M O R E    O N    T H E    S U B J E C T    O F    A L T E R N A T I V E    F U E L S    A N D    H Y D R O F R A C K I N G 


ALASKANS WHO DON'T MUSH NEED HELP PAYING FOR FUEL TO RUN THEIR AUTOMOBILES/TRUCKS!!!
In Weston, Connecticut and Seattle and Whidbey Island, WA (checking out hybrid car on the main drag in Coupeville) some folks are into it  (photos above).



Fracking gets a clean bill of health
NYPOST
By KAREN MOREAU
Last Updated: 12:34 AM, October 18, 2011
Posted: 10:37 PM, October 17, 2011

Back in April, anti-drilling Chicken Littles gleefully cackled and clucked about a massive “blowout” at a Pennsylvania natural-gas well and speculated that “thousands of gallons of frack fluid” were poisoning water wells and contaminating a tributary of the Susquehanna River, which flows into Chesapeake Bay. The Maryland attorney general threatened to sue the drilling company, with New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, chiming in.

Well, there must be plenty of rejoicing over saved salamanders now that a report has found “no environmental impact” from the Luther Township, PA, gas-well malfunction, which accidentally released well fluids.

The 179-page report, which was prepared by SAIC, a firm that specializes in working with governmental agencies, contains extensive water-sampling and other data collected in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the US Environmental Protection Agency. It shows no lasting effect on the environment as a result of a surface release of well fluids from Chesapeake Energy’s “Atgas” well site.

Chesapeake funded the study, which was conducted according to DEP protocols and accepted by the agency and presents the large set of data and technical tables. Based on the information gathered during the first two weeks after the incident, the review has produced several important conclusions. Most important: The discharge of well fluid from the event caused only minimal environmental impact. The impacts that did occur were localized, of short duration and confined to surface waters surrounding the site. There was no harm to a nearby unnamed tributary or its watershed and the Towanda Creek, and there was no effect noted about nearby or regional water wells.

This accident was among the most serious that can happen during the completion of an onshore shale-gas well. Yet nobody was injured, the public was never in danger, and there was no lasting impact on the environment, as the analysis shows.

New York’s DEC referred to the incident in its revised Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement and has recommended procedures to ensure public safety, while concluding that fracking can be done safely in most areas of the state.

But don’t expect the anti-fossil-fuel crowd to let scientific evidence get in its way. After all, this is the group that ignited public fear through the film “Gasland,” with its now infamous scene of a Colorado homeowner lighting his faucet on fire and claiming gas drilling was the culprit.

Never mind that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission investigated and found no indications of oil- or gas-related impacts to the featured water well.

Dissatisfaction with state-level regulation is common among critics of drilling, who want to see more federal EPA regulation.  Even EPA chief Lisa Jackson, however, testifying this year before a US House Oversight Committee, acknowledged that the environmental risk of hydraulic fracturing was practically nonexistent.

“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing,” she said.

The safety of hydraulic fracturing is well-documented, with zero confirmed cases of groundwater contamination in 1 million applications over 60 years.

And as the new report shows, that record remains intact -- despite the supposed big blowout in Luther.


Could Connecticut be on the biofuel frontier?
Christine Woodside, CT MIRROR
March 11, 2011

STORRS--Think of biofuel, and what comes to mind is vast acres of Midwest corn for ethanol, or a hobbyist fueling his tractor with old French fry fat. But in a lab at the University of Connecticut, researchers are looking into commercial-scale biofuel manufacturing using cooking oil, switchgrass and--perhaps most intriguing--algae.

The UConn team has received a $1.5 million federal energy grant they will use to transform a tiny lab where the dining halls' used cooking oil bubbles into fuel and runs the campus buses. This small room will become the test site for an industrial scale production of biofuels. They believe this could be the basis of a solid, local fuel economy.

Biofuels can be made of many things, from cooking oil to plants. Producing them requires relatively little space and leaves little environmental impact, said Richard Parnas, professor of chemical engineering at UConn, pointing to a cone-shaped container smelling like French fries in his campus lab.

Connecticut began to make small steps toward a biofuels industry six years ago, by classifying biofuel as a renewable energy resource. The UConn venture is one result, along with another biofuel producer and several biodiesel distributors.

For a few years now, Parnas has been producing biofuels in his own reactor on campus to help power the campus buses. The operation uses waste oil from the dining halls and will aim to use waste oil from restaurants around the region. But the big possibilities for biofuels remain the growing of algae, he says.

