New Page 1

In a recent report published in the Natural Resources Research Journal by Dr. Tad Patzek, professor of petroleum engineering at UC Berkeley[1], and Dr. David Pimentel, professor emeritus of insect ecology & agricultural sciences at Cornell University[2] titled “Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower,” they argue a negative net energy balance for ethanol and biodiesel production. Considering the growing literature on the subject, Pimentel and Patzek are largely in the minority. In fact, many experts in the field of biofuels are perplexed by the conclusions Pimentel and Patzek have been able to reach. Unfortunately, this recent publication has received considerable attention in the mainstream media with little attention paid to the reliability of the data. Therefore, the commentary for this issue of BCO will be dedicated to a discussion of the inconsistencies in this recent publication and was provided to EESI by John Sheehan, Senior Engineer in the National Bioenergy Center of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The following opinions expressed do not represent an official position of the Dept. of Energy or National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

The recent publication by Pimentel and Patzek on the net energy balance of ethanol and biodiesel has received a great deal of attention in the media. Their paper concludes that production of these renewable biofuels does not offer a positive “return on energy.” The production and use of energy for transportation is complex. Pimentel and Patzek do a disservice to the public when they draw such conclusions based on what appears to be a superficial survey of these renewable energy technologies. On all counts, credible and detailed published studies of these biofuels published over the past ten years do not support this claim. Given the widespread attention given to these persistent claims by Pimentel, I would welcome the opportunity for a thorough review by an objective and respected “third party” of experts to sort out the reasons for the disparities between Pimentel’s claims and the findings of other published studies.

The most surprising suggestion in Pimentel and Patzek’s new publication is the claim that ethanol made from energy crops—trees and grasses containing cellulose and hemicellulose sugars—requires 50% more fossil energy inputs than the fuel energy it delivers. Pimentel and Patzek are uninformed about the technology for turning these new forms of biomass into ethanol. Studies by Argonne National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have demonstrated that ethanol from energy crops and from agricultural residues like corn stover offer large fossil energy savings: savings of 90% or more in the case of energy crops like switchgrass and residues from corn production. Why the big difference? Pimentel and Patzek’s cursory review of the technology missed one very important design aspect for this new technology—the conversion of grasses and residues to ethanol is completely energy self-sufficient. That is, all of its energy needs are provided by the biomass, eliminating the need for the fossil energy that Pimentel and Patzek claim are needed to provide steam and power in the facility. It is unfortunate that such an uninformed claim has now been widely spread in the general media.

The Ongoing Corn Ethanol Debate: Does it represent a deficit in fossil energy?

If asked that question 30 years ago when the new “gasohol” industry was in its infancy, many experts would have said yes. But not today. Dramatic improvements in the efficiency and productivity of farming and in the efficiency of producing ethanol in a modern corn processing plant have changed the situation.

Pimentel and Patzek claim that today’s commercial corn grain ethanol technology invests 29% more fossil energy than it can deliver in each gallon of fuel. While Pimentel has made similar claims about corn ethanol over the past 15 years, well documented studies of corn ethanol conducted by USDA and DOE show just the opposite—that is, corn ethanol delivers a 34% gain in fuel energy for each unit of fossil energy invested (Wang, Saricks et al. 1997; Shapouri, Duffield et al. 2002) , with concomitant savings in greenhouse gas emissions from the savings in fossil energy consumption.

Having focused most of his past attention on corn ethanol production, Pimentel has now turned his attention to the latest renewable fuel entry in the transportation fuel market—biodiesel. Today, the bulk of biodiesel in the United States is made from soybean oil. Pimentel and Patzek claim that the growing of soybeans, and their subsequent processing to make biodiesel, consumes 27% more fossil energy then the fuel can deliver to an engine.

Soybeans are a particularly efficient source of natural oil because—as legumes that fix nitrogen from the atmosphere—they use little or no energy-intensive nitrogen fertilizer. A comprehensive 300-page study of the energy and environmental impacts of biodiesel made from soybeans was conducted jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy and the USDA, and published in 1998 (Sheehan, Camobreceo et al. 1998) . That report finds biodiesel offers dramatic savings—using 70% less fossil energy than its petroleum counterpart.

