Ethanol and Biodiesel: Guilty as Charged

Two notorious crooks are helping us wrap up another sordid episode in the saga of the United States biofuel mandates, while further highlighting how bungled and long past its expiration date the program is.

Congress concocted the mandates over fears that US gasoline demand would rise forever and keep the United States dependent on foreign oil, as America’s supposedly limited reserves were depleted. The mandates currently require that we blend 15 billion gallons of ethanol with gasoline every year, and produce over a billion gallons of biodiesel. They hammer us consumers every time we fill our tanks.

Turning corn into ethanol requires vast amounts of land, fertilizers, pesticides, tractor and truck fuel, and natural gas for distillation. It enriches some farmers but raises animal feed prices and thus the cost of beef, pork, chicken, eggs, fish and international food aid. Biodiesel from restaurant waste oil makes some sense, but making it from palm oil or soybeans has similar negative ecological impacts.

The ethanol mandate encourages farmers to plow wildlife habitats and fallow fields to grow corn, releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide. Ethanol gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline, so motorists get fewer miles per tank and per dollar. It produces ozone, attracts water and corrodes car and small engine components, forcing us to spend billions on repairs.

The tale of Philip Joseph Rivkin (aka Felipe Poitan Arriaga) reveals an equally disgusting aspect of the mandate, resulting from the absurdly complex Renewable Identification Number (RIN) system devised by EPA bureaucrats. As Ron Arnold explains in our book, Cracking Big Green, EPA requires that every gallon of biofuel must also have its own unique 38-digit RIN. That’s billions of RINs per year!

“Dry” RIN paper credits are supposed to be associated with actual “wet” gallons of biofuel: corn-based ethanol, biomass-based diesel or nonexistent “advanced cellulosic” fuels. When fuels are not available, refiners can buy RINs from another party that was able to blend the fuel. This “tradable credits” market creates irresistible opportunities for “entrepreneurs” like Rivkin, whose Green Diesel company sold phony biodiesel RINs to oil companies and brokers.

Between 2011 and 2012, Rivkin sold $29 million worth of phony RINs, without producing a single gallon of anything. Secret Service agents arrested him last year in Houston, after he had been expelled from Guatemala, where he had falsely claimed to be a citizen. He plead guilty and now faces ten years in prison, millions of dollars in fines, and the forfeiture of his Lamborghini, Maserati, Canadair LTD plane, $29 million in cash, and an art collection valued in the millions.

His escapade copied what Rodney Hailey pulled off in Perry Hall, Maryland. He rented a garage, filled it with pipes, tanks and pumps (none connected to one another), registered his Clean Green Fuel company with EPA, put up a fancy website, and claimed he would produce 20 million gallons of biodiesel annually from recycled cooking oil. Through a network of traders, Hailey sold more than 32 million bogus RINs for $9 million, while still collecting unemployment.

Eventually, his fancy house, 20 luxury cars and lavish lifestyle attracted law enforcement. In 2013, he was sentenced to 12-1/2 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $42 million in restitution: his sleazy profits plus what his victims had to pay for valid replacement RINs.

The good news is that Rivkin and Hailey will have to pay for their fraudulent actions. (How many other biofuel crooks have not been caught we have no way of knowing.) The bad news is that the RIN system is still in place, under a misguided federal law that benefits almost no one outside the biofuel industry. The worse news is that the cost of their fraud pales by comparison to the lies and fraud perpetrated by EPA and its climate crisis, clean energy and ultra-pure air allies.

Since the biofuel mandate was imposed in 2005 and expanded in 2007 under the Renewable Fuel Standard, it has sent billions of taxpayer and motorist dollars to corn farmers and ethanol producers. It has cost consumers countless billions in reduced mileage, higher food prices, and repairs to their cars, trucks, boats, snowmobiles, chain saws and other small engine equipment. The corn converted into biofuel each year is enough to feed 412 million malnourished people in African and other countries.

