Corn-based ethanol took another blow from the scientific literature this week. University of Minnesota scientists published an article revealing that corn into E85 could require three times as much water as previously estimated. The bottom line: it takes more than 2,100 gallons of water to produce a single gallon of ethanol. That’s bad news for corn-etoh’s partisans; water supplies in the US are not exactly ample (as the NYT Mag pointed out a couple of years ago in its article, “ The Future Is Drying Up“). Ethanol has also been bashed for competing with food, and for raising carbon emissions over a period of decades, rather than reducing them. The researchers, led by Sangwon Suh, note that the water needs vary widely depending on irrigation practices. In a dozen Corn Belt states, production of a gallon of E85 requires less than 100 gallons of water. I still wouldn’t buy any stock . . .

The E85 industry is tanking. Despite federal mandates designed to foist the fuel on a suspecting public, and Transportation Secretary Chu’s determination to make all new vehicles Flex-Fuel capable (EPA credits for everyone!), the E85 industry is on the brink of extinction. Consumer demand (such as it wasn’t) is plummeting. Meanwhile, environmentalists threaten to expose the corn-for-fuel process as, gasp, carbon-positive. Evidence of pumps with ten-foot pole marks comes to us from Minnesota, the state with the highest number of E85 outlets in the land. Here’s the Star Tribune’s report, which can’t resist using the boosterrific term “clean burning” whilst charting the corn-based fuel’s demise:

One wonders how many entries the Renewable Fuels Association received for their “online ethanol contest” designed to “get a new generation of Americans, mainly college students, engaged in the promotion and support of ethanol.” Domesticfuel.com claims that this video was chosen by “thousands of people across the country.” Oh, wait! “From there, a panel of judges selected the final winner, based on creativity, quality and relevance. McAfee won a Macbook Air computer for his winning entry.” Anyway, it looks like we’re a bit late to this “story.” Never mind. “The Fuel-Flex Challenge was sponsored by the Kansas Corn Commission, the Kentucky Corn Growers Association, the United Sorghum Checkoff Program and the Renewable Fuels Association. The fun will continue this summer with the launch of a new photo contest. Stay tuned for more details.” We will!

Energy Secretary Steven Chu gave a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, yesterday in which he argued that all cars sold in America should be E85 capable. “I’ve been told it costs about $100 in gaskets and fuel lines to turn a car so that it can go all the way to E85,” Chu is quoted as saying in the Des Moines Register. “But a new car, it would only cost $100 out of $15,000. Wouldn’t it be nice to put in those fuel lines and gaskets so that we can use any ratio we wanted?” Sure, if E85 were a viable alternative fuel, and not just an agricultural subsidy.

“Congress already made sure corn ethanol was protected from any scientific assessment of its impact on the environment when it passed the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. Buried in the law are provisions that exempt every gallon of corn ethanol from the requirement to reduce greenhouse gases that all other biofuels have to meet to qualify as a ‘renewable fuel.'” So reporteth Minnesota’s Startribune.com, while ripping hometown pol House Agriculture Committee Chairman, Collin Peterson, a new you-know-what. The paper’s plenty pissed at Petersen’s threat to torpedo Obama’s climate change legislation—unless the EPA gives ethanol a “get out of jail free” card for its tendency to increase global warming. Careful readers will now note the quote that initiated this blog and notice that Petersen’s asking for a free pass that the industry already enjoys. Never mind. Hell hath no fury like a legislator protecting his sponsors.

President Obama gave the dying ethanol industry a huge shot in the arm Tuesday when he announced that over $780 million of stimulus money will be spent on biofuel “research and commercialization,” guided by an all-new Biofuels Interagency Working Group. Think of a giant, government-funded R&D/marketing department for the ethanol industry, and you’ll have some idea of what we’re looking at. “We need to work in concert with the industry to figure out how to do a better job to create a market for biofuels, how to increase the use of flex-fuel vehicles, how we can assist those who market, and to coordinate the infrastructure, and do all this in a sustainable way,” says Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack. Unfortunately “creating a market” isn’t easy. The US already spends more on ethanol subsidies than any other renewable energy source, and has been rewarded only with crashing ethanol demand and rampant refinery bankruptcies. Good thing hope springs eternal in the breast of K Street.

