Biofuels: Think Outside the Barrel

1. 1 Biofuels: Think Outside the Barrel

2. 2

3. 3 Not so Magic Answer: Ethanol

4. 4 Plausible? Brazil �Proof�: FFV�s 4% to ~80% of car sales in 3 yrs! Ethanol cost @ $0.75/gal vs Gasoline @ $1.60-2.20/gal Rumor: VW to phase out of all gasoline cars in 2006? Brazil Ethanol ~ 60-80% reduction in GHG Brazil: $50b on oil imports �savings�!

5. 5 Possible? 5-6m US FFV vehicles, 5b gals ethanol supply California: Almost as many FFV�s as diesel cars & light trucks! US prod. costs: Ethanol $1.00/gal vs Gasoline $1.60-$2:20/gal Rapid (20%+) increase of US ethanol production in process Easy, low cost switchover for automobile manufacturers

6. 6 Why Ethanol? Today�s cars & fuel distribution (mostly) Today�s liquid fuel infrastructure (mostly) Cheaper to produce (and sell?) Leverages current trends: FFV�s, Hybrids, Plug-ins,.. Part of fuel market via �blending� - just add E85 Already part of fuel market through �blending� Just add E85 fuel category (third pump!) Existing ethanol market in the billions & growing! Incremental introduction possible & UNDERWAY! Ethanol is cheaper to produce than gasoline at current prices Leverages current trends Flex-fuel vehicles proven in millions! Hybrid drivetrain compatible Leverages Lightweighting & improved efficiency of cars Already part of fuel market through �blending� Just add E85 fuel category (third pump!) Existing ethanol market in the billions & growing! Incremental introduction possible & UNDERWAY! Ethanol is cheaper to produce than gasoline at current prices Leverages current trends Flex-fuel vehicles proven in millions! Hybrid drivetrain compatible Leverages Lightweighting & improved efficiency of cars

7. 7 What makes it Probable? Interest Groups Land Use Energy Balance Emissions Kickstart?

8. 8 Why Ethanol?The Interest Group Story Multiple Issues, One Answer Cheaper fuel for consumers (Cheap Hawks) More energy security & diversified sources (Right wingers) Higher farm incomes & rural employment (Sodbusters) Significant carbon emission reduction (Greens) Faster GDP growth, Lower Imports & energy prices � or as Jim Woolsey puts it �The coalition (for now) is of tree huggers, do-gooders, sod busters, cheap hawks, evangelicals, and Willie Nelson � � or as Jim Woolsey puts it �The coalition (for now) is of tree huggers, do-gooders, sod busters, cheap hawks, evangelicals, and Willie Nelson �

9. 9 What makes it Probable? Interest Groups Land Use Energy Balance Emissions Kickstart?

10. 10 Land Use: Reality (20-50 years) NRDC: 114m acres for our transportation needs Jim Woolsey/George Shultz estim. 60m acres Khosla: 40-60 m acres �. not including �the future� & �other sources�

11. 11 Energy Crops: Miscanthus

12. 12 Biomass Will Make a Difference Add arrowAdd arrow

13. 13 Export Crop and CRP Land

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16 Fossil Fuel Use: Argonne Study

17. 17 Corn ethanol can achieve 10-30% reduction in ghg per mile Cellulosic 60-80% Corn ethanol can achieve 10-30% reduction in ghg per mile Cellulosic 60-80%

18. 18 NRDC Answer: Even corn ethanol has a 90% reduction in Petroleum Trick: Fossil Energy is not the same as Petroleum Trick: Mileage is not the same as energy content Get exact quote energy well spent nrdc website�grabowski doe stufyGet exact quote energy well spent nrdc website�grabowski doe stufy

