Ethanol fuel in the United States

The United States became the world's largest producer of ethanol fuel in 2005. The U.S. produced 15.8 billion U.S. liquid gallons of ethanol fuel in 2019, and 13.9 billion U.S. liquid gallons (52.6 billion liters) in 2011,[1][2] an increase from 13.2 billion U.S. liquid gallons (49.2 billion liters) in 2010, and up from 1.63 billion gallons in 2000.[3] Brazil and U.S. production accounted for 87.1% of global production in 2011.[1] In the U.S, ethanol fuel is mainly used as an oxygenate in gasoline in the form of low-level blends up to 10 percent, and, increasingly, as E85 fuel for flex-fuel vehicles.[4] The U.S. government subsidizes ethanol production.[5][6]

Main articles: Biofuel in the United States and Ethanol fuel

Corn vs Ethanol production in the United States
  Total corn production (bushels) (left)
  Corn used for Ethanol fuel (bushels) (left)
  Percent of corn used for Ethanol (right)
Blender fuels pump in 2012 selling the standard E10 ethanol blend together with E15, E30 and E85 in East Lansing, Michigan
Ethanol fuel production by state

The ethanol market share in the U.S. gasoline supply grew by volume from just over 1 percent in 2000 to more than 3 percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2011.[1][7][8] Domestic production capacity increased fifteen times after 1990, from 900 million US gallons to 1.63 billion US gal in 2000, to 13.5 billion US gallons in 2010.[7][9] The Renewable Fuels Association reported 209 ethanol distilleries in operation located in 29 states in 2011.[1]

By 2011 most cars on U.S. roads could run on blends of up to 10% ethanol(E10), and manufacturers had begun producing vehicles designed for much higher percentages. However, the fuel systems of cars, trucks, and motorcycles sold before the ethanol mandate may suffer substantial damage from the use of 10% ethanol blends. Flexible-fuel cars, trucks, and minivans use gasoline/ethanol blends ranging from pure gasoline up to 85% ethanol (E85). By early 2013 there were around 11 million E85-capable vehicles on U.S. roads.[10][11] Regular use of E85 is low due to lack of fueling infrastructure, but is common in the Midwest.[12][13] In January 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted a waiver to allow up to 15% of ethanol blended with gasoline (E15) to be sold only for cars and light pickup trucks with a model year of 2001 or later. The EPA waiver authorizes, but does not require stations to offer E15. Like the limitations suffered by sales of E85, commercialization of E15 is constrained by the lack of infrastructure as most fuel stations do not have enough pumps to offer the new E15 blend, few existing pumps are certified to dispense E15, and no dedicated tanks are readily available to store E15.[14][15][16]

Historically most U.S. ethanol has come from corn, and the required electricity for many distilleries came mainly from coal. There is a debate about ethanol's sustainability and environmental impact.[17] The primary issues related to the large amount of arable land required for crops and ethanol production's impact on grain supply, indirect land use change (ILUC) effects, as well as issues regarding its energy balance and carbon intensity considering its full life cycle.[18][19][20][21][22][23]

History
Typical label at the gas pumps warning drivers of ethanol content up to 10%, used as oxygenate additive instead of MTBE. Miami, Florida.

In 1826 Samuel Morey experimented with an internal combustion chemical mixture that used ethanol (combined with turpentine and ambient air then vaporized) as fuel. At the time, his discovery was overlooked, mostly due to the success of steam power. Ethanol fuel received little attention until 1860 when Nicholas Otto began experimenting with internal combustion engines. In 1859, oil was found in Pennsylvania, which decades later provided a new kind of fuel. A popular fuel in the U.S. before petroleum was a blend of alcohol and turpentine called "camphene", also known as "burning fluid". The discovery of a ready supply of oil and unfavorable taxation on burning fluid made kerosene a more popular fuel.

In 1896, Henry Ford designed his first car, the "Quadricycle" to run on pure ethanol.[24] In 1908, the revolutionary Ford Model T was capable of running on gasoline, ethanol or a combination.[24][25][26] Ford continued to advocate for ethanol fuel even during the prohibition, but lower prices caused gasoline to prevail.[24]

Typical manufacture's warning placed in the fuel filler of U.S. vehicles regarding the capability of using up to E10, and warning against the use of blends between E20 and E85.

Gasoline containing up to 10% ethanol began a decades-long growth in the United States in the late 1970s. The demand for ethanol produced from field corn was spurred by the discovery that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was contaminating groundwater.[24][27] MTBE's use as an oxygenate additive was widespread due to mandates in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1992 to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. MTBE in gasoline had been banned in almost 20 states by 2006. Suppliers were concerned about potential litigation and a 2005 court decision denying legal protection for MTBE. MTBE's fall from grace opened a new market for ethanol, its primary substitute.[24] Corn prices at the time were around US$2 a bushel. Farmers saw a new market and increased production. This demand shift took place at a time when oil prices were rising.

The steep growth in twenty-first century ethanol consumption was driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required use of 7,500,000,000 US gal (2.8×1010 L) of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, to 36,000,000,000 US gal (1.4×1011 L) of annual renewable fuel use by 2022. Of this requirement, 21,000,000,000 US gal (7.9×1010 L) had to be advanced biofuels, defined as renewable fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%.[28][29][30]

U.S. fuel ethanol
production and imports
(2000–2011)[1][31][2]
(Millions of U.S. liquid gallons)
Year Production Imports Demand
20001,630n/an/a
20011,770n/an/a
20022,130462,085
20032,800612,900
20043,4001613,530
20053,9041354,049
20064,8556535,377
20076,5004506,847
20089,0005569,637
200910,60019310,940
201013,2981013,184
201113,929160n/a(1)
2012 13,218
2013 13,293
2014 14,313
2015 14,807
2016 15,413
2017 15,936
2018 16,091
2019 15,776
Note: Demand figures includes stocks change and
small exports in 2005.
(1) Exports in 2011 reached a record 1,100 billion gal.[1]
Graph of monthly production and net imports of fuel ethanol in the U.S. 1993–2012. Data from EIA

The world's top ethanol fuel producer in 2010 was the United States with 13.2 billion U.S. gallons (49.95 billion liters) representing 57.5% of global production, followed by Brazil with 6.92 billion U.S. gallons (26.19 billion liters), and together both countries accounted for 88% of the world production of 22.95 billion U.S. gallons (86.85 billion liters).[3] By December 2010 the U.S. ethanol production industry consisted of 204 plants operating in 29 states,[7][9] and 9 plants under construction or expansion, adding 560 million gallons of new capacity and bringing total U.S. installed capacity to 14.6 billion U.S. gallons (55.25 billion liters).[9] At the end of 2010 over 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the U.S. was blended with ethanol.[7]

Production
Most of the ethanol consumed in the US is in the form of low blends with gasoline up to 10%. Shown a fuel pump in Maryland selling mandatory E10.

Beginning in late 2008 and early 2009, the industry came under financial stress due to that year's economic crisis. Motorists drove less and gasoline prices dropped sharply, while bank financing shrank.[32][33][34] As a result, some plants operated below capacity, several firms closed plants, others laid off staff, some firms went bankrupt, plant projects were suspended and market prices declined.[32][33][34] The Energy Information Administration raised concerns that the industry would not meet the legislated targets.[32][35]

As of 2011, most of the U.S. car fleet was able to run on blends of up to 10% ethanol, and motor vehicle manufacturers produced vehicles designed to run on more concentrated blends. As of 2015, seven states – Missouri, Minnesota, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington – required ethanol to be blended with gasoline in motor fuels.[36] These states, particularly Minnesota, had more ethanol usage, and according to a source at Washington University, these states accumulated substantial environmental and economic benefits as a result.[37] Florida required ethanol blends as of the end of 2010,[38] but has since repealed it. Many cities had separate ethanol requirements due to non-attainment of federal air quality standards.[39] In 2007, Portland, Oregon, became the first U.S. city to require all gasoline sold within city limits to contain at least 10% ethanol.[40][41] Chicago has proposed the idea of mandating E15 in the city limits, while some area gas stations have already begun offering it.[42][43]

Expanding ethanol (and biodiesel) industries provided jobs in plant construction, operations, and maintenance, mostly in rural communities. According to RFA the ethanol industry created almost 154,000 U.S. jobs in 2005, boosting household income by $5.7 billion. It also contributed about $3.5 billion in federal, state and local tax revenues.[44]

The return on investment (ROI) to upgrade a service station to sell E15 is quick given today's markets. Given ethanol's discount to gasoline and the current value of RINs, retailers offering mid-level ethanol blends like E15 can quickly recoup their investments in infrastructure. Federal, state and local incentives and grant programs are available in most areas, and would further help reduce the cost of equipment and installation. E15 is a higher octane fuel, it is currently available in 29 states at retail fueling stations. E15 was approved for use in model year 2001 and newer cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles (SUVs), and all flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2012.

