Emily Pickrell, May 21- Renewable fuel standards are distorting the refining industry in ways  lawmakers didn’t foresee when they set the mandates,  industry representatives said Tuesday at a Houston conference.

Import of renewable  fuel from Brazil, production fraud and and a misinterpretation of rules governing the use of a 15 percent ethanol blend called E15 are among the problems that have arisen from existing  renewable fuel standards, said Charles Drevna, president of American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

He spoke at the North American Refined Products conference sponsored at the Saint Regis Houston  by Platts, an energy information service.

Most domestic ethanol is made from corn, but imports of cheaper, sugar-based ethanol from Brazil have cut into demand for ethanol from domestic producers.

The resulting glut in domestic capacity  has prompted producers to advocate a 15 percent ethanol content in gasoline.

“E15 is the best answer for the corn ethanol industry,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. “It is plagued with overcapacity and E15 is seen as the answer.”

But refiners and some consumer advocates contend older vehicle engines  can’t handle the higher blend.

The first renewable standard, which Congress passed in 2005, required all fuel sold in the United States  for transportation to contain a specified minimum volume of  fuel produced from renewable sources.

Read more >>

Robert Bryce- May 20- The U.S. military’s expensive experiments with biofuels – along with the rationale for entire biofuels business — has been gunned down in a fusillade of friendly fire.

You may recall that over the past few years, the Pentagon has been funding a number of efforts to develop biofuels. On Earth Day 2010, the Navy flew an F-18 using a mixture of conventional jet fuel and biofuel derived from camellina, a plant in the mustard family. After the flight, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus declared that the Navy and Marine Corps were committed to “reducing dependence on foreign oil as well safeguarding our environment.”  Since then, Mabus and the Navy have continued to hype the potential of biofuels and its effort to create a “Great Green Fleet” of ships. And in March, the Navy insisted its alt-fuel program won’t get hit by the sequester.

Now comes one of the Navy’s best and brightest, Captain T.A. Ike Keifer. In March, Keifer, an aviator who has been deployed seven times and spent 21 months in Iraq, published a scathing indictment of the biofuels sector in Strategic Studies Quarterly, the U.S. Air Force’s most-prestigious journal.  Alongside articles about nuclear weapons and terrorism, was Kiefer’s broadside: “Energy Insecurity: The False Promise of Liquid Biofuels.” The key paragraph:

"Imagine if the US military developed a weapon that could threaten millions around the world with hunger, accelerate global warming, incite widespread instability and revolution, provide our competitors and enemies with cheaper energy, and reduce America’s economy to a permanent state of recession. What would be the sense and the morality of employing such a weapon? We are already building that weapon—it is our biofuels program. For the sake of our national energy strategy and global security, we must face the sober facts and reject biofuels while advocating an overall national energy strategy compatible with the laws of chemistry, physics, biology, and economics."

To be certain, there are many critics of the biofuels business. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the chairman of the Swiss food giant Nestle has declared that using food crops to make biofuels is “absolute madness.” Just a few days ago, Alan Shaw, the former CEO of Codexis, the first “advanced” (made from non-food crops) biofuel company to be publicly traded on a US stock exchange, said flatly that  it was impossible to convert crop waste, wood, and plants like switchgrass into motor fuel and do so economically. Shaw said it was wrong to base the motor fuel industry on plants. “The feedstock is wrong,” he said.

Read more >>

Opposition for biofuels stretches across the globe.

In the video above, Action Aid UK calls attention to the folly of burning our food for fuel.

In 2011, the United States—the world’s largest food exporter—converted 40 percent of its corn crop into fuel in order to satisfy the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). In fact, the total amount of ethanol produced in the United States in 2011 was 13.95 billion gallons, enough to feed 570 million people that year. This practice of converting food into fuel drastically restricts global corn supply, and continues to have real consequences for the 1.2 billion people around the world living on $1.25 or less per day.

Sign our pledge to demand change. 

