By Doug Durante, Executive Director, Clean Fuels Development Coalition
Special to The Digest
The evidence seems overwhelming that Electric Vehicles are not going to be able to meet the timeline predicted by the Biden Administration and consequently, fail to provide the reductions in pollution the U.S. EPA is promising.
There are ever growing signs of consumer resistance as evidenced by a new McKinsey & Co. poll indicating a whopping 46% of current EV owners would switch back to internal combustion vehicles. Another recent poll found that nearly half the respondents generally held a negative view of EVs. Range, cost, recharging, and other challenges EVs are facing are in the news daily. In part this has led to it becoming a divisive political issue in the so-called battle ground states where Donald Trump, among others, has vowed to eliminate EV incentives. Sadly, it has become a red state vs. blue state flashpoint and only looks to get worse.
Add to that the fact that the recently finalized EPA multipollutant rule has been under fire for the assumption that two thirds of all new vehicles sold in 2032 will be electric. In what seems like its own economic stimulus for law firms, the rule has unleashed a flood of legal challenges. Individual states, oil interests, auto dealers, agriculture organizations, and ethanol producers are all challenging the rule and may prevail.
Which leads us to what should be a concern of policy makers and the public they serve: How then do we achieve the goals of reducing oil consumption and the carbon emissions and health hazards they produce? The 14.2 million conventional vehicles sold in 2023 and the 270 million or more on the road today should be viewed as a bank vault waiting to be opened in that substantial energy security and environmental benefits are there to be had. More than 95% of the vehicles comprising the current fleet are spark ignition, internal combustion engines running on gasoline. With the addition of high octane bioethanol, the gasoline fueling those vehicles can provide the greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions we won’t get from the multipollutant rule while providing a range of energy security, economic, and environmental benefits.
According to Brian West, an automotive engineer who led the vehicle testing for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Mid-Level Ethanol Blends Program (that EPA cited when they approved the E15 waiver in 2010), we should be talking about much higher volumes of ethanol in terms of blend rates. He notes that vehicles today are safer, more durable, have more power and better fuel economy, and dramatically lower emissions due to the robust systems and the calibrators’ ability to micromanage the powertrain. They can handle blends well in excess of the current E10 and in so doing provide substantial emission reductions.
In a recent interview with Poet’s vital, West said “I felt that bioethanol could do so much more than simply displace gasoline. Bioethanol boosts octane and allows improved engine efficiency, thereby displacing even more gasoline and providing even greater reductions in GHG.”
A Long Time Coming
The E15 and E20 work done at the Oak Ridge Lab was underway for almost 2 years when the waiver petition for E15 was filed. What many people –particularly critics—do not know is that the testing done as part of the approval process for E15 included 20% ethanol blends. West argues that a 95 RON (Research Octane Number, equivalent to roughly 89-90 at the pump) using E20 as a phase-in to higher blends would be compatible with virtually all vehicles on the road today. Taking it a step further, the Oak Ridge testing experiments showed a 98 RON E25 in a modified Ford 150 light duty truck increased power, improved efficiency in the range of 6%, and reduced measured CO2 by roughly 6%, demonstrating the benefits available to the manufacturers and the consumers with a new high-octane ethanol blend.
The Oak Ridge team also did a good bit of fundamental combustion research with 100 RON E30, exploring its outstanding knock resistance and efficiency benefits. 100 RON E30 got a lot of attention because it can be blended from today’s sub-octane BOB. The Oak Ridge engineers have noted that 2/3rds of the octane boost is realized from the first 1/3rd of blending, so with E30 you get significant octane boost and retain high energy density. While the Oak Ridge team conducted millions of miles of aging and about 1000 emissions tests in legacy vehicles with E15 and E20, the E30 work was more fundamental combustion research, not legacy fleet durability focused. However, an ongoing EPA sanctioned demonstration in Nebraska and millions of miles driven in South Dakota through the Glacial Lakes Energy’s E30 Challenge have found no legacy vehicle issues and indicate even more benefits are there to be had. In addition, in 2013 the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado published a thorough review of 43 publications related to the E15 waiver approval, including both DOE and industry-supported studies, many including blends higher than E15. That review and evaluation of these tests and demonstrations concluded there was absolutely no evidence of any engine deterioration or any issues requiring maintenance.
The Brazilians are taking it one step further with E40 Hybrids as well as conventional FFVs. The Renewable Fuels Association’s 15-month study of plug-in hybrid flex fuel vehicles is yet another pathway showing great promise for increased bioethanol use.
West notes that “All these pathways have benefits and challenges, and all should be pursued. Nationwide E20 as the base gasoline would be the starting point. It would be a high octane, “new regular” as prescribed in the Next Generation Fuels Act.” That legislation addresses a number of ancillary issues such as GHG accounting, auto warranties, and correcting EPA emission and testing procedures.
While aromatics were not a component of the testing at Oak Ridge, our work at CFDC and EPA’s own data shows this clean, high octane ethanol also replaces aromatic compounds which fall under EPA regulation of air toxics. General Motors, among others, has concluded aromatics are the source of 98% of the fine particulates from gasoline combustion.
So if the vault of potential benefits is open, how do we cash in? The crux of the legal challenges to the EPA rule is that it fails to account for any carbon reductions from these higher blends, thus tilting the table towards EVs. The CO2 reductions from bioethanol are substantial and need to be part of the carbon reduction strategy.
To be clear, EVs will have a place in the universe of fuels and vehicles. But the force feeding and the one size fits all approach of the Administration simply isn’t going to work.
There is no reason to limit ourselves to a 10 or 15% blend; the Oak Ridge work and many other studies have demonstrated that higher blends are safe. Whether the multipollutant rule is upheld in the courts or not, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents the majority of both US and international automakers, has stated time and again we will need high octane low carbon liquid fuels for the foreseeable future and that they can benefit both new cars and vehicles on the road today. As Brian West said in the recent vital interview, “With honest accounting of carbon sources and appropriate incentives, manufacturers would produce optimized bioethanol-fueled vehicles, making a significant contribution to curbing carbon emissions.”
The angst over low corn prices and competition from the emerging corn market in Brazil—as well as Brazil’s continuation of the 18% duty on U.S. ethanol—would be easily dismissed as a “who cares” by simply increasing our blend rates here at home. Let’s work with EPA to recognize the carbon benefits of bioethanol, stop penalizing it on the basis of BTUs when the efficiency is easily addressed through higher compression engines, and reward all pathways to GHG reductions.
When they do, and the Administration realizes the quest for low carbon and reduced pollution will require a mix of technologies and approaches, the country can stop talking and start actually doing something. The petroleum, ethanol, ag, auto and related industries all would have a role. The only losers might be the lawyers, because if we get it right, we won’t have to sue EPA on what seems like a daily basis.
Contact the author
You can reach Doug Durante via cfdcinc@aol.com