E85 vehicles
See also: Flexible-fuel vehicles in the United States
Typical labeling used in the US to identifyE85 flexible-fuel vehicles. Top left: a small sticker in the back of the fuel filler door. Bottom left: the bright yellow gas cap used in newer models. E85 Flexfuel badging used in newer models from Chrysler (top right), Ford (middle right) and GM (bottom right).
E85 fuel dispenser at a regular gasoline station, Washington, D.C.

Ford, Chrysler, and GM are among many automobile companies that sell flexible-fuel vehicles that can run blends ranging from pure gasoline to 85% ethanol (E85), and beginning in 2008 almost any type of automobile and light duty vehicle was available with the flex-fuel option, including sedans, vans, SUVs and pickup trucks. By early 2013, about 11 million E85 flex-fuel cars and light trucks were in operation,[10][11] though actual use of E85 fuel was limited, because the ethanol fueling infrastructure was limited.[45]

As of 2005, 68% of American flex-fuel car owners were not aware they owned an E85 flex.[12][13] Flex and non-flex vehicles looked the same. There was no price difference. American automakers did not label these vehicles.[13][46] In contrast, all Brazilian automakers clearly labeled FFVs with text that was some variant of the word Flex. Beginning in 2007 many new FFV models in the US featured a yellow gas cap to remind drivers of the E85 capabilities.[47][48] As of 2008, GM badged its vehicles with the text "Flexfuel/E85 Ethanol".[49][50] Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that in 2009 only 504,297 flex-fuel vehicles were regularly fueled with E85, and these were primarily fleet-operated vehicles.[51] As a result, only 712 million gallons were used for E85, representing just 1% of that year's ethanol consumption.[52]

During the decade following 2000, E85 vehicles became increasingly common in the Midwest, where corn was a major crop.

Fueling infrastructure has been a major restriction hampering E85 sales.[45] As of March 2013, there were 3,028 fueling stations selling E85 in the U.S.[53] Most stations were in the Corn Belt states. As of 2008 the leading state was Minnesota with 353 stations, followed by Illinois with 181, and Wisconsin with 114. About another 200 stations that dispensed ethanol were restricted to city, state and federal government vehicles.[45]

E15 blend
E15 warning sticker required to be displayed in all fuel dispensers selling that blend in the U.S.
2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid fuel filler cap showing a warning regarding the maximum ethanol blend allowed by the carmaker, up to E10 gasoline. The warning label indicates that ethanol blends between E15 to E85 shall not be used in this vehicle.

In March 2009 Growth Energy, a lobbying group for the ethanol industry, formally requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow the ethanol content in gasoline to be increased to 15%, from 10%.[54] In October 2010, the EPA granted a waiver to allow up to 15% blends to be sold for cars and trucks with a model year of 2007 or later, representing about 15% of vehicles on the roads.[14][15] In January 2011 the waiver was expanded to authorize use of E15 to include model year 2001 through 2006 passenger vehicles. The EPA also decided not to grant any waiver for E15 use in any motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles, or non-road engines because current testing data does not support such a waiver. According to the Renewable Fuels Association the E15 waivers now cover 62% of vehicles on the road in the country.[16][55] In December 2010 several groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, filed suit against the EPA.[56] In August 2012 the federal appeals court rejected the suit against the EPA ruling that the groups did not have legal standing to challenge EPA's decision to issue the waiver for E15.[57][58] In June 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from industry groups opposed to the EPA ruling about E15 and let the 2012 federal appeals court ruling stand.[59]

According to a survey conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA) in 2012, only about 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles on the U.S. roads in 2012 are approved by manufacturers are fully compliant with E15 gasoline. According with the Association, BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen warned that their warranties will not cover E15-related damage.[60] Despite the controversy, in order to adjust to EPA regulations, 2012 and 2013 model year vehicles manufactured by General Motors can use fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol, as indicated in the vehicle owners' manuals. However, the carmaker warned that for model year 2011 or earlier vehicles, they "strongly recommend that GM customers refer to their owners manuals for the proper fuel designation for their vehicles." Ford Motor Company also is manufacturing all of its 2013 vehicles E15 compatible, including hybrid electrics and vehicles with Ecoboost engines.[11] Also Porsches built since 2001 are approved by its manufacturer to use E15.[60] Volkswagen announced that for the 2014 model year, its entire lineup will be E15 capable.[61] Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced in August 2015 that all 2016 model year Chrysler/Fiat, Jeep, Dodge and Ram vehicles will be E15 compatible.[62]

Despite EPA's waiver, there is a practical barrier to the commercialization of the higher blend due to the lack of infrastructure, similar to the limitations suffered by sales of E85, as most fuel stations do not have enough pumps to offer the new blend, few existing pumps are certified to dispense E15, and there are no dedicated tanks readily available to store E15.[14][15] In July 2012 a fueling station in Lawrence, Kansas became the first in the U.S. to sell the E15 blend. The fuel is sold through a blender pump that allows customers to choose between E10, E15, E30 or E85, with the latter blends sold only to flexible-fuel vehicles.[63] This station was followed by a Marathon fueling station in East Lansing, Michigan. As of June 2013, there are about 24 fueling stations selling E15 out of 180,000 stations operating across the U.S.[59]

As of November 2012, sales of E15 are not authorized in California, and according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the blend is still awaiting approval, and in a public statement the agency said that "it would take several years to complete the vehicle testing and rule development necessary to introduce a new transportation fuel into California's market."[64]

Legislation and regulations
US President Donald Trump signs a 2019 executive order permitting the sale of 15% ethanol fuel year-round

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, directed DOE to assess the feasibility of using intermediate ethanol blends in the existing vehicle fleet.[65] The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) evaluated the potential impacts on legacy vehicles and other engines.[65] In a preliminary report released in October 2008, NREL described the effects of E10, E15 and E20 on tailpipe and evaporative emissions, catalyst and engine durability, vehicle driveability, engine operability, and vehicle and engine materials.[65][66] This preliminary report found that none of the vehicles displayed a malfunction indicator light; no fuel filter plugging symptoms were observed; no cold start problems were observed at 24 °C (75 °F) and 10 °C (50 °F) under laboratory conditions; and all test vehicles exhibited a loss in fuel economy proportional to ethanol's lower energy density. For example, E20 reduced average fuel economy by 7.7% when compared to gas-only (E0) test vehicles.[65]

The Obama Administration set the goal of installing 10,000 blender pumps nationwide by 2015. These pumps can dispense multiple blends including E85, E50, E30 and E20 that can be used by E85 vehicles. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a rule in May 2011 to include flexible fuel pumps in the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This ruling provided financial assistance, via grants and loan guarantees, to fuel station owners to install E85 and blender pumps.[67][68]

In May 2011 the Open Fuel Standard Act (OFS) was introduced to Congress with bipartisan support. The bill required that 50 percent of automobiles made in 2014, 80 percent in 2016, and 95 percent in 2017, be manufactured and warrantied to operate on non-petroleum-based fuels, which included existing technologies such as flex-fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric and fuel cell. Considering the rapid adoption of flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil and the fact that the cost of making flex-fuel vehicles was approximately $100 per car, the bill's primary objective was to promote a massive adoption of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on ethanol or methanol fuel.[69][70][71]

In November 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency opened for public comment its proposal to reduce the amount of ethanol required in the US gasoline supply as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The agency cited problems with increasing the blend of ethanol above 10%. This limit, known as the "blend wall", refers to the practical difficulty in incorporating increasing amounts of ethanol into the transportation fuel supply at volumes exceeding those achieved by the sale of nearly all gasoline as E10.[72][73]

Contractual restrictions

Gasoline distribution contracts in the United States generally have provisions that make offering E15 and E85 difficult, expensive, or even impossible. Such provisions include requirements that no E85 be sold under the gas station canopy, labeling requirements, minimum sales volumes, and exclusivity provisions. Penalties for breach are severe and often allow immediate termination of the agreement, cutting off supplies to retailers. Repayment of franchise royalties and other incentives is often required.[74]

Energy security
Ethanol fuel plant in West Burlington, Iowa.

One rationale for ethanol production in the U.S. is increased energy security, from shifting supply from oil imports to domestic sources.[29][75] Ethanol production requires significant energy, and current U.S. production derives most of that energy from domestic coal, natural gas and other non-oil sources.[76] Because in 2006, 66% of U.S. oil consumption was imported, compared to a net surplus of coal and just 16% of natural gas (2006 figures),[77] the displacement of oil-based fuels to ethanol produced a net shift from foreign to domestic U.S. energy sources.