One acre of algae can produce about 20,000 gallons of fuel, compared with the 18- to 20-gallon yield from an acre of corn, making commercial production feasible for a densely-populated state like Connecticut. But the work with algae remains experimental: Parnas said he has witnessed some tests with algae so far only in Rhode Island. A colleague will be experimenting with other plants on the Storrs campus.

Biofuel research, nationwide, is still in its early stages. The federal government concluded after a research symposium a few years ago that even if plant-based fuels can be produced, it's not clear that they will find market demand.

Connecticut could take a leading role in biofuel research, said Fred V. Carsensen, director of its Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis and another partner in the UConn biofuel enterprise.

Five years ago, he noted, Connecticut committed itself to becoming a leader in stem cell research with an initial $20 million investment and a pledge of continued support. That effort, he said, "attracted world class researchers."

"Here's the analogy: If we did in biofuels or in alternative energy what we did in stem cells, the potential is enormous," Carstensen said.

But last year, he noted, then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell tried to cut the fund's allocation in half, to $5 million, though she was overruled by the legislature.

"The problem is that Connecticut does not have a tradition or a commitment to these kinds of well-designed, collaborative frameworks which are sustained," he said. "What was so scary about Rell proposing to cut the commitment to $5 million, it immediately calls into question the entire commitment."

The UConn biofuels project, RPM Sustainable Technologies, is an expansion of a consortium that has been producing biodiesel from waste cooking oil for the university's bus fleet. Boosted by the grant, and looking for investors, five partners will test a larger reactor that produces biofuels out of waste oil and study the potential of growing cellulosic plants and algae here.

Parnas is the main partner behind this project. He said that he is a "biofuels fanatic," and won an environmental award from the university in 2007 for his biofuel research. Biofuels can become part of the solution to the nation's energy problems, he believes, with more research, investment, and state policies to help those along.

Right now, with a $3.7 billion deficit, the state can't commit to incentives, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said. He said, though, that biofuels interest him.

"I'm all ears, very interested in it," Malloy said "I'm also interested in different waste sources for the creation of fuel." But for the next five or so years, Malloy said, the only strategic investments the state can afford are those "that are not going to drive costs substantially higher. This is not a time to drive costs substantially higher."

But Connecticut already has a nascent biofuel industry and policies in place to help it grow. The state's first commercial biodiesel refiner, BioPur, moved from a goat-farm garage to a factory in 2006 and began producing 400,000 gallons a year from waste vegetable oil to blend with car and truck fuel and home heating oil. Other refiners have opened in Southington and Waterbury and one is planned in New Haven.

Starting next year, state law will require a minimum of 2 percent of biodiesel in home heating oil sold in the state. The percentage will increase to 5 percent by 2012, 10 percent by 2015, 15 percent by 2017, and 20 percent by 2020.

Michael Devine, a consultant who promotes biodiesel in heating oil, said that if Connecticut accelerates the move to 5 percent biodiesel in heating oil, local small businesses could produce and/or sell the roughly 32 million gallons of biodiesel that would represent.

Devine said he started his company, Earth Energy Alliance in Westport, after selling home heating oil for two decades and deciding that it is "a lousy product"--expensive and subject to supply uncertainties.

He thinks that the small group of distributors selling biodiesel now would grow to perhaps hundreds, since home heating fuel must be delivered by truck. "It allows entrepreneurship to flourish," he said. "It takes a marketing quandary and replaces it with local fuel distributed locally."

Alaska Waste turning food grease into fuel:  Biodiesel plant to be used for truck fleet
Anchorage Daily News
By ELIZABETH BLUEMINK, ebluemink@adn.com
(06/18/10 01:11:47)

The Anchorage area's private trash hauler is making a multimillion-dollar investment to transform food grease into fuel for its fleet of garbage trucks.

Alaska Waste unveiled its new $3 million biodiesel plant in South Anchorage on Thursday. The company is collecting waste fryer oil from 240 local restaurants, groceries, hotels and hospitals from Girdwood to Wasilla. Last week, the plant churned out its first batches of biodiesel.

Executives said the fuel is being tested and gradually will be used by the company's truck fleet, blended with varying amounts of petroleum-based diesel.

The advantage of biodiesel is that it creates much less greenhouse gas emissions than regular diesel, said Jeff Riley, Alaska Waste's chief operating officer.

Before Alaska Waste joined the biodiesel bandwagon, most of the greasy goo produced in the Anchorage area had been barged to the Lower 48 to be converted for other uses, or was tossed into local trash bins and landfills. However, a handful of people in Southcentral Alaska also collect used veggie oil for use in their vehicles and home heating.

