Ever since the Renewable Fuel Standard came under fire last year largely due to an "issue" known as the blend wall (I'll explain this near the end of this post), we've had heated debate about the use of ethanol, where we feel it has a place in our society (some believe it doesn't have a place at all), and the importance of lower-level blends such as the common E10 and relatively new blend E15.
Years ago, it became publicly known that Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) was causing severe cases of polluting groundwater. There are even accusations that refiners such as BP and ExxonMobil knew about the environmental consequences of widespread MTBE use decades before. Now I will admit that it was good timing on part of the ethanol industry and representatives to suggest ethanol as an additive to replace MTBE. What many don't know is that the 87 octane we see at the pump is the final product. This is with the 10% ethanol content added. Refiners commonly blend in 84 sub-octane gasoline, and mix it with the 10% ethanol amount to bring the octane up to 87. The same is true with other blends like midgrade and premium (just with higher starting octane levels). For that reason, if you ever hear the oil folks claim that the Renewable Fuel Standard is costing them money and causing refineries to shutter, please don't take them seriously. With the constant global conflict and unrest, it's apparent that we have to have an oxygenate. 84 octane gasoline can not legally or safely be used in any motor vehicle (unless outfitted for it, which most aren't), and so we need a cheap additive to bring the octane up to 87. Yes, 85 octane is legally sold in some states with higher elevations in the rockies and the foothills in southwest South Dakota. I will admit that I don't see how this is legal or safe, as the level of engine knock would be significantly higher - but also that I don't know enough about it. Any rate, if we just used pure gasoline without an additive/oxygenate, you can bet that gasoline prices would never again dip below $4/gallon in most regions of the country.
For the reasons I stated in the first paragraph, I absolutely view ethanol as an additive as imperative to keep the cost of transportation down. Ethanol used as an additive is typically sold at rack (wholesale) price, and is as such more profitable for the ethanol industry than higher level blends like E50 or E85. I agree with E15 and willingly throw my support behind it, because it is for sure one heck of a start in transitioning our economy off of so much dependence on petroleum. I mean come on, petroleum is in EVERYTHING! Does it have to be in our cars too? I digress. I view E15 as a bridge, of sorts. E15 is starting to spread like wildfire in Iowa and Minnesota, states that are known for their high levels of friendliness and openness to ethanol as a whole. E15 is now sold at 4 stations in my home turf of Michigan, and is gradually coming to other states such as Ohio and Kansas. I believe that E15 is a great way to get folks who are on the fence or slightly against ethanol on board in using ethanol. Many folks are using E15 in Minnesota and Iowa, and finding that there is absolutely no damage to their engines or issues with compatibility, and they find that other factors such as driveability or performance don't even change a lick. Folks in flex fuel vehicles might try this, find that it doesn't harm their vehicle as they're told it would, and then try higher level blends like E30, E50, or E85.
However, with all that being said, I've made it abundantly clear that I advocate for ethanol as an alternative fuel, NOT an additive. Ethanol is definitely important as an additive, and it is clear that this is where much of the profitability is for ethanol industry nowadays. I'm concerned that if more ethanol is used for E10 and E15, we'll have less for high blends. My concern is that this would increase the prices of higher level blends, and make these blends less attractive to consumers. Remember that our current ethanol capacity is below 15 billion gallons/year. Assuming that every one of the 16.3 million flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) in the United States would use about 2,000 gallons a year, that's about 32.6 billion gallons a year of E"85". Now assume that E85 is actually E78 as a year-round average (adjusting for seasonal and regional differences in actual ethanol content). We multiply the 32.6 billion number previously mentioned by 0.78, and we get just over 25 billion gallons per year of ethanol consumed, just for E85. This is the reasoning for my lack of understanding on why we are having this ethanol "blend wall" debate, but this is a different story for a later time. This 25 billion number is about 10 billion gallons/year above the current ethanol production capacity as a whole. This would completely negate the need for blending ethanol into gasoline to satisfy the Renewable Fuel Standard. Now I understand this isn't possible, but the point is that we do not have enough ethanol capacity to go around - and it is imperative that we add more. DuPont, Poet-DSM, and Abengoa are examples of companies that are doing just that. We all owe them a very big thank you for the level of investment they've put into ethanol production. Between the three plants they're building (one for each), this will add approximately 75 million gallons per year of ethanol capacity to the market.
Moral of the story, I most definitely throw my support behind E10 and E15, and by no means have any desire to attack them. However, I think we need to focus more efforts on making high level blends economical for all parties involved - the ethanol producers, the fueling stations, and the consumers that these blends are marketed to. It is vital that the ethanol industries and lobbies shift more of their focus to these high level blends. I will admit that I don't agree with the ethanol industry and representatives on everything... but I've said that one of my largest goals in life is to personally see ethanol succeed. I have no intentions of falling short. Attacking low-level blends is not the answer.
Now as promised, I will briefly discuss the "blend wall" for those readers who are less versed on this subject. As a disclaimer, I will always refer to the "blend wall" in quotation marks, because I do not recognize any validity with this argument. I personally view it as an excuse to resist change. The ethanol "blend wall", by definition, is the amount of ethanol that the market can absorb into E10 Regular Gasoline, before higher blends like E15 and E85 become imperative to be sold. This is, in my view, the main reason we've seen the RFS come under fire lately, and why we went nearly a decade without loud criticism about "engine damage" and "low mileage" to the extent we often hear it now. I would like to make it crystal clear that the Renewable Fuel Standard does not specify where exactly the ethanol must go, but simply requires certain amounts of ethanol (called Renewable Volume Obligations, or RVOs) to be used in our transportation fuel supply. This is why I bring up the issue of capacity. The more E85 and E15 we sell, the less we have to worry about ethanol going into boating engines or lawn equipment. So let's focus more on higher level blends!
No comments:
Post a Comment