Effect on gasoline prices

The effect of ethanol use on gasoline prices is the source of conflicting opinion from economic studies, further complicated by the non-market forces of tax credits, met and unmet government quotas, and the dramatic recent increase in domestic oil production.[78] According to a 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis, ethanol, and biofuel in general, does not materially influence the price of gasoline,[79] while a runup in the price of government mandated Renewable Identification Number credits has driven up the price of gasoline.[80] These are in contrast to a May 2012, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development study which showed a $0.29 to $1.09 reduction in per gallon gasoline price from ethanol use.[81]

The U.S. consumed 138.2×10^9 US gal (523×10^6 m3) of gasoline in 2008, blended with about 9.6×10^9 US gal (36×10^6 m3) of ethanol, representing a market share of almost 7% of supply by volume. Given its lower energy content, ethanol fuel displaced about 6.4×10^9 US gal (24×10^6 m3) of gasoline, representing 4.6 percent in equivalent energy units.[28]

The EPA announced in November 2013, a reduction in mandated U.S. 2014 ethanol production, due to "market conditions".[82][83]

Tariffs and tax credits

Since the 1980s until 2011, domestic ethanol producers were protected by a 54-cent per gallon import tariff, mainly intended to curb Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports. Beginning in 2004 blenders of transportation fuel received a tax credit for each gallon of ethanol they mix with gasoline.[84][85] Historically, the tariff was intended to offset the federal tax credit that applied to ethanol regardless of country of origin.[86][87] Several countries in the Caribbean Basin imported and reprocessed Brazilian ethanol, usually converting hydrated ethanol into anhydrous ethanol, for re-export to the United States. They avoided the 2.5% duty and the tariff, thanks to the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) and free trade agreements. This process was limited to 7% of U.S. ethanol consumption.[88]

As of 2011, blenders received a US$0.45 per gallon tax credit, regardless of feedstock; small producers received an additional US$0.10 on the first 15 million US gallons; and producers of cellulosic ethanol received credits up to US$1.01. Tax credits to promote the production and consumption of biofuels date to the 1970s. For 2011, credits were based on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.[29]

A 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that in fiscal year 2009, biofuel tax credits reduced federal revenues by around US$6 billion, of which corn and cellulosic ethanol accounted for US$5.16 billion and US$50 million, respectively.

In 2010, CBO estimated that taxpayer costs to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon were $1.78 for corn ethanol and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol. In a similar way, and without considering potential indirect land use effects, the costs to taxpayers of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through tax credits were about $750 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent for ethanol and around $275 per metric ton for cellulosic ethanol.[29]

On June 16, 2011, the U.S. Congress approved an amendment to an economic development bill to repeal both the tax credit and the tariff, but this bill did not move forward.[84][85] Nevertheless, the U.S. Congress did not extend the tariff and the tax credit, allowing both to end on December 31, 2011.[89][90] Since 1980 the ethanol industry was awarded an estimated US$45 billion in subsidies.[89]

Feedstocks

Corn
Main article: Corn ethanol

Corn is the main feedstock used for producing ethanol fuel in the United States.[24][91] Most of the controversies surrounding U.S. ethanol fuel production and use is related to corn ethanol's energy balance and its social and environmental impacts.

Cellulose
Main article: Cellulosic ethanol

Cellulosic sources have the potential to produce a renewable, cleaner-burning, and carbon-neutral alternative to gasoline. In his State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006, President George W. Bush stated, "We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks or switchgrass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years."

On July 7, 2006, DOE announced a new research agenda for cellulosic ethanol. The 200-page scientific roadmap cited recent advances in biotechnology that could aid use of cellulosic sources. The report outlined a detailed research plan for additional technologies to improve production efficiency. The roadmap acknowledged the need for substantial federal loan guarantees for biorefineries.

The 2007 federal budget earmarked $150 million for the research effort – more than doubling the 2006 budget. DOE invested in enzymatic, thermochemical, acid hydrolysis, hybrid hydrolysis/enzymatic, and other research approaches targeting more efficient and lower–cost conversion of cellulose to ethanol.

The first materials considered for cellulosic biofuel included plant matter from agricultural waste, yard waste, sawdust and paper. Professors R. Malcolm Brown Jr. and David Nobles, Jr. of the University of Texas at Austin developed cyanobacteria that had the potential to produce cellulose, glucose and sucrose, the latter two easily converted into ethanol. This offers the potential to create ethanol without plant matter.

Sugar
 United States fuel ethanol
imports by country (2002–2007)[92]
(Millions of U.S. liquid gallons)
Country 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
 Brazil188.8433.731.290.30
 Jamaica75.266.836.336.639.3
 El Salvador73.338.523.75.76.9
 Trinidad and Tobago42.724.810.000
 Costa Rica39.335.933.425.414.7

Producing ethanol from sugar is simpler than converting corn into ethanol. Converting sugar requires only a yeast fermentation process. Converting corn requires additional cooking and the application of enzymes. The energy requirement for sugar conversion is about half that for corn. Sugarcane produces more than enough energy to do the conversion with energy left over. A 2006 U.S. Department of Agriculture report found that at market prices for ethanol, converting sugarcane, sugar beets and molasses to ethanol would be profitable.[93] As of 2008 researchers were attempting to breed new varieties adapted to U.S. soil and weather conditions, as well as to take advantage of cellulosic ethanol technologies to also convert sugarcane bagasse.[94][95]

U.S. sugarcane production occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. The first three plants to produce sugarcane-based ethanol went online in Louisiana in mid-2009. Sugar mills in Lacassine, St. James and Bunkie were converted to sugarcane ethanol production using Colombian technology to enable profitable ethanol production. These three plants planned to produce 100×10^6 US gal (380×10^3 m3) of ethanol per year within five years.[95][96][97]

By 2009 two other sugarcane ethanol production projects were being developed in Kauai, Hawaii and Imperial Valley, California. The Hawaiian plant was projected to have a capacity of between 12–15 million US gallons (45×10^3–57×10^3 m3) a year and to supply local markets only, as shipping costs made competing in the continental US impractical. This plant went online in 2010. The California plant was expected to produce 60×10^6 US gal (230×10^3 m3) a year in 2011.[94]

Presidents George W. Bush and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during Bush's visit to Brazil, March 2007.

In March 2007, "ethanol diplomacy" was the focus of President George W. Bush's Latin American tour, in which he and Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, promoted the production and use of sugarcane ethanol throughout the Caribbean Basin. The two countries agreed to share technology and set international biofuel standards.[98] Brazilian sugarcane technology transfer was intended to permit various Central American, such as Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, several Caribbean countries, and various Andean Countries tariff-free trade with the U.S., thanks to existing trade agreements. The expectation was that such countries would export to the United States in the short-term using Brazilian technology.[99]

In 2007, combined exports from Jamaica, El Salvador, Trinidad and Tobago and Costa Rica to the U.S. reached a total of 230.5×10^6 US gal (873×10^3 m3) of sugarcane ethanol, representing 54.1% of imports. Brazil began exporting ethanol to the U.S. in 2004 and exported 188.8×10^6 US gal (715×10^3 m3) representing 44.3% of U.S. ethanol imports in 2007. The remaining imports that year came from Canada and China.[92]

Other feedstocks

Cheese whey, barley, potato waste, beverage waste, and brewery and beer waste have been used as feedstocks for ethanol fuel, but at a far smaller scale than corn and sugarcane ethanol, as plants using these feedstocks have the capacity to produce only 3 to 5 million US gallons (11×10^3 to 19×10^3 m3) per year.[91]

Comparison with Brazilian ethanol

Sugarcane ethanol has an energy balance seven times greater than corn ethanol.[100] As of 2007, Brazilian distiller production costs were 22 cents per liter, compared with 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[101] Corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before distillation into alcohol.[86] However, corn-derived ethanol offers the ability to return 1/3 of the feedstock to the market as a replacement for the corn used in the form of Distillers Dried Grain.[24] Sugarcane ethanol production is seasonal: unlike corn, sugarcane must be processed into ethanol almost immediately after harvest.[102]