While reducing our dependence on fossil energy is an important metric for assessing biofuels, we should not lose sight of the most strategic energy challenge facing our nation today—petroleum. A top priority for the U.S. Department of Energy is reducing our reliance on foreign sources of oil. That is one reason why DOE supports the development of biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel. The studies cited here show that corn ethanol reduces oil consumption in your car by 85%. Biodiesel and ethanol from energy crops can offer petroleum savings of 90 to 95%. When I consider the ability of these fuels to slip seamlessly into our existing transportation system, I find these fuels to be among the best opportunities available in the near-term to cure our unhealthy addiction to foreign oil. In the future, energy crops, agricultural residues and other sources of “waste” biomass offer the ability to replace much of the oil we now consume for transportation, without significantly impacting the production of food, feed and fiber.

In the 21^st century, we—as a nation—will face unprecedented energy challenges as we transition from petroleum to more sustainable sources of energy—especially for transportation. If we are to make the right choices as a society, we must avoid the pitfalls of polarized debates in which opponents in the energy debate turn to “sound bite” experts to address conflicting points of view about our energy future. We encourage, instead, an open and honest debate about energy security and how to provide a sustainable energy supply for the future. No option is without its downside. Pimentel and Patzek fail to point out, for example, that gasoline and diesel fuel today actually do have a “negative” fossil energy balance. Let us engage in an intelligent and informed dialogue about energy so that we can make sound choices. We owe that to our children and to future generations.

Shapouri, H., J. Duffield, et al. (2002). The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses.

Sheehan, J., V. Camobreceo, et al. (1998). Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. Golden, CO, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Wang, M., C. Saricks, et al. (1997). Fuel-Cycle Fossil Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Fuel Ethanol Produced from US Midwest Corn. Argonne, IL, Argonne National Laboratory.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, roughly seven to ten percent of fossil fuel consumed in the United States is for the manufacture of plastics and fibers. By replacing petroleum as the main feedstock for these products with biobased alternatives, annual consumption of hundreds of millions of barrels of oil would be reduced. Though the industry is currently not producing at a scale to accomplish that in the very near term, there are many companies producing a wide variety of commercially viable biobased products today.

In a recent article featured in the Los Angeles Times, certain sectors of the biobased industry were presented as being particularly advanced in commercializing their products, namely the corn pellet industry. Cargill is the first company to commercialize the technology with production levels of 300,000 pounds of pellets a day. These pellets can be spun into fibers for clothing or molded into a clear, hardened plastic to produce items such as plastic utensils, water bottles, portable CD players and cell-phones. Similarly, soy fiber is presently being used to produce clothing, mattresses, and building insulation.

Detractors have challenged that the technology is not economical. But with $60/barrel oil compared to $2/bushel corn and rising pressure to reduce oil imports, the industry is citing numerous reasons to invest. The environmental benefits of these products are hard to ignore. Kathleen Bader, CEO of Cargill’s subsidiary Natureworks, tells her customers, “We're using material that's renewable in 90 days instead of 90 million years.” Even with accounting for inputs for corn production and harvest, biobased plastics and polymers consume 50 percent less fossil fuel than their petroleum counterparts. The technology has huge implications also for “e-waste,” which consists of 2.2-million tons of discarded cell-phones, computers, and other electronics dumped each year in landfills. With predominantly biobased components these products could be composted and would degrade into water and carbon dioxide in a matter of months.

Though corn and soy are currently the most readily available feedstocks for these products, technology to extract other carbon-based materials from cellulosic sources is improving. Products made from switchgrass or agricultural waste would further push their environmental and economic benefits, also increasing the scale at which they can be produced.

On July 5, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s (USDA) Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program issued a proposed rule for designating six biobased product items. The first six (of approximately 110) items to be designated included: mobile equipment hydraulic fluids; urethane roof coatings; water tank coatings; diesel fuel additives; penetrating lubricants; and bedding, bed linens, and towels. Once a final rule has been published, all Federal agencies must preferably procure these items. To expedite the procurement process, USDA will provide an “on-line” database listing the products with the companies producing their biobased counterparts as well as contact information for these vendors.

A public comment period for manufacturers of the above-designated items will be open until Sept. 6, 2005. Comments may be submitted by mail to: Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Room 4059, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., MS-3815, Washington, DC 20250-3815 by email to: fb4p@oce.usda.gov or via the web through the federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov/ or at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.