Antique autos and other older cars are not compatible with fuels containing ethanol, especially E15 (15% EtOH). Gaskets and other rubber parts can fail, causing fuel leaks and even engine failure or fires. On boats, fiberglass fuel tanks deteriorate and outboard motors can overheat and stop functioning. On airplanes – well you don’t want to ponder what happens when your engine stalls at 10,000 feet.

Many consumers – even corn farmers with older tractors – prefer straight gasoline, which is increasingly hard to find. Nevertheless, in 2014, straight gasoline accounted for almost 7% of total US gasoline sales, double the 3.4% of pure gasoline sold in 2012.

Meanwhile, worries about “peak oil” and “over-dependence” on foreign oil have nearly evaporated. Thanks to fracking and other advanced drilling technologies, the United States is now the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. As consumers drive less and invest in more fuel-efficient newer vehicles, gasoline demand is moderating, after peaking in 2007. And the other justification for ethanol, “dangerous manmade climate change,” is steadily being exposed as just another über-expensive ecological scare.

If consumers want “alternative fuels,” natural gas presents more viable, environmental, free-market, cost-competitive choices. Compressed into high-pressure tanks, it can (and already does) power cars, trucks, taxis and buses. Converted into methanol, our abundant natural gas would enable Detroit to build light, powerful, low-pollution, high octane engines that get better mileage than ethanol-tainted fuels. Existing cars can be converted into “flex-fuel” vehicles for less than $100 – and producing the natural gas and converting it into methanol involves minimal land impacts, no food price hikes and no harm to engines.

Biofuels are guilty as charged. They do to motorists, taxpayers and consumers what wars and riots do to cities. Justifying legislative mandates by saying they create jobs for a few corn growers, biofuel producers and engine repairmen is akin to claiming mobs and warfare foster employment for insurers, firemen, carpenters and window repair companies. The perverse logic also ignores jobs destroyed and businesses destroyed or relocated, and the far better ways our billions of dollars could have been spent.

Politicians, bureaucrats and eco-activists clearly care little about the coal mine workers and communities they have destroyed. Why should biofuel producers be more sacrosanct and protected – based on false claims that these fuels ensure emission reductions, “home-grown” energy supplies and climate stability?

The Renewable Fuel Standard and biofuel mandates do more harm than good. They have outlived their usefulness and should not merely be “fixed,” as some suggest, but scrapped entirely.

Americans should no longer be forced to prop up biofuel companies and pay for expensive repairs under outdated congressional and EPA edicts.

Here is a sort paper I wrote on the subject of Alt fuels for a MS in Environmental Mgmt a while back...

Abstract
Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFVs), or those that use fuels other than 100% petroleum products, are on the scene using technologies designed primarily for gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines (ICE). These fuels are touted to offer reductions in emissions, increased sustainability and other advantages over petroleum fueled vehicles. While all of these fuels certainly have some merit and utility, they also present technological issues that makes gasoline and diesel fuels premier. None of these fuels equal the cost/benefit ratio of petroleum fuels in terms of energy per unit volume or cost of production. Some approach or equal petroleum fuels in ease and safety in storage and transport (ethanol, biodiesel), but others pose significant risks to the public due to the nature of the on-board storage requirements, namely compressed natural gas (CNG) and propane. Still, even though some of these alternative fuels are known to be exceptionally harsh on engine components, all of them are reported to produce reduced emissions compared to petroleum fuels. Lastly, some concerns remain considering that some alternative fuels actually cost more in terms of energy expended to produce an equivalent unit of fuel and that some of the feedstocks required compete for food. We will see where alternative fuels and technologies lead-but barring a significant breakthrough in how we convert energy to work in vehicles, alternative fuels are at best a costly and less efficient means of powering vehicles.
Keywords: AFV, ICE, efficiency, feedstocks, ethanol, CNG, propane, biodiesel, hydrogen, electrolysis