Comparison of key characteristics between
the ethanol industries in the United States and Brazil
Characteristic Brazil U.S.Units/comments
Main feedstockSugar caneCornMain cash crop for ethanol production, the US has less than 2% from other crops.
Total ethanol fuel production (2011)[1]
5,573
13,900
Million U.S. liquid gallons
Total arable land[103]355270Million hectares. Only contiguous U.S., excludes Alaska.
Total area used for ethanol crop (2006)[24][103]3.6
(1%)		10
(3.7%)		Million hectares (% total arable)
Productivity[24][100][103][104]6,800–8,0003,800–4,000Ethanol yield (liter/hectare). Brazil is 727 to 870 gal/acre (2006), US is 321 to 424 gal/acre (2003–05)
Energy balance (input energy productivity)[24][86][105]8.3 to 10.21.3 to 1.6Ratio of the energy obtained from ethanol/energy expended in its production
Estimated greenhouse gas emission reduction[18][22][24]86–90%(1)10–30%(1) % GHGs avoided by using ethanol instead of gasoline, using existing crop land, without ILUC effects.
EPA's estimated 2022 GHG reduction for RFS2.[106]61%(2)21%Average % GHGs change as compared to gasoline and considering direct and indirect land use change effects.
CARB's full life-cycle carbon intensity[19][107]73.40105.10(3)Grams of CO2 equivalent released per MJ of energy produced, includes indirect land use changes.[22]
Estimated payback time for greenhouse gas emission[20]17 years(4)93 years(4)Brazilian cerrado for sugar cane and US grassland for corn. Land use change scenarios by Fargione et al.[21]
Flexible-fuel vehicles produced/sold
(includes autos, light trucks and motorcycles)[108][109][110]		16.3 million10 million All fleets as of December 2011. The Brazilian fleet includes 1.5 million flex fuel motorcycles.[111][112][113]
USDOE estimates that in 2009 only 504,297 flex-fuel vehicles were regularly fueled with E85 in the US.[51]
Ethanol fueling stations in the country35,017
(100%)		2,749
(1.6%)		As % of total gas stations in the country. Brazil by December 2007,[114] U.S. by May 2011.[53] (170,000 total.[46])
Ethanol's share within the gasoline market[8][115][116][117]50%(5)10%As % of total consumption on a volumetric basis. Brazil as of April 2008. U.S. as of December 2010.
Cost of production (USD/US gallon)[100]0.831.142006/2007 for Brazil (22¢/liter), 2004 for U.S. (35¢/liter)
Notes: (1) Assuming no land use change.[22] (2) Estimate is for U.S. consumption and sugarcane ethanol is imported from Brazil. Emissions from sea transport are included. Both estimates include land transport within the U.S.[106] (3) CARB estimate for Midwest corn ethanol. California's gasoline carbon intensity is 95.86 blended with 10% ethanol.[19][107] (4) Assuming direct land use change.[21] (5) If diesel-powered vehicles are included and due to ethanol's lower energy content by volume, bioethanol represented 16.9% of the road sector energy consumption in 2007.[118]

Environmental and social impact

Environmental effects
See also: Issues relating to biofuels

Energy balance and carbon intensity

Until 2008, several full life cycle ("Well to Wheels") studies had found that corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions as compared to gasoline. In 2007 a team led by Farrel from the University of California, Berkeley evaluated six previous studies and concluded corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by only 13 percent.[119][120][121] Another figure is 20 to 30 percent, and an 85 to 85 percent reduction for cellulosic ethanol.[120][122] Both figures were estimated by Wang from Argonne National Laboratory, based on a comprehensive review of 22 studies conducted between 1979 and 2005, and simulations with Argonne's GREET model. All of these studies included direct land use changes.[121][123] However, further research examining the actual effects of the Renewable Fuel Standard from 2008 to 2016 has concluded that corn ethanol produces more carbon emissions per unit of energy – likely more than 24% more – than gasoline, when factoring in fertilizer use and land use change.[124]

The reduction estimates on carbon intensity for a given biofuel depend on the assumptions regarding several variables, including crop productivity, agricultural practices, and distillery power source and energy efficiency. None of these earlier studies considered the effects of indirect land-use changes, and though their impact was recognized, its estimation was considered too complex and more difficult to model than direct land use changes.[120][125]

Effects of land use change
See also: Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels
Summary of Searchinger et al. (2008)
comparison of corn ethanol and gasoline GHG emissions
with and without land use change
(CO2 release rate (g/MJ))[22][126]
Fuel type
(U.S.)
Carbon
intensity
Reduction
GHG
Carbon
intensity
+ ILUC
Reduction
GHG
Gasoline
92
-
92
-
Corn ethanol
74
-20%
177
+93%
Cellulosic ethanol
28
-70%
138
+50%
Notes: Calculated using default assumptions for 2015 scenario for ethanol in E85.
Gasoline is a combination of conventional and reformulated gasoline.[126]

Two 2008 studies, both published in the same issue of Scienceexpress, questioned the previous assessments.[21][22][127] A team led by Searchinger from Princeton University concluded that once direct and indirect effect of land use changes (ILUC) are considered, both corn and cellulosic ethanol increased carbon emissions as compared to gasoline by 93 and 50 percent respectively.[22] The study limited the analysis to a 30-year time horizon, assuming that land conversion emitted 25 percent of the carbon stored in soils and all carbon in plants cleared for cultivation. Brazil, China and India were considered among the overseas locations where land use change would occur as a result of diverting U.S. corn cropland, and it was assumed that new cropland in each of these regions correspond to different types of forest, savanna or grassland based on the historical proportion of each natural land converted to cultivation in these countries during the 1990s.[22]

A team led by Fargione from The Nature Conservancy found that clearing natural lands for use as agricultural land to produce biofuel feedstock creates a carbon debt. Therefore, this carbon debt applies to both direct and indirect land use changes. The study examined six scenarios of wilderness conversion, Brazilian Amazon to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to sugarcane ethanol, Indonesian or Malaysian lowland tropical rainforest to palm biodiesel, Indonesian or Malaysian peatland tropical rainforest to oil palm forest, and U.S. Central grassland to corn ethanol.[21]

Low-carbon fuel standards
Main article: Low-carbon fuel standard

On April 23, 2009, the California Air Resources Board approved specific rules and carbon intensity reference values for the California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that was to go into effect on January 1, 2011.[128][129][130] The consultation process produced controversy regarding the inclusion and modeling of indirect land use change effects.[131][132][133][134][135] After the CARB's ruling, among other criticisms, representatives of the ethanol industry complained that the standard overstated the negative environmental effects of corn ethanol, and also criticized the inclusion of indirect effects of land-use changes as an unfair penalty to home-made corn ethanol because deforestation in the developing world had been tied to US ethanol production.[129][136][137][138][139][140][141] The emissions standard for 2011 for LCFS meant that Midwest corn ethanol would not meet the California standard unless current carbon intensity is reduced.[128][139][141][142]

A similar controversy arose after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on May 5, 2009, its notice of proposed rulemaking for the new Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).[143][144][145] EPA's proposal included the carbon footprint from indirect land-use changes.[146][147] On the same day, President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Directive with the aim to advance biofuel research and commercialization. The Directive asked a new Biofuels Interagency Working Group comprising the Department of Agriculture, EPA, and DOE,[148][149] to develop a plan to increase flexible fuel vehicle use, assist in retail marketing and to coordinate infrastructure policies.

The group also was tasked to develop policy ideas for increasing investment in next-generation fuels, and for reducing biofuels' environmental footprint.[148][149][150]

In December 2009 two lobbying groups, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and Growth Energy, filed a lawsuit challenging LCFS's constitutionality. The two organizations argued that LCFS violates both the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, and "jeopardizes the nationwide market for ethanol."[151][152] In a press release the associations announced that "If the United States is going to have a low carbon fuel standard, it must be based on sound science and it must be consistent with the U.S. Constitution".[153]

On February 3, 2010, EPA finalized the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) for 2010 and beyond.[154] EPA incorporated direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes along with comments and data from new studies.[155] Adopting a 30-year time horizon and a 0% discount rate[106] EPA declared that ethanol produced from corn starch at a new (or expanded capacity from an existing) natural gas-fired facility using approved technologies would be considered to comply with the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold.[155] Given average production conditions it expected for 2022, EPA estimated that corn ethanol would reduce GHGs an average of 21% compared to the 2005 gasoline baseline. A 95% confidence interval spans a 7-32% range reflecting uncertainty in the land use change assumptions.[106]

The following table summarizes the mean GHG emissions for ethanol using different feedstocks estimated by EPA modelling and the range of variations considering that the main source of uncertainty in the life cycle analysis is the GHG emissions related to international land use change.[156]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Life cycle year 2022 GHG emissions reduction results for RFS2 final rule[156]
(includes direct and indirect land use change effects and a 30-year payback period at a 0% discount rate)
Renewable fuel pathway
(for U.S. consumption)		Mean
GHG emission
reduction(1)		GHG emission
reduction
95% confidence
interval(2)		Assumptions/comments
Corn ethanol
21%
7–32%
New or expanded natural gas fired dry mill plant, 37% wet and 63% dry DGS it produces, and employing corn oil fractionation technology.
Corn biobutanol
31%
20–40%
Natural gas fired dry mill plant, 37% wet and 63% dry DGS it produces, and employing corn oil fractionation technology.
Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass
110%
102–117%
Ethanol produced using the biochemical process.
Cellulosic ethanol from corn stover
129%
No ILUC
Ethanol produced using the biochemical process. Ethanol produced from agricultural residues does not have any indirect land use emissions.
Notes: (1) Percent reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared to the average lifecycle GHG for gasoline or diesel sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005.
(2) Confidence range accounts for uncertainty in the types of land use change assumptions and the magnitude of resulting GHG emissions.