These home brewers were worried at first, but it doesn't look like Alaska Waste will drain the supply of oil in town, said Will Taygan, a Peters Creek resident who owns Arctic Vegeworks.

"(Alaska Waste) has targeted more large-scale waste-oil producers," he said.

He said home brewers still have a more than adequate supply from smaller restaurants.

Biodiesel was a big fad a few years ago when gasoline was fetching record prices, but Taygan said the fad ended when petroleum prices declined.

"Everyone who was (brewing it) five years ago is still doing it, but the other folks have quieted down," he said.

Riley, of Alaska Waste, said the company built the plant to capitalize on a useful product, reduce air pollution and keep grease out of the landfill. In the future, he said, Alaska Waste might team up with local fuel distributors to enable Anchorage residents to purchase some of the biodiesel.

The roughly 3,000-square-foot plant occupies a large dirt lot behind the company headquarters off Dowling Road on Rosewood Street, just south of the city's recycling center.

Last year, Alaska Waste began installing storage tanks at local commercial kitchens. The tanks store used fryer oil until the company's small tanker trucks arrive to pick it up.

"It's a win-win situation," said Greg Todd, the franchise owner for Dairy Queen Grill and Chill, whichhas five restaurants in the Anchorage area.

He said it saves restaurant employees time and effort handling the waste, and the tanks are much less "nasty" than trying to put the oil in a trash bin or in a steel drum for collection.

Other suppliers include the Fred Meyer, Safeway and New Sagaya grocery stores, McDonald's, Carl's Jr., Walmart, the Lucky Wishbone and the Peanut Farm.

Alaska Mill Feed & Garden Center collected used fryer oil from local restaurants and sent it to customers in the Lower 48 until last year. That's when Alaska Waste bought the company's equipment and took over the supply route.

Mark Goodman, a manager at Mill Feed, said he is pleased with how things worked out because the new plant allows the waste oil to be put to a good use in Alaska.

The biodiesel plant was finished in April, and it didn't need any government funding, according to Riley.

He said the project's financial support came from JL Properties, a large real estate firm in Anchorage that partially owns Alaska Waste.

At least one other Alaska business -- Juneau's Baranof Hotel -- collects used restaurant oil to turn into fuel. The Baranof uses the oil in its heating system.


Airlines Seek to Boost Market for Biofuels
YAHOO
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:54 a.m. ET
December 15, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fifteen airlines say they've signed memorandums of understandings that could lead to the purchase of hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel made from either coal or camolina, a weed that's a cousin to canola.

The agreements were announced Tuesday by Air Transport Association. United Airlines Chairman Glen Tilton -- who is also chairman of the airline association -- said the agreements show airlines are actively working to stimulate competition to jet fuel made from oil.

Airlines from the United States, Canada, Germany and Mexico have signed memorandums with AltAir Fuels LLC of Seattle to produce fuel from camelina and Rentech Inc. of Los Angeles to produce fuel from coal or petroleum coke.


Stamford WPCA one step closer to waste-to-energy plant
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Devon Lash, STAFF WRITER
Posted: 08/05/2009 09:35:09 PM EDT
Updated: 08/05/2009 09:35:09 PM EDT

STAMFORD -- The Water Pollution Control Authority has hired a Canadian biomass energy company to develop a plan for the facility's long-awaited waste-to-energy plant.

The WPCA's board voted, with one abstention, Monday night to hire Vancouver-based Nexterra for $45,000 to detail the logistics, process design, engineering, construction, cost and time line for the first phase of the project, which ultimately aims to power the city's water treatment facility through the gasification of dried wastewater sludge.

Half this cost will be funded through a federal Department of Energy grant, Ben Barnes, the city's director of operations and the WPCA board chairman, said.

A loosely organized group of Stamford residents believing the WPCA's waste-to-energy goal is not feasible or economically solvent, expressed concern that the agreement with Nexterra was approved before an independent financial and technical audit the board voted for in April was completed.

The nine voting WPCA board members voted to pursue the audit after a public uproar condemned the $40 million allocation. The board also withdrew the two-year funding request.

"What happened to the outside feasibility study?" resident Louis Basel asked. "This is a complete waste of taxpayers' money."

Barnes stressed the city was not entering into a contract with the company to execute the entire plan, rather availing itself to a detailed blueprint.

"Before we pull the trigger and enter into a deal to implement the system, we will have a detailed, fully formed transaction to review," Barnes said.

In May, the city shipped dried sludgewater pellets to Nexterra and testing showed the company produced a higher quality gas from incinerating the dried pellets than two other companies in the running -- Kopf, a German company, or Prime Energy of Oklahoma, WPCA Executive Director Jeanette Brown wrote in a board memo.