In the video above, Jim Currie of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, a Smarter Fuel Future partner, discusses the dangers of E15.

E15 is a blend of fuel containing 15 percent volume ethanol and 85 percent volume gasoline. While E10 has been proven to be a safe and reliable gasoline for more than 20 years, the same cannot be said about E15. Despite this reality, EPA approved E15 for sale into the general gasoline pool for vehicles made in and after 2001.

Numerous studies show that gasoline blends containing more than 10 percent ethanol can cause engine damage in boats, cars and smaller engines including chainsaws, lawnmowers, and snowmobiles. As a result, vehicle manufacturers have warned that the use of E15 will void warranties, leaving consumers vulnerable to expensive repair bills.

American taxpayers, families and workers—come on down! In 2007, Congress made you an unwitting game show contestant when they expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a program that mandates large quantities of biofuel—made from corn and other biomass—be blended into the fuel supply. The twist in this game show? It's your money on the line, and only ethanol producers are winning.

The RFS mandate affects the prices of two of America’s (and the world’s) most vital commodities—food and fuel. In 2011, 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop was processed into biofuel, rather than food and livestock feed. The shrinking supply of corn for food has caused prices to spike nearly 18 percent, raising food costs for a family of four between $1,344 and $2,658 per year. In December, the National Council of Chain Restaurants released a study, which estimates that by 2015, when the RFS is fully phased-in, the mandate will increase total costs for chain restaurant owners by up to $3.2 billion per year. Anti-hunger groups have also taken note. In October 2012, ActionAid released a study outlining how RFS-related food price increases put developing countries at risk of famine.

Ethanol could also increase fuel costs. Experts have said that RFS mandates are likely to increase ethanol prices by 18.8 percent, raising the cost of gasoline, which is required to be blended with ethanol. In fact, fuel that is up to 85 percent ethanol is more expensive than pure gasoline, even with today’s petroleum prices and biodiesel costs more than $1.50 more per gallon to produce.

What’s more, ethanol producers received $20 billion in taxpayer subsidies between 2005 and 2011—$64 for every American.

And these are just a few of the ways Americans are forced to play a losing hand. Check out the infographic below to learn more about how RFS impacts your wallet, and browse this site to learn how RFS and U.S. biofuels policy affect the economy, food prices, engine performance and the environment.

If you agree that Americans deserve a Smarter Fuel Future, sign our pledge to demand change.

The House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce is issuing a series of white papers as the first step in reviewing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Each white paper poses a series of questions on the pitfalls of the RFS to stakeholders in affected sectors.

From skyrocketing RIN prices to engine damage, land-use competition to higher animal feed costs and feeding the world’s hungry, organizations are dealing with the effects of this government boondoggle every day.

Below, you can read the comments on the first two white papers and check back as we update for each white paper issue area.

Paper 1- Blend Wall / Fuel Compatibility Issues

• American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Comments
• Institute for Energy Research Comments
• Competitive Enterprise Institute Comments
• EPRINC Comments
• Clean Air Task Force Comments

Paper 2- Agricultural Sector Impacts

• American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Comments
• National Chicken Council Comments
• Competitive Enterprise Institute Comments
• ActionAid Comments
• American Frozen Food Institute Comments
• National Turkey Federation Comments
• Advanced Economic Solutions Comments
• Grocery Manufacturers Association Comments
• FarmEcon, LLC Comments
• National Council of Chain Restaurants Comments
• National Restaurant Association
• New England Complex Systems Institute Comments
• American Bakers Association Comments

From the summer of 2012 through mid-February of this year, the price differential, or spread, between gasoline in New York Harbor and the Gulf Coast (NYH 2 GC) had been wider than at any similar period in recent history. During this time, retail gasoline in PADD 11 (East Coast) typically sold at a premium of $0.20-$0.30 per gallon to retail gasoline in PADD 3 (Gulf Coast), well above the historical premium.