Water footprint

Water-related concerns relate to water supply and quality, and include availability and potential overuse, pollution, and possible contamination by fertilizers and pesticides. Several studies concluded that increased ethanol production was likely to result in a substantial increase in water pollution by fertilizers and pesticides, with the potential to exacerbate eutrophication and hypoxia, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.[157][158][159][160]

Growing feedstocks consumes most of the water associated with ethanol production. Corn consumes from 500–2,000 litres (110–440 imp gal; 130–530 US gal) of water per liter of ethanol, mostly for evapotranspiration.[157] In general terms, both corn and switchgrass require less irrigation than other fuel crops. Corn is grown mainly in regions with adequate rainfall. However, corn usually needs to be irrigated in the drier climates of Nebraska and eastern Colorado. Further, corn production for ethanol is increasingly taking place in areas requiring irrigation.[157] A 2008 study by the National Research Council concluded that "in the longer term, the likely expansion of cellulosic biofuel production has the potential to further increase the demand for water resources in many parts of the United States. Biofuels expansion beyond current irrigated agriculture, especially in dry western areas, has the potential to greatly increase pressure on water resources in some areas."[158]

A 2009 study estimated that irrigated corn ethanol implied water consumption at between 50 US gal/mi (120 L/km) and 100 US gal/mi (240 L/km) for U.S. vehicles. This figure increased to 90 US gal/mi (210 L/km) for sorghum ethanol from Nebraska, and 115 US gal/mi (270 L/km) for Texas sorghum. By contrast, an average U.S. car effectively consumes between 0.2 US gal/mi (0.47 L/km) to 0.5 US gal/mi (1.2 L/km) running on gasoline, including extraction and refining.[159]

In 2010 RFA argued that more efficient water technologies and pre-treated water could reduce consumption.[91] It further claimed that non-conventional oil "sources, such as tar sands and oil shale, require far more water than conventional petroleum extraction and refining."[91]

Dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

U.S. standard agricultural practices for most crops employ fertilizers that provide nitrogen and phosphorus along with herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and other pesticides.

Some part of these chemicals leaves the field. Nitrogen in forms such as nitrate (NO3) is highly soluble, and along with some pesticides infiltrates downwards toward the water table, where it can migrate to water wells, rivers and streams. A 2008 National Research Council study found that regionally the highest stream concentrations occur where the rates of application were highest, and that these rates were highest in the Corn Belt. These flows mainly stem from corn, which as of 2010 was the major source of total nitrogen loading to the Mississippi River.[158]

Several studies found that corn ethanol production contributed to the worsening of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. The nitrogen leached into the Mississippi River and out into the Gulf, where it fed giant algae blooms. As the algae died, it settled to the ocean floor and decayed, consuming oxygen and suffocating marine life, causing hypoxia. This oxygen depletion killed shrimp, crabs, worms and anything else that could not escape, and affected important shrimp fishing grounds.[157][158][160]

Effect on food prices
Main article: Food vs fuel

Some environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, expressed fears that the marketplace would convert crops to fuel for the rich, while the poor starved and biofuels caused environmental problems.[127][161][162][163][164] The food vs fuel debate grew in 2008 as a result of the international community's concerns regarding the steep increase in food prices. In April 2008, Jean Ziegler, back then United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeated his claim that biofuels were a "crime against humanity",[165][166] echoing his October 2007 call for a 5-year ban for the conversion of land for the production of biofuels.[167][168] Also in April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick stated that "While many worry about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs. And it's getting more and more difficult every day."[169][170][171]

Corn is the main feedstock for the production of ethanol fuel in the U.S.

A July 2008 World Bank report[172] found that from June 2002 to June 2008 "biofuels and the related consequences of low grain stocks, large land use shifts, speculative activity and export bans" accounted for 70–75% of total price rises. The study found that higher oil prices and a weak dollar explain 25–30% of total price rise. The study said that "large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices."[173][174] The report argued that increased production of biofuels in these developed regions was supported by subsidies and tariffs, and claimed that without such policies, food price increases worldwide would have been smaller. It also concluded that Brazil's sugarcane ethanol had not raised sugar prices significantly, and recommended that both the U.S. and E.U. remove tariffs, including on many African countries.[172]

An RFA rebuttal said that the World Bank analysis was highly subjective and that the author considered only "the impact of global food prices from the weak dollar and the direct and indirect effect of high petroleum prices and attribute[d] everything else to biofuels."[175]

A 2010 World Bank study concluded that its previous study may have overestimated the impact, as "the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called 'financialization of commodities') may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike."[176]

A July 2008 OECD economic assessment[177] agreed about the negative effects of subsidies and trade restrictions, but found that the impact of biofuels on food prices was much smaller. The OECD study found that existing biofuel support policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more than 0.8 percent by 2015. It called for more open markets in biofuels and feedstocks to improve efficiency and lower costs. The OECD study concluded that "current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase average wheat prices by about 5 percent, maize by around 7 percent and vegetable oil by about 19 percent over the next 10 years."[178]

During the 2008 financial crisis corn prices, fell 50% from their July 2008 high by October 2008, in tandem with other commodities, including oil, while corn ethanol production continued unabated. "Analysts, including some in the ethanol sector, say ethanol demand adds about 75 cents to $1.00 per bushel to the price of corn, as a rule of thumb. Other analysts say it adds around 20 percent, or just under 80 cents per bushel at current prices. Those estimates hint that $4 per bushel corn might be priced at only $3 without demand for ethanol fuel."[179]

Reviewing eight years of actual implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard, researchers from the University of Wisconsin found the standard increased corn prices by 30% and prices of other crops by 20%.[124]

See also

Further reading
  • Duffield, James A., Irene M. Xiarchos, and Steve A. Halbrook, "Ethanol Policy: Past, Present, and Future", South Dakota Law Review. 53 (no. 3, 2008), 425–53.

