15 Jan 2010
Californian regulators this week approved tough new standards governing the carbon intensity of bioethanol that will force producers to account for the lifecycle emissions that result from the production of biofuels.
The Californian Air Resources Board (CARB) said the new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) will reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California by an average of 10 per cent by the year 2020, by forcing bioethanol producers to measure the emissions that result from the production, transportation, and land use changes associated with biofuels.
Congress adopted a renewable fuels standard in 2005 and strengthened it in December 2007 requiring that 36bn gallons of biofuel be sold annually by 2022, of which 21bn gallons must qualify as "advanced" second generation biofuels.
However, environmental campaigners have long argued that these targets will not necessarily lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions as they fail to address the impact increased demand for biofuels can have on land use and deforestation. Numerous studies have warned that when these impacts are taken into account some biofuels result in higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than the fossil fuels they aim to replace.
The new California standard, which the Air Resources Board said would only apply to biofuels and not other alternative fuels such as hydrogen, seeks to tackle this problem by requiring producers to meet a minimum level of carbon intensity.
The standard, which comes into effect from next year, is likely to be welcomed by environmental groups, but has been condemned by US biofuel producers who are arguing the LCFS will make it much harder for them to compete against foreign imports of bioethanol.
Last month, the two largest ethanol trade organisations started legal action against California over the standard, arguing that the new standard is unconstitutional.
Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, said state officials had violated Californian law by failing to fully address valid concerns put to them by the industry.
"As crafted, the LCFS would virtually eliminate domestic ethanol, the only viable low-carbon alternative to gasoline, from the California marketplace in favour of imported ethanol and futuristic fuel technologies such as hydrogen and the electric car," he said in a statement.
LATEST STORIES ABOUT LEGISLATION
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
Solar sector warns proposed cuts to feed-in tariffs would make it impossible for them to deliver promised rates of return
INSIGHT
INSIGHT
The science and practical application of an improved method for the specification of power and cooling infrastructure for data centres
A look at alternative approaches to managing energy for cost and/or sustainability reasons in data centres
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
Corn Ethanol Good; Petroleum Bad
Corn ethanol is far less carbon intensive than conventional gasoline. Most reputable sources find it 40 to 50% lower in carbon intensity. A debatable assumption about growing an acre of corn in the U.S. causing farmers to clear forest in other nations is how corn ethanol is robbed of the 40 to 50% lower carbon intensity. The assumption was put forth by Searchinger, Fargione, and others, who have career and financial connections to Big Oil companies and anarchist environmental groups such as Environmental Working Group and Union of Concerned Scientists. These groups hope to continue to dominate the fuels marketplace by creating their own fuels out of sources that they can control (they have less control over corn farmers)--and also to take a stab at agriculture businesses such as Monsanto, Dupont, ADM, etc. I would expect that the good people and politicians of California would not fall victim to this vicious prank being played on them. Californians--Don't listen to the paid-off whacko's and their faulty research-contact your legislators and turn back this terrible policy against corn ethanol. (Submitted by a Californian who grew up on a corn farm and studied economics, agriculture, and biofuels and has 2 masters degrees.) http://tinyurl.com/dgvxau
Posted by sciguy, 16 Jan 2010
C-ARB Bio Rules Fraudulent
California ARB is corrupt, and their Low Carbon Fuel Standard is based on distorted and doctored information ? information that?s been deliberately miscalculated, underestimated, overestimated, misrepresented, and based on false assumptions and omissions. C-ARB is trying to block the interstate trade of ethanol, in order to protect the California petroleum industry and other emerging California technologies that compete with corn ethanol. That?s a violation of Federal Law. They also violated their own state law, first - by failing to respond to many scholarly letters they received from dissenting scientists and professors, and secondly ? by failing to get their conclusions peer reviewed by independent experts. Both of these are required by law. Their hidden agenda was to make the footprint of petroleum look much better than it actually is, and to make that of corn ethanol look much worse than it actually is. C-ARB comes to the false conclusion that importing Brazilian ethanol and using petroleum based fuels would be better than using domestic corn ethanol. Ethanol burns much cleaner than diesel fuel and much cleaner than gasoline, which contains a long list of carcinogens and neurotoxins, including the killer Benzene. Not only that, ethanol is derived from ?recycled? carbon, whereas petroleum is derived from ?newly mined? carbon that accumulates in the atmosphere. This should be integrated into their respective carbon scores. The CO2 emitted from an ethanol burning vehicle is Not the same as the CO2 emitted from a gasoline or a diesel burning vehicle. Jim Lane, ?Biofuels Digest? Editor and expert analyst, observed that Brent Erickson, EVP of BIO?s Industrial & Environmental Section noted that C-ARB has a double standard. Their rules gave carbon credits for generating electric power from renewable biomass that recycles CO2. However, they omitted carbon credits for corn ethanol that does the same thing. Growing the corn feedstock reabsorbs most of the CO2 emitted when corn ethanol is produced and consumed. That was deliberately omitted from C-ARB?s false assessment of the fuel. Erickson stated: ?California should ensure that its final regulation consistently applies this rule to all fuels, including liquid transportation biofuels?. That