Two aspects made Nexterra stand out to the WPCA -- its use of wood fuel to power the gasification system and its partnership with General Electric and the company's Jenbacher engine, which is made to run on non-traditional fuel, Barnes said. Nexterra did not return calls for comment.

The city now pays about $43 per ton to get rid of wood now, Barnes said, which costs about $258,000 annually. Stamford could recycle some of this wood through the treatment plant, he said.

Basel, however, said the Nexterra gasifier is designed to run on 3-inch pieces of wood without chemicals, paints, nails, other metals, rot and leafy greens. In other words, he said, not what the city hauls away after a storm or receives from demolition waste.

But Barnes said even with the processing costs, wood fuel -- a "tried and true technology" -- would be fairly cost effective and the fuel can contain up to 10 percent contamination.

The unusually lengthy two-and-a-half hour meeting answered many concerns, board member Louis Casale said.

Initially worried about the delay in choosing an auditor, board member Alan Barnett said it has turned out to be beneficial, because now auditors will have access to Nexterra's test data.

The audit is proceeding, albeit slowly, Barnett said. The board's selection committee will meet Tuesday to vet the first round of companies, which, if selected, will then have about three months to complete a report.

Barnett said board members were also initially troubled that Brown "only presented what she had determined as the best choice."

"What she didn't do -- and which during the course of the meeting she explained -- is the process she went through to get to that one choice," he said, adding the board asked Brown to send a list of the other 18 companies in running and the reasons she discounted them.

Yet, the group of residents is far from pacified and haven't changed their stance of the usefulness of the project.

Test data from a shipment of Stamford's dried wastewater pellets to Nexterra still show the project will need additional energy to power the plant, resident George Stadel said.

"We all agree the plant should be disassembled and sold," Stadel's colleague Bruno Valenzisi said.

The city had previously anticipated the energy produced by incinerating pellets could power the process to dry the next round of wastewater and possibly even take the water treatment plant off the electrical grid.

Barnes said the city believes it can amass the necessary energy by supplementing with inexpensive wood waste or natural gas.

"The Nexterra folks are not satisfied they had an opportunity to maximize control of gasification process, and they believe they can, with more time, further optimize that," he said.

Big trash-to-energy plant proposed in Valley
CT POST
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Updated: 05/06/2009 08:40:00 AM EDT

WATERBURY -- A Massachusetts company wants to build a plant here to process garbage into electricity.

Chestnut Hill BioEnergy has signed an agreement to buy the site of a former factory in Waterbury and convert it into what it says would be the nation's largest food-waste-to-energy plant.

The company says the plant would be able to produce electricity for 10,000 homes.

Chestnut Hill representative toured the site Tuesday and say they are awaiting approvals from state and local officials.

The plant would accept 625 tons of garbage a day and generate 12 megawatts of electricity, which it would sell to Connecticut Light & Power.

The company says the plant would also create 40 to 50 jobs.
Alaskans learn how to make their own fuel
BIODIESEL: It's not easy, but the result is a $2 a gallon alternative.
Anchorage Daily News
By RINDI WHITE, rwhite@adn.com
Published: June 22nd, 2008 12:22 AM
Last Modified: June 22nd, 2008 04:34 AM

PALMER -- Two bucks a gallon to make your own biodiesel sounds like a bargain compared to $5 to pump a gallon of gas or heating oil. But operating a processing plant in your garage might be more of a hobby than you're willing to take on.

Sandi Wilson heats her Knik-Goose Bay home with heating oil. At about $5 a gallon for a 500-gallon tank, a full tank runs $2,500. Ouch. What's not to like about cutting that to $1,000?

So with that idea in mind, Wilson joined 18 other students for Will Taygan's Backyard Biodiesel class June 14 at the Spring Creek Farm north of Palmer.

Taygan has taught the benefits of biodiesel for three years.

"This is almost like a chemistry class. It sounds a little more complicated than I was thinking," Wilson said after class started.

CHEMISTRY 101

Lined up on the table she shared with two others were one-liter soda bottles, graduated cylinders, syringes, chemicals, safety goggles and gloves. Class members prepared first to calculate how much lye or potash they would need to convert the warmed vegetable oil in front of them into fuel. Lye and potash act as a catalyst for the required chemical reaction.

Taygan explained that vegetable oil, salmon oil and other oils used to make biodiesel are triglyceride molecules, a chain of three fatty acids attached to a glycerin molecule. The chemical reaction involves separating the fatty acid chains from the glycerin.

