11 Midwest Ag secretaries ask Obama to raise ethanol blend to 15 or 20 percent
The Agriculture secretaries from eleven states sent a letter to President Obama today asking that the amount of ethanol blended into gasoline be raised to 15 or 20 percent. Currently, this amount is limited to, at most, 10 percent unless we're talking about E85 fuel. Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey said that, "Ethanol has proven to have a positive impact on the American economy by creating more jobs, increasing domestic production and adding a larger tax base." The secretaries say that since the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (commonly known as EISA) requires 36 billion gallons of ethanol be blended into the domestic fuel supply by 2022, the EPA's 10 percent cap "hinders that opportunity." The continue: "Simply put, there is a government rule contradicting a government law. Now is the time to move forward by increasing the base fuel blend to 15 or 20 percent ethanol."
Read the full text of the letter after the jump.
[Source: Farms.com]
Photo by Nicholas_T. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
TEXT OF LETTER:
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to thank you for your strong support of renewable energy and respectfully request your continued leadership on this issue by encouraging the acceptance of ethanol blends beyond the current regulatory cap of 10 percent.
For more than 30 years, ethanol has had a positive impact on our economy. Clean, affordable, domestically produced ethanol has enhanced America's economy through job growth, increased domestic production and a larger tax base. In 2007 alone, the ethanol industry created more than 200,000 American jobs that cannot be exported or outsourced, while contributing $47.6 billion to our GDP and generating $4.6 billion in tax revenues.
Ethanol has environmental benefits as well. In addition to being completely biodegradable, ethanol has been shown to dramatically reduce tailpipe emissions. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 13 trillion tons of greenhouse gases were avoided in 2007 due to the use of biofuels. Researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln recently announced that ethanol produced from corn can reduce GHG emissions by as much as 62 percent relative to gasoline. As we expand cellulosic ethanol production in the coming years, even greater GHG reductions will be realized.
The EPA's longstanding decision to limit the base blend of ethanol to 10 percent was based on 1970s science, antiquated fuel systems designs, and outdated technology. Conversely, countries like Brazil have successfully utilized blends between E20 and E100 for decades. The EPA implemented the E10 blend limit at a time when ethanol production capacity and conversion efficiency was a fraction of what it is today.
In the 21st century, ethanol offers a sustainable solution to our country's energy needs, while reducing our dependency on foreign oil and addressing the serious challenge of global climate change.
The federal government embraced this concept through passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which among other things, mandated 36 billion gallons of ethanol be blended into our domestic fuel supply by 2022. However, the current EPA regulatory cap of 10 percent ethanol hinders that opportunity. Simply put, there is a government rule contradicting a government law. Now is the time to move forward by increasing the base fuel blend to 15 or 20 percent ethanol.
As you know, the American ethanol industry is under considerable financial stress. Much of this pressure stems from the fact that ethanol, unlike oil, is held to less than 10 percent of the market. By moving beyond the 10 percent cap, we can improve domestic investment, stimulate our economy with green jobs, and enable our country to comply with the existing Renewable Fuels Standard.
Timing is critical. American ethanol production has nearly reached 10 percent saturation. We must move to a base blend of 15 or 20 percent in 2009 in order to continue growing this vital industry. By working together to promote domestic production and improve market access, we can continue to deliver a clean, renewable fuel that has a positive impact on our domestic economy.
Thank you for your leadership and support.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
alexacoon 5:29PM (3/09/2009)
This is such a bad idea; so many vehicles and equipment were built before this and run badly already. I have an 03 Suzuki motorcycle that stutters and stalls now as 10% effectively makes it run 5% leaner. Since you burn twice as much alcohol as you do gasoline you can watch your mileage drop as well.
I cant wait to hear about how this will bump up the price of corn again and cause even more trouble; with all the fertilizer and fuel to grow/harvest corn do you even break even?
Reply
Brn 12:00AM (3/10/2009)
Sorry to hear about your '03 Suzuki. I live in Ethanol country. My '92 Ford never had a problem with it. My '98 Ford and my '00 Ford don't have problems with it either. Both also manage to blow away EPA mpg ratings.
