Some Numbers:
* In the U.S, there are approximately:
1,002 E85 stations
635 bio diesel stations and
31 hydrogen stations.
In the near future, there will be over 100 ethanol refining plants in the USA, pumping out some 4 billion gallons of ethanol. The industry expects capacity to double over the next six years. Tax breaks, as well as concerns about energy security, the environment, and higher gasoline prices are all driving ethanol forward. A rise in corn prices or a drop in oil prices could seriously impact the ethanol industry’s profit structure. If ethanol, or E85, becomes a viable alternative fuel for America’s drivers, foreign corn importers across the globe could see U.S. corn exports dramatically decrease, thereby negatively impacting global food supplies.
Further complicating the issue — some ethanol refineries are using coal as their energy source of choice, undermining one of the primary environmental justifications of the ethanol industry.
Wall Street and Washington are currently pouring billions into the ethanol refining industry, with little heed to the possible dangers of over-production. For ethanol to become a viable alternative, the auto industry must do its part to meet consumer demand for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles thus expanding the market demand for ethanol. Ironically, consumer access to E85 at the pump is still controlled by the oil industry. As it stands now, with oil at $60/barrel, E85 is cheaper per gallon than regular gas. But if oil prices fall, and corn prices rise, look out.
* Alternative Fueling Stations by State
CS Monitor Glut Story
Find an Alternative Fuel Station Near You
RSS
Some other info your readers may wish to follow up on here and here.
Hi, folks,
I’m a friend of Jamie Bosso’s who let me know about the blog. I just finished editing a major book on ethanol and how it could replace all our transportation fuel. The writer was seen as a pariah for this in all circles and a publisher dropped him for that reason. (He is self-publishing now) Then billionaire Vinod Khosla said the same thing to Fortune magazine and all bets were off. The industry started taking off and won’t land for a while, witness the new biofuels bill in the Senate sponsored by Obama and Lugar.
We make the argument in the book that for ethanol to work successfully, there will have to be a peaceful revolution in the agriculture industry. Corporate agriculture is not sustainable. If farmers can be persuaded their livings can be preserved and made with sustainable, organic crops, not just corn, and that there is more profit in doing it that way, it will help us along the way. 88 percent of the corn grown in this country goes to animal feed here and in Europe and removing the starch from the feed makes for better feed and leaner cows (cows were never supposed to eat starch) and ethanol’s process does just that. Nothing else is taken from the soil, Growing crops such as Jerusalem artichokes, fodder beets, cassava and such will reap huge returns. So will harvesting sewage filtered through cattails. So could marine algae. Growing energy crops could increase CO2 absorption underground, reversing the greenhouse effect. When cellulose enters the picture, here again we must not rely on monocultures. A recent study by professor Ullman in Minnesota shows the great potential here. Finally there is real money being put in cellulosic ethanol so results should follow quickly.
The commentary above notes the overall picture. Right now, there is a sort of mad rush to ethanol but farmers et all know the market with corn will top out. It will be time to move to sorghum and as a department of energy rep told me, this would expand ethanol production to three more states. Wall Street is totally behind the times on this sort of thing and only understands corn. Most farmers only understand corn, it’s what they were told to grow a lot of and alternate with soybeans. Refineries are in places being powered by coal but that’s because it’s cheap and that’s all the makers see is dollar signs. When govt. starts to crack down more, they’ll have to switch to processes used in Brazil and India and in Mead Nebraska where little or no fossil fuel energy is used in making ethanol. There’s a learning curve here.
Global food issues are red herrings. We’ve got plenty of food. It’s just markets and capitalism that make it impossible for food to get to people who need it. Hardly any of the corn we grow is for eating, as I noted. Smaller, local farms will be taking center stage more and more as the years go on. We’ll say no to veggies and fruit shipped from overseas more and more.
The good/bad news is, despite the mild scary winter so far, oil prices will not go down significantly. All analysts point to a rise in the coming months. Biofuels, now more than ever, are poised to play a big role in our future. Profits will be hot and heavy for a while, particularly if makers venture into coproducts such as the DDGs (dried distillers grains), yeast, carbon dioxide, fish breeding, etc, as outlined in the book.
Tell Jamie she can buy E-85 back in Pittsburgh (Monroeville) and put a half tank in her car (or a llittle more than half) and there will be no noticeable effect on the engine. Might lose a little mileage. I did it twice when I was back there.
Website above has some cool alcohol fuel newsletters. Check it out!
website is permaculture.com
I would like to take issue with the above statement that “removing the starch from the feed makes for better feed and leaner cows.” In the dairy cattle there is a specific requirement for starch. The protein a cow ingests in the form of forages releases N in the cow’s rumen. If adequate starch is available there will be enough rumen microbes to synthesize the N into microbial protein the cow can use. If not the free N must be converted to urea and excreted, at a net energy loss to the cow. A certain level of starch is required for efficient utilization of soluble proteins.
To the statement that distillers grain (the bi-product of ethanol production) Is a better feed: BS. The removal of starch concentrates among other things, fiber, phosphorus, and mycotoxins to name a few. The swine and poultry industries are able to use very little distillers as non-ruminant animals are not able to utilize high fiber grains and cannot replace corn in their diets. Even ruminant animals are not able to use high levels of distillers without severely compromising production. To tip the scale even further, the concentration of phosphorus in distillers grain will result in a net increase in Phosphorus excreted in manure which only exacerbates environmetal issues with nutrient balancing on farms.
Clearly there will be no stopping ethanol but it would be nice if someone thought it all the way through first!
A response to John:
> I would like to take issue with the above statement that “removing
> the starch from the feed makes for better feed and leaner cows.” In
> the dairy cattle there is a specific requirement for starch. The
> protein a cow ingests in the form of forages releases N in the
> cow’s rumen. If adequate starch is available there will be enough
> rumen microbes to synthesize the N into microbial protein the cow
> can use. If not the free N must be converted to urea and excreted,
> at a net energy loss to the cow. A certain level of starch is
> required for efficient utilization of soluble proteins.
Not true. To enable this metabolic pathway the cow needs
carbohydrates, not starch, and cellulose is what cows are adapted to
digest. Starch causes poor feed absorption, acidosis, feedlot bloat
and a host of other maladies. DDGS has a pretty good level of
cellulose (fiber) which provides almost enough carbohydrate by itself
to enable protein assimilation.
> To the statement that distillers grain (the bi-product of ethanol
> production) Is a better feed: BS. The removal of starch
> concentrates among other things, fiber, phosphorus, and mycotoxins to name a few. The swine and poultry industries are able to use very little distillers as non-ruminant animals are not able to
utilize high fiber grains and cannot replace corn in their diets.
Not true–Scientific studies show up to 50% replacement in pig diets
and much higher levels than in ruminants. Many farmers feed much
higher levels to both pigs and chickens that studies say is optimum
because cost/benefit is there. Its increase of meat/milk production
is not a subject of controversy. To say it is BS shows the writer
has not done his homework. Literally thousands of studies all point
in the positive direction since 1920. Extensive current
conservative data online at http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/
> Even ruminant animals are not able to use high levels of distillers
> without severely compromising production. To tip the scale even
> further, the concentration of phosphorus in distillers grain will
> result in a net increase in Phosphorus excreted in manure which
> only exacerbates environmetal issues with nutrient balancing on farms.
This is not a problem of feed, this is a problem with containment
animal farming. Improper treatment of manure as a resource and its
over concentration making it a waste, is the problem not the feed.
End containment (feedlot) farming and the pollution problems end with it.
Thanks for indepth nature of this discussion. Appreciate the time, effort and expertise.
rd