19. 19 This chart compares the well-to-wheels (or full fuel cycle) emissions from alternative transportation fuels in pounds of CO2-equivalent per gallon of gasoline energy content equivalent. The basis for each bar is described briefly below: FT (Coal): Fischer-Tropsch fuel produced from coal. Based on a stand-alone plant (R. Williams, Princeton). Gasoline (Tar sands): Gasoline made from synthetic petroleum produced from Canadian tar sands. Based on Oil Sands Fever, Pembina Institute, November 2005. FT (Coal CCD): Fischer-Tropsch fuel produced from coal with carbon dioxide capture and disposal (CCD) from the production plant. Based on a stand-alone plant (R. Williams, Princeton). Gasoline: Conventional gasoline, including upstream emissions based on Argonne GREET model. Ethanol (Corn Coal): Ethanol produced from corn using coal for process energy at the ethanol plant and assuming energy intensive agriculture. Based on Farrell et al., 2006. Science 311:506. Ethanol (Today): Estimate of the national average emission rate from the current mix of fuel used for ethanol production and the current mix of dry and wet mills. Based on Farrell et al., 2006. Science 311:506. Ethanol (Corn NG): Ethanol produced from corn using natural gas for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Corn Biomass): Ethanol produced from corn using biomass for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Cellulosic): Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass using biomass for process energy. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Corn Biomass CCD): Ethanol produced from corn using biomass for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant with capture and disposal of the CO2 produced from the fermentation process. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model subtracting fermentation CO2 of 6.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon of ethanol (http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/Poster/2002/2002-6/P2-05.html) Ethanol (Cellulosic CCD): Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass using biomass for process energy with capture and disposal of the CO2 produced from the fermentation process. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model subtracting fermentation CO2 of 6.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon of ethanol (http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/Poster/2002/2002-6/P2-05.html) This chart compares the well-to-wheels (or full fuel cycle) emissions from alternative transportation fuels in pounds of CO2-equivalent per gallon of gasoline energy content equivalent. The basis for each bar is described briefly below: FT (Coal): Fischer-Tropsch fuel produced from coal. Based on a stand-alone plant (R. Williams, Princeton). Gasoline (Tar sands): Gasoline made from synthetic petroleum produced from Canadian tar sands. Based on Oil Sands Fever, Pembina Institute, November 2005. FT (Coal CCD): Fischer-Tropsch fuel produced from coal with carbon dioxide capture and disposal (CCD) from the production plant. Based on a stand-alone plant (R. Williams, Princeton). Gasoline: Conventional gasoline, including upstream emissions based on Argonne GREET model. Ethanol (Corn Coal): Ethanol produced from corn using coal for process energy at the ethanol plant and assuming energy intensive agriculture. Based on Farrell et al., 2006. Science 311:506. Ethanol (Today): Estimate of the national average emission rate from the current mix of fuel used for ethanol production and the current mix of dry and wet mills. Based on Farrell et al., 2006. Science 311:506. Ethanol (Corn NG): Ethanol produced from corn using natural gas for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Corn Biomass): Ethanol produced from corn using biomass for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Cellulosic): Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass using biomass for process energy. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Corn Biomass CCD): Ethanol produced from corn using biomass for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant with capture and disposal of the CO2 produced from the fermentation process. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model subtracting fermentation CO2 of 6.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon of ethanol (http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/Poster/2002/2002-6/P2-05.html) Ethanol (Cellulosic CCD): Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass using biomass for process energy with capture and disposal of the CO2 produced from the fermentation process. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model subtracting fermentation CO2 of 6.