SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : $2 or higher gas - Can ethanol make a comeback? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: richardred who wrote (2551)8/4/2007 7:30:01 PM
From: richardred  Respond to of 2801
 
House OKs Boost for Renewable Energy
By H. JOSEF HEBERT 08.04.07, 6:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON -

The House approved incentives for renewable energy and conservation Saturday, and edged closer to passing nearly $16 billion in taxes on oil companies.

Republican opponents said the legislation ignores the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."

The House approved the energy measures, including a requirement for electric utilities to use more renewable energy to generate power, by a vote of 241-172. Lawmakers later were to consider a companion tax package, totaling nearly $16 billion, that targets the major oil companies.

"We are turning to the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

On one of the most contentious and heavily lobbied issues, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels.

The utilities and business interests had argued aggressively against the federal renewables mandate, saying it would raise electricity prices in regions of the country that do not have abundant wind energy. But environmentalists argued the requirement will spur investments in renewable fuels and help address global warming as utilities use less coal.

"This will save consumers money," said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., the provision's co-sponsor, maintaining utilities will have to use less high-priced natural gas. He noted that half the states already have a renewable energy mandate for utilities, and if utilities can't find enough renewable they can meet part of the requirement through power conservation measures.

The bill also calls for more stringent energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting and incentives for building more energy-efficient "green" buildings. It would authorize special bonds for cities and counties to reduce energy demand.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was essential to commit to renewable energy while reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Doing so, she said, will help address global warming and make the country more energy-independent.

"It's about our children, about our future, the world in which they live," Pelosi said.

She had pledged to have the House pass energy legislation before lawmakers depart this weekend for a monthlong vacation.

Democrats avoided a nasty fight by ignoring - at least for the time being - calls for automakers to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. Cars, sport utility vehicles and small trucks use most of the country's oil and produce almost one-third of the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.

That issue, as well as whether to require huge increases in the use of corn-based ethanol as a substitute for gasoline, were left to be thrashed out when the House bill is merged with energy legislation the Senate passed in June.

Republicans said the House bill did nothing to increase domestic oil and natural gas production or take further advantage of coal, the country's most abundant domestic energy resource.

"There's a war going on against energy from fossil fuels," said Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas. "I can't understand the pure venom felt against the oil and gas industry."

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said the bill was "a political exercise" to promote "pet projects, ... pet ideas." He predicted it "isn't going anywhere" because President Bush will veto it if it gets to his desk.

The White House said the legislation makes "no serious attempts to increase our energy security or address high energy costs" and would harm domestic oil and gas production. The administration's statement criticized the singling out of oil companies for tax increases.

A separate tax measure, expected to be voted on later in the evening, would end two sizable tax breaks for major oil companies. One was aimed at promoting domestic manufacturing; the other pertained to income from foreign oil production.

The tax measure also would provide an array of loan guarantees, federal grants and tax breaks for alternative energy programs. They include building biomass factories, research into making ethanol from wood chips and prairie grasses and producing better batteries for hybrid gas-electric automobiles.

The legislation would end a tax break for buying large SUVs, known as the "Hummer tax loophole" because it allows people who buy some of the most expensive SUVs to write off much of the cost.

The proposal also provides tax incentives for companies to produce flex-fuel vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol and for gas station operators to install E-85 pumps.
forbes.com



To: richardred who wrote (2551)8/5/2007 12:13:19 PM
From: richardred  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2801
 
More ethanol to be added to gasoline

David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, August 5, 2007
Lee Penn holds mashed corn from a hammer mill that grinds... Carlos Villegas checks the syrup that is added to the cor...

California regulators have decided to greatly expand the amount of ethanol blended into our gasoline as a way to fight global warming.

Unfortunately, we don't make much of it. And the type of ethanol California uses - most of it made from corn and imported from the Midwest - has serious drawbacks as a weapon against climate change.

The great boom in ethanol plant construction that swept the nation's farm belt in recent years has barely touched the Golden State. Biorefineries here make only 8.6 percent of all the ethanol California uses. Other states supply the rest, shipped by rail over the Sierra or through the Southern California desert.

The California Air Resources Board this summer decided to raise the amount of ethanol that oil companies can blend into the gasoline they sell here. By 2013 - after the new rules kick in - California's ethanol use is expected to jump more than 78 percent, to 1.7 billion gallons per year.