On July 18, 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published the final rule for the Section 9006 Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Grant, Guaranteed Loan, and Direct Loan Program (7 CFR Part 4280). The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) of USDA expects to have up to an estimated $200 million available in guaranteed loan funds (at an $11.4 million cost to the government.)

The $11.4 million set-aside for loan guarantees was part of Secretary Johanns’ March announcement that $22.8 million would be available for the Sec. 9006 Grant and Loan Guarantee Program. Half of the program’s funds are reserved for grant applications, which were due June 27, 2005. The second $11.4 million for loan guarantee applicants will be set aside until August 31, 2005. Any funds not obligated by the end of August will be transferred to the competitive grant program.

USDA has made some changes to the application process for the Section 9006 program. Specifically, the minimum application level for the loan guarantee program is $5,000 and the maximum is $10 million. For loans equal to or less than $600,000, the applicant will complete the “short form” (Form RD-4279-1A) used for the Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Guarantee Program. Loan guarantees can be for up to 85 percent of loans for $600,000 or less, up to 80 percent for loans of $600,000 to $5 million, and 70 percent for loans of $5 million to $10 million.

Applicable renewable energy technologies include: small- and large-scale solar electric, solar thermal, and wind energy projects; energy derived from biomass (including biofuels and anaerobic digestion); hydrogen; and geothermal for both direct use and electric generation.

A final rule has not been completed for the authorized Direct Loan Program. USDA states in the Federal Register notice that it “is still evaluating the resources necessary to administer the program.” If the evaluation is positive, USDA will issue a final rule for the program subsequently.

In related news, USDA has received 374 applications from 43 states for the Section 9006 Grant Program. Total grant requests are for $60.7 million, leveraging a total project cost of just over $1 billion. Initial assessment of these applications indicated a significant increase in quality and completeness from previous years’ applications. This has been attributed to increased outreach and education regarding the program.

Submitted applications will first undergo a review of demonstrated financial need, which is expected to remove a number of the largest applications totaling over half of the estimated leveraged funds above. Following this review, applications will undergo technical review at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory before being sent to USDA for final scoring. Awards are expected to be announced in September 2005.

The long awaited Energy Bill does contain supportive incentives for biomass technologies, including biopower, biofuels, and biobased products. One noteworthy provision would be the National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005 (S.1210). The focus of this legislation is to address national security concerns by providing significant incentives for development of domestic bioenergy production as well as continuing encouragement of a biobased product market in the United States . The bill amends the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000[1], extends the requirement for biobased product procurement to all Federal Government contractors, provides tax incentives for the construction or modification of cellulosic biomass facilities and for reducing start-up costs for businesses manufacturing biobased products, and includes a reverse auction competitive solicitation process designed to encourage the production of the first billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels. The first auction will take place within one year after the production of the first 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol. It was introduced on June 9, by Senators Harkin (D-IA), Lugar (R-IN), Coleman (R-MN), Obama (D-IL), and Bayh (D-IN). The bill cites findings from the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition, The Energy Future Coalition, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rocky Mountain Institute, and the National Commission on Energy Policy, among others.

Otherwise, the Energy bill includes a number of biomass related provisions incentivizing the expansion of biofuel, biopower, and bio-based product technologies. Some highlights include: a modification of the definition for small ethanol and small biodiesel producers, as well as the extension of the biodiesel production tax credit to Dec. 31, 2008; the inclusion of “renewable diesel” (diesel fuel derived form biomass using a thermal depolymerization process) as a qualifying biodiesel technology; the extension of the renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) for another two years, which includes open- and closed-loop biomass facilities; the creation of a program to allow governmental bodies the ability to issue Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB’s) of which 95 percent is required to be provided to qualifying PTC facilities; a 30 percent tax credit for installing an alternative refueling facility for either 85 percent ethanol or 20 percent biodiesel blends (other qualifying alternative fuels include natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and hydrogen); and includes a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

[1] Updates to the Biomass R&D Initiative of 2000 include requiring greater focus on overcoming the technical barriers for the growing bio-economy and identifying four primary areas of technical focus for realizing further commercialization, such as: feedstock production, overcoming recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass, product diversification, and strategic guidance. Under this legislation the annual authorized appropriations are increased to $200 million from the current $14 million authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill.