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon of ethanol (http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/Poster/2002/2002-6/P2-05.html)This chart compares the well-to-wheels (or full fuel cycle) emissions from alternative transportation fuels in pounds of CO2-equivalent per gallon of gasoline energy content equivalent. The basis for each bar is described briefly below: FT (Coal): Fischer-Tropsch fuel produced from coal. Based on a stand-alone plant (R. Williams, Princeton). Gasoline (Tar sands): Gasoline made from synthetic petroleum produced from Canadian tar sands. Based on Oil Sands Fever, Pembina Institute, November 2005. FT (Coal CCD): Fischer-Tropsch fuel produced from coal with carbon dioxide capture and disposal (CCD) from the production plant. Based on a stand-alone plant (R. Williams, Princeton). Gasoline: Conventional gasoline, including upstream emissions based on Argonne GREET model. Ethanol (Corn Coal): Ethanol produced from corn using coal for process energy at the ethanol plant and assuming energy intensive agriculture. Based on Farrell et al., 2006. Science 311:506. Ethanol (Today): Estimate of the national average emission rate from the current mix of fuel used for ethanol production and the current mix of dry and wet mills. Based on Farrell et al., 2006. Science 311:506. Ethanol (Corn NG): Ethanol produced from corn using natural gas for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Corn Biomass): Ethanol produced from corn using biomass for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Cellulosic): Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass using biomass for process energy. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Corn Biomass CCD): Ethanol produced from corn using biomass for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant with capture and disposal of the CO2 produced from the fermentation process. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model subtracting fermentation CO2 of 6.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon of ethanol (http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/Poster/2002/2002-6/P2-05.html) Ethanol (Cellulosic CCD): Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass using biomass for process energy with capture and disposal of the CO2 produced from the fermentation process. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model subtracting fermentation CO2 of 6.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon of ethanol (http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/Poster/2002/2002-6/P2-05.html) This chart compares the well-to-wheels (or full fuel cycle) emissions from alternative transportation fuels in pounds of CO2-equivalent per gallon of gasoline energy content equivalent. The basis for each bar is described briefly below: FT (Coal): Fischer-Tropsch fuel produced from coal. Based on a stand-alone plant (R. Williams, Princeton). Gasoline (Tar sands): Gasoline made from synthetic petroleum produced from Canadian tar sands. Based on Oil Sands Fever, Pembina Institute, November 2005. FT (Coal CCD): Fischer-Tropsch fuel produced from coal with carbon dioxide capture and disposal (CCD) from the production plant. Based on a stand-alone plant (R. Williams, Princeton). Gasoline: Conventional gasoline, including upstream emissions based on Argonne GREET model. Ethanol (Corn Coal): Ethanol produced from corn using coal for process energy at the ethanol plant and assuming energy intensive agriculture. Based on Farrell et al., 2006. Science 311:506. Ethanol (Today): Estimate of the national average emission rate from the current mix of fuel used for ethanol production and the current mix of dry and wet mills. Based on Farrell et al., 2006. Science 311:506. Ethanol (Corn NG): Ethanol produced from corn using natural gas for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Corn Biomass): Ethanol produced from corn using biomass for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Cellulosic): Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass using biomass for process energy. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model. Ethanol (Corn Biomass CCD): Ethanol produced from corn using biomass for process energy at a dry mill ethanol plant with capture and disposal of the CO2 produced from the fermentation process. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model subtracting fermentation CO2 of 6.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon of ethanol (http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/Poster/2002/2002-6/P2-05.html) Ethanol (Cellulosic CCD): Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass using biomass for process energy with capture and disposal of the CO2 produced from the fermentation process. Based on Farrell et al., EBAMM model subtracting fermentation CO2 of 6.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon of ethanol (http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/Poster/2002/2002-6/P2-05.html)

