Tag Archives: EPA

EPA Report Says Biofuels Bad for the Environment

January 31, 2011   Karl   No comments
epa_logo

EPA Report Says Biofuels Bad for the Environment

The world is on the brink of an energy crisis and what could be termed an “energy revolution” is on the rise to address the need for clean affordable power. Renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal are gaining ground in the energy sector, but perhaps one of the greatest hopes—especially in the transportation and diesel machinery industries—is biofuels. The ability to store a liquid as a combustible energy source is an oftentimes overlooked advantage that biofuels have over electrical storage systems such as lithium batteries. The commercial airline sector is certainly investing in a biofuels future, and mining companies are beginning to take advantage of biodiesel to power their gargantuan machinery.

However, the EPA has released the first draft of their report: Biofuels and the Environment: The First Triennial Report to Congress (EPA/600/R-10/183A). The report is the result of the 2007 governmental mandate to increase biofuel production in the US to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. It finds that biofuel production in the United States has not proven to be environmentally sound, particularly corn ethanol production. Water contamination through chemical runoff, the destruction of natural habitats, and concerns over invasive species through the increased demand for feedstocks are just a few of the major concerns put forth in the EPA’s findings.

The Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol industry trade group, responded, the “EPA’s failure to provide this report in any context with the environmental degradation done by fossil fuel exploitation and use is irresponsibly misleading. Energy and environmental decisions do not exist in a vacuum.”

The association further added, “the use of biofuels, when all things are equally considered, is a far better energy choice than Canadian tar sands, oil shale, and other increasing sources of petroleum,” the group added.”

Biofuels have been held up as one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels due to their similar combustible nature and compatibility with already existing combustion engines. The U.S. government even increased the standard ethanol levels in gasoline mixtures from 10 percent to 15 percent for certain vehicles in weeks past in an effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Will this new report make the government think twice about this decision? What’s more, how will this report effect investment in biofuels? The EPA makes a point of stating that this report is still in draft from and should not be quoted or used for official analysis just yet, but its findings should give investors and policymakers a heads-up as to what may be on the horizon for the biofuels market in the United States.  To read the full report click here.

Read More

Obama calls for more biofuels investment, no oil subsidies

January 26, 2011   Karl   1 Comment

Obama shows his support for biofuel

Calling it “our generation’s Sputnik time,” U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a request during his State of the Union speech for Congress to continue to invest in biofuels and renewable energy technology. “Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach of a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race,” he said. “And in a few weeks, I will be a sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology.”

Offering a hint as to his strategy to further fund biofuels technology, Obama suggested that Congress should eliminate subsidies for oil companies. “Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s,” he said. His declaration was met with applause from Congressional members, but the swift response from the petroleum industry indicates passing legislation to end oil subsidies will be a hard fought battle. American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard called Obama’s speech a missed opportunity and countered Obama’s claim that investing in biofuels and clean energy will create new jobs. “The oil and natural gas industry is a key driver of new jobs and economic prosperity,” Gerard stated. “Producing more oil and gas at home, which most Americans want, could create hundreds of thousands of jobs, reduce our deficit by billions, and enhance our energy security … The oil and natural gas industry provides over 60 percent of America’s energy, and it will continue to be the energy leader for decades to come. We need to produce U.S. oil and natural gas resources. This means getting back to work in the Gulf of Mexico, access in Alaska, and opening up the Atlantic and Pacific coastal areas to exploration. This is an issue the President and the new Congress should address.”

Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen pointed out that the domestic ethanol industry already supports approximately 400,000 jobs and “we have only begun to scratch the surface” on the country’s potential for ethanol production. “The potential of domestic ethanol production to meet the challenges facing this nation is great and can be unleashed through sound, responsible public policies,” he said. “American ethanol producers stand ready to work with President Obama, his administration and this Congress to implement thoughtful policies that are sensitive to fiscal concerns yet continue to foster the kind of innovation that has made this nation the leader in renewable fuel technologies.”

Already this year, the Obama Administration has taken steps to further support biofuels growth in the U.S. The U.S. EPA recently expanded its approval for E15 use in vehicles to include model years 2001 to 2006. The USDA awarded $405 million in loan guarantees to cellulosic ethanol producers on Jan. 20 and additional guarantee approvals are expected soon. The USDA also followed through on a late-2010 declaration to provide assistance to advanced biofuel producers, authorizing more than $10 million to be issued to advanced biofuel producers in 33 states. Funding for both the loan guarantees and the producer payments was made possible through the 2008 Farm Bill.

