The smaller supply of cellulosic ethanol might mean the country uses less efficient ethanol from corn, or keeps using more
gasoline. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Cellulosic ethanol is supposed to
be a green fuel for cars – greener
than conventional ethanol made from
corn. The government wanted industry
to create loads of cellulosic ethanol
next year. Shawn Allee reports
industry might provide just a trickle:
Transcript
Cellulosic ethanol is supposed to
be a green fuel for cars – greener
than conventional ethanol made from
corn. The government wanted industry
to create loads of cellulosic ethanol
next year. Shawn Allee reports
industry might provide just a trickle:
The fuel industry’s supposed to create 100 million gallons of cellulosic-ethanol next
year. But industry leaders say they might create just 12 million gallons.
Wes Bolsen is with Coskata. His company can create ethanol from wood chips and even
household trash. Bolsen says companies like his found some investment money – but the
financial crisis created delays.
“We’re building refineries – 300, 400 million dollar assets and that’s a lot of money
to come together. We’re two years delayed, the whole industry. We can’t open them
in 2010. Facilities will start opening in 2012.”
The federal government might have to shift mandates for cellulosic ethanol into the
future.
That could mean the country uses less efficient ethanol from corn, or keeps using more
gasoline.
Downstream view of Roberts Creek, IA, where USGS scientists conducted a study of the degradation of atrazine, a herbicide, in streams. (Photo courtesy of the USGS)
People have been concerned
about farm chemicals getting
into drinking water supplies
for a long time. A recent report
showed that the chemical atrazine
peaks, in many areas, in concentrations
much higher than previously thought.
Julie Grant reports there are
things you can do to protect your
family. But, finding out if you
have a problem is harder:
Transcript
People have been concerned
about farm chemicals getting
into drinking water supplies
for a long time. A recent report
showed that the chemical atrazine
peaks, in many areas, in concentrations
much higher than previously thought.
Julie Grant reports there are
things you can do to protect your
family. But, finding out if you
have a problem is harder:
Bob Denges is worried. His water is discolored. So he’s
called a water purification company to test it.
(sound of running water)
They’re running water in the basement utility sink. It’s kind
of orange-y looking. So, it’s an easy diagnosis: too much
iron.
“You can probably see in the toilet, upstairs just on the first
floor, that there’s some brownish, reddish discoloration
around the toilets.”
That’s not great. But at least you can tell when there’s iron
in the water. You cannot see or taste other water
contaminants such as weed killers like atrazine.
Tom Bruusema is the water filter expert at the National
Sanitation Foundation. They test and certify water filtration
devices. He says the first place you can check is your local
municipality – the folks that monitor water in your area.
“That would be the place to start. They are required, by
federal law, to measure a number of contaminants, produce
an annual report for their consumers.”
But recently an investigative report by the New York Times
revealed water contamination can spike in some places –
and local water officials might not even know about it.
That weed killer – atrazine – is applied on farm fields and, in a
lot of places, you also find a lot of atrazine in the water
during that time.
If you’re looking for it at the right time.
Sometimes it spikes for longer than a month. But some local
water officials only test for atrazine once a month, or only
once a year, and often it’s not during that peak application
season.
So people can’t really find out about atrazine levels for their
drinking water in those places.
Some water systems are spending lots of money to treat
drinking water to get atrazine levels down to what the federal
government considers safe levels.
But that might not be enough, according to some of the new
scientific evidence about atrazine.
Five studies published in peer-reviewed journals recently
have found evidence suggesting that small amounts of
atrazine in drinking water causes health problems. Even at
levels considered safe by federal standards, atrazine might
be associated with birth defects. Things like low birth
weights in newborns. Skull and facial malformations and
misshapen limbs.
Forty-three water systems in six states — Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi and Ohio — recently sued
atrazine’s manufacturers. They want to force the company
Syngenta and its partner Growmark to pay for removing the
chemical from drinking water.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in the lawsuit.
“Some of them have gone to the expense to cleaning it
completely out of their water supplies, so that it doesn’t exist
at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to
reimbursement of expenses for cleaning it completely out of
their water supplies.”
But, some water systems are not cleaning out atrazine
completely. And, as we mentioned, there are times when
some don’t know they exceed the federal safe drinking water
levels.
There is something pretty easy you can do if you’re worried
about your water.
Tom Bruusema of the National Sanitation Foundation says a
simple carbon filter can remove atrazine. Those are the
filters you can attach to the faucet or the pitchers you refill.