According to the US government, the definition of Alternative Fuels are any fuels other than refined petroleum products (fueleconomy.gov). Alternative Fueled Vehicles (AFVs) are thought to be the near ideal solution to the problem of current petroleum fueled versions of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles of today. However, whether that is true is yet to be seen. AFVs, or vehicles fueled by Ethanol, Propane, Biodiesel, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Hydrogen, are seen primarily in urban areas where usage can be centered around refueling stations. Alternative fuel usage falls into three distinct categories, those that use mature technologies such as CNG or propane (where a modified ICE burns other than gasoline); novel fuels that either use emerging technologies and low volumes of available “boutique” fuels (biodiesel, hydrogen) and finally, ethanol/ethanol enhanced fuels (E100, 85, 15, 10 etc) used in FlexFuel vehicles in conjunction with a ratio of gasoline. Actually, virtually all modern gasoline powered vehicles use ethanol diluted fuels, also called oxygenated fuels to reduce emissions. We will explore briefly these categories and attempt to address the common technological issues that each type displays.
Technological Issues
CNG and Propane
Compressed natural gas and propane fuels are mobile uses of a normally fixed-location fuel source. We think of these two fuels as fuels used to generate electricity, heat homes and businesses and power production line heating systems. However, since the late 1960s, modified ICEs have been used to run vehicles on pressurized tanks of CNG and propane. Often these are most widely seen in the form of forklifts in warehouses or garbage trucks and mass transit buses in major metropolitan areas. There is a reason for the limited use of compressed hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. They burn a large volume of fuel for the energy stored and therefore need to be refueled often. Secondly, when was the last time you drove past a CNG or Propane filling station during a drive on the interstate? Also, while these hydrocarbon fuels burn rather cleanly, they still produce volumes of CO and CO2, along with associated ICE emissions simply from use in such a technology (Fueleconomy.gov). Two other minor but real issues exist as well:
The risk of explosion of the fairly large, pressurized and exposed fuel tank during a high-speed collision or vehicle fires.
Reduction in Cargo capacity due to the large volume and weight of the fuel tanks, which unlike gas or diesel fuel tanks, are pressure vessels, not just plastic or steel cans.
“Boutique Fuels” (BioDiesel, Vegetable Oils and Hydrogen)
Biodiesel and Vegetable Oils
Biodiesel, or diesel fuels produced from non-petroleum based hydrocarbons (such as vegetable oils) have several technological issues that can degrade the utility of use in some circumstances. First, biodiesel thickens in cold weather, requiring additives of petroleum-based diesel fuel or similar compounds, effectively reducing the low emissions touted as the big reason for biodiesel in the first place; secondly, biodiesel contains less energy per unit volume than petroleum-based diesel, requiring the use of more fuel to obtain the same performance or work output, again, effectively offsetting emissions savings as well as increasing costs to perform the same work (Fueleconomy.gov). Finally, manufactures of most diesel engine equipped vehicles recommend use of only B2, B5 or B20 (2, 5 or 20% bio-diesel mix). Use of B100 requires extensive fuel system upgrades to protect critical seals and hoses from the corrosive effects of the fuel while the use of straight or waste vegetable oils (SVO, WVO) requires heating systems and secondary pumps to reduce the viscosity of vegetable oils adequately to enable it to be moved from tank to engine and injected at approximately 160 F (WVO Designs).
Hydrogen; Gas or Liquid.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the earth (McDonough), comprising up to 75% of all mass. It is a colorless, odorless gas in its natural state and is readily combustible with oxygen, producing water. It normally is found in a diatomic state, H2. Refining atmospheric hydrogen requires complicated pumps and compressors, as well as large amounts of energy inputs to separate and compress the gas into useable form. Additionally, hydrogen can be harvested from water by a process call electrolysis. Again, the process requires the use of heat or electricity to break apart water molecules to separate the hydrogen. Note that the amount of effort required to isolate and compress hydrogen into useable form exceeds its work output in both cases. It is obvious that equipment must be fabricated (energy input), harvesting conducted via compression or electrolysis (energy input) storage and transport (input) before the hydrogen fuel can be burned (output) therefore regardless of what else is said about how clean it is or how available it is, it still requires copious amounts of energy input to obtain any output. Therefore hydrogen cannot be a productive fuel. However, hydrogen, when burned, produces water, and in an ICE, maybe some residual NOx or SOx due to blow-by of lubricating oils into the combustion and exhaust stream. Finally, compared to gasoline, Hydrogen contains approximately the same energy per unit volume (Hydrogen Analysis Resource Center).