"It's a big, heavy molecule. It makes the oil sticky and thick. We want to replace it with a lighter molecule, methanol," Taygan said.

Taygan explained how to use methanol to split the glycerin molecules off each molecule of vegetable oil, using lye or potash as a catalyst. Following the reaction the liquids separate into a glycerin layer and so-called "fatty acid methyl esters," the chemical name for biodiesel, which floats on top of the glycerin.

A clear two-liter bottle of biodiesel that Taygan obtained from salmon oil showed about one-fifth of the bottle filled with a dark liquid that looked like cola, topped by what looked like orange soda. The dark stuff was glycerin, the light stuff biodiesel. Burn it and it smells like cooked salmon, Taygan said.

But getting to that point involves several steps that determine just how much catalyst is needed to separate the glycerin from the biodiesel. Too much and the fuel turns to sludge, too little and the conversion is incomplete.

"I don't think people knew this was going to be a chemistry class," Taygan said while the students pored over their calculations a second time.

RECOVER, REUSE

Over four hours, the students made a few liters of purposefully bad batches so they could tell the difference between good fuel and bad.

After waiting an hour for the reaction to occur, the students poured off the glycerin and added water to wash the remaining impurities out of their fuel. After drying, the biodiesel is ready to be poured directly into a fuel tank.

Although glycerin is a waste product in Taygan's class, some people refine it through a still to separate the methanol. The most costly ingredient in the refining process, the recovered methanol can be used for another batch of fuel. The glycerin can be sold or used as degreaser or homemade soap.

After the class, Wilson said she didn't foresee making the fuel on her own, although she might buy fuel made by other class members if they have extra. She planned to keep the biodiesel portion of her heating oil to 20 percent. Anything higher and the fuel tends to gel in low temperature.

"If you use it in a vehicle it's great, but to use it as heating fuel, it's a lot of work," she said.

GARAGE REFINERY

The Backyard Biodiesel class was the largest of its kind held in Alaska, Taygan said. He's gearing up to teach salmon fishermen later this year how to turn salmon oil into fuel for their boats. He'll give a biodiesel overview Aug. 9 at the Alaska Renewable Energy Fair at Delaney Park Strip in Anchorage and plans to offer another hands-on tutorial in November.

Tim Smith, a Navy recruiter who took the Saturday class, said he was glad to learn hands-on a process he has been reading about online for months.

Smith is eager to start using biodiesel and already has what's called an appleseed processor set up in his garage. It's a unit he crafted out of a used water heater, a few recycled barrels, some hoses, fittings and pumps to make things flow smoothly from one process to another. He figured he has about $200 into the setup.

"It's all about being an Alaskan and scavenging parts," Smith said.

He said he plans to perfect his brewing process and, eventually, process enough to drive his 1998 Dodge pickup to visit family in Wisconsin entirely on biodiesel.

Making biodiesel is a lot more work than pulling up to a gas tank and swiping a credit card, but Smith said he's committed to the effort on a moral level. It's a meaningful way to buy local and supporting American farmers, he said.

"If it costs me 50 cents more a gallon to make biodiesel, I would because I could do it locally. It's not just about money, it's about people standing up and paying for something made in the U.S. again," he said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find Daily News reporter Rindi White online at www.adn.com/contact/rwhite or call her in Wasilla at 907-352-6709.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOIN THE CLASS: Will Taygan will teach Backyard Biodiesel to small groups for $40 per person. Call him at 688-5288 or e-mail him at will@alaskabiodiesel.org.

NATIONAL BIODIESEL BOARD:

www.biodiesel.org

WILL TAGYAN's site:

vegwerks.wordpress.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Biodiesel Q&A

Q. What is biodiesel?

A. The National Biodiesel Board defines biodiesel as a "domestic, renewable fuel for diesel engines derived from natural oils like soybean oil, and which meets the specifications" of the federal biodiesel standard. It can be used in compression-ignition, or diesel, engines "with little or no modifications" and is biodegradeable, nontoxic and "essentially free of sulfur and aromatics."

Q. Can I dump a jug of canola oil in my fuel tank?

A. Biodiesel and so-called SVO or straight vegetable oil are different liquids. Biodiesel is vegetable oil that has been refined to remove the glycerin molecules. SVO users must convert their engine with heat exchangers, filters, insulated fuel lines and other parts to burn the thicker oil.

Q. Does it have to be mixed with diesel fuel?

A. It can be blended or used straight. Biodiesel promoter and instructor Will Taygan powers his Volkswagen Jetta with 100 percent recycled and processed vegetable oil. The federal government calls any fuel with at least 20 percent biodiesel an alternative fuel.