“So it’s a good investment. Certainly can help them if they
have those kinds of concerns, and particularly those living in
an area that’s known to have potential contaminants in the
water supply.”
But first people have to be aware of a possible problem.
And, too often, they are not.
The government will soon decide whether to allow increasing the mix from the current 10% blend to as high as a 15% blend. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Cheap oil makes switching to alternative
fuels such as ethanol less attractive.
Lester Graham reports that could affect
an upcoming decision about using more
ethanol:
Transcript
Cheap oil makes switching to alternative
fuels such as ethanol less attractive.
Lester Graham reports that could affect
an upcoming decision about using more
ethanol:
Crude oil prices spiked a little because of Iran’s long-range missile testing and revelations of a secret nuclear facility.
But analysts think for the next several months we’ll actually see oil prices go down – maybe to around $30 a barrel, less than half of what it is now.
And that could hurt demand for fuels such as ethanol.
But the government has mandated the nation produce more ethanol.
Dan Flynn is an analyst with the trading firm, Alaron.
“Obviously the government definitely wants to push this through. However, the price of crude oil and gasoline, if that goes down, generally people look not to look for alternative sources of energy.”
One way to use more ethanol is to mix higher amounts with gasoline.
The government will soon decide whether to allow increasing the mix from the current 10% blend to as high as a 15% blend.
Todd Krone researches corn for Targeted Growth,
a bio-energy company. Targeted Growth is tweaking corn
genetics to produce 'Sugarcorn,' a variety with high
amounts of sugar and biomass. The hope is the plants
can be converted into ethanol cheaply. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
Traditional corn varieties pollinate and send
energy into the kernels, which form sugar and starch. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
This corn ear shows one of Sugarcorn's key traits.
Bio-energy company Targeted Growth is perfecting corn varieties
that stop pollination and preserve sugar in the stalk instead of
creating starch in kernels. Researchers in public universities
such as the University of Illinois are conducting similar work. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
The federal government wants more
and more ethanol in our fuel supplies,
but it worries about how its made.
Most American ethanol is made from
corn kernels. That’s inefficient
and it makes the ethanol and food
industries compete for corn. The
government’s mandating we start making
ethanol out of things other than corn
kernels. Shawn Allee looks
at one effort to meet that mandate:
Transcript
The federal government wants more
and more ethanol in our fuel supplies,
but it worries about how its made.
Most American ethanol is made from
corn kernels. That’s inefficient
and it makes the ethanol and food
industries compete for corn. The
government’s mandating we start making
ethanol out of things other than corn
kernels. Shawn Allee looks
at one effort to meet that mandate:
I’m just outside an ethanol plant in central Indiana and its pretty much like most ethanol
plants. There’re a lot of semi-trucks going by and they’re loaded with yellow corn kernels.
Most ethanol plants grind corn kernels for starch, they let that starch turn into sugar, then
they brew the sugary juice into ethanol. Now, this whole process would be easier and
cheaper if we could make ethanol directly from sugary plants instead of starchy grain
kernels like corn.
Pretty quick here, I’m gonna meet a guy who’s trying to make corn a plant that’s easy to
grow in the Midwest but produces sweet juice – not starchy corn kernels.
“If you walk over here, these are our sugar corn hybrids.”
I’m with Todd Krone. He’s a researcher with a company called Targeted Growth. He walks me
through a test plot of a plant nicknamed ‘Sugarcorn.’ He pulls off a ear of corn and pulls back the
leaves.
(sound of leaves being pulled back)
The ear is almost bare.
Allee: “There’re just a few stray kernels developing, very few.”
Krone: “Yep. A few got through.”
Krone says this plant avoids making corn kernels. Instead, it puts energy and sugar into the
stalk. He can prove it with a taste test – right here in field.
He snips a piece of stalk.
(sound of snipping)
And pulls out a little press.
Krone: “You squeeze some of the juice to see how much sugar’s there. It’s up to you, if
you like, you could put on on your finger and taste. Is there sweetness?”
Allee: “Yeah, it’s definitely sweet. It’s definitely got a sweet tinge to it.”
Krone: “It might be a bit sweeter than pop might be.”
Krone says tests show Sugarcorn juice is as sweet as juice from sugar cane. He says this means
America could have a new plant that boosts ethanol production – but doesn’t compete with food,
and uses equipment farmers already have.
