A number of people have written or commented regarding the California Air Resources Board (CARB) ruling that is expected on ethanol later this week. Treehugger had the story:
Corn Ethanol Worse than Oil? California Rules Yes
In what would certainly be a huge blow to the US’ formidable corn-ethanol industry, the California Air Resources Board is readying a report that says ethanol is worse than oil in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Daily Climate, the California regulators are prepared to go as far as to declare that biofuels cannot help the state fight climate change–could this be the beginning of the end for ethanol?
So, what does this mean? The article above has a different interpretation than my own:
What’s especially interesting about all this, however, is that such a groundbreaking finding will probably have a major impact at the national level as well: Obama is leaning towards establishing a national emissions standard, so California’s report is bound to form something of a precedent. Which spells bad news for the corn industry.
My own interpretation comes from a previous CARB ruling that had zero impact on what the EPA ultimately decided to do. This one is from 2005:
Senator Feinstein Renews Call for Federal Oxygenate Waiver for California
The California Air Resource Board (CARB) researched this issue at length and found that ethanol-blended gasoline does not help California meet the goals of the Clean Air Act as it relates to reducing ozone formation, particularly during the summertime, and, in fact, ethanol actually increases the emission of pollutants that cause ozone during the summer months.
In September 2004, CARB sponsored a study by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). The CRC issued a report entitled Fuel Permeation From Automotive Systems. The study was designed to determine the magnitude of the permeation differences between three fuels, containing MTBE, ethanol, or no oxygenate, in the selected test fleet. The study found that emissions increased on all 10 vehicle fuel systems studied when ethanol replaced the MTBE. In fact, the ethanol blended gasoline caused emissions to increase by 65% when compared with MTBE blended gasoline, and by 45% when compared with non-oxygenated gasoline.
In a November 2004 report, CARB staff issued a preliminary analysis of increased emissions due to ethanol blended gasoline. The staff reported that “on-road vehicles hydrocarbon emissions increase[d] by 40-50 tons/day, statewide, [in] 2004.” CARB staff is currently working on a final analysis of the impact of ethanol blended gasoline on emissions.
So what happened? The EPA said “too bad.”
EPA Upholds Reformulated Gas Requirement in California, New York, and Connecticut
On June 2, 2005, EPA denied requests made by the states of California, Connecticut and New York for a waiver of the oxygen content requirement of the RFG program. The Clean Air Act includes specific guidelines for when EPA may grant a waiver from the Congressional mandate that RFG contain oxygen. States must provide to EPA clear evidence that the oxygen content requirement will prevent or interfere with their ability to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA determined that the petitions submitted by California, Connecticut and New York fail to meet the waiver requirements outlined in the Clean Air Act.
If the previous ruling was that California didn’t have good enough evidence to warrant the waiver (and last time they had lab data in hand), I don’t see any way that they are going to get any slack this time. My prediction is that this won’t have any impact on the ethanol mandates. It might slow down a rush to increase the percentage of ethanol allowed in gasoline (ethanol proponents want to see this ramped up to 15%, and that might be a tougher sell now). There is also more recent precedent than California in 2005; the EPA recently turned down a request by Texas Governor Rick Perry for partial relief from the mandate.
As expected, the Renewable Fuel Association took exception to CARB’s findings, presenting a 117-page document that disputes the ruling. I have not had time to browse through the document, and present it here merely for information.
Oh, I don’t know. Last time the EPA made than non-sensical ruling ethanol had a bubble pushing it to “infinity and beyond”. It was THE silver bullet, remember?
That bubble has now burst, for the most part. EPA, like anyone else in Uncle Sam’s employment, eventually has to take the voters into account. It may be a frustratingly slow process for the informed (like yourself, RR), but the wheel turns, people eventually figure it out. If not through the proper use of science and engineering, well then the hard way of trying it out, and having it blow up in their faces. Ain’t the free market a beautiful thing?
The tide is turning for ethanol. Not a moment too soon.
i hope that the tide does turn. however given that the former governor of Iowa, the biggest corn state, is now head of the USDA, and Iowa helped our president get elected, i find it hard to believe there will be change.
