Posted By Cindy February 17, 2015
Golden Grain Energy in Mason City, Iowa is celebrating the production of its one billionth gallon of ethanol this month.
That’s a lot of ethanol over the course of ten years from a plant with a nameplate capacity of 115 million gallons per year. Nameplate means they are capable of producing that much per year, and often that goal is not attained in a year for various reasons – like drought, for example. This means Golden Grain had to have achieved its nameplate goal almost every year for a decade, falling only 150 million gallons short of the most they could have possibly produced.
That billion gallons represents over 351 million bushels of corn.
Golden Grain Energy celebrated the milestone on Monday with special guests including Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Plant employees wore special t-shirts to note the occasion calling it the Billion Gallon Club.
“This is a huge occasion for the plant, the staff, and the community as a whole,” said Chad Kuhlers, Chief Operations Officer of Golden Grain Energy. “I believe we are the first single location ethanol plant in the country to reach this production mark and it couldn’t have been done without the support from the shareholders, community and the great work from our employees over the years.”
American Coalition for Ethanol Executive Vice President Brian Jennings noted that the impact of just that single plant on the local economy is significant. “Golden Grain Energy has … paid out more than $2 billion dollars to corn farmers, suppliers and service providers, and employees, and returned nearly $137 million dollars to its investors,” said Jennings.
The plant was started by 900 area farmers and citizens, broke ground in the fall of 2003, and started producing its very first gallons at the end of 2004.
Posted By Cindy January 30, 2015
The 2016 presidential campaign is starting to percolate and in Iowa the biofuels industry is making the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) their candidate.
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad last week announced a major new bi-partisan campaign called America’s Renewable Future that will promote the RFS to both candidates and caucus-goes for the 2016 Iowa Presidential caucuses.
“I’m very passionate about the Renewable Fuel Standard,” said Governor Branstad during a conference call to announce the effort. “It’s made a real difference for farm income and good jobs, reducing our dependency on foreign oil, improving the environment – so I’m really excited to see this strong, bi-partisan effort being made to educate people that come to Iowa and presidential candidates.”
Coordinating the effort will be Governor Branstad’s son Eric, a public affairs specialist and campaign operative. “We have partners coming in from all over the country and those partners have committed millions to fund this effort,” said Eric Branstad. “We are designing it to look like a presidential campaign and the RFS is our candidate.”
America’s Renewable Future is co-chaired by former Iowa State Representative Annette Sweeney, a Republican, and former state Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge, a Democrat, as well as Iowa renewable fuels industry leader Bill Couser. The effort “will wage a mulitimillion dollar, multi-platform effort” to educate presidential candidates about the benefits of the RFS and ask them to take a stand.
That effort kicked off last Friday with an ad in the Des Moines Register as potential Republican presidential candidates began to gather for the Iowa Freedom Summit.
Still, the RFS went largely unmentioned during the Saturday summit. Asked about the RFS in an interview with the Des Moines Register on Friday, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said he would continue his opposition to the law as “a matter of principle.”
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was the only one who showed up at the Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit on Tuesday, even though all potential candidates were invited, and he did show his support for the RFS, calling it “pro-environment, pro-competition and pro-American jobs.”
Gov. Branstad says Iowa is still an important state for a presidential candidate and the RFS is important to Iowa. “This is one of the battleground states that’s going to, I think, determine who’s going to be the next president of the United States,” said Branstad. “I think it would be a disadvantage in Iowa to not support the Renewable Fuel Standard,” Branstad said.
Posted By Mark January 29, 2015
A story in today’s New York Times cites a new study by the World Resource Institute that attempts to discredit the significant and increasing contributions of biofuels to meet the world’s energy needs. On close inspection two things become abundantly clear.
First the so-called “new” study is nothing but the same old stuff trotted out by the anti-ethanol crowd nearly annually to see if any of the misinformation sticks to the wall. Take the wig and mustache off and it’s the same old pig.
Second, the former journalist in me always says to consider the veracity of the source to validate the data. In this case the World Resource Institute is funded by Shell and Statoil, two of the world’s largest oil companies. Always follow the money.