References
  1. Renewable Fuels Association (March 6, 2012). "Acelerating Industry Innovation - 2012 Ethanol Industry Outlook" (PDF). Renewable Fuels Association. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 14, 2012. Retrieved May 6, 2012. See pp. 10.
  2. "Annual Ethanol Production". Renewable Fuels Association. Archived from the original on August 9, 2020. Retrieved November 11, 2020.
  3. F.O. Lichts. "Industry Statistics: 2010 World Fuel Ethanol Production". Renewable Fuels Association. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved April 30, 2011.
  4. "Ethanol Market Penetration". Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center, US DOE. Retrieved June 25, 2006.
  5. Khanna, Madhu; Ando, Amy W.; Taheripour, Farzad (2008). "Welfare Effects and Unintended Consequences of Ethanol Subsidies". Review of Agricultural Economics. 30 (3): 411–421. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00414.x. ISSN 1058-7195. JSTOR 30225883.
  6. Bielen, David A.; Newell, Richard G.; Pizer, William A. (May 1, 2018). "Who did the ethanol tax credit benefit? An event analysis of subsidy incidence". Journal of Public Economics. 161: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.03.005. ISSN 0047-2727. S2CID 155343802.
  7. "2011 Ethanol Industry Outlook: Building Bridges to a More Sustainable Future" (PDF). Renewable Fuels Association. 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 28, 2011. Retrieved April 30, 2011.See pages 2–3, 10–11, 19–20, and 26–27.
  8. "Bioenergy: Background – Ethanol". U.S. Department of Agriculture. April 10, 2010. Archived from the original on August 18, 2012. Retrieved September 16, 2010.
  9. "Historic U.S. fuel Ethanol Production". Renewable Fuels Association. Archived from the original on June 15, 2006. Retrieved June 25, 2006.
  10. Renewable Fuels Association (March 28, 2013). "New Ethanol Video Released". DomesticFuel.com. Retrieved April 10, 2013.
  11. Susanne Retka Schill (October 17, 2012). "GM, Ford announce E15 compatibility with new models". Ethanol Producer Magazine. Retrieved August 26, 2015.
  12. National Renewable Energy Laboratory USDoE (September 17, 2007). "Alternative and Advanced Vehicles: Flexible Fuel Vehicles". Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center. Retrieved August 19, 2008.
  13. Goettemoeller, Jeffrey; Adrian Goettemoeller (2007). Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence. Prairie Oak Publishing, Maryville, Missouri. pp. 56–61. ISBN 978-0-9786293-0-4.
  14. Matthew L. Wald (October 13, 2010). "A Bit More Ethanol in the Gas Tank". The New York Times. Retrieved October 14, 2010.
  15. Fred Meier (October 13, 2010). "EPA allows 15% ethanol in gasoline, but only for late-model cars". USA Today. Retrieved October 14, 2010.
  16. Matthew L. Wald (January 21, 2011). "E.P.A. Approves Use of More Ethanol in Gasoline". The New York Times. Retrieved February 26, 2011.
  17. Hill, Jason (March 9, 2022). "The sobering truth about corn ethanol". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (11): e2200997119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11900997H. doi:10.1073/pnas.2200997119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8931354. PMID 35263229.
  18. "Biofuels: The Promise and the Risks, in World Development Report 2008" (PDF). The World Bank. 2008. pp. 70–71. Retrieved May 4, 2008.
  19. "Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Volume I: Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons" (PDF). California Air Resources Board. March 5, 2009. Retrieved April 26, 2009.
  20. "Another Inconvenient Truth" (PDF). Oxfam. June 28, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 19, 2008. Retrieved August 6, 2008.Oxfam Briefing Paper 114, figure 2 pp.8
  21. Fargione; Hill, J.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S.; Hawthorne, P.; et al. (February 29, 2008). "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt". Science. 319 (5867): 1235–1238. Bibcode:2008Sci...319.1235F. doi:10.1126/science.1152747. PMID 18258862. S2CID 206510225. Originally published online in Science Express on February 7, 2008. There are rebuttals to these findings for assuming a worst-case scenario
  22. Timothy Searchinger; et al. (February 29, 2008). "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change". Science. 319 (5867): 1238–1240. Bibcode:2008Sci...319.1238S. doi:10.1126/science.1151861. PMID 18258860. S2CID 52810681. Originally published online in Science Express on February 7, 2008. See Letters to Science by Wang and Haq. There are critics to these findings for assuming a worst-case scenario.
  23. Youngquist, W. Geodestinies, National Book company, Portland, OR, 499p.
  24. Goettemoeller, Jeffrey; Adrian Goettemoeller (2007). Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence. Prairie Oak Publishing, Maryville, Missouri. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-9786293-0-4.
  25. English, Andrew (July 25, 2008). "Ford Model T reaches 100". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on May 29, 2012. Retrieved August 11, 2008.
  26. "Ethanol: Introduction". Journey to Forever. Retrieved August 11, 2008.
  27. "Eliminating MTBE in Gasoline in 2006" (PDF). Environmental Information Administration. February 22, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 22, 2008. Retrieved August 10, 2008.
  28. Energy Information Administration (June 4, 2010). "Question: How much ethanol is in gasoline and how does it affect fuel economy?". EIA. Retrieved July 26, 2010.
  29. "Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and Environmental Policy Goals" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office. July 2010. Retrieved July 25, 2010.
  30. "Federal Biomass Policy: Federal Legislation". U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
  31. "Industry Statistics: Monthly U.S. Fuel Ethanol Production/Demand". Renewable Fuels Association. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved April 30, 2011.
  32. Clifford Krauss (February 11, 2009). "Ethanol, Just Recently a Savior, Is Struggling". The New York Times. Retrieved June 26, 2006.
  33. "Oil companies shop for discounted ethanol plants". MSN News. June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 26, 2009.
  34. Katie Fehrenbacher (November 17, 2008). "Financial Crisis Puts Aventine Ethanol Plant On Hold". earth2tech. Retrieved June 26, 2009.
  35. Timothy Gardner (December 17, 2008). "U.S. will fail to meet biofuels mandate: EIA". Reuters. Retrieved June 26, 2009.
  36. "State Laws on Ethanol in Gasoline: Only Seven States Require E10 Blend". July 17, 2015. Archived from the original on December 22, 2016. Retrieved December 21, 2016.
  37. James W. Bixby. "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump from Minnesota's Ethanol Regulations" (PDF). Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 3, 2010. Retrieved October 29, 2009.
  38. "Florida E85 Laws and Incentives". U.S. Department of Energy. March 11, 2008. Archived from the original on August 7, 2008. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
  39. 3 states, many cities
  40. Introduction: The Clean Tech Opportunity Archived July 16, 2007, at the Wayback Machine p. 3.
  41. Portland requires stations to sell biofuels, giving farmers a boost|Post Carbon Cities Archived March 6, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
  42. "Thorntons gas stations introducing new ethanol fuel". Chicago Tribune. June 29, 2016. Archived from the original on December 22, 2016. Retrieved December 21, 2016.
  43. "Ald. Ed Burke on E15 gasoline proposal". Chicago Tribune. December 8, 2014. Archived from the original on December 22, 2016. Retrieved December 21, 2016.
  44. Worldwatch Institute and Center for American Progress (2006).American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security Archived June 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
  45. National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (August 8, 2008). "New E85 Stations". NEVC FYI Newsletter (Vol 14 no. 13). Archived from the original on October 10, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2008. For a complete and updated listing, go to www.e85refueling.com
  46. Inslee, Jay; Bracken Hendricks (2007). Apollo's Fire. Island Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 153–155, 160–161. ISBN 978-1-59726-175-3. See Chapter 6. Homegrown Energy
  47. Ken Thomas (May 7, 2007). "'Flex-fuel' vehicles touted". USA Today. Retrieved September 15, 2008.
  48. Christine Gable; Scott Gable. "Yellow E85 gas cap". About.com: Hybrid Cars & Alt Fuels. Archived from the original on October 5, 2008. Retrieved September 18, 2008.
  49. Christine Gable; Scott Gable. "2008 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 4WD LT2 flex-fuel truck test drive". About.com: Hybrid Cars & Alt Fuels. Archived from the original on August 7, 2011. Retrieved October 3, 2008.
  50. Christine Gable; Scott Gable. "2007 Chevrolet Suburban 4WD 1500 LT test drive". About.com: Hybrid Cars & Alt Fuels. Archived from the original on July 24, 2011. Retrieved October 3, 2008.
  51. Stacy C. Davis; Susan W. Diegel; Robert G. Boundy (June 2011). "Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 30" (PDF). Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 28, 2011. Retrieved August 28, 2011. See Table 6.1 pp. 6–3.
  52. Davis; et al. (2011). "op. cit": 2–6. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) See Table 2.4
  53. "Ethanol Production Mandates". E85Prices.com. Archived from the original on July 1, 2014. Retrieved April 11, 2013.
  54. Jensen, Christopher (June 18, 2010). "E.P.A. Delays Ruling on Increasing Ethanol Content in Gasoline". The New York Times. Retrieved June 19, 2010.
  55. "US EPA extends E15 fuel waiver to MY 2001–2006 light-duty vehicles". Green Car Congress. January 21, 2011. Retrieved January 26, 2011.
  56. Matthew L. Wald (December 20, 2010). "Engine Makers Sue to Block E15 Fuel". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2012.
  57. David Shepardson (August 17, 2012). "U.S. court rejects auto industry challenge to E15". The Detroit News. Archived from the original on August 18, 2012. Retrieved August 18, 2012.
  58. Sara Forden (August 17, 2012). "EPA Defeats Challenge To Higher Ethanol Levels In Fuel". Bloomberg News. Retrieved August 18, 2012.
  59. David Sheparson (June 24, 2013). "Court declines to hear challenge to EPA's stance on E15 gasoline". The Detroit News. Archived from the original on June 28, 2013. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
  60. Michael Green (November 30, 2012). "New E15 Gasoline May Damage Vehicles and Cause Consumer Confusion". American Automobile Association. Retrieved August 26, 2015.
  61. VW US Media Room (July 14, 2013). "Volkswagen of America bringing in downsized 1.8L EA888 engine to displace 2.5L; all vehicles E15 capable". Green Car Congress. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
  62. "FCA approving use of E15 in MY 2016 vehicles". Green Car Congress. August 18, 2015. Retrieved August 25, 2015.
  63. Matthew L. Wald (July 11, 2012). "In Kansas, Stronger Mix of Ethanol". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2012.
  64. Jon LeSage (November 14, 2012). "CARB: It will take years for California to decide on E15". Autoblog Green. Retrieved November 15, 2012.