In case you all are wondering what this “fuel permeation from automotive sytems” is, it’s the “evaporation” from a vehicle’s fuel system.
The numbers are so small that they have to remove the tire, adhesives, Paint, and vinyl trim since they can give off enough “emissions” to skew the test.
By the way, the fuel that did the best was E85.
The Imperical evidence is “that Air Quality improved markedly in S. California after the inclusion of 5.7% Ethanol in the fuel.
By the way, if you care to google the members of CARB you’ll find that it’s “ate up” with oil influence.
Link for the “Fuel Permeation from Automotive Systems” test.
given the degree to which pretty much every federal agency during the Bush administration abdicated any responsibility for the well being of individual citizens, in favor of large interests, I wouldn’t be surprised if, under a new administration, the EPA ruled in favor of the facts this time.
I think you should actually look at the life-cycle analyses (LCA) that CARB has developed and decide for yourself whether corn ethanol is “worse than oil” rather than relying on the Daily Climate’s interpretation. Even after including the scientifically indefensible number that CARB has generated for indirect land use change (iLUC), corn ethanol produced and used as E85 in California produces 6%-16% fewer GHGs than gasoline. In the future, as less and less of the gasoline used in CA comes from CA crude, which will be replaced by imported oil, the GHGs produced by gasoline will go up. Consequently, as technology improves for corn ethanol production, its GHG impact will be even lower. In addition, by CARBs own numbers, cellulosic ethanol (as E85) will decrease GHGs by at least 65% over gasoline So there’s your choice. Continue to use gasoline, more of which will be made from imported oil, or support FFVs running on E85, which can decrease CA GHGs by up to 16% RIGHT NOW and by even more as cellulosic comes online. The only other alternatives that TODAY can have a greater overall impact on GHGs is driving a diesel on B99 or not driving.
Consequently, as technology improves for corn ethanol production, its GHG impact will be even lower.
No doubt technology continues to improve. But both corn farming and ethanol fermenting as well as ethanol distillation are several centuries old. So rapid improvement is highly unlikely.
In addition, by CARBs own numbers, cellulosic ethanol (as E85) will decrease GHGs by at least 65% over gasoline.
And driving on pixie dust will be even better. But cellulosic ethanol will only be available after pixie dust, on its current development schedule…
So there’s your choice. Continue to use gasoline, more of which will be made from imported oil, or support FFVs running on E85, which can decrease CA GHGs by up to 16% RIGHT NOW.
Nope. Choose between:
(1) Use gasoline made out of imported oil,
(2) Use E85 produced by using imported oil. Also reduces the food supply.
Between those two the choice is obvious. As pointed out before, food has more value than fuel, in spite of socialist agricultural policy’s best efforts.
The only other alternatives that TODAY can have a greater overall impact on GHGs is driving a diesel on B99 or not driving.
Not if the B99 is made from foodgrade oil. Only WVO based biodiesel (or better yet, unmodified WVO) gives that benefit.
No, use a gallon of Domestic oil to produce 19 gallons of ethanol (that’s the current ratio.)
The “pixie dust” will, probably, be available by 2011 for somewhere between $2.00, and $2.50/gal.
Actually, there’s never been a time in this poor ex-sharecropper’s life when he could GET Food if he didn’t have Fuel.
“The only other alternatives that TODAY can have a greater overall impact on GHGs is driving a diesel on B99 or not driving.”
Not driving may be a practical option for many in California considering unemployment rates:
Iowa = 5.2%
California = 11.2%
A “Practical” option, perhaps, but not a very Pleasant one.
You are correct rufus. It is down right unpleasant when you and all your co-workers lose their job because of an organized smear campaign.
In Iowa, they are putting people to work solving a problems. In California, they are putting people out of work while not solving problem. The irony is that people who have never gotten their hands dirty are accusing those who spend a life time growing food to feed the world of producing fuel instead of food.
Yep, they’ve piled up 1.7 Billion Bushels of corn that Anyone can buy for a bit less than $0.07 a Pound, and they’ve become Independent in transportation energy while they were at it.
Oh, and they are, I think, No 2 in Wind Power. No bad for “Idiots out wandering around.” 🙂
If you want to get an idea as to how big the “Fix” is in the CARB fiasco, go to This Link and read the comments from Sacramento E85.