To have fun with a phrase, you're all a bunch of Ethanol haters. :)
Isn't much of Ethanol based on feed corn? From what I understand, there's a surplus and a lot of it has to be thrown away. That's hardly taking food out of your mouths.
Ethanol is renewable. Dinosaurs are not.
Ethanol is based on a domestic product, not a product from people who hate us.
I'm quick to admit that Ethanol is far from perfect, but please recognize that ALL alternative means if propelling our cars have issues. Ethanol just seems to be the one that everyone likes to pick on.
Kumar 7:40AM (3/10/2009)
While it's great to try and highlight the positives of ethanol, not admitting the negatives doesn't help the cause.
The floods last year pointed out the major weakness of a mandatory requirement of X percentage of ethanol in fuel. You can't predict the weather and it's effect on crop yields.
Also, the ethanol business is still subsidized, meaning that even people who don't use ethanol are paying for inferior fuel economy.
Finally, living on the coasts with these requirements is a nightmare. It's more expensive to transport the ethanol from the Midwest than it is to move gasoline, and there are tariffs on the superior product from South America.
Carney 11:31AM (3/10/2009)
kumar, if we dropped our stupid and counterproductive tariffs on foreign ethanol, we'd have the entire world available to us as a source. Hard to have droughts and floods everywhere at once. Plus, we should ensure that all new cars are fully flex fueled, able to run high alcohol blends or pure alcohol as easily as gasoline, and not just ethanol but also methanol. Methanol can, today, with no research or waiting necessary, be made from any biomass, including weeds, garbage, and sewage, which last I checked there is no shortage of.
Brn 2:51PM (3/10/2009)
"While it's great to try and highlight the positives of ethanol, not admitting the negatives doesn't help the cause."
You missed the part where I stated that Ethanol has it's issues.
"Also, the ethanol business is still subsidized, meaning that even people who don't use ethanol are paying for inferior fuel economy."
You also missed the part where I said ALL alternative means of powering your car also have issues. One of those issues is that they're also subsidized.
I'm not going to play the point-for-point game. We could go back and forth all week. Ethanol has it's place, yet seems to be a little too popular to hate. It gets picked on more than other alternative methods of propelling your car. It's biggest positive is that your car can run a blend of it right now (except apparently Suzuki).
Kalle 6:00PM (3/09/2009)
But you can get hold of gasoline with no ethanol in it?
More research on ethanol is needed. This change will make more research happen.
Everyone would like to see more efficient production of ethanol.
On another note, ethanol can be used as a substitute for diesel as well, in 96% blend with ignition enhancers. There was a SAAB 9-5 Diesel converted to E96 with more hp and less consumtion as a result.
The problem with ethanol in diesel engines are the emissions. But this could perhaps be solved?
Reply
DaveD 8:54PM (3/09/2009)
This change will not make more research happen, it will simply cost us all another fortune. Who is going to pay for repairing and/or replacing all the current infrastructure so we can deal with this ethanol?
It is corrosive and damaging to many cars and the infrastructure we have in place and going above 10% blend is going to accelerate these problems.
If you want to talk about Butanol or something else, then we could at least consider it.
And of course we're ignoring the whole food for fuel debate. This is 100% spurred by a bunch of senators from big Ag states trying to get more pork money for big Agri-Business.
I don't want to drop the mpg in my car by putting more ethanol in the blend and it's a model year 98 so I certainly don't want to find out the hard way what that it doesn't handle the higher ethanol blends. Just start looking at Butanol and a big part of the ethanol bio-fuel objections go away. And it comes from the same sources as ethanol so not even the big agri-business guys can complain.
Yikes 9:11AM (3/10/2009)
DaveD, you totally summed it up.
The representatives from those states are looking for Obama to shovel more pork their way. They don't care one bit about the environment, the viability of corn for fuel, all they see are my tax dollars being re-distributed their way.
iridium130m 5:59PM (3/09/2009)
JUST DUMB.
Let's force us to use a fuel that is inherantly less fuel efficient, and much more corrosive not only to our cars, but to the gas stations underground tanks, lines and fuel pumps, causing more underground leaks. (yea, just becuase UL said the pumps MIGHT be OK, they are not approved, as neither is the underground plumbing as well.)
Not to mention the major source of ethanol is still provided from a major food source.