Oklahoma is well on its way to beginning in-state production of biodiesel due in large part to House Bill 1398, which was signed by Gov. Brad Henry on June 6. The tax credit will provide 20 cents/gallon of biodiesel produced for the first five years, with a maximum annual payment of $5 million. Both new and expanded facilities are eligible for this credit, if they are producing 25 percent of their capacity. After five years or in 2012, the credit will be reduced to 7.5 cents/gallon for the first three years of production. Annual payments will be capped at $750,000.

As a direct effect of passage of this incentive, Durant , OK will be the site of a 10 million gallon biodiesel production facility. Not coincidentally, two of the strong supporters of HB 1398 were Senator Jay Paul Gumm and Representative John Carey of Durant. The facility is currently under construction and expected to begin producing biodiesel in October 2005. The initial feedstock will be soybean oil, railed in from the Midwest , though Earth Biofuels (a subsidiary of Apollo Resources International, Inc.) is hoping to encourage local farmers to produce canola or other oilseeds appropriate for biodiesel production. Currently, the plant’s proximity to a rail line will allow for economical transportation of the feedstock.

“We see many proposed tax benefits in every state in which we consider building, but this credit takes it to the next level,” said Mr. Tommy Johnson, CEO of Earth Biofuels and President of Apollo Alternative Fuels. “Biodiesel makes so much sense, economically and environmentally. The passing of this bill tells us that the state of Oklahoma recognizes these benefits, and is encouraging biodiesel production as rapidly as possible.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected an appeal by California , New York and Connecticut to waive requirements for a gasoline oxygenate additive in their states. The three states had requested a waiver based on the contention that using an ethanol additive in gasoline would increase emissions of smog forming pollutants and exacerbate air pollution problems. The EPA concluded that California had “not demonstrated that the oxygen content requirement prevents or interferes with the state’s effort to achieve clean air.” New York and Connecticut failed to submit technical data necessary to evaluate the impact of the waiver on emissions.

Beginning in 1995, Clean Air Act requirements necessitated the use of oxygenates in gasoline to reduce emissions from motor vehicles in metropolitan areas suffering from serious air pollution problems. The law did not specify the type of oxygenate, but almost 87 percent of the gasoline was reformulated with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) or ethanol as an additive. However, in 1999, California banned the use of MTBE based on concerns of groundwater contamination from leaking MTBE storage tanks. As a result, the state was left with the option of using ethanol as an alternative additive.

In 1999, California requested a waiver from the EPA citing increased smog forming emissions from ethanol as a concern. The waiver was subsequently denied by the EPA in 2001 because California failed to demonstrate the negative impact of ethanol on regional air quality. California sued the EPA, as a result of which, the 9^th Circuit Court vacated the original decision, directing the EPA to conduct additional analysis and review new information submitted by the state.

For more information on the EPA’s waiver decision, please see:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm#waiver

Source: June 2005 EESI Clean Bus Update

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a Biodiesel Workgroup public meeting on June 8, 2005 to address several issues including emission evaluations, updates on CARB’s informal verification of biodiesel and changes to the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standard. The meeting was well represented with biodiesel stakeholders, including representatives from the California Energy Commission, US Navy, South Coast Air Quality Management District, National Biodiesel Board (NBB), Engine Manufacturers Association, local biodiesel suppliers and users.

New research on the impact of biodiesel use on nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions was presented by Bob McCormick, a senior engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL). He indicated that testing procedures impacted the results of emission tests significantly. For example, recent tests using the bus chassis dynamometer testing procedure suggest decreased NO_x emissions when compared to the engine dynamometer testing procedure which suggests increases in NO_x emissions. He stressed that there is uncertainty regarding the impact of biodiesel and further tests are needed to make assessments. He indicated that NREL, in partnership with NBB, will be studying the impacts of biodiesel use on new engines which are subject to tighter emission standards than existing diesel engines.

The group was updated on the status of the ASTM standard modifications for biodiesel. A new stand-alone standard for B20 (biodiesel 20 percent, petroleum diesel 80 percent) is under development as well as the incorporation of 5 percent biodiesel in the current ASTM standard for petroleum diesel (D975).