Krone: “For the farmer, not much changes until harvest when some logistics still need to
be worked out.”
Allee: “Obviously if you’re selling a lot of this corn, you’d be making a good deal of profit,
hopefully, what’s in it for the rest of us in terms of the success or failure of this, for drivers
and everybody else?”
Krone: “I would say, hopefully, it results in cheaper ethanol that can compete with cheap
oil. And then meeting that mandate to get more and more ethanol produced.”
Well, that’s the idea, but Targeted Growth would have to change more than just corn plants to
succeed. They’de have to change how at least some ethanol companies do business. And some
ethanol companies have some tough questions about it.
“How could you handle sugarcorn? How would you store it?”
This is Jeff Harts. He works at Central Indiana Ethanol. Harts says he likes the idea of using
sweet corn juice to make ethanol – it could be efficient. But he worries about getting enough to
run an expensive operation like his. He has no problem finding corn kernels.
“It’s a consistent flow of corn and we need that consistent flow to keep going. That’s why
we have storage, the farmers have storage. That’s why we have a local grain elevator
network to ship corn to us to keep that flow steady 12 months out of the year.”
Harts’ company might be a bit reluctant to change right away, but ethanol producers will have
find alternatives to the corn kernel. The government is capping how much ethanol can come
from corn starch.
As those requirements phase in, alternatives like Sugarcorn might look sweeter than they do
now.
Bob Price is one of many farmers in Southwestern Kansas who signed up for a government program that pays farmers for their water rights and put portions of their land back into grass. (Photo by Devin Browne)
Bob Price is one of many farmers in Southwestern Kansas who signed up for a government program that pays farmers for their water rights and put portions of their land back into grass. (Photo by Devin Browne)
Bob Price is one of many farmers in Southwestern Kansas who signed up for a government program that pays farmers for their water rights and put portions of their land back into grass.
(Photo by Devin Browne)
Right now, America’s Bread Basket
relies on an aquifer that’s nearly
drained. And, many say, it will dry
up if farmers keep pumping water
from it at the current rate. Devin
Browne reports the government plans
to pay farmers as one way to get them
to cut water use:
Transcript
Right now, America’s Bread Basket
relies on an aquifer that’s nearly
drained. And, many say, it will dry
up if farmers keep pumping water
from it at the current rate. Devin
Browne reports the government plans
to pay farmers as one way to get them
to cut water use:
Bob Price is every bit the Heartland farmer. He’s dressed head-to-toe in denim with a belt
buckle the size of a small plate. Just like his neighbors, he grows thirsty plants like corn
and alfalfa. But, the land is so dry and so sandy that many agricultural experts think it’s
not suitable for farming.
When Price moved to Southwestern Kansas in 1973, it didn’t seem to matter that the land
was so dry. In his pick-up, on the way to his farm, he tells me that it was the beginning
of an irrigation boom.
“Out here everyone was getting up early, going to work, and all along Highway 50 it was
irrigation pumps, irrigation pipe, engines; this was like a frontier back then.”
At that time, the government heavily subsidized the costs of irrigation. The farmers were
getting an almost immediate return. Their land appreciated almost overnight once
irrigation was established.
Farmers began to pump water – and lots of it – from one of the world’s largest
underground water supplies, the Ogallala Aquifer. They pumped two-feet of water for
every acre they farmed, right onto their crops.
“Meanwhile, the water table is declining and the water that we’re pumping is coming
from farther and farther down and, even with the same energy cost, it cost more to suck
water out of the ground from 500 feet.”
Last year, it cost Price more than $200,000 for the electricity to run the pumps to irrigate
about 900 acres of land. It’s one of the reasons he started to consider other options.
At the same time, the government, on both the state and federal level, started to think of
how to save the water left in the Ogallala Aquifer. Rivers were drying up and several
states in the Plains were suing or being sued for taking more water than they’re allowed.
Several states initiated water conservation programs as a response; Kansas was the first to
do it without the threat of a lawsuit. The program started in 2007. The strategy: pay
farmers to permanently retire their water rights.
Price had actually been wanting to take some of his land out of crops anyways. He’s a
prairie chicken enthusiast and he wants to start a guided hunting business. Prairie
chickens need prairie grass.
“So we’re farming one day, and we’re thinking, ‘sure would be nice to get that into
grass,’ but that’s an overwhelmingly expensive proposition.”
It’s not expensive to plant or grow prairie grass. You don’t need any irrigation for either.