Source and thanks to ethanolproducer.com

Read More

EPA biomass delay gives biofuels industry breathing room

January 16, 2011   Karl   No comments
epa_logo

EPA biomass delay gives biofuels industry breathing room

The EPA has announced it will delay planned greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting requirements for biomass for at least three years. The delay is welcome news for the biofuel advocates, who have been warning that EPA plans to regulate biogenic CO2 emissions would negatively impact the renewable fuels industry.

Now, the biofuels industry has some breathing room. For the next three years the EPA will study the issues surrounding biomass emissions and decide how best to shape regulations.

On Jan. 13, Matt Hartwig, Renewable Fuels Association director of public affairs, spoke with Delta Farm Press about the EPA decision. Among his comments:

Can you talk about the scope of this?

“Basically, EPA was putting together greenhouse gas emission regulations. One of their proposals was to measure and regulate what are considered ‘biogenic’ emissions. Those are greenhouse gas emissions – basically CO2 – that occur when you convert biomass into an energy source.

“This would apply to, for instance, a wood-to-power facility the same way it would apply in converting corn into ethanol.

“Our argument to EPA was ‘you shouldn’t regulate these emissions because they are, essentially, naturally-occurring.’ If you leave an apple outside for too long, the sugars will eventually ferment into alcohol. That’s what ethanol production is.

More on science…

“Another point we made to the EPA was ‘you’re talking about emissions that are, in a very basic sense, carbon neutral.’ Any release of CO2 you get during the conversion of biomass material was absorbed out of the atmosphere as that biomass material grew. So, essentially, you’re not adding new net carbon molecules to the atmosphere.

“The danger was, under this proposal, some of the ethanol plants that are today in compliance with GHG emissions would be out of compliance if the biogenic emissions were included.

“So, we argued the science of the proposal – the science doesn’t support it. Second, the EPA was trying to enforce unscientific theory – or, at least, unproven science – with very real financial penalties.

“So, we think EPAs decision to delay their decision for three years was a good step. That was recognition the science was there and they’re taking the time to get it right.”

How long has RFA been talking to the EPA about this specific issue?

“Within the last year this has come up as EPA sought to regulate GHG emissions more vigorously.”

The other aspects of EPA’s potential GHG emissions regulations haven’t been touched?

“Right. There are some other provisions of what EPA is trying to do that are moving forward. But those don’t have an impact on our industry so we haven’t commented.

“The biogenic emissions would have an impact so we’ve tried to work with EPA to get them right.”

How receptive was the EPA to speaking with the RFA about this?

“Certainly, we had concerns about the way EPA was addressing it. Ultimately, what’s important is the result.

“And we think EPA did the right thing, here. Instead of implementing science they thought was ready for prime-time, they said ‘no, we’ll take a step back and reevaluate.’

“Unfortunately, they didn’t do that with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) when they included things like indirect land-use change. But in this instance, they did the right thing and we’re thankful for the additional time to work with EPA to get the regulation right.

For more on the RFS, see Obama administration makes massive biofuel push

“In a real-carbon world, we believe ethanol stands up very well to fossil fuels like petroleum. But that’s only true if you are counting things equally and as they should be.”

Did you get any indication why a three-year delay?

“I’m not sure why it’s three years instead of one year or six months.”

Other things you’re tackling with the EPA?

“There’s always something. We continue to work with them on the E-15 issue … and following science to its logical end: approval of E-15 for all cars and light-duty pickups…

“We’ll continue to work with them on issues regarding the RFS and greenhouse gas calculations for ethanol. There are some things EPA has chosen to include in its calculation of greenhouse gas emissions for ethanol under the RFS that we think that” are scientifically unsound. “There’s never a shortage of issues to work on with the federal government.”

Read More

US lacks the infrastructure to consume more bioethanol

January 04, 2011   Karl   No comments
Biofuel pump

Purdue University study shows that the US lacks infrastructure to consume more bioethanol

Purdue University study suggests that the United States doesn’t have the infrastructure to meet the federal mandate for renewable fuel use with bioethanol, howver they could meet the standard with significant increases in  next-generation and cellulosicbiofuels. Their findings were published in the December issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

The team used U.S. Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency data to determine that the United States is at the “blending wall,” the saturation point for ethanol use. Without new technology or a significant increase in infrastructure,they  predict that the country will not be able to consume more ethanol than is being currently produced.