JUST DUMB.
Reply
floorman56 11:13AM (3/10/2009)
Not to mention the major source of ethanol is still provided from a major food source.
Ok ONE MORE TIME...
Corn not turned into ethanol
Grow corn .. Feed it to cow..Eat cow
Corn turned into ethanol
Grow corn .. run corn throught ethanol plant...empty still .. feed still run to cows ..eat cows
How is that removing food from the system????
Carney 11:40AM (3/10/2009)
Alcohol is somewhat more corrosive than gasoline, but the components of recent cars can tolerate ethanol, let alone E20, quite well. Methanol, another alcohol fuel which I view as a crucial part of the picture in any transition to an alcohol economy, is more corrosive than ethanol and does require better materials, but making cars fully flex fueled, able to run as easily on any alcohol (methanol or ethanol) as on gasoline, is a trivial, ($100) expense for automakers.
As for underground storage tanks, while un upgraded tanks may be a bit more likely to leak alcohol fuel than gasoline, the consequences of such a leak are trivial. Methanol fuel is no more toxic than gasoline is, BUT unlike gasoline it dissolves in water and thus dissipates into the vast planetary hydrosphere, and toxicity is all about concentration and dosage. (Ethanol is non toxic, even edible). Furthermore alcohol fuel readily biodegrades when spilled within days if not hours into harmless components.
You may be confusing methanol with MTBE, Methyl tert-butyl ether, a methanol derived chemical that was used as an anti-knocking agent but has been found to have significant groundwater contamination effects when leaked from gasoline station storage tanks.
Methanol itself is MUCH different, and lasting damage from spilling it is chemically impossible.
MikeW 6:32PM (3/09/2009)
Funny, last night switching tv channels, there was a thing of the local Fox news about a colorado company promoting iso-butanol.
If they are going to do this, at least leave a way out.
20% ethanol 87 AKI regular, 15% ethanol 90 AKI mid-grade, 10% ethanol 93 AKI premium
Most motorcycles use premium anyway.
Though more realistically 15% regular-87, 10% mid-grade-89, 5% premium-91.
The petrodollar is on its deathbead so we should use the vast oil deposits in eastern Montana/western Dakotas, or in Alaska.
Reply
iridium130m 7:01PM (3/09/2009)
Thats kewl...i can partially live with the option to step up a grade and go back down to E10.
scammer-killer 6:41PM (3/09/2009)
HORRIBLE IDEA. I can't wait for this to go through so I can get even LESS mileage out of my 20mpg truck.
Guess I'll be pulling the 71mpg scooter out of storage for commuting duty until someone will sell me an Aptera or Persu.
Reply
Nixon 7:44PM (3/09/2009)
Whatever they do, please avoid 15% like the plague. This would be 85% gas, and I'm certain that there are enough stupid people out there that would confuse this with E85 that there would be a complete mess.
Right now, what we currently call "E10" can actually be a wide range of mixes from 10% down to just a couple of percent. I would say that bumping it up to 15-20% is premature. The first step would be to actually make all "E10" gas actually be 10% Ethanol. There might not be any need to go further if just that is done.
Reply
MikeW 11:11AM (3/11/2009)
or how about they stop the seasonal variation with ethanol and just use E70 year round, problems averted.
JB 10:05PM (3/09/2009)
Why don't they just sell the extra corn off for some nice old moonshine? That would be a better use than putting more Ethanol in Gasoline.
Reply
Ackbar 11:15PM (3/09/2009)
Nobody except the corporate agriculture industry thinks this is a good idea. Geez, there are too many problems to list, but it should be an immediate show-stopper when something takes more energy to harvest and produce than you get out of it once it's converted to fuel.
Reply
CNCMike 1:10AM (3/10/2009)
Actually it is gasline that takes more energy to get each gallon into the tank of your car than you will ever get out of it by burning it. Ethanol actually has about an 8 to 1 positive EROEI.
Treehugger 12:05AM (3/10/2009)
This is ridiculous thinking
To mix ethanol to such high percentage you have to remove all the water from the ethanol which is not easy since ethanol loves water. So you have to spend a lot more energy than if you accept a little bit of water in it. Mixing ethanol to gazoline is not the right approach period !
Reply