He’s done a fair amount of research on the Board Members. It’s Shocking.
Note: the link should take you to page 2. Start at the bottom of page 2, and work up. Then go to the bottom of page 1, and do the same. You’ll be amazed.
rufus – are you really Judy Dugan?
What utter nonsense. Corn ethanol is not, cannot, and will not ever be a threat to oil and gas companies. It just isn’t in the same league. The report from CARB won’t materially impact the oil markets, let alone impact the equity prices of energy companies somehow enriching anyone making decisions on whether or not ethanol is a good thing. As Robert has pointed out countless times, oil and gas companies haven’t invested in it, because corn ethanol doesn’t make sense without the nearly 30 year federal and state subsidies. It is a political boondoggle, not a serious replacement for conventional fuels.
Who’s Judy Dugan?
Judy Dugan of Oilwatchdog.com fame.
She writes oil company conspiracy theory screeds, one of which was quoted in the link you provided. Predictibly she has weighed in on the CARB opinion.
Which one would that be?
Reply #6 in the Planet E85 forum, see sacramentoE-85 about 2/3 the way down in the post quotes oilwatchdog.com
Or are you just SacramentoE-85’s sock puppet?
I LOVE ethanol, especially in potent potables. My BS ChE is from a fine land grant university where I did ethanol research and even have some patented work (since expired) in the area. I just think turning corn into ethanol is a REALLY bad idea.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. What was the quote. The comments aren’t numbered on the e85 forum. All I read was he was giving the relationships of various people on the board to big oil.
Which one was he wrong about?
Not driving may be a practical option for many in California considering unemployment rates:
Iowa = 5.2%
California = 11.2% &
In Iowa, they are putting people to work solving a problems. In California, they are putting people out of work while not solving problem.
Maybe, one of the (many) reasons California’s economy is sick, is due to all the Federal taxes it pays. Maybe, one of the (many) reasons Iowa’s economy is healthy, is due to all the Federal subsidies it receives.
Who are you insulting, Welfare Queen?
You referenced this link: Planet E-85 Where someone named “SacramentoE-85” posted the following:
“No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.”
Gov. Code Section 87100
http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=6649
It is most obvious that her family’s income and her husband’s career benefit immensely from record oil company profits and making big oil companies as happy as can be. No doubt that holding back biofuels through AB 118 and LCFS while throwing the majority of the taxpayer funds at technologies that are not ready in the near-term achieves this quite well.
This twisted saga continues…
Which included the link to the oilwatchdog.org site.
To which in the very next post, a poster named ‘Rufus’ said:
Good links, Sac. He made a Strong presentation.
The crap about head of CARB profiting from oil companies sounds exactly light oilwatchdog.com and Judy Dugan.
The idea that Mary Nichols personally profits from her decisions and would be critical of ethanol because of such influence is laughable at best.
I have to fill out annual disclosure statements. I’m not even required to list publicly traded stocks unless I own more than 5% of a company.
Her husband has represented plaintiffs in oil spill cases too, and the odd oil exploration company in a bankruptcy proceeding.
California liberals get wound up about this, but Dianne Feinstein’s steering government contracts to her husband’s business interests doesn’t raise an eyebrow.
Why not just debate the merits of the report instead of all this other crap?
Huh,
I was not aware of the previous EPA shenanigans. I’m taking bets that Obama will back pedal on his science based politics. How can you base political decisions on science when most of your citizens don’t buy the theory of evolution?
They will use the “Bridge to better fuels” argument which can’t be proved or disproved with hard science. We will just have to accept corn ethanol and soy biodiesel as necessary evils for a few more decades.
Saw an interesting post on Sciam yesterday by Lester Brown on the topic of food security:
and the Governor of Washington state put a post on Grist Magazine to honor Earth day and plug one of the most asinine ideas I have seen in a long time:
GristBrilliant idea
Well, the federal biofuels requirement aside.
There is no oxygenate requirement.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/May/Day-08/a4252.htm
American made ethanol.
E85 ethanol fuel in my Flex Fuel Vehicle.
No soldiers died for my fuel
Today on Independence Day 7/04/09
Nor any other day of the year!