The EPA is currently soliciting comment on a proposed waiver to allow 15 percent ethanol blends (E15), and despite enduring a year of hard knocks, the ethanol lobby is making a desperate stand to reverse its declining fortunes. Peruse already-submitted comments, and you’ll notice that Growth Energy (the new K-Street tip of the ethanol spear) dominates the list with a host of spurious “supporting materials.” The group’s main argument (PDF) is fine-tuned for the jobs-crazed economic-political climate, centering around the assertion that “according to one estimate, allowing blending of E15 has the potential to create at least 135,000 jobs.” Which sounds great as long as you don’t look at the “hidden” cost of increasing blending credit receipts. Needless to say, Growth Energy isn’t asking anyone to go there, having helpfully created some talking points to help make commenting easier. We suggest commenting on the proposed waiver as well, but rather than dutifully regurgitating GE’s talking points why don’t you go through our E85 archive first. Or check out a few recent news stories after the jump which illustrate our unrelenting skepticism of so called intermediate ethanol blends.

It’s been a while since we’ve run an E85 BOTD. The big news on the corn-for-fuel front: the E85 lobby is pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow states to raise the minimum required amount of ethanol from 10 to 15 percent. For some reason, Agweek seems to think ethanol producers haven’t yet hit “the blend wall”: the point at which there’s more ethanol than demand. (The fact huge swaths of the food-for-fuel industry have gone bust may have provided a clue). But at least they acknowledge the Everest ahead. “Many environmental and consumer groups and small engine and car manufacturers are concerned that the increased blend rate might damage pollution control equipment, reduce air quality, and undermine vehicle and equipment performance and warranties. The EPA and Department of Energy are currently testing the effects of higher blend rates on engine performance and emissions.” We’ll keep an eye on that one. Meanwhile, the Minnesota Auditor’s office has had a look at the state’s $93 million worth of ethanol subsidies and asked the logical question WTF is that all about?

Two recent developments have tarnished whatever green reputation ethanol has left. First, the news that corn-derived ethanol requires up to three times more water to produce than previously thought has cast a spotlight on the industry, especially in the dry west and southwest. A new study published by the American Chemical Society reports that previous estimates of water used to produce ethanol are inaccurate. The article’s abstract:

Green Car Congress reports that an “Open Fuel Standards Act” has been introduced which would require half of all light duty vehicles sold in the US to be flex-fuel capable. The legislation would ramp up requirements to mandate 80 percent flex-fuel capability by 2015. Since ethanol has been running into trouble of late, the industry’s plan now centers on forcing OEMs to bring flex-fuel capability across their lineups, which supporters say will drive greater availability of E85 pumps. The plan would also enable the proliferation of mid-range ethanol blends like E20 and E30, since E85-capable flex-fuel vehicles would also be able to run on the intermediate blends that the ethanol industry so desperately wants to become mainstream. The only waivers for this mandate would be for OEMs who can prove that ethanol fuels prevent plug-in hybrids and other alt-energy vehicles to flunk state emission standards. Meanwhile, as rules are being written for the Renewable Fuel Standard, and a group of Senators are moving to prevent the use of indirect land use change (ILUC) to calculate the total GHG output of biofuels.

This time the bearer of good news is retired General Wesley Clark and his “ Growth Energy” K-Street advocacy group. The special K says increasing the ethanol blend limit to E15 could create 136,101 new jobs and inject $24.4b into the US economy annually. How? According to the firm’s appalling report, bumping the federal blending mandate to E15 would double the “demand” for ethanol. As the report notes, in the mother of all Freudian slips “6 bgy of production capacity would be required to produce 20.4 bgy of ethanol (including current reserve capacity). This level of expansion could be met by the construction and operations of 60 100 bgy corn ethanol plants (emphasis added).” Of course they meant 60 100 mgy plants, but numbers have just become so darn confusing since billion became the new million.