  65. Brian West; Keith Knoll; Wendy Clark; Ronald Graves; John Orban; Steve Przesmitzki; Timothy Theiss (2008). "Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1" (PDF). Oak Ridge National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 17, 2008. Retrieved October 19, 2008. NREL/TP-540-43543, ORNL/TM-2008/117
  66. "Preliminary Test Report Shows No Significant Change in Vehicle Emissions from Intermediate Ethanol Blends". Green Car Congress. October 7, 2008. Retrieved October 19, 2008.
  67. "USDA issues rule to provide incentives to install blender pumps". Green Car Congress. April 8, 2011. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
  68. Wendy Koch (April 8, 2011). "USDA offers incentives to boost E-85 flex fuel use". USA Today. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
  69. Eric Loveday (May 5, 2011). "House members introduce technology-neutral Open Fuel Standard Act". AutoblogGreen. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
  70. "Bipartisan Group Introduces Open Fuel Standard Act". Biofuels Journal. May 4, 2011. Archived from the original on September 10, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
  71. Robert Zubrin (July 2, 2010). "ZUBRIN: Open standards for auto fuel". The Washington Times. Retrieved May 5, 2011. A similar bill has been presented in previous Congress sessions with the same objective.
  72. EPA. "EPA Proposes 2014 Renewable Fuel Standards, 2015 Biomass-Based Diesel Volume" (PDF). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Retrieved November 24, 2013.
  73. Matthew L. Wald (November 15, 2013). "For First Time, E.P.A. Proposes Reducing Ethanol Requirement for Gas Mix". The New York Times. Retrieved November 24, 2013.
  74. "RFA report card offers failing grades to big oil fuel chains". Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  75. "Home | American Coalition for Ethanol". Archived from the original on November 18, 2016. Retrieved June 2, 2008. ["Home | American Coalition for Ethanol". Archived from the original on November 18, 2016. Retrieved June 2, 2008./pdf/contentmgmt/Energy_Security_Issue_Brief.pdf Energy Security] "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 23, 2012. Retrieved August 27, 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  76. "Home | American Coalition for Ethanol". Archived from the original on November 18, 2016. Retrieved October 6, 2007. ["Home | American Coalition for Ethanol". Archived from the original on November 18, 2016. Retrieved October 6, 2007./pdf/contentmgmt/Science_Journal_January_2006.pdf Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals] "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 23, 2012. Retrieved August 27, 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  77. "U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". Archived from the original on August 21, 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2011. ["U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". Archived from the original on August 21, 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2011./neic/brochure/infocard01.htm Energy INFOcard]
  78. "U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)". Archived from the original on December 4, 2016. Retrieved August 22, 2014.
  79. "Ethanol Fails to Lower Gas Prices, Study Finds". Scientific American. July 12, 2012. Archived from the original on October 11, 2016. Retrieved May 15, 2014.
  80. "Gasoline Price Inflated by Ethanol in Oil Boom: Energy Markets". Bloomberg.com. March 21, 2013. Archived from the original on November 9, 2014. Retrieved May 15, 2014.
  81. "Ethanol Keeps Gasoline Prices $1.09 Cheaper". May 15, 2012. Archived from the original on May 1, 2015. Retrieved August 22, 2014.
  82. http://www.chadbourne.com/EthanolLosesSteamButOnlyinPart_projectfinance/
  83. "EPA Succumbs to Pressure to Reduce Ethanol Mandate". Archived from the original on May 27, 2016. Retrieved August 22, 2014.
  84. "Ethanol subsidies: Fiscal sobriety". The Economist. June 23, 2011. Retrieved June 25, 2011. Print edition June 25 – July 1, pp. 38.
  85. Clifford Krauss (June 17, 2011). "Ethanol Industry Is Unruffled by Senate Vote Against Tax Breaks". The New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2011.
  86. Larry Rother (April 10, 2006). "With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil Is Satisfying Its Fuel Needs". The New York Times. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  87. Anna Austin (September 2008). "Brazil launches campaign to remove ethanol tariff". Ethanol Producer Magazine. Retrieved June 24, 2009.
  88. "ITC Fixes 2012 CBI Fuel Ethanol Import Quota". agranet.com. January 13, 2012. Retrieved November 23, 2013.
  89. David Shepardson (December 24, 2011). "Congress ends corn ethanol subsidy". The Detroit News. Archived from the original on January 6, 2012. Retrieved December 29, 2011.
  90. Robert Pear (January 1, 2012). "After Three Decades, Tax Credit for Ethanol Expires". The New York Times. Retrieved January 4, 2012.
  91. "2010 Ethanol Industry Outlook: Climate of Opportunity" (PDF). Renewable Fuels Association. 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 18, 2011. Retrieved July 28, 2010. See pages 5, 14–15, and 19.
  92. RFA, International Trade Commission, and Jim Jordan & Associates. "Industry Statistics: U.S. Fuel Ethanol Demand". Renewable Fuels Association. Archived from the original on April 8, 2008. Retrieved April 17, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  93. "The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production from Sugar in the United States" 2006 United States Department of Agriculture "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 15, 2007. Retrieved September 4, 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link).
  94. Erin Voegele (March 2009). "Sugarcane Economics". Ethanol Producer Magazine. Retrieved February 12, 2009.
  95. Jan Suszkiw (October 2008). "Research Helps Set the Stage for Ethanol ... Southern Style". Agricultural Research Magazine. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Retrieved February 12, 2009.
  96. Gerardo Reyes (June 8, 2008). "Colombians in U.S. sugar mills to produce ethanol". Miami Herald. Retrieved December 6, 2008.
  97. "LGF web page". Louisiana Green Fuels. Archived from the original on January 15, 2016. Retrieved December 6, 2008. This site presents the same information included in the Miami Herald article of June 8, 2008.
  98. Marcela Sanchez (February 23, 2007). "Latin America – the 'Persian Gulf' of Biofuels?". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 3, 2008.
  99. Edmund L. Andrews; Larry Rother (March 3, 2007). "U.S. and Brazil Seek to Promote Ethanol in West". The New York Times. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  100. Daniel Budny and Paulo Sotero, ed. (April 2007). "Brazil Institute Special Report: The Global Dynamics of Biofuels" (PDF). Brazil Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2008. Retrieved May 3, 2008.
  101. "Fuel for Friendship". The Economist. March 3–9, 2007. p. 44.
  102. "Short-Term Energy Outlook" (PDF). US Energy Information Administration. August 2012. Retrieved August 9, 2012.
  103. Julia Duailibi (April 27, 2008). "Ele é o falso vilão". Veja (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on May 6, 2008. Retrieved May 3, 2008.
  104. Maria Helena Tachinardi (June 13, 2008). "Por que a cana é melhor que o milho". Época (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on July 7, 2008. Retrieved August 6, 2008. Print edition pp. 73
  105. Macedo Isaias, M. Lima Verde Leal and J. Azevedo Ramos da Silva (2004). "Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in the production and use of fuel ethanol in Brazil" (PDF). Secretariat of the Environment, Government of the State of São Paulo. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2008. Retrieved May 9, 2008.
  106. "Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis" (PDF). EPA. February 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 2, 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2010. See pp. 480 and 489, Figures 2.6-1 and 2.6–9.
  107. "Draft Attachment B: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of a Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Staff's Suggested Modifications to the Original Proposal" (PDF). CARB. April 23, 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 13, 2009. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  108. Jim Motavalli (March 1, 2012). "Flex-Fuel Amendment Makes for Strange Bedfellows". The New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
  109. "Anúario da Industria Automobilistica Brasileira 2011: Tabela 2.3 Produção por combustível - 1957/2010" (in Portuguese). ANFAVEA - Associação Nacional dos Fabricantes de Veículos Automotores (Brasil). Archived from the original on May 31, 2013. Retrieved January 22, 2012. pp. 62-63.
  110. Renavam/Denatran (January 2012). "Licenciamento total de automóveis e comerciais leves por combustível" [Total automobiles and light-trucks registered by fuel] (PDF) (in Portuguese). ANFAVEA. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 31, 2012. Retrieved January 21, 2012. Carta de ANFAVEA 308 pp. 4.
  111. Abraciclo (January 27, 2010). "Motos flex foram as mais vendidas em 2009 na categoria 150cc" (in Portuguese). UNICA. Archived from the original on December 5, 2012. Retrieved February 10, 2010.
  112. "Produção Motocicletas 2010" (PDF) (in Portuguese). ABRACICLO. Retrieved February 5, 2011.
  113. "Produção Motocicletas 2011" [2011 Motorcycle Production] (PDF) (in Portuguese). ABRACICLO. Retrieved January 21, 2012.
  114. "Anuário Estatístico Brasileiro do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis 2008" (PDF) (in Portuguese). Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis. 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 3, 2009. Retrieved July 10, 2009. See Table 3.17, pp. 138.
  115. Agência Brasil (July 15, 2008). "ANP: consumo de álcool combustível é 50% maior em 2007" (in Portuguese). Invertia. Archived from the original on December 26, 2008. Retrieved August 9, 2008.
  116. Gazeta Mercantil (2008). "ANP estima que consumo de álcool supere gasolina" (in Portuguese). Agropecuária Brasil. Archived from the original on June 1, 2008. Retrieved August 9, 2008.
  117. D. Sean Shurtleff (May 7, 2008). "Brazil's energy plan examined". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on May 10, 2008. Retrieved May 10, 2008.
  118. Empresa de Pesquisa Energética (November 2008). "Balanço Energético Nacional 2008: Ano base 2007" (in Portuguese). Ministério de Minas e Energia do Brasil. Archived from the original (PDF (link to download)) on March 19, 2009. Retrieved February 22, 2009. Tables 3.6a and 3.6b. Data expressed in energy equivalent (toe). Report is based in 2007 data.
  119. Farrel; Plevin, RJ; Turner, BT; Jones, AD; O'Hare, M; Kammen, DM; et al. (January 27, 2006). "Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals". Science. 311 (5760): 506–508. Bibcode:2006Sci...311..506F. doi:10.1126/science.1121416. PMID 16439656. S2CID 16061891.
  120. Sperling, Daniel; Deborah Gordon (2009). Two billion cars: driving toward sustainability. Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 98–99. ISBN 978-0-19-537664-7. For more detail see also the Notes 27 and 28 for Chapter 4, pp. 272.
