HAVE A GREAT WEDNESDAY READERS!

Part of the EPA's mandate for long term production of ethanol production is based on making ethanol from other than corn. This article clearly indicates that the technology for making ethanol from wood, grass and other materials does not exist in a form that can make ethanol in an economically competitive fashion. The article therefore claims that the EPA's mandate will not be met.

Ethanol fuel use goal likely a bust, science panel says

By James R. Healey, USA TODAY

The federal requirement for consuming 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other so-called biofuels annually by 2022 probably won't be met, and it might not reach its goal of cutting greenhouse gases even it were met, according to a report requested by Congress and published Tuesday by the National Academy of Sciences.

Meeting the standard "would likely increase federal budget outlays as well as have mixed economic and environmental effects," according to a summary. "We're not telling anybody, 'Don't do biofuels.' We're just saying it will cost more than you thought and won't go as quickly as you thought," says EPA

Wallace Tyner, co-chairman of the unit that produced the report -- the NAS' committee on economic and environment impacts of increasing biofuels production.

The report notes that the way biofuels (mainly ethanol) are produced, and changes in how land is used to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard, will determine whether greenhouse gases (GHG) increase or decrease. GHG are vilified as a global warming cause.

Tyner is professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University and co-director of the Center for Research on Energy Systems and Policy. The other 14 committee members represent an array of interests: agriculture, biofuels development, chemistry, sustainable energy, natural resources. Most are connected with universities.

Here's a look at the experts' report. The National Academy of Sciences is not connected with the government. It is an independent group of specialists and experts. Congress can consult the NAS for expertise on issues, and did so in the case of biofuels.

The portion of the requirements dictating the use of 15 billion gallons of fuel mainly from corn ethanol certainly will be met, he says: "We're at 14 billion today," and plenty of ethanol plants are in operation. But meeting the requirements for cellulosic biofuels is uncertain, the report says. That's key because cellulosic-derived fuels come from wood, grasses and other non-edible material. Those biofuels can be ethanol. That would end the fierce arguments about the propriety of using land to grow crops for fuel instead of for food.

"Everybody's been saying that cellulosic is the one that takes us home. We're saying, 'Not by 2022, it won't,' " Tyner says.

Whereas the technology and costs of making ethanol fuel from corn are well known, "cellulosic on the other hand is new technology. We don't know how it works. We don't know how much it will cost. There are no plants in operation. Here we are in 2011 at 0 gallons and we have to get to 16 billion gallons by 2022.

"That's double or triple" how fast ethanol fuel became commercially viable, he notes."Everybody in the industry wants to build the fourth or fifth plant. Nobody wants to build the first," he says. Even if oil were $111 a barrel, one of the scenarios forecast by the Department of Energy, cellulosic fuel could be a losing proposition, he says. Biofuel made using wood scraps, corn stalks and other leftover waste could be profitable. But growing plants specifically for fuel, such as switchgrass, wouldn't be unless the government continues the current $1.01 per gallon subsidy, he says.

"Pete" Landry............comments welcome at .......................way2gopete@yahoo.com