CARB officials Gary Yee and Bob Okamoto indicated that the informal verification of B20 is likely to take place later in 2005. California requires the phase-in of “Best Available Control Technology (BACT)” to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) from fleets owned and operated by public agencies. However, CARB has yet to recognize biodiesel as an alternative fuel. Therefore, biodiesel cannot be used either as an emission reduction strategy or in conjunction with other emissions reduction devices in public fleets. The great irony is that this could put the use of biodiesel in jeopardy because 25 percent of biodiesel in California is consumed by public fleets. CARB is currently evaluating the compatibility of B20 with engines and other emission reduction devices. This compatibility demonstration will allow the use of B20 in conjunction with other emission reduction strategies to comply with CARB’s requirements for public fleets. The informal verification later this year will eventually allow biodiesel to be used as an emission reduction strategy.

A new patent-pending, technological breakthrough accomplished by a partnership between a number of ethanol producers and a technology firm would allow ethanol producing facilities to increase revenue through crude oil extraction. The partnership has been named SunSource Bioenergy, LLC, and includes VeraSun Energy, Glacial Lakes Energy, KAAPA Ethanol, Golden Grain Energy, and Ethanol Oil Recovery Systems (EORS).

The newly developed extraction process would remove crude corn oil during the dry milling process, improving the handling quality of the distillers dry grains (DDGs) and producing another feedstock for biodiesel production. David Cantrell, chairman and founder of EORS, is pleased with his breakthrough technology, “It allows the ethanol plants a profitable revenue stream. For the first time, you can make ethanol and biodiesel from the same kernel of corn.”

The extracted oil previously had been considered a waste product that is left over after the corn is processed for meal and other co-products. Therefore, this process would not be degrading any of the co-products of ethanol, but instead creating an entirely new revenue stream. A representative from SunSource Bioenergy, Matt Janes of VeraSun Energy, presented the company’s approach to this technology on June 30, 2005 at BBI’s 21^st Annual Fuel Ethanol Workshop in Kansas City , MO (www.fuelethanolworkshop.com).

As a result of this breakthrough, SunSource Bioenergy plans to build a 50 million gallon biodiesel plant that would purify the extracted corn oil and convert it into biodiesel. The plant may be located either in southern Minnesota or northern Iowa and will be fully constructed by 2007. The company intends to approach the ethanol industry with extraction units and oil purchase agreements, in order to share the benefits of this technological development.

According to Kevin Kreisler, Chairman and CEO of GreenShift, “This technology is an excellent example of… how an incremental advance in technology can enable quantum environmental gains. In addition to generating additional revenue and decreasing costs, SunSource BioEnergy's production can be expected to benefit the environment by offsetting demand for fossil fuels, and by reducing the generation of greenhouse gases.” GreenShift is a publicly traded business development company (BDC) that is acquiring a15 percent stake in EORS.

Iogen continues to be making headlines. For the G8 meeting in Gleneagles , Scotland the Ottawa-based cellulosic-ethanol company provided fuel derived from straw for the dignitaries’ official cars to travel to and from the meetings. The actual fuel in the cars was a 95 percent blend of petroleum with a 5 percent blend of cellulosic ethanol, which is the maximum European cars can handle. By using straw as a feedstock instead of corn or sugar, Iogen claims their fuel produces 90 percent less greenhouse gases. According to Iogen CEO Brian Foody, “This is an excellent illustration of changes that can be made that don't have to change peoples' lifestyles, don't change the kinds of cars they drive, but can yet make significant improvements.” Though the five percent blend may seem a small one, according to Iogen, it still reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 3 grams per mile. A nationwide five percent cellulosic ethanol blend would be as effective in reducing emissions as a 20-30 percent penetration of “costly” hybrid cars, but significant commercial scale production does not appear to be just around the corner. Royal Dutch/Shell and Petro-Canada have both made significant investments in Iogen, $49 million and $20.4 million respectively. However, Iogen is looking for $325 million to construct a commercial scale ethanol plant, which would consume 700,000 tonnes of straw and produce 220 million liters of fuel annually.