The federal Renewable Fuel Standard requires an increase of renewable fuel production to 36 billion gallons PA by 2022. 13 billion gallons of renewable fuel was required for 2010, the same amount Tyner predicts is the threshold for U.S. infrastructure and consumption ability.

“There simply aren’t enough flex-fuel vehicles, which use an 85 percent ethanol blend, or E85 stations to distribute more biofuels. According to EPA estimates, flex-fuel vehicles make up 7.3 million of the 240 million vehicles on the nation’s roads. Of those, about 3 million of flex-fuel vehicle owners aren’t even aware they can use E85 fuel.”

There are only about two thousand E85 bioethanol pumps in the US, and it took more than 20 years to install them.

“Even if you could produce a whole bunch of E85, there is no way to distribute it,” Tyner said. “We would need to install about 2,000 pumps per year through 2022 to do it. You’re not going to go from 100 per year to 2,000 per year overnight. It’s just not going to happen.”

And even if the fuel could be distributed, E85 would have to be substantially cheaper than gasoline to entice consumers to use it because E85 gets lower mileage, Tyner said. If gasoline were $3 per gallon, E85 would have to be $2.34 per gallon to break even on mileage.

There is talk of increasing the maximum amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline for regular vehicles from 10 percent to 15 percent. But Tyner said that even if the EPA does allow it, the blending wall would be reached again in about four years.

“The advances in the production of thermo-chemical biofuels, which are created by using heat to chemically alter biomass and create fuels, would be necessary to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard. He said those fuels would be similar enough to gasoline to allow unlimited blending and would increase the amount of biofuel that could be used”

“Producing the hydrocarbons directly doesn’t have the infrastructure problems of ethanol, and there is no blend wall because you’re producing gasoline,” Tyner said. “If that comes on and works, then we get there. There is significant potential to produce drop-in hydrocarbons from cellulosic feedstocks.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture funded the research.

Via businessgreen.com

Read More

Court Rejects Refiners’ Challenge to EPA Biodiesel Blending Rules

December 23, 2010   Karl   No comments
bioethanol fuel pump

Court Rejects Refiners' Challenge to EPA Biodiesel Blending Rules

An appeals court rejected a challenge today by petroleum industry groups to U.S. EPA’s biodiesel blending requirements, in a move affirming the agency’s implementation of the renewable fuel standard (RFS2).

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously dismissed arguments by the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association that the court should review EPA’s rules on biodiesel blending.

The groups had challenged the rules on three grounds, maintaining they improperly combined requirements for 2009 and 2010, that they should not have been made retroactive and that they violated requirements for minimum lead times.

The petition argued, in part, that EPA’s own delays in finalizing the rules made it unfair to impose significant blending requirements under the originally described timeline.

The oil industry expressed concern that the rule’s near-term deadlines, especially a requirement for blending twice as much biodiesel this year as in 2009, meant refiners must race to blend enough renewable fuels or face fines of more than $32,000 per day.

The groups made the arguments in two separate challenges filed in March (E&ENews PM, March 30).

Today’s decision was a clear win for EPA in the case, rejecting each of the petitioners’ arguments.

“Under the circumstances [of the delayed rulemaking], Congress’ purpose in expanding the renewable fuel program under the [2007 Energy Independence and Security Act] is better served by EPA’s approach in the final rule than it would be by forgoing” blending requirements for 2009, the court panel said in its decision.

The panel also said EPA had adequately considered alternative approaches and was justified in taking its chosen path, because of factors that include the availability of blending credits in the marketplace and ample notice of the likely need for them.

Under the rules, refiners have until next Feb. 28, 2011, to show they have blended the required amounts of biodiesel into the nation’s diesel fuel supply for 2009 and 2010.

EPA does not comment on lawsuits, but the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), which along with ethanol industry group Growth Energy had joined EPA in arguing the case, welcomed the court’s decision.

“The NBB is obviously pleased with the Court’s unanimous decision,” said Manning Feraci, the group’s vice president of federal affairs, in a statement. “This wholly validates the U.S. biodiesel industry’s legal position and sends a clear, unambiguous signal to the marketplace that the common-sense renewable goals established in the RFS2 program will be met.”