20. 20 E3 Biofuels The E3 BioSolution is a solid waste mangmt. facility an ethanol plant an animal feeding operation �. into a self-sustaining, closed loop system. The E3 system virtually eliminates water, air and odor pollution produces ethanol using little or no fossil fuel, The E3 BioSolution is a solid waste mangmt. facility an ethanol plant an animal feeding operation �. into a self-sustaining, closed loop system. The E3 system virtually eliminates water, air and odor pollution produces ethanol using little or no fossil fuel,

21. 21 �corn ethanol is providing important fossil fuel savings and greenhouse gas reductions� �very little petroleum is used in the production of ethanol �..shift from gasoline to ethanol will reduce our oil dependence� �cellulosic ethanol simply delivers profoundly more renewable energy than corn ethanol� Verify quotes form report..changed petroleum to fossil fuelVerify quotes form report..changed petroleum to fossil fuel

22. 22 Emission Levels of Two 2005 FFVs(grams per mile @ 50,000 miles) Fade background for messageFade background for message

23. 23 In Defense of Corn Ethanol Ethanol: Trajectory from 500 to 3000 gallons per acre Reduces market risk � Funds cellulosic ethanol Primes Infrastructure for cellulosic ethanol, biohols Compatible with hybrids, plug-ins, light-weighting,� Good Alternatives, but�. Biodiesel trajectory from 500 gpa to 700 gpa? Electric: higher technology risk on batteries, higher consumer cost Biohols compatible if electrics get better, cheaper, greener, accepted,� Build the defense bulletsBuild the defense bullets

24. 24 Technology Progression Added a few bullets � Added a few bullets �

25. 25 Brazil sugar-cane/ethanol learning curve Liters of ethanol produced per hectacre since between 1975 to 2004

26. 26 Start 2006 then 2015 then 2030�change to 24tpy, eliminate optimistic� Still have to redo this slide � also redo calcs with 24.5 tpaStart 2006 then 2015 then 2030�change to 24tpy, eliminate optimistic� Still have to redo this slide � also redo calcs with 24.5 tpa

27. 27 Three Simple Action Items Require 70% new cars to be Flex Fuel Vehicles � require yellow gas caps on all FFV�s & provide incentives to automakers Require E85 ethanol distribution at 10% of gas stations �. for owners or branders with more than 25 stations; Make VEETC credit variable with oil price ($0.25-0.75) �. providing protection against price manipulation by oil interests

28. 28 Other �Helpful� Action Items Switch ethanol credit from blenders to �producers� (for 5yrs only for new plants) Allow imports of foreign ethanol tax free for E85 only; extend RFS Provide �cellulosic� credits above �ethanol� credits; monetize energy act credit Institute RFS for E85 & cellulosic ethanol Switch CAF� mileage to �petroleum CAF� mileage�; reform & strengthen CAFE Loan guarantees for first few plants built with any �new technology� Institute a carbon cap and trade system Switch subsidies (same $/acre) to energy crops

29. 29 Why Now?Projected World Oil Prices (EIA)

30. 30 RISK: Oil vs. Hydrogen vs. Ethanol Would like to see the risk column build too Would like to see the risk column build too

31. 31 A Darwinian IQ Test? Feed mid-east terrorism or mid-west farmers? Import expensive gasoline or use cheaper ethanol? Create farm jobs or mid-east oil tycoons? Fossil fuels or green fuels? ANWR oil rigs or �prairie grass� fields? Gasoline cars or cars with fuel choices?

32. 32 Even Failure is Success! Lets build with the the light blue Add a similar purple band for GGE of ethanol Then add overlay message Can we change yeasr to 2006 to 2031 as per the enxt slide�s axis? Lets build with the the light blue Add a similar purple band for GGE of ethanol Then add overlay message Can we change yeasr to 2006 to 2031 as per the enxt slide�s axis?

33. 33 Can we build the additive market first and then add the E85 next as a build?Can we build the additive market first and then add the E85 next as a build?

34. 34 Houston, we have a problem� Source: JJ&A Fuel Blendstock Report

35. 35 US Ethanol Capacity Build-up

36. 36 A Price Roller Coaster Source: JJ&A Fuel Blendstock Report ; Price trend estimates by Vinod Khosla