Ethanol/Ethanol Enhanced Fuels
Ethanol is an alcohol manufactured from feedstocks of vegetable materials ideally containing large percentages of starches and sugars. It is produced by fermentation of the sugars by yeasts which then excrete alcohol as a waste. Ethanol is highly flammable, has a high burn temperature and burns cleanly leaving only water and CO and CO2 as emissions. Ethanol has a higher relative octane equivalency than gasoline, which plays a part in its usefulness as an ICE fuel.
Ethanol Enhanced Gasoline (E10, E15, E85)
Normally gasoline in the US is found mixed with up to 15% ethanol as an oxygenator to reduce emissions. Some vehicles are rated to burn up to 85% (E85) ethanol. There are trade-offs however, when ethanol enhanced (or degraded?) fuels are used compared to gasoline:
Lower BTU output compared to 100% gasoline
Less mileage and performance with E10, E15 and E85 (up to 25% less!)
Corrosive effects on seals and components of fuel systems
There is one performance advantage of high ratio ethanol fuels over gasoline, however; a higher octane rating produces more horsepower and torque compared to gasoline (Fueleconomy.gov).
Using ethanol enhanced fuels reduces NOx and SOx emissions to some degree by increasing the burn temperature and completeness due to increased oxygen content of the fuel/air mixture, and is thus the most relevant reason for using ethanol in gasoline (US DOE).
Once again, like hydrogen, ethanol production requires inputs of energy far greater than that of petroleum production, where the energy input of the fuel already exists in near-useable form. Therefore the BTU cost of ethanol, like that of hydrogen, makes the equation either a losing proposition or at best, with taxpayer subsidy, a lucrative business endeavor. Some research indicates that ethanol requires up 46% more energy input to make than it produces as a fuel, and that one tank of ethanol in a SUV would be the equivalent of 660 pounds of corn, enough to feed two people for a year (Pimentel, 2009)!
Finally, issues remain that make ethanol fuels suspect for the consumer. First, some research indicates that ethanol production competes with food production in the US, as the most useful feedstock is corn. Removing amounts of corn from food production naturally impacts the availability of land for food production, especially when ethanol subsidies make it more lucrative to sell corn for fuel rather than for food. These arguments are often more political and economic than technologic, and therefore are mentioned only in passing.
Summary and Conclusion
While AFVs have merit as fuel sources, it seems that as long as these fuels are being used in conventional ICEs, there will be no significant breakthroughs in cost/benefit, efficiency or emissions for transportation or power production. Gasoline ICEs by design limitation and friction losses are only about 20-30% efficient, while direct injection diesel ICEs approach 40% efficiency (wisegeek.com). Conventional gasoline and diesel fuels are the most viable cost-efficient fuels for this technology, but even with advances in ICE design and operation, we need a significant breakthrough in new technology for converting fuels to work to reduce costs and emissions. Until such a breakthrough is realized, petro-fuels (gasoline and diesel) remain the most cost effective, efficient and useful fuel. Where is Serendipity when you need her?

Author’s Note:
Maybe petroleum is indeed the fuel of the future, and that it is formed in a natural geologic, abiotic renewable process deep within the earth’s outer core as some scientists’ state? Petro=rock or mineral, Oleo= oil or fat; did the Greeks know something we don’t?

Sorry for the formatting though.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.