Q. Does it provide as much power to the engine as diesel fuel?

A. More, Taygan says, because biodiesel has more oxygen than diesel and provides a cleaner burn. Biodiesel made from virgin soybean oil provides 3.2 units of energy for every single unit of fossil fuel. Using restaurant waste oil, Taygan said, more than doubles that energy balance. Ethanol, comparatively, is one unit of energy to one unit of fossil fuel.

Q. Will burning biodiesel void my vehicle warranty?

A. According to the National Biodiesel Board, "most major engine companies have stated formally that the use of blends up to 20 percent will not void parts and workmanship warranties."

-- Source: National Biodiesel Board and Will Taygan


Concerned about these issues, the herd faces upwind of E.P.A.

Biodiesel Makers Lash Out at E.P.A. Rule
Bloomberg News
By Kate Galbraith
May 7, 2009, 2:10 pm 

A proposed emissions standard from the E.P.A. would “cause a significant failure in the biodiesel industry,” said Joe Jobe, the chief executive of the National Biodiesel Board.Like their ethanol counterparts, biodiesel producers are chafing at the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed methods of calculating their fuel’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The E.P.A.’s proposed rule, released on Tuesday, finds that biodiesel made from soybeans (the predominant feedstock in this country) produces, under one scenario, 22 percent fewer emissions than petroleum.

That is well short of requirements in 2007 energy legislation, which states that biodiesel must produce 50 percent fewer emissions than petroleum (though the rule proposed on Tuesday could nudge that requirement, which allows for some flexibility, down to 40 percent).

“It is just inaccurate to call what the E.P.A. is using here as science,” said Joe Jobe, the chief executive of the National Biodiesel Board, an industry body (click here for a related press release).

“It’s a guess, and it’s a bad guess at that because it absolutely defies common sense,” Mr. Jobe added.

Biodiesel producers led by Mr. Jobe are particularly incensed about how the E.P.A. accounted for “indirect land use changes,” a subject that has generated controversy in the ethanol industry as well.

The idea is that growing soybeans in the United States to make biodiesel could displace cropland for growing food. Crops for food would then theoretically relocate to places like Indonesia, where clearing the land to make way for the crops might involve cutting down the carbon-digesting forests.

The E.P.A. proposal calls for including emissions associated with such potential land-use shifts when measuring the overall emissions profile of biofuels and ethanol.

“We clearly disagree with first of all their hugely broad interpretation of this indirect emissions,” said Mr. Jobe. “We also disagree with their assumptions and we disagree with their methodology.”

Mr. Jobe said that, without the indirect emissions taken into account, his industry accounted for 80 percent fewer emissions than conventional diesel in the United States.

Like the ethanol industry, he argued that petroleum producers ought also to be held to account for their indirect emissions, in a spirit of fairness. The accounting for future international land-use changes resulting from biodiesel production, he said, is simply “hypothetical.”

Should the E.P.A.’s proposed rule go through, Mr. Jobe warned, “It would cause a significant failure in the biodiesel industry.”

The E.P.A. proposal is the latest in a wave of troubles battering the biodiesel industry. Europe has slapped a tariff on American biodiesel exports; the price of regular diesel has fallen below that of biodiesel; the credit crisis has harmed new plants; and a tax credit set to expire in December has not (yet) been extended.

Major refiners like Imperium Renewables in Washington State have suspended production, and the National Biodiesel Board has estimated that production could fall by half this year compared with last.

“It’s been blow after blow,” said Mr. Jobe.



Ethanol Industry’s 15% Solution Raises Concerns
NYTIMES
By CHRISTOPHER JENSEN
May 10, 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to make an important and far-reaching decision this year that will affect more than 500 million gasoline engines powering everything from large pickups to family cars to lawn mowers: whether to grant the ethanol industry’s request to raise the maximum amount of ethanol that can be added to gasoline.

That request has engine manufacturers and consumer advocates worried about possible damage, service station owners in a tizzy over the financial and legal implications and a leading petroleum industry group saying the move is unwise and premature.

Specifically, ethanol producers are asking that the maximum ethanol content in the most common blend of gasoline be increased from 10 percent — a limit set about three decades ago — to as much as 15 percent. The blend the industry hopes will become common is known as E15, but the E.P.A. could approve a blend between E10 and E15.

