in the supermarket, this amounts to an average $6 -$10 increase per household.



Commodity Speculation Helps Increase Corn Prices
Commodities industry expert Michael Masters told a Senate committee that explanations for higher food prices that “typically focus on the diversion of a significant portion of the U.S. corn crop to ethanol production” are incorrect. “What they overlook is the fact that Institutional Investors have purchased over 2 billion bushels of corn futures in the last five years. Right now, Index Speculators have stockpiled enough corn futures to potentially fuel the entire United States ethanol industry at full capacity for a year. That’s equivalent to producing 5.3 billion gallons of ethanol, which would make America the world’s largest ethanol producer.” Such commodity speculation has driven prices higher than they would be under current conditions.


While higher oil prices are a primary factor driving up the cost of food, ethanol is helping families save on the cost of gasoline.
Any marginal increase in spending on food resulting from increased biofuels production are being more than offset by savings at the gas pump resulting from increased ethanol blending. According to a June 2008 analysis led by Merrill Lynch Commodity Strategist Francisco Blanch, “retail gasoline prices would be $21/bbl higher [50 cents a gallon], on average, without the incremental biofuel supply.” This translates to a $526 a year savings on gasoline for the average family.6


1 USDA/DOE Letter to Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, June 11, 2008.
2 Testimony of Michael W. Masters before the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, May 20, 2008.
3 “The Factors Behind Higher Food Prices,” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s Main Street Economist, March 2008.
4 “The Effect of Ethanol on Texas Food and Feed,” David P. Anderson, Joe L. Outlaw, James W. Richardson, David P. Ernestes, J. Marc Raulston, J. Mark Welch, George M. Knapek, Brian K. Herbst, and Marc S. Allison; Agricultural Food and Policy Center, Texas A&M University, April 10, 2008.
5 USDA/DOE Letter to Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, June 11, 2008.
6 “Biofuels driving global oil supply growth,” Merrill Lynch, June 6, 2008.1 USDA/DOE Letter to Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, June 11, 2008.
2 Testimony of Michael W. Masters before the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, May 20, 2008.
3 “The Factors Behind Higher Food Prices,” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s Main Street Economist, March 2008.
4 “The Effect of Ethanol on Texas Food and Feed,” David P. Anderson, Joe L. Outlaw, James W. Richardson, David P. Ernestes, J. Marc Raulston, J. Mark Welch, George M. Knapek, Brian K. Herbst, and Marc S. Allison; Agricultural Food and Policy Center, Texas A&M University, April 10, 2008.
5 USDA/DOE Letter to Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, June 11, 2008.
6 “Biofuels driving global oil supply growth,” Merrill Lynch, June 6, 2008.>

[Bill USA]

3. what is immoral is demagoguing an issue to protect Oil industry profits and a toxic business model.

Global Warming is accelerating. Replacing fossil fuels wherever we can with renewables slows Global warming. Without taking measures to fight Global Warming the entire Earth's environment will becomes even more in jeopardy. Without doing anything to combat Global Warming it will only accelerate and hundreds of millions of people will be will be forced to move as the land they live on is gradually submerged by rising oceans. Warming ocean water and acidification due to absorption of CO2 puts the entire marine food supply in jeopardy meaning billions of people will see a reduction in their food supply (for many people this will be a major loss in food supply).

Demagoguing an issue to protect the Oil Industry's profits may win the appreciation of EXXON - Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, et al, but to whatever degree of doubt and delay you may introduce into the situation, you only strengthen and advance Global Warming in its destructive progress and will make it that much more difficult to combat later.

If GW is not restrained enough, soon enough, it will get to the point that even if we cut ALL our GHG emissions it won't matter. Global Warming will have been strengthened so much by thawing permafrost (releasing more and more methane, which has 75 times the heat trapping capacity of CO2 - till it breaks down into CO2 and Hydrogen compounds) and loss of ice and snow cover - that even taking ALL our GHG emissions to ZERO won't matter because GW will be feeding on itself. It will be self-sustaining. This is what will come of demagoguing the issue - to protect Oil Industry profits. Such behavior takes the word 'immoral' to a new dimension.

[4dsc]

4. Nice red herring here

Food for fuel has nothing to do with protecting big oil profits so lay off the red herring asshat.


Corn ethanol is a poor substitute for oil too. Renewable like ethanol are not going to slow the growth of global warming either. Quit living in a make believe world. Corn ethanol is a waste and not sustainable.

[Bill USA]

5. do you think you've impressed anyone with your 'punk' language? How about a logical argument?

Last edited Tue Feb 4, 2014, 05:33 PM - Edit history (2)

"Red herring?"