But you do need irrigation for a cover crop that the farmers are required to grow for two
years before they can get to the grass. Susan Stover is with the Kansas Water Office.
“If we did not get something re-established there, we could have potentially dust storms
again and sand dunes moving and really big blow-outs.”
Blow-outs like Depression-Era, Dust Bowl blow-outs. So Price has to plant a cover crop
and pat double what he gets from the conservation program just to irrigate it.
Ironically, the government pays him sizeable subsidies to keep other land in corn, which
needs water from the aquifer to grow. So basically, one government program is paying
Price to stop using so much water, while, at the same time, other government programs
are paying him subsidies to grow the crops that need so much water.
Price would actually like more money to put the land back into grass, but if he wants to
lead hunting trips for prairie chickens and he wants prairie grass, there’s only one outfit
willing to pay him anything to plant that grass – the government.
One crop that Carbofuran was used on is potatoes (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)
The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:
The EPA has been phasing out this insecticide, but it’s still used on some crops like rice, corn, and potatoes.
When people are exposed to carbofuran, it can cause damage to the nervous system. And the EPA is particularly worried about kids exposure when eating food or when drinking water near treated farm fields.
Potato farmers say they use carbofuran to kill bugs that resist other pesticides.
John Keeling is the CEO of the National Potato Council. He says they were hoping the EPA would let them keep using it.
“We had tried to work with the agency to modify use patterns, or limit the use to particular areas, so that we could continue to use the product – but they obviously didn’t continue in that direction.”
FMC Corporation makes the chemical. Officials there issued a statement saying they’ll fight the EPA’s new rule.
Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Collin C. Peterson from Minnesota (Photo courtesy of the House Committee on Agriculture)
A dispute about bio-fuels could put passage of a climate change bill at risk. Lester Graham reports corn ethanol is at the center of a dispute among some Democrats:
Transcript
A dispute about bio-fuels could put passage of a climate change bill at risk. Lester Graham reports corn ethanol is at the center of a dispute among some Democrats:
Conventional wisdom in Washington these days is: it’s not a good idea to use food for fuel, so corn ethanol should be replaced by cellulosic ethanol – made from crops such as switchgrass.
The chairman of the Ag Committee, Democrat Collin Peterson, believes the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are putting rules and legislation in place to put corn ethanol at a disadvantage to cellulosic ethanol.
He says they’re forcing changes on corn ethanol makers and farmers that could ruin the future of the bio-fuels industry.
“They are setting this up to guarantee there will never be second-generation ethanol or bio-diesel.”
Congressman Peterson says the Climate Change bill is just more of the same. He says he won’t vote for it and he doesn’t think any of the 46 members of the House Agriculture committee will either.
More bio-fuels, like ethanol from corn, will be blended into petroleum (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)
The Obama administration wants us all to use more bio-fuels in our vehicles. Lester Graham reports on a proposed rule released by the White House:
Transcript
The Obama administration wants us all to use more bio-fuels in our vehicles. Lester Graham reports on a proposed rule released by the White House:
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, says this will mean blending more bio-fuels into petroleum.
“Under the proposed rule, the total volume of renewable fuel ramps up to a maximum of 36-billion gallons by 2022.”
But, for the first time, renewable fuels also will have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Bob Dinneen heads up the ethanol trade-group, the Renewable Fuels Association.
He says the carbon footprint of ethanol is 61% smaller than petroleum. But the government wants to include indirect effects – such as reduced corn exports leading other countries to slash and burn rain forest to grow corn.
“We believe when that is better understood, ethanol is going to continue to demonstrate significant carbon benefits.”
The government will hear about their concerns and others during a 60-day comment period.
A corn ethanol refinery- The ethanol industry is asking the EPA to raise the legal limit of ethanol that can be added to regular gasoline from 10 to 15%. (Photo by Grant Hellman, Courtesy of US Department of Agriculture)
In the 1970s, the government limited the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline at 10 percent. Now, a trade group called Growth Energy has asked the U-S EPA to raise the limit to 15 percent:
Transcript
In the 1970s, the government limited the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline at 10 percent.
Now, a trade group called Growth Energy has asked the U-S EPA to raise the limit to 15 percent.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has already said that 12 or 13 percent ethanol is possible soon.
But, an environmental groups says, “slow down.”
Jeremy Martin is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says, first, the government should make sure that a higher-ethanol blend doesn’t damage pollution controls on vehicle engines.