This fraudulent study has more holes than a colander but to address some of the most egregious point by point:
Ethanol production is not inefficient? Some of the best research to date from the University of Illinois Chicago shows you get a 40% net energy gain from ethanol production compared to all the energy used along the production chain from farm to gas pump.
The article begs the question why have so many invested billions of dollars in biofuels if they are a bad idea with no future? They do so because ethanol is a plug and play fuel source that meets the needs of our transportation fleet today. What makes it even more attractive is the bright future for biofuels. Automakers in Detroit make no secret of the fact that the next generation power plant for cars will be smaller, higher compression engines. And the best fuel for this future automotive technology is octane rich ethanol.
It also becomes abundantly clear that these think tank folks might want to meander outside the Washington, DC beltway and visit a farm. They question the percentage of the corn crop being used for ethanol today. It’s not how much of the crop we are using for biofuels but how large the crop has gotten. We have grown the largest 11 corn crops in history in the last 11 years. We currently have the largest carryout (supply of corn) ever so feedstock is abundant to meet all demand for corn.
And all of the above has been accomplished in the US on virtually the same acreage, and with less environmental impact. This is an amazing accomplishment that should make all Americans proud.
Posted By Mark January 23, 2015
Not to sound like a lunatic but it may be entirely possible, maybe even likely, the American public will be begging for a return to $3.60 gas in the near future.
I know it sounds crazy, but if you are following the public debate you can already see the discussion heating up to argue the true implications of today’s bargain basement petroleum prices. The euphoria consumers and market analysts alike were experiencing a few weeks ago is wearing off like a cheap wine hangover.
One big concern is that near term economic gains in the US related to cheaper fuel may be overstated and ultimately result in deflation and a global economic slowdown.
It is becoming increasingly evident that it could take a few years before the full ramifications of this gas guzzlers holiday are known. However, some comments by an oil industry executive this week provide a peek behind the curtain that often shields the business maneuvering and real objectives of international big oil.
The boss of oil giant BP Bob Dudley has said that oil prices could remain low for up to three years. What results next may make our previous high oil prices seem like a gift from grandma.
Once big oil has beaten oil upstarts like the domestic fracking industry to a bloody pulp, they will remerge from the ashes like a phoenix ready to spank bad little consumers for cheering the development. The paddle they will use according to some industry experts will be $200 a-barrel oil, a considerably richer prize than the $110 a barrel which preceded the $47 a barrel we are currently experiencing.
Any reasonable person would wonder why a business would take such a gamble, cut investment, cut jobs and sustain such a huge loss? The simple answer is they will do it because they can and the payoff is immense.
Sure oil countries like Norway, Russia, Venezuela, Scotland, Nigeria and Angola will take a beating but the big players in OPEC – the ones with the large expanses of beach and no water – have lower production costs and care only marginally more for their business partners than they do the consumers that they bleed every day.
People’s Bank of China governor Zhou Xiaochuan also points out low oil prices could slow down China’s development of renewable energy projects. In a wondrous masterpiece of understatement he says: “We worry a little bit that the price signal may give disincentive for new energy types to develop and could reduce investment in new non-fossil energy.”
Does anyone know how to say “duh” in Mandarin?
If we really want to throw the market manipulating overlords at OPEC a curve we should do the opposite of what they expect. Instead of grumbling and driving circus clown size cars we should immediately find ways to encourage an expansion of existing non-fossil energy development such as ethanol. Then we should back that up by launching the largest energy research and development project in history. I contend we will be forced to do this as finite oil supplies run out. Why not do it now rather than waiting until the wolf is at the door.
Besides, in the business world innovation is one of the few things that can still trump monetary muscle.
Posted By Cindy January 13, 2015
Farmers from around the country had a chance to ask Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack questions during an informal town hall-style meeting at the American Farm Bureau convention this week in San Diego.
The last question he took was from a South Dakota farmer who asked about continuation of strong biofuels policy in the United States. Vilsack detailed his continued support for the industry, particularly in the area of exports. “I am a firm believer in the future of the biofuels industry,” he said. “Ethanol production is at record levels…we’re now beginning to see great interest in the export market, not just for ethanol but also for dried distillers grains.”
Vilsack also noted the need to update the research on ethanol when it comes to indirect land use. “A lot of the push back to the industry is based on studies that took place 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and there have been enormous increases in productivity of American farmers, that basically suggest the indirect land use calculations are not as accurate as they need to be,” he said.
Listen to the secretary’s comments on biofuels here: Secretary Vilsack at AFBF on biofuels
2015 AFBF Convention photo album
Posted By Cathryn January 5, 2015
Falling gas prices have dominated news coverage over recent months. From “price at the pump” reports to longer diatribes over the economic and political impacts of falling oil prices, media outlets of all genres present a wide array of viewpoints on the topic.
Not surprisingly, this puts the American Petroleum Institute in the spotlight once again as eager journalists inquire about the causes of the downswing. Not shockingly, Big Oil’s mouthpiece provides a persuasive argument for why increased domestic production pushed prices down. While this makes sense, it diametrically opposes their earlier stance on the correlation between production and price in their industry.
In late October, the Renewable Fuel Association’s Geoff Cooper first pointed out the inexplicable shift in how API views the laws of supply and demand. Simply, it somehow seems that if the increased supply comes from ethanol, and thus not the petroleum industry which it represents, it increases prices. If the increased supply comes from their Big Oil-backers, it decreases prices.
The basic laws learned by every student in an entry-level econ class only apply if they suit Big Oil’s all oil agenda. When they do not, one is to believe the basic tenets of economics reverse themselves. The laws of economics actually bend to suit API’s needs.
To read his full post, click here.
In reality, the rules do not change. Through well-funded, carefully crafted campaigns of confusion, API obfuscates the obvious – ethanol benefits American consumers by lowering the price at the pump. But, as it does not line Big Oil’s already bulging pockets, it remains an inconvenient truth that they would rather repudiate until its basis suits their own base interests.
American consumers can certainly celebrate the momentary relief falling oil prices bring, but it makes sense to remember the hard facts every day.
Ethanol lowers prices and decreases reliance upon the Big Oil’s near monopoly. Fuel choice fuels the economy in a more reliable, substantial manner than volatile market conditions ever could. Supporting domestically produced, renewable ethanol means supporting a paradigm shift toward a more stable, more affordable energy future.
Posted By Cathryn January 2, 2015
While we often hear politicians declare that they know “the greatest problem of our time,” few have the courage to face what really confronts us- a finite supply of oil.
Yes, today, oil is cheap. American consumers do not currently fork out the incredible sum to which they have become accustomed. Despite the momentary reprieve, oil remains of incredible importance for not only our country but the rest of the developing world.
Drivers increasingly demand an ever-growing supply of the fossil fuel abroad. At home, demand has declined somewhat but remains high when viewed in light of less auto-dependent nations. The family car remains a symbol of both status and freedom that elicits incredible desire.
This week, the Des Moines Register ran a commentary authored by a Gulf War veteran explaining not only how our oil-dependence impacted the wars of the past but fuels the conflicts of the future. Simply, continuing to depend upon oil dooms the U.S. to a cycle of conflict in the Middle East.
“Sadly, our continued addiction to petroleum here in the U.S. and across the globe makes doing so nearly impossible, and the rise of ISIS on the profits of the oil trade should remind us all that our oil dependence is dangerous and unsustainable,” David May explains in his piece. “Thus far, elected officials have opted to use military force to protect our national security by disrupting ISIS’s ability to bring a supply to the oil market. But another option — one that every American can play a part in — is decreasing the amount of oil needed to fuel our cars, trucks and heavy machinery.”
To read the original post, click here.
The news has made the growing threat of ISIS incredibly visible to Americans. Media portrayals, whether created by ISIS itself or domestic commentators, have shown the brutal reality faced by those living under its rule.
The danger appears larger-than-life. The underlying support hides in its shadow.
May argues on behalf of the Renewable Fuel Standard. This veteran, someone with real experience and hard-gained understanding, supports fueling our nation with fuel produced in our nation. His argument deserves serious consideration.
American corn farmers proudly grow the largest feedstock for domestic fuels. At the same time, rural America also supplies a disproportionately large number of America’s troops.
While more and more articles announce the return of a cheap oil economy, consider the ramifications. Depending on a finite resource has consequences. Ethanol offers a solution.
The future can be both greener and more peaceful. It is in our national interest.
Posted By Cindy December 19, 2014
Friday marks the seventh anniversary of the signing into law of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) which expanded the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as we know it today.
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) has compiled a report that examines the successful impact of the RFS over the past seven years on the economy, job creation, agriculture, the environment, fuel prices, petroleum import dependence, and food prices.
Among its findings, the report notes that “Renewable fuel production and consumption have grown dramatically. Dependence on petroleum—particularly imports—is down significantly. Greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector have fallen. The value of agricultural products is up appreciably. And communities across the country have benefited from the job creation, increased tax revenue, and heightened household income that stem from the construction and operation of a biorefinery.”
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) president and CEO Bob Dinneen remembers that day seven years ago and talks about its accomplishments so far and how EPA needs to move ahead with the law as written. Ethanol Report on RFS Anniversary
Posted By Cindy December 19, 2014
The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) appears to be a bit partisan in a new report released this week on “Options for Reforming the Renewable Fuel Standard.”
The report was produced after several meetings during the year with an advisory group that consisted of 23 members, seven of which were oil companies representatives. Only five members of the group represented agriculture (2) or biofuels (3). The rest were a mix of academia (2), big business (4) with two of those representing Toyota, environmental groups (2), and policy organizations (3).
Both of the agriculture representatives were from the National Farmers Union (NFU), president Roger Johnson and vice president of programs Chandler Goule. “It was very important that agriculture that supports the renewable fuels industry be present at the table,” said Goule, who notes that while the meetings were held in a very professional manner, “they were heavily skewed toward big oil.”
Goule says NFU has major objections to two of the policy recommendations made in the report. “The flattening of the total renewable fuel mandate at its current level going forward, but continuing to increase the three advanced categories, we have significant concerns about what that would to do ethanol and biodiesel,” he said. “Even more concerning was removing the total renewable fuel mandate and only mandating the three advanced categories. Basically what they are doing is giving in to Big Oil’s conclusion that a blend wall exists, which it does not.”
Chandler talks more about the BPC report in this interview: Interview with Chandler Goule, NFU
Posted By Cindy November 18, 2014
A new analysis of real-world land use data by Iowa State University raises serious concerns about the accuracy of models used by regulatory agencies regarding “indirect land use changes” (ILUC) attributed to biofuels production.
The study, conducted by Prof. Bruce Babcock and Zabid Iqbal at ISU’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), examined actual observed global land use changes in the period spanning from 2004 to 2012 and was compared to predictions from the economic models used by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop ILUC penalty factors for regulated biofuels. The report concluded that farmers around the world have responded to higher crop prices in the past decade by using available land resources more efficiently rather than expanding the amount of land brought into production.
“There hasn’t been much land use change in terms of converting non-agricultural land into crop land,” said Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) Senior Vice President Geoff Cooper of the report results. “We’ve seen more double-cropping, we’ve seen triple-cropping in some parts of the world. And, very interestingly, we’ve seen an increase in the amount of planted acres that are harvested.”
Cooper says the study, which was funded in part by RFA, comes at a time when the California ARB is in the process of re-adopting its low carbon fuel standard, which includes revisiting their land use analysis. “So this paper, we hope, should inform that debate and bring some clarity and commonsense,” said Cooper. More importantly, this new analysis can provide input to states like Oregon and Washington which are currently working on developing low carbon fuel standards.
Cooper explains more in this interview: Interview with Geoff Cooper, RFA
Page 2 of 67«12345...102030...»Last »