I haven't seen you make a case for your proposition that making ethanol from corn has reduced our production of food any (keep in mind US farmers produce more than we can eat all the time. Also,[font color="red"] note that most of the corn crop is raised to feed Cattle - cattle which evolved to eat GRASS. Cattle which are healthier eating grass than they are eating corn - and which provide healthier meat when fed grass. All to provide consumers with cheaper red meat - something which is not necessary only optional.[/font]). The Government has set a limit on how much ethanol can be made from corn. Your approach is to demagogue the issue because you don't have any valid argument. And when countered, you resort to personal attacks rather than any logical argument. .... Doesn't say much for your argument or for you, does it?

(BTW I also mentioned as a way of increasing the supply of renewable alcohol fuel the production of methanol from biomass (this could be any biomass, such as forestry products waste). This would be added to the ethanol being produced and it could be increased in production volume faster than ethanol can. Methanol up to about 10% of the blend would not be that much of a problem - but if it was (like at a higher proportions of the blend), and if we are REALLY interested in fighting GW, then make all ICEs alcohol compatible. This is not a huge, or very expensive, technical challenge. We know how to do it and what it takes - so no technical questions to be solved.)

You say renewable fuels don't do anything to counter GW yet, have not offered any approach to countering GW. [font color="red"] This is why I supposed you are just interested in protecting Oil industry business and profits which ethanol has already cut into.[/font] This is the approach of the oil industry. The oil industry has spent beaucoup bucks to have pseudo studies done & published and mounted an aggressive publicity campaign against ethanol in particular - because ethanol presents a clear and present danger to their profits - by reducing the price of oil/gasoline (Big Oil Goes to College , and on Democracy NOW).


[font size="3"][font color="blue"]I am not actually engaged in a discussion with you, as it is clear that you are beyond reach of rational argument. [/font] I am presenting my comments for those who are able to think for themselves and are open to rational argument and the presentation of empirical evidence.


...and so, with these people in mind:


You say: "Renewable(s) like ethanol are not going to slow the growth of global warming"

Ethanol currently represents ~11% of light transportation fuel consumed. The Argonne National Laboratory's 2012 report puts Ethanol's GHG emissions reduction vs gasoline at 34% (using the 50th percentile - the median. This is a representative number as opposed to the 10th percentile number used by the EPA).

So, 34% of 11% yields ~3.73% GHG Emissions Reduction for the entire fleet of Light Vehicles.

... Not much you say?? [font color="red"]Well, how many Toyota Priuses would it take to get that much GHG emissions reduction?[/font]


So, convert the fleet GHG emissions reduction achieved by ethanol, to vehicles apply 3.73% to the Light Vehicle fleet of 247,900,000 cars and light trucks, which gives you: 9,236,708 vehicles.


Now, ... the Prius gets roughly a 32.6% reduction of GHG emissions per car (vs. a comparable payload and weight car..e.g. a Corolla).

You have to divide the 9,236,708 vehicles by the GHG reduction per car for the Prius... (.326).

9,236,708/(.326) = 28,317,801 Priuses


[font color="red"] So, you would need ~28 million Priuses to achieve the same amount of total GHG emissions reduction achieved by ethanol for last year and almost as much in the four previous years.[/font]

How long will it take to get 28 million hybrids on the road? Estimates vary, because there are a number of variables involved. In that time however, ethanol will be racking up GHG reductions like these every year * (unless the Oil industry has its way). How long it will take to sell 28 million hybrids depends a lot on the state to the economy over that period. When the GOP manages to undermine the economy - either by sabotaging Democrats efforts to build the economy or by enacting more Supply Side - Trickle Down Econocomics measures and Deregulation madness - then sales of expensive hybrids and PHEVs (!) will suffer. When people are worried about job security sales of cars in general suffer. And people worried about job security aren't likely to go out and spend an extra $8,000 (Priuses premium over a Corolla) for a hybrid or an extra $15,000 for a PHEV.


* Actually, the current FFVs we have on the road do nothing to take advantage of ethanol's high octane (relative to gasoliine) property which consigns us to much smaller GHG reductions with ethanol, than than are possible. The Ethanol enabled direct injection turbo-charged engine designed by three MIT scientists gets 30% BETTER mileage than gasoline and very nearly DOUBLES the GHG emissions reductions for ethanol calculated by Argonne Natl Lab (67% GHG reduction per mile vs 34% per ANL) (- this is better than 3 times the 10th percentile value used by EPA). The top engineering student teams competing in the Ethanol Vehicle Challenge - 1998 achieved 13% to 15% BETTER fuel economy than the stock Malibus got with gasoline - and this without downsizing. With this improvement in mileage you would improve the GHG emissions of ethanol,as calculated by ANL, by better than 70%!