Sheikh Mohamed Al-Najimi of the Saudi Islamic Jurisprudence Academy has advised the Muslim community (via Al Arabiya) that burning ethanol and other alcohol fuels could be a sin. Al-Najimi said that ethanol runs afoul of the Prophet Mohammed’s ban on the sale, consumption, processing, and handling of all forms of alcohol. He does stress that this is not an official Fatwa, or religious edict, meaning ethanol is not officially banned by Sharia, or Islamic law. Yet. But hey, as long as this little guy gets beheaded on YouTube we’ll call it good. To be completely fair though, this isn’t entirely surprising. It’s hard to imagine that ethanol is wildly popular when you live on top of oceans of the real thing. Meanwhile, back in the decadent west, moral clarity (like oil) is a little harder to come by.

The New York Times reports that the European Union is drafting trade duties on imported American biofuels to protect its own $10b biofuel industry. Even though both the US and the EU subsidize biofuels, European producers complain that American producers benefit from production subsidies in the US and retail subsidies in Europe. The EU has been investigating these claims, and tariffs of 44 euros per 220 lbs of imported biofuel could be put in place by this summer. Meanwhile American subsidies for corn ethanol production are set to expand indefinitely. We’ve argued that trade disputes could bring the bailout boom to a rapid close, but perhaps such a dispute will rid us of wasteful ethanol pork first.

We’ve pointed it out before: the ethanol industry has a cunning plan to breach the “blend wall” (a.k.a. the fact that American customers don’t want E85). While they’re waiting, hoping and praying for a Titanoboa cerrejonensi-sized gas price spike, they’re planning on using their political leverage to “offer” (i.e., force) motorists E20 and E30 ethanol blends. The big problem: it’s not entirely clear that engines like to run on those blends. (E85-compatible vehicles are, uh, E85-compatible). In fact, it’s pretty clear they don’t. But that’s not going to stop the lobby from trying . . .

“We’re placing a high priority on biofuels right now.” Yeah, right. “Hey guys, how’s that congressional viability plan coming? Shhh. We’re working on biofuels.” The man shilling for last year’s green queen is GM’s vice president of research and development. Lest we forget, Laurence Fishburne—sorry, Larry Burns—was The General’s main eco-warrior a little over a year ago. That’s when GM decided to squander some its precious pre-bailout bucks on buying a big piece of a cellulosic ethanol start-up named Coskata. Hyperbole is a dish best served cold. Looking back . . . USA Today: “General Motors says it is investing in a fledgling company that claims its secret process could be able to make ethanol from waste in large quantity as soon as 2010 for $1 a gallon or less, half the cost of making gasoline.” Just out of curiosity, anyone want to guess how much GM plowed into this turkey?

You know, this sounds crazy, but this MicroFueler thing might just work. I’m no fuel expert (I just play one in the autoblogosphere), but flex fuel vehicles are ready to rock and roll on any mix this bad boy can brew. And now E-Fuel, the maker of the home pump, is expanding beyond the home brew market to… the micro brewery market. CNET’s Green Tech reports, “The inventor of the EFuel100 MicroFueler home ethanol maker has signed on Sierra Nevada Brewing to make ethanol from beer dregs.” I would have thought that waiting around for drinkers to leave the dregs would be a time-consuming business, but then that’s just a bad joke isn’t it? Here’s the real deal…

North Dakota’s House of Representatives has voted down a measure which would have exempted the sale or lease of a Detroit-branded vehicle from the state’s five percent excise sales tax. The Chicago Tribune reports that the measure, which would have cost the state $25.9m, was defeated by a convincing 64-29 vote. “If we do anything as far as tax exemptions, we should have a greater good in mind,” says Rep. Jon Nelson, R-Rugby. “The passage of this bill . . . we don’t expect anything from (the Detroit auto companies), except that they’re going to sell more of the same old, same old. . . . Every technology in the world has grown, doubled or tripled or quadrupled, in the last 20 years, but the pickup I drive gets the same mileage as one 30 years ago,” he said. “Things like that . . . they haven’t progressed, and that is the reason that U.S. auto makers are in . . . the shape they’re in.”