Renewable Energy Group, which describes itself as the leading domestic marketer of biodiesel, said the decision cleared the way for a strong 2011 market.

“This lawsuit was the final piece of uncertainty creating market disruption for the biodiesel industry,” the group said. “With last week’s reinstatement of the biodiesel blenders’ tax credit and today’s announcement by the court, [Renewable Energy Group] is bullish on the 2011 market for biodiesel demand.”

Source and Thanks: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire

Read More

Auto industry sues EPA over biofuel blend ruling

December 22, 2010   Karl   1 Comment

Auto industry sues EPA over biofuel blend ruling

Car and boat manufacturers launch legal action challenging EPA decision allowing higher blends of ethanol

The roster of court cases faced by the US Environmental Protection Agency was extended again yesterday, when a group of auto and engine manufacturers launched legal action against the watchdog over its decision to allow higher blends of ethanol for use in cars built after 2007.

The EPA ruled in October that cars with a model year of 2007 or later could safely use fuel containing up to 15 per cent ethanol, so-called E15, a richer blend than current ethanol blends that contain no more than 10 per cent biofuel.

The decision was made in response to federal mandates requiring increasing levels of ethanol to be used in the US. The EPA is also currently weighing whether to allow older cars built since 2001 to similarly use richer blends of ethanol – a decision that has been delayed until next year.

However, many car makers remain opposed to the use of E15 and a new coalition, dubbed the Engine Products Group (EPG), yesterday filed a suit against the EPA alleging that the decision would confuse customers and lead to engine damage if the fuel is used in older engines.

The petition, which was filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, requests that the EPA reconsider the decision and calls for a judicial review of the E15 ruling. It also alleges that the EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to grant a partial waiver for some ethanol blends and not others.

The group claims to represent 400 million engine products and brings together the Alliance of Automobile Manufactures, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute.

Kris Kiser, an executive with the outdoor equipment group, told the influential Washington-based Hill blog that the group was concerned that the ruling would result in customers putting the wrong fuel in the wrong engine.

“While all members of the EPG have and continue to support the development and use of safe and sustainable alternative fuels, the action EPA has taken to permit E15 to be sold as a legal fuel, even if limited only to certain products, will have adverse consequences for the environment and consumers,” he said. “A partial waiver, by its nature, necessarily will result in the misfueling of products not designed or tested for E15 use.”

The ethanol and biofuels industry maintains E15 is safe for all engines and is pushing for the EPA to combat customer confusion by authorising the richer blend for use by all vehicles.

The EPA is currently carrying out tests on older vehicles and could reach a decision on whether to allow E15 for use in older vehicles as early as next month.

Wider use of E15 is widely regarded as essential for the take-up of the fuel as currently many filling stations are reluctant to invest in new pumps given only part of the US fleet are authorised to use the fuel.

The EPG suit is the second to target the E15 ruling and comes just weeks after the Grocery Manufacturers Association filed a similar suit challenging the EPA decision on the grounds it could push up food prices by increasing demand for corn.

Read More

EPA allows 15% ethanol in gasoline, but only for late-model cars

October 14, 2010   Karl

15% ethanol to be blended with gasoline in motor fuel

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it now will allow up to 15% ethanol to be blended with gasoline in motor fuel — but only for use in cars and trucks built since 2007.

The current allowable limit is 10%, and remains so for older vehicles, all motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles and non-road engines (everything from leaf blowers to motorboats).
That sets up potential confusion at the gas pump. Buyers could have to choose not only among octane ratings but also between E-10 and E-15. And while E-10 now is fairly common, stations are not required to offer it or the new E-15 — and some already say they are going to sit out E-15 for now.

The move does not affect special E-85 fuel — an 85% ethanol/gas blend not considered gasoline at all — already allowed by the EPA. E-85, sold mostly in the Midwest, only can be used in vehicles designed as “flex fuel” machines, to take the higher concentration of more-corrosive ethanol without damage.

EPA says thorough testing has shown E-15 won’t cause problems in the newer vehicles.

Even though the E-15 blend is intended for cars and trucks — indeed, it’s technically illegal to use it in other engines — the small-engine lobby figures it’ll nevertheless wind up in the hundreds of millions of chainsaws, leaf blowers, law mowing equipment, boats, all-terrain vehicles and the like.

Read More

  • Navigation


  • BioFuel Tweets!