The spread peaked at $0.41 per gallon in November, although this peak is partially attributed to Hurricane Sandy. The spread began to collapse in mid2February with improvements in the Northeastern supply chain and temporary refining issues in the Gulf Coast. The spread currently sits at a more ‘normal’ level of about $0.05 per gallon. However, it is far from certain that this calm will persist given the upcoming summer driving season, the tenuous supply situation in the Atlantic Basin (U.S. East Coast and Europe), and several regulatory hurdles which are emerging as serious barriers to the supply of refined products in the United States.

Read more >>

Emily Pickrell, May 21- Renewable fuel standards are distorting the refining industry in ways  lawmakers didn’t foresee when they set the mandates,  industry representatives said Tuesday at a Houston conference.

Import of renewable  fuel from Brazil, production fraud and and a misinterpretation of rules governing the use of a 15 percent ethanol blend called E15 are among the problems that have arisen from existing  renewable fuel standards, said Charles Drevna, president of American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

He spoke at the North American Refined Products conference sponsored at the Saint Regis Houston  by Platts, an energy information service.

Most domestic ethanol is made from corn, but imports of cheaper, sugar-based ethanol from Brazil have cut into demand for ethanol from domestic producers.

The resulting glut in domestic capacity  has prompted producers to advocate a 15 percent ethanol content in gasoline.

“E15 is the best answer for the corn ethanol industry,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates. “It is plagued with overcapacity and E15 is seen as the answer.”

But refiners and some consumer advocates contend older vehicle engines  can’t handle the higher blend.

The first renewable standard, which Congress passed in 2005, required all fuel sold in the United States  for transportation to contain a specified minimum volume of  fuel produced from renewable sources.

Read more >>

Robert Bryce- May 20- The U.S. military’s expensive experiments with biofuels – along with the rationale for entire biofuels business — has been gunned down in a fusillade of friendly fire.

You may recall that over the past few years, the Pentagon has been funding a number of efforts to develop biofuels. On Earth Day 2010, the Navy flew an F-18 using a mixture of conventional jet fuel and biofuel derived from camellina, a plant in the mustard family. After the flight, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus declared that the Navy and Marine Corps were committed to “reducing dependence on foreign oil as well safeguarding our environment.”  Since then, Mabus and the Navy have continued to hype the potential of biofuels and its effort to create a “Great Green Fleet” of ships. And in March, the Navy insisted its alt-fuel program won’t get hit by the sequester.

Now comes one of the Navy’s best and brightest, Captain T.A. Ike Keifer. In March, Keifer, an aviator who has been deployed seven times and spent 21 months in Iraq, published a scathing indictment of the biofuels sector in Strategic Studies Quarterly, the U.S. Air Force’s most-prestigious journal.  Alongside articles about nuclear weapons and terrorism, was Kiefer’s broadside: “Energy Insecurity: The False Promise of Liquid Biofuels.” The key paragraph:

"Imagine if the US military developed a weapon that could threaten millions around the world with hunger, accelerate global warming, incite widespread instability and revolution, provide our competitors and enemies with cheaper energy, and reduce America’s economy to a permanent state of recession. What would be the sense and the morality of employing such a weapon? We are already building that weapon—it is our biofuels program. For the sake of our national energy strategy and global security, we must face the sober facts and reject biofuels while advocating an overall national energy strategy compatible with the laws of chemistry, physics, biology, and economics."

To be certain, there are many critics of the biofuels business. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the chairman of the Swiss food giant Nestle has declared that using food crops to make biofuels is “absolute madness.” Just a few days ago, Alan Shaw, the former CEO of Codexis, the first “advanced” (made from non-food crops) biofuel company to be publicly traded on a US stock exchange, said flatly that  it was impossible to convert crop waste, wood, and plants like switchgrass into motor fuel and do so economically. Shaw said it was wrong to base the motor fuel industry on plants. “The feedstock is wrong,” he said.

Read more >>