“I found real gasoline again. So my days of 33 to 37 mpg in the Prius during winter SHOULD be over soon, and hopefully I’ll see my typical winter time 44 mpg overall average return soon. On the current tank of E10, as the trip meter passed the 120 mile mark, the fuel gage went to 4 bars used up (4 gallons roughly). When you’ve seen the car doing 58 mpg, you KNOW damned well that it’s more than a little frustrating to see this. Computer claims about 37 mpg, but with E10 that seems to be off when it used to match the measured MPG pretty closely ON AVERAGE over say 10 tankfuls (which evens out the topping-up variations).

The E85 BOTDs are less frequent these days. Thanks to low gas prices, the ethanol industry has run headlong into what they call the “blend wall.” In fact, the corn juice supply so far outpaces demand that government subsidies, mandates and [the E85 folk hope] bailout bucks are all that stands between the industry and total collapse. In other words, here’s another auto-related enterprise whose survival depends on the taxpayers, rather than commercial success. So when I encountered E85 consumption figures for Iowa on MidwestAgnet.com, I nearly fell out of my chair. Well, OK, I’m too old for that action, but the numbers indicated a huge jump. [jump after the jump] And the answer is… “Quarters prior to 4th quarter 2007 did not include government gallons. Beginning with the 4th quarter 2007, government gallons are included.” I’m not entirely sure what government gallons are, but whatever they are, you can bet your bippy the tank-fillers had little say in the matter. There’s some interesting info if you follow the links to Iowa’s fuel tax revenue. Year-to-date to November 2008, the state collected $198,280,544. Of that, E85 accounted for $44,683. The year previous: $35,705. And this, folks, is The Tall Corn State.

From menno: “My Prius is now down to about 30 miles per gallon on E10 (real MPG, not on the computer – it’s showing 38.5 mpg). 130 miles on the trip meter and over 4 gallons used – you do the math. Just for the sake of comparison, before the loss of real gasoline, I was averaging 44 mpg (real calculations and on the car computer) in the winter, and about 50 in spring and fall, and 48 in the summer. This was with both the 2005 Prius and the 2008, over 48,000 miles on the 2005 and now having 21,000 miles on the 2008. Don’t know if the continuous E10 has made the difference between the computer MPG and calculated MPG, but there is essentially no point in having a Prius anymore. The Prius sucks ethanol tainted fuel like a drunk at a free bar. My wife’s (way) less expensive to buy, more comfortable, zoomier, roomier and nicer Sonata averages MPG in the low-mid 20’s in the winter, 26-27 in spring, summer and fall, and did 32.2 mpg on a 5000 mile trip on expressways and in mountains. As soon as gas prices hit $3.00 a gallon I’m putting the Prius up for sale. Recently, the last gas stations in the area stopped selling 100% gasoline (it was BP). The resulting MPG loss was immediate.” And he’s not the only one who’s turning his back on E10…

Never let it be said that TTAC doesn’t kick a bad idea when it’s down. (It’s the best way to make sure it stays down.) Obviously, it’s no secret that myself and several members of TTAC’s crack (smoking) freelance team consider E85 the biggest boondoggle outside of the Motown meltdown boondoggle. Corn juice for fuel is a fundamentally flawed concept on environmental, energy, practical and even a geo-political basis. But even as the U.S. ethanol customers line-up none deep for their chance to prove that “no one ever died defending a corn field,” even as the ethanol industry continues to block cheap E85 imports from Brazil, even as the major players suck-up to Uncle Sugar to secure a $1b bailout (no really) to stay alive in a business where they already enjoy a .50 a gallon “blender’s credit” and a federal requirement for someone somewhere to use the stuff (a.k.a. the 36b gallon by 2020 Renewable Fuels Standard), they’re shifted gears to open a second front in their war against common sense. AG Week reports that the push for a federal mandate to raise the ethanol content in regular gas from E10 to E15 (and beyond) continues apace.