37. 37 My Favorite FFV . . . Samir,c an we check the source of the 18% - any official data? I got this from a gM engineer In Europe, the turbo charged SAAB Bio-Power has been very successful. Like all FFVs, the engine control system adjusts the rate of fuel delivery and spark advance depending upon the amount of ethanol present in the fuel tank . . . . . . But additionally, the SAAB Bio-power adjusts the turbo boost level, increasing the effective Compression Ratio based again on the amount of ethanol present in the fuel. This has the effect of recovering through increased thermal efficiency the volumetric fuel economy loss observed in normally aspirated FFVs. Samir,c an we check the source of the 18% - any official data? I got this from a gM engineer In Europe, the turbo charged SAAB Bio-Power has been very successful. Like all FFVs, the engine control system adjusts the rate of fuel delivery and spark advance depending upon the amount of ethanol present in the fuel tank . . . . . . But additionally, the SAAB Bio-power adjusts the turbo boost level, increasing the effective Compression Ratio based again on the amount of ethanol present in the fuel. This has the effect of recovering through increased thermal efficiency the volumetric fuel economy loss observed in normally aspirated FFVs.

38. 38 Wrong Questions, Wrong Answers, Bad Judgment, Bad Data, abound� The False Hope of Biofuels (James Jordan & James Powell, Washington Post, 7/06) Wrong Q: Uses energy balance instead of balance vs. gasoline or electricity Wrong data: bushels per acre, gallons per bushel, Use energy content not mileage- who cares about energy balance? �some researchers even claim that�� � what about many others? Moralizing about food � what about oil excesses in Nigeria? Why do developing countries want subsidy removal? Selective facts � quote impractical corn stover but ignore DOE Report Bad judgment calls � gallons per acre �and more!

39. 39

40. 40 Myths Galore! Energy Balance � not your father�s ethanol Not enough cropland � only if you try to make pigs fly! Food prices or the best thing for poverty? Lower energy content, lower mileage � in which engine? More expensive or poorly managed? US oil or Saudi oil? Existing infrastructure � for E85 or additive? Some or all pumps? Dubious environmental benefits � as additive E20 or E85? Cellulosic ethanol � real or not? Free marketeers hell or level playing field? Build these bulletsBuild these bullets

41. 41

42. 42 Developing Oil vs. Ethanol Chevron�s Tahiti field will cost $5.5 billion and generate a billion gallons of gasoline and similar amounts of other products. The same capital investment could produce 4 billion gallons of ethanol capacity (and other animal feed products) at little risk.

43. 43 �Free Markets?�: GAO List of Oil Subsidies Excess of Percentage over cost depletion� worth $82 billion dollar subsidy Expensing of exploration and development cost - $42 billion subsidy. Add on alternative fuel production credit (read oil shales, tar sands etc). Oil and gas exception from passive loss limitation Credit for enhanced oil recovery costs Expensing of tertiary injectants �and other esoteric tools the oil lobby has inserted into various legislation �and the indirect costs Katrina royalty relief to the tune of $7b Health-care costs of the air pollution they generate,Environmental cleanup costs when they have a spill,Cost of defense in the Mideast to stabilize the supply of crude oil,Cost of global warming and related damage �.indirect subsidies have been variously estimated at from a few tens of cents to many dollars per gallon Message in red �Oil gets billions in direct but hidden subsidies � and much larger indirect subsidies� across the top Should we build this slide? Message in red �Oil gets billions in direct but hidden subsidies � and much larger indirect subsidies� across the top Should we build this slide?

44. 44 The Possible at �NORMAL� Margins!June 2006, Aberdeen , South Dakota

45. 45 Biomass, Geopolitics & Poverty See what we are talking about: the area between the lines shows the tropical region, the potential it represents for less developed countries, and the positive impacts on their economies, as well as the global economy, which are extremely relevant to a balanced world scenario and, specifically, create effective conditions for peace. That is a global effort that calls for positive actions on the part of global institutions. It is a great chance to establish more balanced relationships, while fostering development and reducing geographic disparities See what we are talking about: the area between the lines shows the tropical region, the potential it represents for less developed countries, and the positive impacts on their economies, as well as the global economy, which are extremely relevant to a balanced world scenario and, specifically, create effective conditions for peace. That is a global effort that calls for positive actions on the part of global institutions. It is a great chance to establish more balanced relationships, while fostering development and reducing geographic disparities

46. 46 Probable?