should include corn ethanol. But C-ARB?s agenda was to blackball this renewable biofuel - a fuel that is already displacing between 9 and 10 percent of our gasoline supply. The biggest provider of American crude oil is Canada. A major portion of that is extracted from energy and pollution intensive Canadian Tar Sands, which consumes over twice the amount of fossil fuel energy to produce, compared to a conventional oil well. Millions of acres of trees and vegetation are deforested in the process. C-ARB did Not take this into account. Instead, they used outdated petroleum baselines derived from conventional, domestic oil wells, and they totally ignored the energy balance and the environmental impact tar sands has on the current carbon score of petroleum based fuels. Same thing for energy intensive deep offshore wells and imported oil that?s shipped thousands of miles from foreign countries, burning dirty bunker fuel and diesel fuel, spewing black carbon soot. CARB also made the blatant false assumption that the U.S. corn crop would keep expanding, displace foreign vegetation, and be the main cause of deforestation in other countries. The fact is, the 2009 corn crop produced upwards of 10% more corn on several million Fewer acres than previous years. And corn yield per acre is expected to increase 5% per year and double by 2030. No need to increase corn acreage. Domestic soy acreage actually displaced some corn acreage last year. Also, sorghum now provides 15-20 percent of the feedstock used for ethanol, on lands not suitable for corn. With the corn yield increasing every year, so are corn ethanol co-products, which are also becoming more valuable. To get the correct carbon score of corn ethanol, the energy inputs must be distributed fairly across all the co-products ? fuel, distillers grains livestock feed, corn oil, cobs and stover, etc.. Acreage fluctuates from year to year. That?s no cause for alarm. It keeps supply and demand in balance. If more acreage was put into corn, it would Not necessarily displace other crops, it would be grown mostly on farmlands that are not being used. The fact is, the U.S. only uses 1/3 of its arable land. Assuming that foreign crops would take up the slack of displaced cropland is a false assumption. That?s Not happening, and it?s Not expected to happen. But that?s what C-ARB?s rules are falsely based on. Our corn crop is roughly the same size today that it was 60 years ago. It has Not been displacing other crops. C-ARB deliberately obfuscated the environmental footprint of corn ethanol - by embracing the unproven indirect land use theory. A controversial theory that is Not supported by the facts on the ground. The actual causes of deforestation in Brazil, for example, are timber taking, cattle ranching and subsistence farming, not biofuels. Another cause of deforestation and black carbon soot in numerous developing countries is deforesting trees for cooking, heating and lighting. In response, India and Nigeria are developing sorghum and cassava based ethanol micro-refineries, a low cost solution for deforestation that is several times more efficient than wood. Locally produced ethanol is mixed 50-50 with water to run clean burning stoves and lanterns. It?s ironic that misinformed environmentalists falsely blame ethanol for deforestation, when in some parts of the world, ethanol is actually helping to reduce respiratory disease and infant mortality, by reducing deforestation and black carbon soot. Indirect land use change is an unproven, unscientific theory, devised by an Attorney-Lobbyist-Political Activist using hypothetical computer models that were Not based on fact. The theory also falsely projects that corn ethanol acreage will be doubled in the near term and displace other crops, particularly in foreign countries. That is simply Not what?s happening in the real world. It?s a false projection ? Not something that you would include in government regulations, without further in-depth study, independent peer review, and consensus in the scientific community. But C-ARB cheated. They attached the unproven land use change theory to their rules, in order to disqualify corn ethanol and serve their hidden agenda. We don?t have to increase acreage of corn in order to supply the industry. We can instead take a larger share of the starch from the same number of acres, and we can exploit the cobs and stover from the corn crop residues ? From the same number of acres producing a higher yield every year. That won?t require more corn acreage. And even if we ever did increase corn acreage, the land would be derived from unused domestic lands. No other crops would be displaced, and no foreign lands would be involved. Again, indirect land use change is based on false assumptions and twisted computer modeling that is not supported by the facts on the ground or even realistic projections. Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy experts have done their own analysis, and they have already uncovered sizeable discrepancies and errors in proposed C-ARB and EPA rule making that won?t hold up in court. EPA has already issued a press release stating that, particularly with regard to indirect land use change theory, there were ?serious uncertainties? in their preliminary set of rules - RFS2. Consequently, EPA is revising their rulemaking to correct their previous errors. The same errors that C-ARB rushed into. And now, California may also be forced to re-do their Low Carbon Fuel Standard under much closer scrutiny. Court proceedings would not only expose CARB incompetence, it may also expose fraud, misrepresentation, and a deeper investigation, including the Governor, who appointed most of the C-ARB board members. California is facing a huge budget deficit as it is, something like $35 billion, and a multibillion dollar suit against C-ARB is the last thing the state needs ? especially one that the Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy are likely to win. Now Poet, the largest ethanol producer in the world, has also filed suit alongside. Next, we may see the State of Iowa file suit against C-ARB. And rightfully so. Iowa produces 82% of the entire feed corn crop and over 3 billion gallons of ethanol a year. Indirect land use change is going to be extremely difficult to prove in court, since it can?t be proven in the real world. Furthermore petroleum fuels and their side effects need to be held to the same high standards as biofuels. C-ARB is guilty of discrimination. It?s not over.
Posted by Aureon Kwolek, 15 Jan 2010