The Indianapolis Business Journal reports that Indiana’s E85 subsidiy slush fund has run out of cash just three months into that state’s fiscal year. High demand for E85 in the summer months when regular gas cost over $4/gal caused the state subsidy of 18 cents/gal to rapidly run through its earmarked funds. Now, with gas under $2/gal, E85 demand is tanking just as the subsidy ran out, leaving ethanol boosters in a tough spot. “In June or July, we could sell E85 blindfolded,” says Jim Gentry, fuel purchasing manager for Greenfield-based GasAmerica, one of the first firms to sell E85 in the Indianapolis area. “Back in the summer, we didn’t need the 18-cent [state tax] credit.” Now? “We blew through that money,” admits Kellie Walsh, executive director of the Central Indiana Clean Cities Alliance. “I am anxious to see whether gasoline prices dropping has our flex-fuel customers continuing with E85 or if they’re going back over.” One E85 retailer says his firm hasn’t given up on E85 yet. “That being said, that’s not to say it’s the smartest business decision at this point in time,” says Ed McClure, CEO of Marionbased McClure Oil Corp. Except that Indiana still offers a $20k grant to install E85 pumps even though such conversions can be done for as little as $15k.

A new study of alternative energy strategies by Stanford professor Mark Jacobsen [via Green Car Congress] ranks corn-based and biomass ethanol as among the worst alternatives to fossil fuels. According to the study, “the Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.” These results were calculated by comparing wind-powered battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), wind-powered hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), concentrated-solar-powered-BEVs, geothermal-powered-BEVs, tidal-powered-BEVs, solar-photovoltaic-powered-BEVs, wave-powered-BEVs, hydroelectric-powered-BEVs, nuclear-powered-BEVs, coal-with-carbon-capture-powered-BEVs, corn-E85 vehicles, and cellulosic-E85 vehicles (listed in order of the study’s calculated impacts).

In the last E85BOTD, Farago had the temerity to suggest that perhaps E85 and E10 are DOA. And we have surely come a long way from even nine months ago, when corn-based ethanol was still publicly accepted as an environmentally-friendly fuel for American energy independence. You know, a tortilla riot and media feeding frenzy ago. But mandates are still in place, and as the Chicago Tribune reports, the ethanol industry is awaiting the Obama inauguration with quivering anticipation. After all, Obama has long touted ethanol as a cornerstone of his energy independence plan, even pledging that all new cars would be flex-fuel by 2013. And a quick look at opensecrets.org (tsk, no ethanol breakouts) shows that a number of big names in biofuels gave heavily to Obama and the Democrats. Also, the recent announcement that Dr. Stephen Chu, Lisa Jackson, and Carol Browner will fill key energy and environmental roles in the Obama administration has the biofuel bizz cheering. Of course the all-flex-fuel-by-2013 pledge was qualified with a hearty “if elected,” and these things have a habit of changing. Just ask the UAW.

Anyone remember the good old days, when TTAC manned the barricades in the fight against federal subsidies to a corn-based ethanol industry that made little sense for anyone but the corn-based ethanol industry? Rest assured, we haven’t de-listed our “E85 BOTD” (Boondoggle of the Day) category. We’ve just been a little… preoccupied with that other call on the public purse emanating from the city whose motto is, ironically enough, Speramus Meliora. And while we’ve been away, the price of imported oil– and thus gas– has dropped precipitously. Even copious federal subsidies (.50 a gallon “blender’s credit” to start) hasn’t been able to shelter the E85 folk from that particular reality. In fact, E85 sales are pretty much shot. Kaput. It’s got so bad (good?) that E10 (10 percent corn juice) is now falling by the wayside.