47. 47 Side Bars

48. 48 Flex Fuel Vehicles (FFV) Little incremental cost to produce & low risk Consumer choice: use EITHER ethanol or gasoline Easy switchover for automobile manufacturers Fully compatible with Hybrid cars

49. 49 Incremental Cost of FFV Sensor $70 (needed anyway in modern cars; not an additional cost) �Other� costs $30 Amortized Certification & Calib. $10 (volume cars)

50. 50 Automakers adopting FFV�s! 2006 Ford 200-300K GM 250K Chrysler 100K+ 2007 GM 400K Chrysler 250K 2008 GM 600K Chrysler 500K Data from Chrysler PR, GM slides and Ford handout

51. 51 Petroleum Displacement A consumer who fuels a light truck FFV with E85 instead of gasoline will save about 477 gallons of gasoline per year. While the light truck clearly uses more energy overall, the larger petroleum displacement potential is very real. This example shows how powerful bio-fuels can be as a tool for reducing petroleum dependence.A consumer who fuels a light truck FFV with E85 instead of gasoline will save about 477 gallons of gasoline per year. While the light truck clearly uses more energy overall, the larger petroleum displacement potential is very real. This example shows how powerful bio-fuels can be as a tool for reducing petroleum dependence.

52. 52 Hybrid or FFV?

53. 53 Oil Companies Discouraging Use!

54. 54 More Resistance!!!

55. 55 Land Use

56. 56 Land Use Possibilities Dedicated intensive energy crop plantations �Export crop� lands Crop rotate row crops & �prairie grass� energy crops CRP lands planted with �prairie grasses� or equivalent Co-production of ethanol feedstocks & animal protein Waste from currently managed Lands

57. 57 Potential for Billion Tons of Biomass �In the context of the time required to scale up to a large-scale biorefinery industry, an annual biomass supply of more than 1.3 billion dry tons can be accomplished with relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices�

58. 58 Miscanthus vs. Corn/Soy Lower fertilizer & water needs Strong photosynthesis, perennial Stores carbon & nutrients in soil Great field characteristics, longer canopy season Economics: +$3000 vs -$300 (10yr profit per U Illinois)

59. 59 Energy Crops: Switch Grass Natural prairie grass in the US; enriches soil Less water; less fertilizer; less pesticide Reduced green house gases More biodiversity in switchgrass fields (vs. corn) Dramatically less topsoil loss High potential for co-production of animal feed

60. 60 Farmers Are Driven By Economics

61. 61 Biomass as Reserves: One Exxon every 10 yrs!!

62. 62 Energy Balance&Fossil Fuel Use Reductions

63. 63 NRDC Report - �Ethanol: Energy Well Spent�

64. 64 NRDC Report - �Ethanol: Energy Well Spent�

65. 65 Ceres: What one company is doing�

66. 66 Expanding Usable Acreage�

67. 67 Increasing Tons per Acre�

68. 68 Reducing Dollars per Acre�

69. 69 Increasing Gallons per Ton�

70. 70 Reducing Cost Through Enzyme Production�

71. 71 Ceres : Developing Commercial Energy Crops

72. 72 Strategy & Tactics Choice: Oil imports or ethanol imports? GDP � �beyond food to food & energy � rural economy Add $5-50B to rural GDP Better use for subsidies through �energy crops� Rely on entrepreneurs to increase capacity Biotechnology & process technology to increase yields

73. 73 Status: United States

74. 74 E85 Availability and AppealSeptember 2005 As I mentioned, the availability of high concentration blends of ethanol is pretty limited, about 600 stations in the U.S. today. In this unscientific sampling of stations in the United States in September 2005, E85 was priced an average of 35 cents below unleaded regular gasoline. Obviously, this price differential is subject to many factors and changes constantly . . . Not the least of which is demand for ethanol to replace MTBE in low concentration blends like E6 or E10. As I mentioned, the availability of high concentration blends of ethanol is pretty limited, about 600 stations in the U.S. today. In this unscientific sampling of stations in the United States in September 2005, E85 was priced an average of 35 cents below unleaded regular gasoline. Obviously, this price differential is subject to many factors and changes constantly . . . Not the least of which is demand for ethanol to replace MTBE in low concentration blends like E6 or E10.