Even with a handle on the hybrid vehicle market, Toyota is showing concern that it is lagging on alternative fuel compatible technology. According to a worried Toyota official, “Alternative fuels will soon be needed in Japan , too, but the industry is no closer to reaching agreement on materials and fuel composition. We could see a plethora of different fuels.” Toyota is watching European auto companies like Volkswagen and DaimlerChrysler accomplishing significant strides in embracing alternative fuel use in their vehicles. Volkswagen has partnered with Shell to fund research for production of liquid fuels from natural gas and biomass; hence, the negotiations underway currently between Toyota and petroleum giant, BP Plc. The research would address economic viability of biofuels, their effects on vehicles, and possible feedstocks. BP already owns a biofuel refinery servicing European markets and is continuing to support further commercialization. This initiative would certainly work to expand Toyota ’s eco-friendly/progressive image, while providing their customers with a less costly vehicle technology than hybrids.

In statements made at a Spinx Co. fueling station in Greer, South Carolina, legendary rock star Willie Nelson announced his plan to provide B20 blended biodiesel for truckers along the East Coast, namely from “Miami up to Rochester.” However, BioWillie, Nelson’s biodiesel distributing company, is planning to expand biodiesel availability in the Southeast first. Willie Nelson has been a highly visible biodiesel advocate for sometime and decided to put money behind his words by forming his company in December 2004. Nelson provides passionate reasons for expanding biodiesel use: “Biodiesel is the future. This is a great day for America . All of the major automotive and truck manufacturers are struggling to find new ways to meet fuel emissions standards and biodiesel is the most practical and readily available alternative. We have it here at home. We have the necessary product; the farmers can grow it.” For Independence Day, Nelson gave a concert at a biodiesel celebration at Carl’s Corner, Texas at a Carl’s Corner filling station. A co-owner of the facility, Carl Cornelius, has received very positive results from his truck driver customers consuming biodiesel. In his words, “Almost everybody who’s used it has been totally satisfied. I’m learning from truckers they find better mileage, smoother performance, and more power. They’re pretty excited. Everybody ought to get on this bandwagon.”

Apparently, animosity between alternative fuels and petroleum industries runs deep. So deep, in fact, that the affable mascot of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, Corn Cob Bob, was banned from a Canada Day festival by the express request of Shell Canada. According to a spokesperson from Shell Canada, a major sponsor of the celebration, the company had made arrangements with the organizers to have exclusive rights on all fuel products to be presented. As a result, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association was not able to participate in this year’s Canada Day celebration and will have to wait until next year for Corn Cob Bob to make an appearance there. Since the event took place on July 1, the National Capital Commission (NCC), which organized the event, has publicly apologized for the sudden removal of CRFA after initially accepting their application. According to Guy Laflamme, spokesperson for the NCC, the decision had not been approved by senior management and they would be “sure this doesn’t happen in the future.” Nevertheless, Corn Cob Bob has been making appearances around Ontario (19 this summer) teaching children about alternative fuels as well as handing out balloons and temporary tattoos. It is certainly interesting that a company that produces three percent of the world’s oil and gas would feel threatened by one non-profit’s corn-cob attired mascot, especially considering it claims to “meet present and future energy needs in environmentally and socially responsible ways.”

The Green Power Program, a North Carolina-based non-profit, collects public donations from roughly 7,000 customers of Progress Energy, Duke Power and other utilities to put toward in-state renewable energy production projects. A few businesses in the state have also anted up, including GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, IBM and Lowe's Home Improvement. Thus far GPP has supported the deployment of four alternative energy systems, including two solar units, a wood unit, and a hydroelectric operation with over a dozen water mills.

Most recently, GPP has partnered with two companies to help bring two anaerobic digesters on-line in the coming months. One company, Methane Credit, is planning a land-fill gas digester in Wayne County capable of powering 500 homes annually. Smithfield Foods will be using manure produced by their hogs to power 70 homes a year (at a ratio of 125 hogs per home.) Most of Smithfield ’s manure will be converted into organic fertilizer with only a small percentage to be dedicated to methane production. Apparently the addition of these two systems by October will quadruple the current amount of production GPP is subsidizing in the state, to a total of 7.7 million kWh. According to Jim Voss, CEO of Methane Credit, the biomass resource for North Carolina is only beginning to be tapped, “ North Carolina has a vast resource of indigenous energy supply and has a massive agricultural sector. Between the pigs and the chickens, they produce a significant amount of waste.”