For some time now, firefighters have warned of the challenge of extinguishing ethanol fires. Because ethanol cannot be piped due to its corrosive properties, large quantities are delivered by tanker truck or rail car. Pure ethanol can burn at a temperature as low as 55 degrees F (12.8 degrees C). Even when highly diluted in water ethanol remains flammable at higher temperatures. Since oceanic quantities of water would be required to extinguish a large ethanol fire, special retardant foams are generally used– but not readily available (= hours) to many fire departments. Even with that foam, a big ethanol fire can take days to extinguish; the holding tank often burns to the ground. (At least pure ethanol burns cleanly, leaving behind just water and carbon dioxide.) A NIMBY situation arose this spring in the heart of highly populated Alexandria, VA. (FYI, that’s communist country per First Brother wannabe Joe McCain.) Ethanol rail cars started offloading their cargo back in April 2008, but local fire departments didn’t get the appropriate flame-retardant foam for another month afterwards. There’s lots of finger pointing going on, with the city of Alexandria blaming rail company Norfolk Southern for slipping ethanol shipment in without notification.

The New York Times reports that a casualty of lower oil and gas prices: interest in funding renewable energy projects. Among the Times’ laundry list of programs hurting for money: Tesla (duh), corn ethanol (hooray), other biofuels, and wind and solar power. The financial troubles are the consequence of a pretty simple financial concept – that there’s only so much money to go around. And we hear there’s a credit crunch in progress. So with gas and oil coming down in price, renewable energy isn’t where opportunistic investors want to be risking their somewhat-limited resources. The depressing part of the story is this all-too-obvious observation from Times writer Clifford Kraus:

Judging by the frenetically ascending “Cost of War in Iraq” clock on MyruralAmerica.com, I think it’s safe to say the website is slightly to the left of center. Does it matter? I reckon themthereruralvoters are willing to cast their ballot for whomever will provide the biggest trough. To discern this distinction, Myruralamerica republishes advice from The Iowa Corn Growers Association. “It is not our job to tell you who you should vote for or what party you should follow,” said Gary Edwards, the ICGA Prez. “But it is our duty to stand up to promote the interests of Iowa corn growers, Iowa consumers, and their future.” Yes sirree Bob. I bet you know where they stand on the “environment” (The ICGA supports the continuation of the 45 cent per gallon blenders’ credit for ethanol, the 54 cent per gallon ethanol import tariff, the federal Renewable Fuels Standard, and other tax incentives for ethanol (such as E85) that will reduce prices at the pump for consumers) and crop subsidies ( the ICGA supports a safety net for farmers that is based on revenue and not price, which supports production and market demand. ICGA policy supports farm policy that is trade compliant and supports strong conservation programs that protect our environment. ICGA also supports a crop insurance program at rate levels sufficient to induce crop insurance and designed to avoid the need for disaster assistance). So, which presidential candidate gets the official nod?

Editor:

Nearly all the ethanol brewed in the United States is from yellow feed corn; while development into green technology may be hailed by conservationists, it may produce little if any benefit to our lives, and may even trouble them.

Consider the points: If a gallon of gasoline had a price tag of $3.03 (ah, those better days), it would take $3.71 to extract the equivalent from corn for that gallon of gas (similar inefficiencies go for soybean-produced biodiesel as well). And if mass production is perfected, each E85 gallon would still pump 16 pounds of carbon into the atmosphere!

Even if Americans turned our entire corn and soybean arsenal into biofuel, they would replace just 12 percent of our gasoline usage and a paltry 6 percent of diesel, while squeezing supplies of corn- and soy-fattened pork, beef and poultry. Not to mention Corn Flakes.