Last year, nearly three-quarters of the gasoline sold in the United States contained some ethanol, according to the American Petroleum Institute. E10, which is 10 percent ethanol, is by far the most common fuel, though the E.P.A. has approved the use of ethanol blends up to 85 percent — but only for the limited number of new and late-model cars and trucks certified by manufacturers as “flexible fuel vehicles.” The ethanol industry wants E15 to replace E10 as the standard fuel found at most stations.

The issue came before the E.P.A. in early March when Growth Energy, an ethanol lobbying group, and 54 ethanol manufacturers asked the agency for a waiver of the Clean Air Act so that more ethanol could be added to gasoline.

Although the request went largely unnoticed by the public, it got the attention of anyone who makes or sells gasoline engines, as well as some environmentalists and consumer advocates.

Approving E15 would have a huge impact on consumers, said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, and could cause problems including the voiding of car warranties. “There’s a lot to worry about,” he said. “All a consumer has to do is look at the fuels section of the owner’s manual, which says that the use of fuel above 10 percent ethanol may result in denial of warranty claims.”

Nearly 250 million cars and light trucks are registered in the United States, according to Experian Automotive. But the impact would be even broader. Kris Kiser, executive vice president of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, a trade group, estimates that a change would affect 300 million engines in everything from chainsaws to weed trimmers.

The National Marine Manufacturers Association says 12 million boat engines would also be affected.

Growth Energy, whose co-chairman is Wesley K. Clark, the retired Army general and former Democratic presidential candidate, has told the E.P.A. that it has proof from several studies that E15 will not damage engines and will result in cleaner air while reducing the nation’s reliance on oil.

The studies were done by groups including the federal Energy Department, the State of Minnesota, the Renewable Fuels Association, the Rochester Institute of Technology, the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research and Stockholm University in Sweden.

Michael Harrigan, a former Ford Motor Company fuel-system engineer who is now a consultant to Growth Energy, said automakers had been doing enough testing that there should be no problems using E15.

And Tom Buis, the chief executive of Growth Energy, said, “We are confident in the science we prepared.”

•

But confident or not, Growth Energy has plenty of opposition from groups that say some of the studies it cites are inconclusive. The critics also say its assertions are unproved and in some cases misleading.

While automakers generally favor wider use of biofuels, Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing 11 automakers, said Growth Energy had failed to prove that E15 would not damage vehicles engineered to run on a maximum of 10 percent ethanol. More testing is needed, he said.

“We are not asking for this to be delayed forever,” Mr. Territo said. “We are asking for this to be delayed until the testing is complete.”

Mr. Kiser, of the outdoor power equipment group, said some initial tests already indicated that E15 could cause serious problems — including safety issues — with some small engines.

At Honda, which makes a wide range of engines for products from minivans to power generators, the concern is that the effects of a big increase in an additive like ethanol are unknown, said Edward B. Cohen, vice president for government and industry relations at American Honda. “The impact can be on the emissions system, like the catalytic converter,” he said. “It can be on the various tubes or couplings that are part of the fuel system, and it could affect the performance of the vehicle, particularly cold starting.”

Honda can design engines to run well on new gasoline blends, Mr. Cohen said. The issue is the legacy fleet, whose engines were designed over two decades for varying requirements. There is no single answer, Mr. Cohen said, to the question of how E15 would affect them.The American Petroleum Institute is also concerned, said Robert Greco, the group director of downstream and industry operations. He said more research was needed — probably several years’ worth — before the institute would be convinced that E15 was safe for so many different kinds of engines.

“We think that the current waiver request is premature,” Mr. Greco said. “The science isn’t in yet.”

And Jeremy Martin, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy group based in Cambridge, Mass., said there was simply not enough solid information on which to make a decision that would have such a broad impact.

“We shouldn’t just look at a little data and extrapolate,” he said. “There are rules here, and there are procedures. And there is a proper engineering way to come to this determination. One can guess about the most likely outcomes, but that is not sufficient to put all the fleet at risk.”

Wendy Clark, group manager and principal researcher in the fuels performance group at the Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said a lot of credible organizations were studying E15. But she said it was too early to know for sure how engines would be affected. One question is how many of the studies will be done before Dec. 1, the date by which the E.P.A. is required by law to make its decision.

Mr. Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety said: “What the ethanol people are asking the consumer to do is bear the risk. If only 1 percent of the vehicles on the road today had E15-related problems, that would be about 2.5 million vehicles.”

Among those concerned about the proposed change are service station owners, many of whom fear that their pumps and fiberglass storage tanks would need to be replaced. They also fear legal problems including lawsuits from customers claiming their vehicles were damaged by the fuel.

