skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Nathanael Greene’s Blog

A coal powered ethanol plant and a test of the new RFS

Nathanael Greene

Posted May 14, 2008 in Curbing Pollution, Moving Beyond Oil, Solving Global Warming

Tags:
, , , , , ,
Share | | |

In a little town in central Pennsylvania, a company called Sunnyside Ethanol, LLC (owned by Consus Ethanol, LLC) wants to build an 80 million gallon per year corn ethanol refinery that would get its heat and power from a waste coal boiler. The project would stand about 150 yards from the town's high school and a stone's throw from half a dozen houses. Waste coal, in case you don't know, is the stuff that's not good enough to burn in a regular coal plant. Needless to say, it's pretty nasty stuff.

This local news TV clip gives some good basics and introduces Pamela Sheeder, a local mother and leader of Citizens for a Clean Curwensville. (If you watch the video, take note that while the project has an air permit, it hasn't started construction. Also, what do you want to bet the borough council president doesn't have children at the high school.) These two articles introduce the only local councilman, Samuel Ettaro  who has stood up against the project to ask the important questions.


View Larger Map

Now those of you who have been reading my blog or the popular press may think, what a sec, are the lifecycle GHG standards in the new RFS supposed to stop this sort of a project? Others who read this recent Inside EPA article (subscription, but here's the first paragraph in case: [1]) about how most of the growth in the corn ethanol industry is grandfathered and thus exempt from these standards may think, so this is one of the projects that squeaked through. No disrespect, but both groups are wrong.

The RFS establishes criteria for fuel that can be used by the oil companies to comply with the standard. The law requires that all renewable corn-based ethanol used to comply with the RFS “produced from new facilities that commence construction after the date of enactment of this sentence, achieves at least a 20 percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.” In other words, if someone want to make substandard fuel, they're allowed, but you got to wonder who is going to buy it.

As to the grandfathering provision embedded in the language above, it exempts fuel produced at existing facilities and facilities that commenced construction on or before December 19th, 2007, from the 20% greenhouse gas reduction requirement. The US Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for implementing the RFS and has not promulgated a definition for “commenced construction” in this context. The definitions that EPA has used elsewhere when implementing air pollution regulations generally require a project to have all of its permits, and to either have made large, irrevocable, construction-related financial commitments or to have begun actual on-site construction.

The project in question doesn't have local land-use or building permits, reportedly doesn't have title to the land, may not even have all of its financing lined up, and certainly hasn't broken ground. In other words, there's no way under any existing regulatory definition of "commence construction" that this project is anything other than a new project. Therefore, its ethanol is going to have to meet the 20% reduction requirement gasoline to be considered “renewable fuel.”

Now a legal eagle among my loyal readers will point out that EPA is allowed to lower the 20% requirement to 10%. But this facility is using waste coal to convert corn into ethanol. Even under traditional lifecycle analyses this combination can't come close to a 10% reduction and the definition of lifecycle GHG emissions in the RFS goes beyond the traditional approaches in very important ways. While EPA is in the process of developing the regulation to implement the lifecycle definition, nevertheless, I find it extremely unlikely that ethanol from a facility that uses waste coal for process energy would be able to meet this lifecycle emissions requirement for the following two reasons:

  • · Traditional lifecycle analyses have estimated that ethanol refined at a facility using coal for process energy produces more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline over both fuels’ lifecycles. NRDC’s internal calculations historically have suggested that using combined heat and power can improve this balance, but only to the point of making the ethanol just slightly better than gasoline. The figure below comes from a peer reviewed journal article authored by one of the foremost authorities on the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol, Michael Wang from Argonne National Laboratory. As this figure suggests, according to traditional lifecycle assessments, unless a coal-fire ethanol refinery is not drying its distiller grains, the ethanol produced would not comply with the minimum standards in the RFS.

clip_image002

  • -Studies published in Science earlier this year have shown that emissions from land-use changes caused direct and indirectly by the growing of crops in order to make biofuels can dominate the lifecycle emissions and have been either ignored or significantly under estimated in traditional lifecycle analyses. While the assessment of emissions from land-use changes caused indirectly by biofuels is at very early stages, the definition of lifecycle GHG emissions in the Energy Independence and Security Act explicitly requires EPA to include these emissions. Even if the values suggested in the Science articles prove to be off significantly, including emissions from land-use change will make it all but impossible for ethanol produced at a facility that uses coal for process energy to meet the standards in the RFS.

So if the project is not going to be exempted and will have to meet the GHG standards but by virtue of using waste coal doesn't have a chance in hell of complying with those standards, why is it being built? And just as interestingly, who is financing it and where's the due diligence? Or is there a market for substandard, uncertified ethanol? And if there is what does that say about the need for ethanol incentives? 

If you have any answer, I'm all ears. This is one project that no one should be interested in building or paying for. We have to wake up the financial community towns like Curwensville don't get stuck with half baked, fully polluting dinosaurs like Sunnyside Ethanol. 


[1] From Inside EPA article:

Despite draft modeling showing that coal-fired ethanol plants will exceed the energy law's lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) standard, agency officials say that few existing facilities will be subject to the GHG standard because facilities exempted from the standard by Congress will likely be able to provide almost all the fuel needed to meet the law's 15-billion gallon corn ethanol mandate.

Share | | |

Comments

Pamela SheederMay 14 2008 07:12 PM

Great BLOG Nathanael! Thank you for lending your knowledge and time to the future of our small town.

I would like to add information for Citizens for a Clean Curwensville.

www.cleancurwensville.com

We have been video taping all official proceedings for some time now. You can view them at our website. Once you see the Kangaroo court of sorts that our Borough Council operates you'll begin to understand the predicament of our small town.

We are being lead into several levels of disaster (environmental, safety, economic) and our leadership refuse to change course. It seems any willingness to refuse permits until they learn more would be a jolt to their pride. They would rather continue on with this project that seems dead in the water than make a change of course.

I'll give you one example:

We have presented our Council with the information that Nathanael provided in this BLOG. (see the website linked above) President Curulla said he would forward the information to the Borough Solicitor for investigation. Yet in an interview with a local CBS affiliate the following day Curulla said that he had seen nothing that indicated the Sunnyside plant would not be operating in compliance with federal guidelines. This is just one example of the refusal of our elected officials to acknowledge the concerns of its citizens.

My email is surfamerica@gmail.com.

Pam Sheeder
President
Citizens for a Clean Curwensville

Nancy LaPlacaMay 15 2008 01:13 AM

Thank you for the enlightening conversation on this.

The financial community is key. Without activists agitating, would many of the 65 coal plants that have been cancelled have been built? What about gasified coal? What about the fantasy of carbon sequestration? We have a mind-blowing number of boondoggles going on.

Burning waste coal is as sick as Mountain Top Removal and using coal-fired power for half our electricity. Dumping toxics into our air and water and pretending 'there's no effect' can't continue.

Forums like this allow a greater number of us to become educated; the challenge is then to use that knowledge.

Many many thanks to Pamela, Nathanael and Sam for their work.

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Nathanael Greene’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In