  121. Michael Wang. "Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results of Fuel Ethanol" (PDF). Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 16, 2013. Retrieved June 7, 2009. This is a public presentation of Michael Wang 2005 paper summarizing the results of the ANL study.
  122. Goettemoeller, Jeffrey; Adrian Goettemoeller (2007). Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence. Prairie Oak Publishing, Maryville, Missouri. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-0-9786293-0-4.
  123. Michael Wang. "Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results of Fuel Ethanol" (PDF). Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 15, 2013. Retrieved June 7, 2009. Presented at the 15th International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, San Diego, California.
  124. Lark, Nathan; Hendricks (2022). "Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (9). Bibcode:2022PNAS..11901084L. doi:10.1073/pnas.2101084119. PMC 8892349. PMID 35165202.
  125. Michael Wang; Zia Haq (March 14, 2008). "Letter to Science about Searchinger et al. article" (PDF). Argonne National Laboratory. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 15, 2013. Retrieved June 7, 2009. The published version on Science Letters is included in Searchinger E-Letter responses August 12, 2008.
  126. Searchinger; et al. (2008). "Supporting Materials for Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change" (PDF). Princeton University. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 10, 2011. Retrieved June 11, 2009. Data taken from Table 1B, pp. 21.
  127. Michael Grunwald (March 27, 2008). "The Clean Energy Scam". Time. Archived from the original on March 30, 2008. Retrieved December 4, 2008.
  128. Wyatt Buchanan (April 24, 2009). "Air Resources Board moves to cut carbon use". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 25, 2009.
  129. "Calif. Approves Nation's 1st Low-Carbon Fuel Rule". The New York Times. Associated Press. April 24, 2009. Retrieved April 25, 2009.
  130. UNICA Press release (April 24, 2009). "Sugarcane Ethanol Passes Critical Test in California". World-Wire. Archived from the original on April 26, 2009. Retrieved April 25, 2009.
  131. "Public letter to Mary D. Nichols, Chairman California Air Resources Board" (PDF). BioenergyWiki. June 24, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2011. Retrieved April 28, 2009.
  132. "Leading Advanced Biofuel Companies, Researchers, Investors Call on Air Resources Board to Reconsider Draft Low Carbon Fuel Regulations" (PDF). New Fuels Alliance. October 23, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 9, 2009. Retrieved April 26, 2009.
  133. "Biofuel Companies Question ARB's Inclusion of Indirect Effects in Low Carbon Fuel Standard". Green Car Congress. October 24, 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2009.
  134. "Public letter to Mary D. Nichols, Chairman California Air Resources Board" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. April 21, 2009. Retrieved April 26, 2009.
  135. "Group of Scientists and Economists Urge Inclusion of Indirect Land Use Change Effects for Biofuels and All Transportation Fuels in California LCFS". Green Car Congress. April 21, 2009. Retrieved April 28, 2009.
  136. Debra Kahn (April 24, 2009). "California Adopts Low-Carbon Fuel Standard". Scientific American. Retrieved May 4, 2009.
  137. David R. Baker (April 22, 2009). "State readies stringent fuel standards". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 25, 2009.
  138. Kate Galbraith (April 24, 2009). "California Fuel Move Angers Ethanol Makers". The New York Times. Retrieved April 29, 2009.
  139. Jim Lane (February 24, 2009). "CARB votes 9–1 for California Low Carbon Fuel Standard; moves up indirect land use review to Jan 2011 in response to outcry on ILUC". BiofuelsDigest. Archived from the original on September 11, 2009. Retrieved April 29, 2009.
  140. Jeff St. John (April 23, 2009). "California Adopts Low Carbon Fuel Standard". GreenMedia. Retrieved May 4, 2009.
  141. Dale Kasler (April 25, 2009). "California's low-carbon fuel standard has oil companies anxious". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on April 30, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2009.
  142. "California adopts first-ever low-carbon fuel rule". CNN News. April 23, 2009. Archived from the original on April 27, 2009. Retrieved April 28, 2009.
  143. "Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2): Notice of Proposed Rulemaking". US Environmental Protection Agency. May 5, 2009. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  144. Jim Tankersley (May 6, 2009). "New standards could cut tax breaks for corn-based ethanol". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  145. Suzanne Goldenberg (May 6, 2009). "Barack Obama's $1.8bn vision of greener biofuel". The Guardian. London. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  146. Jennifer Kho (May 5, 2009). "Corn Ethanol Crew Cries Foul Over EPA Emissions Ruling". earth2tech.com. Archived from the original on May 9, 2009. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  147. UNICA Press Release (May 5, 2009). "Sugarcane Ethanol Industry Eager to Implement U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard". National Press Release. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  148. "President Obama Announces Steps to Support Sustainable Energy Options, Departments of Agriculture and Energy, Environmental Protection Agency to Lead Efforts". whitehouse.gov. May 5, 2009. Retrieved May 5, 2009 – via National Archives.
  149. Matthew L. Wald (May 5, 2009). "White House Steps Up Support for Biofuels". The New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
  150. Ben Geman (May 5, 2009). "Obama Administration Prepares to Push Biofuels". Scientific American. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
  151. Power, Stephen (December 24, 2009). "Ethanol Groups Sue California Over Low-Carbon Rule". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 29, 2009.
  152. "Ethanol Groups File Suit Challenging Constitutionality of California Low Carbon Fuel Standard". Green Car Congress. December 25, 2009. Retrieved December 29, 2009.
  153. "Ethanol Groups Challenge Constitutionality of California LCFS". Renewable Fuels Association. December 24, 2009. Retrieved December 29, 2009.
  154. "Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2): Final Rule". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 3, 2010. Retrieved February 9, 2010.
  155. "Greenhouse Gas Reduction Thresholds". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 3, 2010. Retrieved February 9, 2010.
  156. "Renewable Fuel Standard Program(RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis" (PDF). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 2, 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2010. See pp. 480 and 489 and Tables 2.6-1 to 2.6–11.
  157. Powers, Susan E; Dominguez-Faus, Rosa; Alvarez, Pedro JJ (March 2010). "The water footprint of biofuel production in the USA". Biofuels. 1 (2): 255–260. doi:10.4155/BFS.09.20. S2CID 130923687.
  158. United States National Research Council, Committee on Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States (2008). Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States. The National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. ISBN 978-0-309-11361-8.
  159. Dominguez-Faus, Rosa; Powers, Susan E.; Alvarez, Pedro JJ; Alvarez, Pedro J. (2009). "The Water Footprint of Biofuels: A Drink or Drive Issue?". Environmental Science and Technology. 43 (9): 3005–3010. Bibcode:2009EnST...43.3005D. doi:10.1021/es802162x. PMID 19534106.
  160. Lochhead, Carolyn (July 6, 2010). "Dead zone in gulf linked to ethanol production". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved July 28, 2010.
  161. George Monbiot (November 23, 2004). "Feeding Cars, Not People". Monbiot.com. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  162. European Environmental Bureau (February 8, 2006). "Biofuels no panacea" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 10, 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  163. Planet Ark (September 26, 2005). "Food Security Worries Could Limit China Biofuels". Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  164. Greenpeace UK (May 9, 2007). "Biofuels: green dream or climate change nightmare". Archived from the original on April 21, 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  165. "ONU diz que biocombustíveis são crime contra a humanidade" (in Portuguese). Folha de Sao Pãulo Online. April 14, 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  166. Emilio San Pedro (April 17, 2008). "Brazil president defends biofuels". BBC News. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  167. Lederer, Edith (October 27, 2007). "Production of biofuels 'is a crime'". The Independent. London. Retrieved April 22, 2008.
  168. "UN rapporteur calls for biofuel moratorium". Swissinfo. October 11, 2007. Archived from the original on April 29, 2008. Retrieved May 1, 2008.
  169. Larry Elliott; Heather Stewart (April 11, 2008). "Poor go hungry while rich fill their tanks". The Guardian. London. Retrieved April 30, 2008.
  170. Steven Mufson (April 30, 2008). "Siphoning Off Corn to Fuel Our Cars". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 30, 2008.
  171. "FMI e Bird pedem ação urgente contra alta alimentar" (in Portuguese). Folha de Sao Pãulo Online. April 13, 2008. Retrieved April 28, 2008.
  172. Donald Mitchell (July 2008). "A note on Rising Food Crisis" (PDF). The World Bank. Retrieved July 29, 2008. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4682. "Disclaimer: This paper reflects the findings, interpretation, and conclusions of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank"
  173. "Etanol não influenciou nos preços dos alimentos". Veja (in Portuguese). July 28, 2008. Archived from the original on February 10, 2009. Retrieved July 29, 2008.
  174. "Biofuels major driver of food price rise-World Bank". Reuters. July 28, 2008. Archived from the original on August 29, 2008. Retrieved July 29, 2008.
  175. John M. Urbanchuk (July 11, 2008). "Critique of World Bank Working Paper "A Note of Rising Food Prices"" (PDF). Renewable Fuel Association. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 19, 2008. Retrieved July 29, 2008.
  176. John Baffes; Tassos Haniotis (July 2010). "Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom into Perspective" (PDF). World Bank. Retrieved August 9, 2010. Policy Research Working Paper 5371
  177. Directorate for Trade; Agriculture, OECD (July 16, 2008). "Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies" (PDF). OECD. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 18, 2008. Retrieved August 1, 2008. "Disclaimer: This work was published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The views expressed and conclusions reached do not necessarily correspond to those of the governments of OECD member countries."
  178. Directorate for Trade; Agriculture, OECD (July 16, 2008). "Biofuel policies in OECD countries costly and ineffective, says report". OECD. Retrieved August 1, 2008.
  179. Sam Nelson (October 23, 2008). "Ethanol no longer seen as big driver of food price". Reuters UK. Retrieved November 26, 2008.

U.S. government

International organizations

Other sources
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.