“It is a horrible thing for our members,” said Carl Boyett, president of the Society of Independent Gas Marketers of America.In their March request to the E.P.A., proponents of the waiver said E15 would provide “increased energy security, enhanced economic development, creation of American jobs, reduced transportation costs and environmental benefits.” The ethanol manufacturers contend that the increase is necessary because of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That act includes a renewable fuels standard that requires a steady increase in the use of biofuels in the United States — to 36 billion gallons in 2022 from 11 billion gallons this year. To meet the goals, refiners must add biofuels to gasoline.

The industry has been meeting the requirements. In 2007 , it was required to use 4.7 billion gallons of ethanol and it actually used 6.85 billion, according to the petroleum institute. Last year, when the requirement was 9 billion gallons, the industry used 9.6 billion.

But Americans are now buying far less gasoline than was expected when the law passed. That decline has the industry worried that as early as 2011 or 2012 it will be impossible to meet the renewable fuels standard with a 10 percent limit, Mr. Greco said.

Mr. Buis of Growth Energy said: “We are up against a blend wall. That cap needs to be raised.”

While adding more ethanol would help refiners meet the law, it would not improve fuel economy. An October 2008 study for the Energy Department tested 16 late-model cars and found, on average, that mileage dropped 5 percent with E15 compared with gasoline that contained no ethanol.

In deciding whether to raise the cap, the E.P.A. says it must consider not just emissions, but also vehicles’ durability and drivability “over their useful lives.” The agency has acknowledged that E15 is a complex issue, given that engines vary widely in their age and sophistication. Some might run fine on E15 while others might be susceptible to problems.

The E.P.A. says one possibility is that it could approve the use of E15 for some vehicles or engines but not for others.

Mr. Martin of the Union of Concerned Scientists says tests may show that vehicles produced starting with 2004 models could run safely on E15. That year, more sophisticated engine controls were required, making it more likely their systems could detect and compensate for fuel variations. About 79 million cars and light trucks have been produced since the 2004 model year, Experian Automotive says.

Mr. Buis of Growth Energy said that the advantages and safety of E15 were clear and that allowing higher ethanol content would help to make the nation less dependent on petroleum. He said there was no reason to delay.

“You know, some people don’t want to do anything — they just want to test, test, test or study, study, study,” Mr. Buis said. “You know, this nation has been stalling for 30-some years from becoming energy independent.”
Don’t Single Out Ethanol on Land-Use Changes, Says Trade Group Chief
GREEN NYTIMES
By Kate Galbraith
May 7, 2009, 7:45 am
 
Bob Dinneen, the president of the Renewable Fuels Association, said ethanol is uniquely saddled with measuring the indirect land use changes associated with its production. Bob Dinneen, the president of the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group, stopped by our New York offices today to discuss recent moves by the Obama administration that offer both good and bad news for the industry.

On Tuesday, the administration moved to provide loan guarantees and other financial help to struggling ethanol producers. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a more comprehensive way of measuring the carbon impact of ethanol that that puts the industry in a lesser light.

According to Lisa Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, the ethanol industry currently produces 16 percent fewer emissions than gasoline — short of a requirement of 20 percent. This 16 percent tally factors in “indirect land use,” in accordance with the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.

That means that in addition to weighing the carbon emissions from fertilizer and tractor fuel, the E.P.A. accounted for the idea that corn grown for ethanol in this country displaces food crops, driving the expansion of agriculture — and the loss of precious, carbon-capturing forest land — elsewhere on the planet to compensate for the lost food and feed supply.

Mr. Dinneen emphasized that his group was perfectly willing to factor in such indirect land-use changes. But he expressed concern that biofuels are the only industry for which this calculation is made. Petroleum, for example, does not factor in land-use changes — and besides, he said, “Where’s the carbon impact associated with development in suburbia?”

“They can’t just do it to us and not to everyone else,” he argued.

Mr. Dinneen welcomed the comment period that will follow the E.P.A.’s proposals, and said that the ethanol industry believed that adjustments on the land-use front are needed.

“Right now, I think the model is too uncertain, the assumptions are out of whack and it needs to be promulgated more fairly,” he said.

On the subject of cellulosic ethanol — a fledgling but more climate-friendly type of ethanol made from non-food sources like stalks or switchgrass — Mr. Dinneen expressed doubts that federal requirements for the country to use 100 million gallons of the fuel next year would be met. No commercial-scale plants are currently in operation in this country, though a few are being built, with a Range Fuels plant in Georgia being perhaps the furthest along.

“One hundred million gallons in 2010 is going to be a challenge,” Mr. Dinneen conceded. The 2011 target of 250 million gallons, he said, is “probably also going to be hard to meet.”