Ethanol: Does It Help Or Hurt Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack held a telephone press conference 10 a.m. Tuesday to announce their proposed rulemaking on the Renewable Fuel Standard under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). That established a requirement that to qualify for subsidies, ethanol and other biofuels would have to reduce lifetime greenhouse gas emissions by 20% versus gasoline.

They proposed that "indirect land-use changes" be included in the analysis of ethanol's effects. Carbon dioxide levels rise when tropical rainforests are destroyed to increase world-wide corn production to replace the corn the U.S. used to export that now goes into ethanol production. However, they proposed to exempt about 15 b. gallons of production by grandfathering facilities in place or under construction when EISA was enacted on December 19, 2007. "Indirect land-use" would count against ethanol, but because it remains scientifically uncertain, a peer review will be conducted that could let ethanol off the hook. Clean Air Watch President Frank O'Donnell said, "EPA has left open the option that an exception to good science could be made in the case of a favored special interest." After watching every presidential campaign in recent memory troop to Iowa to take the ethanol pledge, it's no wonder President Obama left that option open.

Under the proposed rule with "indirect land-use," EPA said corn-based ethanol produced by a natural gas powered "dry mill" would reduce emissions by 16%, short of the 20% required by EISA. The Renewable Fuels Association was quick to point out that the same calculation without "indirect land-use" would rate corn-based ethanol as reducing emissions by 61% compared to gasoline.

The proposed rule would also look at how much coal or biomass is used in ethanol production. The more coal, the less overall greenhouse gas emissions benefit. In fact, the proposed analysis using "indirect land-use changes" and coal would probably show ethanol emissions exceed those of gasoline.

Needless to say, ethanol supporters in Congress are gearing up for battle. Last Thursday, Senator John Thune (R-SD) introduced S.943 to allow the EPA to waive any requirement to use "indirect land-use changes." He chided the "activist nature of the current EPA."

The White House offset some of the political damage from the proposed rulemaking by forming an interagency group charged with speeding up biofuel subsidies, increasing the availability of ethanol as gas stations, and promoting the production of cars that can run on higher ethanol blends.

EPA will collect public comments for 60 days following the publication of the proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, and will hold a hearing at 10AM June 9.

environment
Pete Davis's blog
On 16:27pm, May 7th, 2009 Mr. Econotarian (not verified) said:
Just tax carbon
The truth is that we don't know how much CO2 is used to make Ethanol. A good deal of heat must be used to drive off water during part of the process.

A carbon tax on all fossil fuels would be the economically smart and efficient way to reduce carbon output. That way if a lot of fossil fuels were used in the production of Ethanol, that would be priced into the Ethanol. If that made it cheaper to use nuclear power to generate electricity for electric heaters, then the Ethanol production process would be less CO2 emitting.

If anyone is concerned about growing corn, the US should drop sugar import quotas, because sugar cane is a much better way to produce sugar than fructose from corn, both for biofuels and food sweetening.

All these "fuel requirements" is just paying of agribusiness while trying to look green.

Source:http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/pete-davis/891/ethanol-does-it-help-or-hurt-greenhouse-gas-emissions