75. 75 Ethanol Capacity Expansion is Underway

76. 76 Ethanol FFVs Are Here! California�s Motor Vehicle Population

77. 77 Costs

78. 78 NY Times Poll (3/2/2006) Washington mandate more efficient cars � 89% No on Gasoline tax -87% No on Tax to reduce dependence on foreign oil -37% No on gas tax to reduce global warming � 34%

79. 79 References NRDC Report: �Growing Energy� (Dec 2004) http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/conference/carbon2/Fiedler1_Baltimore_05.pdf George Schultz & Jim Woolsey white paper �Oil & Security� Rocky Mountain Institute: �Winning the Oil Endgame� http://www.unfoundation.org/features/biofuels.asp http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/354.pdf The Future of the Hydrogen Economy ( http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h2_eco.htm#8.2 ) Fuel Ethanol: Background & Public Policy Issues (CRS Report for Congress, Dec. 2004)

80. 80

81. 81 Brazil: A Role Model

82. 82

83. 83

84. 84

85. 85 Brazil sugar-cane/ethanol learning curve Liters of ethanol produced per hectare since between 1975 to 2004

86. 86

87. 87 The Ethanol application as vehicular fuel in Brazil. Brazilian Automotive Industry Association - ANFAVEA Energy & Environment Commission Henry Joseph Jr.

88. 88 As a result, when emissions are compared upon replacement of gasoline and fuel oil with ethanol and sugar-cane bagasse, there is a saving or uptake of 2.6 tons of CO2 equivalent for anhydrous ethanol, and of 1.9 ton of CO2 equivalent for hydrous ethanol. This is the key to the success of biofuels!As a result, when emissions are compared upon replacement of gasoline and fuel oil with ethanol and sugar-cane bagasse, there is a saving or uptake of 2.6 tons of CO2 equivalent for anhydrous ethanol, and of 1.9 ton of CO2 equivalent for hydrous ethanol. This is the key to the success of biofuels!

89. 89 The new world of biofuels has specific rules: there must be clearly positive life-cycle energy and life-cycle GHG emissions. Concerning raw materials, the first case shows sugar-cane with a great advantage. For every input energy unit, the production is 8.2 times bigger, on average. You can see results around 10,2 times!The new world of biofuels has specific rules: there must be clearly positive life-cycle energy and life-cycle GHG emissions. Concerning raw materials, the first case shows sugar-cane with a great advantage. For every input energy unit, the production is 8.2 times bigger, on average. You can see results around 10,2 times!

90. 90 Another both interesting and appealing impact is the logic of the relation between the jobs created in the gasoline supply chain and those created in the ethanol supply chain when a vehicle is produced. The difference, which is several times more favorable to ethanol, is a decisive factor in the option to fuel FFVs with ethanol. It is always important to analyze the entire supply chain. The vehicle is the back-end of the analysis and the indication of the differences. Another both interesting and appealing impact is the logic of the relation between the jobs created in the gasoline supply chain and those created in the ethanol supply chain when a vehicle is produced. The difference, which is several times more favorable to ethanol, is a decisive factor in the option to fuel FFVs with ethanol. It is always important to analyze the entire supply chain. The vehicle is the back-end of the analysis and the indication of the differences.