“We don’t want to quickly make a change and then find out that we’ve caused a lot of damage to lots of vehicles on the road or caused a lot of air quality impacts.”
Supporters of the increased ethanol blend say it would help US corn farmers and reduce the demand for foreign oil. But opponents say ethanol made from corn does more harm to the environment than good.
This E85 pump is one of two publicly
available in the city of Chicago - a
city of nearly three million people
and dozens of dealerships that sell E-85
compatible cars. The federal government
provided incentives to manufacture E85-
compatible vehicles, but the fuel
infrastructure hasn't kept up. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
If you’ve kicked the tires around
a new car lot recently, your dealer may
have told you about “flex fuel” cars. These
Flex Fuel Vehicles run on gas or they can
burn “E85” – a mix of ethanol and gasoline.
Congress promoted Flex Fuel Vehicles to cut
oil imports, but Shawn Allee reports
on why it really hasn’t helped:
Transcript
If you’ve kicked the tires around
a new car lot recently, your dealer may
have told you about “flex fuel” cars. These
Flex Fuel Vehicles run on gas or they can
burn “E85” – a mix of ethanol and gasoline.
Congress promoted Flex Fuel Vehicles to cut
oil imports, but Shawn Allee reports
on why it really hasn’t helped:
I’m in my car across the street from a gas station. It’s raining right now. Keeping my
distance.
I’ve been watching a pump that dispenses that E85 blend – it’s the stuff with 85% ethanol.
Anyway, this is a very lonely gas pump. I’ve been here for something like an hour and
half and no one’s filled up on E85.
So, I’m gonna head in and talk to a manager to see whether this is normal.
(sound of bell)
Allee: “What’s your name sir?”
McLemen: “Greg McLemen.”
Allee: “How often do you see people fill up on E85?”
McLemen: “It depends on the location. Mostly people just don’t know what it is. They
see a little pump over there that says E85. A lot of vehicles take it, and they don’t even
know it.”
McLemen pulls out a flier that shows which vehicles can use E85.
He says lots of these models pull in, but often pass up his E85 pump.
(sound of crinkling)
McLemen: “You can see most of them are General Motors.”
Allee: “A lot of General Motors – Tahoe, Avalanche, Uplanders.”
McLemen: “We always recommend they go online or check the owner’s manual.”
But there’s something most Flex-Fuel owners manuals don’t tell you.
Nationwide, only about 1% of stations have an E85 pump.
E85 is supposed to cut gasoline use.
So it begs the questions: If there’s not much E85 around, why can so many Flex Fuel cars
use it?
“Currently, auto companies receive a fuel economy credit for producing a flex-fuel
vehicle.”
Environmentalist Roland Hwang tracks car policy for the Natural Resources Defense
Council.
He says the Flex Fuel incentives infuriate him – because they’ve made us waste gasoline,
not save it.
“Just very roughly speaking, like a twenty per mile gallon car might be treated like a
forty mile per gallon, almost like a hybrid-level of efficiency, under these fuel economy
credits. Thereby allowing the auto companies actually to build a less-efficient vehicle
fleet than they would have had to build.”
You don’t have to take Hwang’s word for it – energy analysts in the government agree the
incentives have wasted gasoline.
But some of these analysts say there is a bright side to the Flex Fuel vehicle incentives.
One is Paul Leiby of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Leiby: “The important side of effect Flexible Fuel incentives is that we actually can begin
to achieve energy security with the enhanced capability to use alternative fuels even if
we’re not yet using them.”
Allee: “You mean the flex fuel vehicle program wastes some gas, but having flex fuel
vehicles around is like an insurance policy, for an oil shock or something?”
Leiby: “That’s exactly right. If we have to do something very fast, within one to three
years, we already have some vehicles on the road, that can quickly switch to ethanol.”
Leiby says Congress really believed this “insurance policy” idea, so it let Flex Fuel
vehicle incentives for automakers go on for more than a decade – even while we were
just spinning our wheels when it came to actually saving gas.
But now, the game could be changing.
Congress is phasing out Flex Fuel credits for the car makers.
And, there’s talk about making all cars flex fuel.
It’s a move Detroit doesn’t want to make. Because then they’ll have to actually have to
meet the government’s requirements of a more fuel efficient fleet.
The smaller supply of cellulosic ethanol might mean the country uses less efficient ethanol from corn, or keeps using more gasoline. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