Ethanol companies will likely build more biorefineries in California to feed that fast-growing market. California has four already, with three more under construction. But the state will still have to import most of its ethanol from elsewhere, much like it already imports oil, gasoline and natural gas.

That doesn't worry many energy experts. So many ethanol plants have been built across the Midwest that California should have ample supplies at reasonable prices, they say.

But here's the rub - importing ethanol into California makes it less useful as a tool to cut greenhouse gas emissions, because the diesel-powered trains and trucks that bring it here belch carbon dioxide. All the same, many experts consider it preferable to relying solely on oil.

"Its problems pale in significance to the problem of dependence on petroleum from the other side of the globe, and dangerous places on the other side of the globe," said James Boyd, vice chairman of the California Energy Commission. "I don't think of the Midwest as dangerous."

The United States had 110 biorefineries in 2006, producing 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol industry trade group. Some 73 more plants were under construction by year's end, capable of adding another 6 billion gallons to the country's supply.

Although many Californians don't realize it, they're already driving on ethanol. Gasoline sold in the state contains about 6 percent ethanol, used to help the fuel burn more completely.

Starting in 2010, that portion will increase to about 10 percent, under rules the Air Resources Board adopted in June.

For the companies that make ethanol, the new rules look like an opportunity.

Pacific Ethanol Inc. runs the state's largest ethanol biorefinery, a plant in Madera, near Fresno, that can churn out 40 million gallons per year. The Sacramento company, co-founded by former California Secretary of State Bill Jones, also markets ethanol made by the state's second-largest biorefinery, which produces 31.5 million gallons per year in Goshen (Tulare County).

New Pacific Ethanol plants are under construction in Stockton and Calipatria (Imperial County), which is near the Mexican border. Both will make 50 million gallons of fuel per year.

"It is critically important to have other sources of new fuel, and that's what ethanol represents," said Neil Koehler, the company's chief executive officer. He says that increased use of ethanol could help stabilize California's volatile gasoline prices, because a higher percentage of the gasoline in drivers' tanks will come from a different raw material than petroleum.

"Diversity is a good thing, in terms of price," he said.

That's still a matter of dispute. Past changes to the state's gasoline blend have been responsible for giving California some of the highest pump prices in the country. In addition, a spike in ethanol prices last summer helped push up gasoline prices across the country. The biofuel, in other words, has its own price swings.

There's also disagreement about the kind of ethanol California uses.

Most of it is made from corn, the most common raw material for ethanol made in the United States. Many experts argue that corn-based ethanol has significant drawbacks. Some studies show that corn ethanol takes almost as much energy to produce as it provides as a fuel.

Shipped from the Midwest, it also may not be the most effective weapon against climate change. A recent study for the California Energy Commission looked at the greenhouse gas emissions that come from growing corn in the Midwest, turning it into ethanol and shipping the finished product to California.

With all those factors considered, corn ethanol still produced fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline, but not by much. And if the biorefinery that made the ethanol drew its electricity from a coal-fired power plant, it actually produced more greenhouse gas emissions than regular gasoline.

As a result, many environmentalists and state officials view corn ethanol as a transitional fuel.

They hope it will soon be replaced by cellulosic ethanol. Distilled from a wide variety of plants - including crop waste or switch grass - cellulosic ethanol produces fewer greenhouse gases than corn ethanol. No one has perfected a way to make mass quantities at commercially viable prices, although many researchers and entrepreneurs are trying.

"Cellulosic (ethanol) is going to be happening faster than people think," said Carl Zichella, regional director for the Sierra Club in California. "A lot of the technology exists, but it hasn't been scaled up to commercial size. That's an investment problem, not a technology problem."

Pacific Ethanol is working with several partners to develop cellulosic ethanol. But for now, it relies on corn. The company imports grain, but Koehler expects more California farmers to start growing corn as ethanol production climbs. It's already happening, he said.

"We've seen a huge increase in the amount of corn acreage in the country, and in California, very much so," he said.

That raises its own problems, since land devoted to growing fuel isn't growing food.

"It's a really tough issue, because you're going to have to plant those food crops somewhere," said Patricia Monahan, deputy director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.
sfgate.com



To: richardred who wrote (2551)8/5/2007 12:21:37 PM
From: richardred  Respond to of 2801
 
Construction at Patriot Renewable Fuels continues while ethanol production increases
Comment on this story

By Stephen Elliott, selliott@qconline.com

ANNAWAN -- As Americans watch gasoline prices hover around $3 a gallon and crude oil push toward $80 a barrel, workers at Patriot Renewable Fuels labor outside in the hot sun.