91. 91 8. Relative Performance of Ethanol Engines

92. 92 10. Comparative Raw Exhaust Emission

93. 93 15. Comparative Aldehyde Emission

94. 94 16. Comparative Evaporative Emission

95. 95

96. 96

97. 97

98. 98

99. 99

100. 100

101. 101 Characteristics of an Ideal Crop: Miscanthus

102. 102 Economics of Miscanthus Farming

103. 103 Hydrogen vs. Ethanol Economics Raw Material Costs: cost per Giga Joule (gj) Electricity @$0.04/kwh = $11.2/gj (Lower cost than natural gas) Biomass @$40/ton = $2.3/gj (with 70% conversion efficiency) Hydrogen from electricity costly vs. Ethanol from Biomass Hydrogen from Natural Gas no better than Natural Gas Cost multiplier on hydrogen: distribution, delivery, storage Higher fuel cell efficiency compared to hybrids not enough! Hydrogen cars have fewer moving parts but more sensitive, less tested systems and capital cost disadvantage

104. 104 Hydrogen vs. Ethanol Ethanol: US automakers balance sheets ill-equipped for hydrogen switchover Ethanol: No change in infrastructure in liquid fuels vs. gaseous fuels Ethanol: Current engine manufacturing/maintenance infrastructure Ethanol: switchover requires little capital Ethanol: Agricultural Subsidies are leveraged for social good Ethanol: Faster switchover- 3-5 years vs 15-25yrs Ethanol: Low technology risk Ethanol: Incremental introduction of new fuel Ethanol: Early carbon emission reductions

105. 105 Three of Ten Important Sources Production of corn stover and stalks from other grains (wheats, oats) totals well over 250 million dry tons. A combination of different crop rotations and agricultural practices (e.g. reduced tillage) would appear to have potential for a large fraction of these residues to be removed. For example, although complete removal of corn stover would result in a loss of about 0.26 tons of soil carbon per year, cultivation of perennial crops (e.g. switchgrass, Miscanthus) adds soil carbon at a substantially higher rate. Thus, a rotation of switchgrass and corn might maintain or even increase soil fertility even with 100% stover removal. This, however, brings up questions about the length of time land might be grown in each crop, since switchgrass would benefit from longer times to distribute the cost of establishment while corn would benefit from short times to maintain productivity and decrease losses due to pests. It is likely that some crop other than switchgrass as it exists today would be best for incorporation into a relatively high frequency rotation with corn. Targets for crop development could be identified and their feasibility evaluated. Winter cover crops grown on 150 million acres (@2tons/acre) = 300 million tons of cellulosic biomass. In recent years, U.S. soybean production has averaged about 1.2 tons of dry beans per acre annually. Given an average bean protein mass fraction of about 0.4, the annual protein productivity of soybean production is about 0.5 tons protein per acre. Perennial grass (e.g. switchgrass) could likely achieve comparable protein productivity on land used to grow soybeans while producing lignocellulosic biomass at about a rate of about 7 dry tons per acre annually. The limited data available suggest that the quality of switchgrass protein is comparable to soy protein, and technology for protein extraction from leafy plants is rather well-established. The 74 million acres currently planted in soybeans in the U.S. could, in principle, produce the same amount of feed protein we obtain from this land now while also producing over 520 million tons of lignocellulosic biomass. Alternatively, if new soy varieties were developed with increased above-ground biomass (option 4, Table 1), this could provide on the order of 350 million tons of lignocellulosic biomass � although soil carbon implications would have to be addressed. Source: Lee R. Lynd, �Producing Cellulosic Bioenergy Feedstocks from Currnently Managed Lands,� Source: Lee R. Lynd, Dartmouth; �Producing Cellulosic Bioenergy Feedstocks from Currently Managed Lands;� Draft-work-in-progress; October 7, 2005 Source: Lee R. Lynd, Dartmouth; �Producing Cellulosic Bioenergy Feedstocks from Currently Managed Lands;� Draft-work-in-progress; October 7, 2005

106. 106

107. 107 Tutorial http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/understanding_biomass.html

108. 108 11. The Fossil Fuels

109. 109