The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is calling for a science-based review of the four renewable fuel categories that it announced earlier this month under its proposed Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2). For the first time, some renewable fuels must achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to the gasoline and diesel fuels they displace. Also for the first time, all transportation fuels are covered, not just gasoline. EPA wants to determine if using bio fuels really do decrease greenhouse gas emissions when an analysis is conducted over the entire life of the fuels.
A political struggle is developing with corn-based ethanol producers and soy-based biomass diesel producers whose fuels likely will not meet the proposed tests. EPA has proposed some sort of grandfathering for existing production plants, but has limited the output to existing levels.
From an economic point of view, the current taxpayer subsidies for ethanol make no sense. Now the real possibility exists that some renewable fuels are unhealthy too. For producers and investors in these fuels, billions of dollars are at stake. A public hearing on June 9th will no doubt be lively.
The health issue is only the latest twist in the tortured road the EPA has been on over fuel economy and global warming standards. After a “thorough scientific review” ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, EPA issued a proposed finding in April that said greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution and may endanger public health or welfare. It is now moving ahead in several areas that will affect not only your future driving but the use of any machine that uses fuel.
The proposed RFS2 thresholds for the new fuel categories would be 20% less greenhouse gas emissions for renewable fuels produced from new facilities, 50% less for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuels, and 60% less for cellulosic biofuels.
Direct emission calculations show that some fuels can meet these new requirements. However, life-cycle analyses that include land use patterns, fertilizer production, and transportation question whether corn-based ethanol and biomass diesel really are the green fuels proponents maintain and can meet the standard. Lobbyists for both industries are already in action.
EPA, under President Bush’s Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, is responsible for revising and implementing regulations to ensure that gasoline sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The Renewable Fuel Standard program increases the volume required to be blended into gasoline from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
Increasing renewable fuels will reduce dependence of foreign oil by more than 297 million barrels a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 160 million tons a year when fully phased, EPA maintains.
“As we work towards energy independence, using more homegrown biofuels reduces our vulnerability to oil price spikes that everyone feels at the pump,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “Energy independence also puts billions of dollars back into our economy, creates green jobs, and protects the planet from climate change in the bargain.”
In 2022, the proposal would require: 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels; 15 billion gallons annually of conventional biofuels; 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels; and 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel.
To achieve the volume requirements, each year EPA calculates a percentage-based standard that refiners, importers and blenders of gasoline and diesel must be used in transportation fuel. Refiners must meet the requirements to receive credit toward meeting the new standards.
A 60-day comment period on this proposal is now underway. EPA will hold a public workshop on life cycle analysis next month to assure full understanding of the analyses conducted, the issues addressed and the options available going forward.
Logic would suggest that until we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to allow for a significant weight reduction in vehicle design and manufacturing, our fuel and emission options are somewhat limited? Any thoughts??
Guy,
You are largely correct that weight reduction needs to be a priority in our effort to drive down fuel consumption, but it’s a more complicated issue than simply saying, “go on a diet.” For one thing, the steadily expanding list of safety requirements — and safety features — has driven much of the weight gains of recent years. You have crossbeams and airbags, never mind the endless list of new brake and chassis-related systems. Beyond that, consumers are demanding 12-speaker, 250-watt audio systems, 14-way, heated/cooled, leather seats, and so on. It would be tough to buck these trends without telling consumers, sorry, but in the interest of safety you need drive less safe econoboxes.
Yes, I realize there are ways to enhance safety without adding weight. It’s amazing to look at the way various high-strength steels and other materials are being integrated in vehicles from Bentley down to Mazda. But now we’re getting into cost. And that’s an issue of constant debate. How much can we demand of consumers to justify a switch to, say, more aluminum components and panels?
Oh, and add one more matter: aluminum requires incredible energy to produce, so some observers argue that the total well-to-wheels energy footprint of a vehicle may not be that much better if you use more energy to produce the car only to save a bit of energy while it is in use,
A long debate.
Paul A. Eisenstein
Bureau Chief, TheDetroitBureau.com