Amid corn fields and dirt and just south of Interstate 80, a $165 million ethanol plant is under construction. It's a massive project. There currently are 115 ethanol plants nationwide, according to Renewable Fuels Association, and another 79 under construction.

Building the plants is complex, with success depending on variables such as investors, loans, materials and commodity prices.

Not all companies have been able to get off the ground, like Patriot. Other projects are stalled because of higher corn prices or the inability to secure financing.

At Patriot, workers are putting down railroad track, which will be used to bring in corn and bring out ethanol and corn byproducts that will be used as animal feed.

"I don't think there has been a new project in Henry County that has built nine miles of railroad track," said Patriot President and CEO Gene Griffith.

Two cement 110-foot storage towers will store the distiller's grain, or animal feed, before it is shipped out. In the coming weeks, silos will be built that have storage capacity for a million bushels of corn. Evaporator towers are already in place.

The 400-some acre facility will have space for up to 500 rail cars. They'll move into and out of the area on Iowa Interstate Railroad lines.

Patriot started construction in January 2007. It is scheduled to open in late spring of 2008, providing 45 to 50 quality jobs, Mr. Griffith said.

He is confident of ethanol's viability in America. But it may not be a godsend for everyone.

Higher corn prices due to the demand for ethanol are driving up livestock feed prices. That translates to higher prices at the grocery store for consumers.

Jeff Squibb, a spokesman with the Illinois Department of Agriculture, said there has been a 17 percent increase in corn planting nationwide because of ethanol. There are six ethanol plants in Illinois, Mr. Squibb said, and about another 40 being developed.

"There are concerns," Mr. Squibb said. "Livestock producers are worried about the cost of feed. Corn and beans are used for animal feed. Increased feed costs impacts the profitability of their operations."

And higher corn prices mean less profit for the ethanol producers.

But, ethanol is home grown and is getting a push from the federal government in the form of tax credits for producers. Ethanol reduces petroleum dependence and pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, according to the Illinois Corn Marketing Board.

Approximately 6 billion gallons is produced nationwide, according to Patriot's project coordinator, Judd Hulting. He said production is expected to reach 12 billion gallons, or about 10 percent of American's gasoline consumption, in coming years.

"The industry is growing at an unprecedented rate," Mr. Hulting said. "It's going to cause a lot of industry adjustments."

Ray Defenbaugh, who has successfully operated Big River Resources, a farmer-owned ethanol plant in West Burlington, Iowa, since 2004, is ready to begin construction on a plant in Galva this year.

He said some prospective developers are realizing the difficulties of getting everything in place.

"It's like pieces to a puzzle," Mr. Defenbaugh explained. "It takes a combination of things to make a plant work at a particular site. Transportation, electricity, gas, water and incentives.

"A lot of people staked their claim on trying to build a project. But then, as they were developing through those issues, they found other issues."

He said some plants couldn't secure bank loans or acquire enough community interest from investors.

At Patriot, Mr. Griffith said they were able to secure 200 investors, which in turn, helped in securing loans from several different banks.

Rich Goldstein, president of River/Gulf Energy, Davenport, associated with Alter Barge Line in Bettendorf, and executive vice president of Alter Company in St. Louis, announced plans in the spring of 2006 to build a $100 million ethanol plant in Buffalo, Iowa.

Those plans have been put on hold because, in part, of higher corn prices.

"The corn risk is higher than it used to be," Mr. Goldstein said. "The volatility in price is much more than it used to be. And, the tightness of credit is happening now among all industries. Another factor is construction costs for ethanol plants are skyrocketing."

Yet, he still wants to build. Mr. Goldstein said he is interviewing prospective investment partners daily.

Ethanol also is part of the plans in Kewanee, but the progress there is unknown.

Bill Price, executive director of Kewanee Economic Development Corporation, would divulge little about a proposed ethanol plant in the city. In March, it was announced that a Moline company, Ethanol Production Company, signed an agreement with the Lininger Industrial Park in Kewanee, giving EPC the option to buy the ground.

"We're working on it," Mr. Price said Friday. "It's pretty much stuff we can't talk about. It's ongoing. It's active. Just because there is no publicity doesn't mean we're not working on it."

qconline.com



To: richardred who wrote (2551)8/8/2007 12:08:25 PM
From: richardred  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2801
 
sold AVR today on the Upgrade.