On July 14, 2005, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute sponsored a Congressional briefing to discuss two of the more contentious issues surrounding the biofuels ethanol and biodiesel. Opening remarks were made by Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-MN). Speakers included: Aaron Whitesel, Legislative Assistant for Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN); John Sheehan, Senior Engineer, Biotechnology Division, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Dr. Gal Luft, Executive Director, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS), a leader of the Set America Free Campaign. The event was timed to aid staff with picking through the large amount of information circulating regarding biofuels as the House and Senate conference committee deliberated. Inadvertently, the briefing occurred after the release of the latest Pimentel report, which provided Sheehan an appropriate springboard from which to discuss energy balance of ethanol and biodiesel production. In his words, “I think we should thank Dr. Pimentel for giving us so much visibility and providing an excellent outline of the issue.” He promptly refuted every point of contention Dr. Pimentel had described. Aaron Whitesel discussed legislation Sen. Lugar has co-sponsored regarding biofuels, including the Renewable Fuel Standard and the National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005. Both of which have been incorporated in the Energy Bill with some modifications. Dr. Luft spoke from the perspective of national security and offered six main take-away points for the audience. 1. Need for a nationwide mandate for Flex Fuel Vehicles, 2. Need for ethanol to be available nationwide (currently only a Midwestern boutique fuel), 3. Must have commercial production of cellulosic biofuels, 4. Cannot discount the addition municipal solid waste can make for expanding production of cellulosic biofuels, 5. Sugar is the best feedstock (sugar cane/beets) and the United States is located in the “Middle East” of sugar production (the Caribbean .)

Gov. Ted Kulongoski was present for an historic though small-scale first for Oregon-- a one million gallon/year biodiesel plant. This plant will be the first biofuel production facility for the state as well as Oregon has no ethanol plants currently in operation. This facility is a joint venture between Oregon-based SeQuential Biofuels and Hawaii-based Pacific Biodiesel Inc. and will produce biodiesel from waste cooking oil, provided partially by potato chip producer, Kettle Foods. It is expected to produce enough to meet the state’s current entire biodiesel demand. “We anticipate that we're going to push the market a lot harder and create demand for more than one million gallons of biodiesel,” said Tomas Endicott, a partner with SeQuential Biofuels. Originally, a four million gallon biodiesel plant was to begin operation in Portland, but permitting problems were delaying the project, so by deciding to open the facility in Salem, the partners were able to bring t heir biodiesel product to market at least six months sooner. Once production begins at the facility in Portland , the project’s partners will decide whether or not to relocate the equipment in Salem there as well.

On June 17, Gov. Pataki and State Sen. Wright announced that the state will award $4 million to Northeast Biofuels (NEB), a $153 million ethanol facility. Once this facility begins production, it will be one of the largest in the nation. It will produce 100 million gallons of ethanol annually from 41 million bushels of corn, produced predominantly in New York . The site of the facility is an abandoned Miller Brewery in Fulton , NY which has been dormant for 11 years. One of the partners for the project is Perdue Farms, which will be both a facilitator for the acquisition of corn for NEB as well as a marketer for the distillers dried grains (DDGs) to be produced. The plant will be one of the largest producers of carbon dioxide for commercial purposes once it has reached its full capacity.

The Governor took the opportunity to relate the expansion of NEB to ongoing research occurring at the Syracuse Center of Excellence in Environmental and Energy Systems and SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY-ESF), which have successfully developed techniques to produce ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks directly taken from pulp and paper mills. “In effect, what we will do by developing the biofuels industry in New York State is to replace foreign oil with New York corn, New York wood, New York ethanol and New York Jobs,” said the Governor.

“The renewable fuels standard, the hallmark provision of this bill, opens the door to new economic opportunities in congressional districts across the country. I support the use of products such as forestry biomass, livestock waste and commodities such as sugar cane and beets, wheat, corn and soybeans, in the manufacture of renewable fuels, and I intend to work hard as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to ensure that we continue to have an affordable and ample supply of feed for our livestock producers.”

"Many people have falsely assumed that you have to choose between protecting the environment and protecting the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth."

“We very much believe that we can produce from a bushel of corn everything that is produced from a barrel of petroleum, but you can't feed animals or people with petroleum. The federal studies we rely on have consistently shown the energy balance is positive.”

Martha Schlicher, Director of the Research Center,
National Corn-To-Ethanol Research Center
Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville