Today, energy policy is being challenged like no other time in United State’s history.  This challenge provides increasingly more importance on the State of Florida to develop fundamental policy objectives to guide our energy decisions, provide certainly and prediction to all stakeholders involved for many years to come.  Thus, the Florida BioEnergy Association, Inc., is drafting and releasing its first annual report based on a series of public workshops during 2010.  This report will examine and explore fundamental policy objectives that promote: (1) economic development; (2) a sustainable and indigenous energy supply; and (3) provide reliability for strong economic growth.

It is our fundamental finding that biomass/bioenergy is Florida’s only indigenous renewable fuel that can provide power to a vehicle or electrical grid that promotes economic development, sustainable energy supply without sacrificing reliability.  Thus, the Florida BioEnergy Association, Inc., in conjunction with the Florida Biofuels Association, Inc., support an energy policy predicated on a closed Floridian economic loop whereby Florida grows its own fuel, refines its own fuel, and converts this fuel into energy for the betterment of Florida’s economy or neighboring states.

Throughout our report and our analysis, biomass to energy is recognized as both a liquid transportation fuel, and solid vegetative fuel burned for reliable, affordable electricity.   Although biomass is Florida’s only indigenous renewable fuel that can meet tomorrow’s demand without sacrificing reliability, we still collectively support energy solutions and strategies that are predicated on domestic energy resources.  However, we firmly believe – based on our analysis- that biomass to energy  will provide the greatest number of employment in Florida’s energy sector using a closed economic loop.

Please register to receive and enjoy the findings in the report at info@flbioenergy.org.

All the best,

Jeremy Lawton Susac

Executive Director

Florida BioEnergy Association, Inc.

Ethanol demand, as calculated by the Renewable Fuels Association, also reached an all time high at 823,000 b/d in March, up from 644,000 b/d a year ago.

EIA also reports fuel ethanol imports of 1.1 million gallons in March.

As the RFA recently reported, America is exporting ethanol at record rates. According to data from the Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, and the Dept. of Agriculture Foreign Ag Service, the U.S. exported 48.3 million gallons of ethanol in March.

It is important to note export figures represent sum of “Ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength” and “Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 percent vol. or higher.” Thus, the figures likely include ethyl alcohol exports for non-fuel industrial purposes. As such, RFA ethanol demand calculations are for domestic use only, providing a comparison to domestic ethanol production.

Augmenting previous reports, the RFA is also reporting U.S. ethanol exports in January and February 2010 of 13.5 million gallons and 21.7 million gallons, respectively.

The RFA released the following statistics:

March 2010 Statistics

(mg = million gallons; b/d = barrels per day)

*Source: Energy Information Administration, Renewable Fuels Association
**Source: RFA calculations, does not include exports
***Source: Source: Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau, USDA-FAS; Export figures represent sum of “Ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength” and “Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 percent vol. or higher.” Thus, the figures likely include ethyl alcohol exports for non-fuel industrial purposes.

“American ethanol producers continue to answer the call for renewable alternatives to oil in record amounts,” said RFA President Bob Dinneen. “Yet, America’s ability to utlize this renewable alternative is artificially capped while millions of gallons of oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico. I urge the Obama Administration to move swiftly in approving the use of higher level ethanol blends for all vehicles.”

First thing: Leadership. This state desperately needs a leader to motivate and focus the support of others to move us closer to a clean energy economy. Just two years ago we saw a glimpse of this when the Florida Legislature took action through HB 7135. This bill moved the Sunshine State from almost last to virtually first in solar energy deployment. In fact, we are now second only to California in utility-scale deployment of solar energy, and we did that in one political session. Imagine what we could do by focusing the raw emotion from the spill into new policies that position us for new clean energy development of Florida biofuels.

You may not know it, but Florida is the richest state in the nation in terms of biomass. This natural resource provides a variety of clean energy alternatives derived from sources beginning with algae and agriculture waste. Florida can do with agriculture what the 2008 Legislature did for cutting-edge solar deployment.

But this can only be accomplished with inspirational, visionary leadership. We’re ready. Show us the leader.

Second thing: Incentives. Calling on my public and private sector experience, I have a real understanding of the tools necessary to jumpstart an industry, and enhance new market entry into this sector.

Through proper oversight of Florida’s Renewable Energy Grant Program, Florida now has the largest roof top solar installation program in the Southeast, numerous ethanol facilities underway, and the nation’s first public transportation biofuel blending facility owned and operated by LYNX in Central Florida.

New state tax incentives, coupled with the existing Federal Government mandate to produce 22 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, can yield similar results. Small steps like these will provide Florida famers with a new focus and provide the construction industry with new projects to build.

Economic incentives will provide Florida with much needed closed-loop economy whereby we grow, refine, and produce our own fuel for Florida consumers. This is extremely important because our state relies almost exclusively on others to provide our fuel. For example, we import all our natural gas from the Gulf coast states, coal from the Appalachian states, uranium from Canada, and oil from foreign nations. Virtually none of our fuel is produced here.

If Florida is serious about transitioning away from fossil fuel, and providing economic opportunities within the state, then industry needs to know that there is a reliable Florida feedstock available that doesn’t cause more problems than it solves. Smart moves now will provide Florida with “first mover advantages” in this market segment, and solidify Florida as a leader in the clean energy sector for decades to come.

Third thing: Remove the obstacles. The news here is excellent as the Florida Legislature just took steps to remove barriers for permitting biofuels facilities. This past session the Florida Legislature passed expedited permitting legislation for all renewable energy facilities recognized by Florida Law. The biggest steps in this legislation were the consolidated public hearings and firm time-frames for project reviews by state agencies. These steps will continue to allow the public to voice concerns at a public hearings but disallow repetitive and multiple bites at the apple. This is a much-needed “shot in the arm” for an emerging industry while still maintaining the public’s voice.

If we want the alternatives, we have to make sure that Florida is positioned to capitalize on clean energy.

Looking at the mess in the Gulf of Mexico, it’s easy for the public to be angry, scared, or disgusted. We have to replace the angry, the scared, and the disgusted with those who are determined, focused, and committed to new economic opportunities in the clean energy sector. To accomplish this, we desperately need political leadership, financial incentives, and removal of obstacles to a better future where the production of fuel does not threaten our vibrant tourism industry or the quality of our lives.

The next step is ours. Please contact your state representative to support Florida biofuels.

Jeremy Susac,
Executive Director
Florida Biofuels Association

As printed in the Gainesville Sun

Reported by the Renewable Fuels Association, the research, conducted by Dr. Steffen Mueller at the University of Illinois at Chicago, compared the dry mill production efficiencies in 2008 to those in 2001. The research included responses from approximately 66% of the nation’s installed dry mill ethanol production capacity. Key findings of the research include:

• Thermal energy use was less than 26,000 BTU/gallon on average, a reduction of 28 percent compared to 2001 data
• Electricity use was reduced by 32 percent compared to 2001 data
• Ethanol yields per bushel processed improved 5.3 percent since 2001
• Total water use was 2.72 gallons per gallon of ethanol produced, down significantly from previous estimates

By capturing such a large cross-section of the industry, this survey and research are the most comprehensive to date on U.S. ethanol industry efficiencies. This data is important to ongoing efforts to determine the carbon footprint of ethanol as it relates to federal carbon legislation and state efforts on low carbon fuels standards. The report is also an important landmark in larger discussions about the overall environmental and economic sustainability of ethanol.

In particular, this research dovetails with a recent report from Purdue University on corn ethanol’s possible land use impacts. The new Purdue research shows potential land use change impacts being half of what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) concluded. These two studies provide the kind of data and analysis needed to make more informed calculations and judgments. They further prove that when the most current data and assumptions are used, there is no doubt that modern ethanol provides significant greenhouse benefits compared to gasoline.

“Taken together, these landmark studies of American ethanol production should re-inform and redirect the current debate about ethanol’s carbon footprint,” said Dinneen. “As more scientists look into the issue, they are finding that ethanol is an increasingly cleaner and greener alternative to oil. I encourage EPA, CARB, and any other entity seeking to evaluate ethanol’s environmental profile to review these studies thoroughly.”

Dr. Mueller’s work also uncovered some additional data points useful to informed debate about ethanol production. Among these points are:

• Approximately 30 percent of all respondents produce corn oil in addition to livestock feed, known colloquially as distillers grains (in both dry and wet form).
• The average corn draw circle for respondents was 47.1 miles, demonstrating that a large portion of all corn used in ethanol production is sourced locally.
• Ethanol distribution from the facilities responding breaks down as follows: 25 percent by truck, 3 by ship or barge, and 72 percent by rail.

The Biotechnology Letters publication by Dr. Mueller can be purchased here. The full report on which the Biotechnology Letters piece was based is available here.

In fact the opposite holds true as a comparison of recent ethanol prices clearly shows that E10 (10% ethanol/90% gasoline) made with American ethanol would be 7 cents less at the retail level than E10 made with imported Brazilian ethanol.

In the analysis below (which the RFA attempted to post on UNICA’s new website unsuccessfully and shared with Brazilian representatives), the RFA’s Vice President of Research Geoff Cooper identifies key inconsistencies and falsehoods in Brazil’s claim to be a cheaper alternative.

UNICA suggests that, “Sugarcane ethanol is the most affordable renewable fuel currently produced in large quantities.” A quick comparison of recent prices for American and Brazilian ethanol (including data provided by UNICA members themselves via the CEPEA agreement) proves the statement just isn’t true. UNICA, in making such a statement, engages in a number of instances of “fuzzy math”, including:

• First, it appears to compare spot prices for Brazilian ethanol to futures prices for corn ethanol. U.S. ethanol futures are lightly traded and futures prices are nearly always higher than prices paid on the spot market, which is the way the lion’s share of U.S. corn ethanol is traded. This presents an obvious apples-to-oranges comparison on prices.
• Second, UNICA admittedly ignores ethanol transportation costs in its deceptive calculations. The cost of shipping ethanol from point of origin to the point where it is blended with gasoline is reflected in the price the consumer ultimately pays. In the notes under the table, UNICA acknowledges that U.S. ethanol enjoys at least a $0.05/gallon advantage over Brazilian sugarcane ethanol when it comes to transporting ethanol from point of origin to New York Harbor. The transportation cost advantage is likely more pronounced than UNICA admits.
• Third, and most deceiving of all, UNICA completely ignores ethanol prices for 2009 and 2010. The table comparing Brazilian sugarcane ethanol prices to U.S. corn ethanol prices conveniently ends with 2008 prices and skips the most recent 16 months of ethanol pricing. UNICA obviously avoided using 2009 and 2010 data because it would have clearly showed that U.S. corn ethanol has been a more attractive and cost competitive option for gasoline blenders during that time.

“The back-of-the-napkin price comparisons on the “Economic Advantages” section of UNICA’s new web site are quite deceptive and disingenuous,” Cooper said. “By omitting the last 16 months of ethanol pricing data, UNICA is providing readers with the false sense that Brazilian cane ethanol is always cheaper than U.S. grain ethanol. As real data from the market clearly shows, U.S. corn ethanol has been considerably cheaper than Brazilian ethanol for most of the last year – a fact UNICA has apparently intentionally ignored.”

Using its calculations based on outdated prices, UNICA claims U.S. drivers would save “about a nickel per gallon” if they filled up with E10 made from Brazilian ethanol rather than U.S. corn ethanol. Yet, data from Brazil’s CEPEA, the Center of Advanced Studies in Applied Economics (collected via an agreement with UNICA and another sugarcane growers association), clearly shows that Brazilian ethanol prices have not been competitive with U.S. corn ethanol since the summer of 2009. The truth is, an American driver who pulled up to the pump today would theoretically spend an additional 7 cents per gallon if they filled up E10 from imported Brazilian ethanol instead of E10 from American ethanol.

For more information please visit: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/