Tag Archives: renewable
Climbing The Ethanol Blend Wall With Biodiesel
Jul 25 2013, 12:32 Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) The biggest story of 2013 for the first-generation biofuels industry and its analysts has easily been the arrival of the so-called “blend wall,” as the point at which the U.S. gasoline infrastructure can no longer absorb additional ethanol is known. The revised Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) mandates the consumption of increasing volumes of biofuel through at least 2022 (see figure below). Ethanol, which is a gasoline substitute rather than a gasoline replacement, is the primary biofuel used in the U.S. and is almost entirely derived from corn starch (although imported ethanol sourced from Brazilian sugarcane is accounting for an increasing fraction of the total). Most fuel ethanol is blended with gasoline prior to consumption to create “gasohol,” and the chemical differences between gasoline and ethanol limit this blend to 10% ethanol by volume (E10). While the EPA permits blends of up to 15 vol%, opposition from refiners, automakers, and drivers has made E15 consumption in the U.S. virtually non-existent. This E10 limit was not considered to be a serious hurdle when the RFS2 was designed in 2007 for two reasons. First, U.S. gasoline consumption was expected to steadily grow for the foreseeable future, ensuring that the volume at which the blend wall would be hit would do so as well. Second, most energy economists and policymakers assumed that the increasing numbers of flex-fuel vehicles (FFV) capable of running on ethanol blends of up to E85 on American roads would effectively eliminate the blend wall as a hurdle. Click to enlarge images. *TBD by EPA, but no less than 1 billion gallons. Source: Schnepf (2012) . The first six years of the RFS2 have seen these earlier assumptions turn out to be woefully inaccurate. The combination of high petroleum prices, poor economic growth in the developed world, and increased CAFE standards have caused current and anticipated U.S. gasoline consumption to decline (see figure below). FFV adoption has been decent but E85 consumption has remained low due to a combination of ignorance ( most FFV owners aren’t aware that they can consume E85) and opposition ( many consumers believe that ethanol causes ecological and humanitarian disasters). Source: EIA 2012 . This misguided reliance on the aforementioned assumptions resulted in widespread surprise when the blend wall was officially hit earlier this year. Refiners are obligated under the RFS2 to blend certain volumes of biofuel with the gasoline they produce in proportion to their sales. Compliance is demonstrated via Renewable Identification Numbers (( RIN ), which are tradable compliance commodities that are attached to each gallon of biofuel following its production and separated following its blending with gasoline; refiners are required to submit sufficient RINs to the EPA at the end of the year to cover their portion of the volumetric mandate. Refiners with insufficient RINs can purchase the balance from those with too many. The arrival of the blend wall confronted refiners with the prospect of being required to purchase more ethanol from biofuel producers than consumers could use. Corn ethanol RIN prices soared by more than 2,700% in a matter of weeks as refiners scrambled to purchase and blend ethanol (or the corresponding RINs) while market capacity still existed. This surge in RIN prices has resulted in a corresponding increase to the annual cost of compliance for refiners from $330 million (at 2012 RIN prices) to $14 billion (at current RIN prices). Climbing the Wall The status quo is unlikely to remain unchanged for long, given that continued increases in the annual volumetric mandates through 2022 will only serve to increase refiners’ costs of compliance under the RFS2 so long as RIN prices remain high. That said, by now it has become apparent that the conventional wisdom on how the industry would surmount the blend wall no longer holds true. Alternate means of doing so will need to be identified and developed in short order. Given the unanticipated nature of the blend wall’s arrival, the present situation creates a few unique scenarios for those investors wishing to play the blend wall (and willing to stomach a certain amount of risk and volatility). Four specific investment scenarios exist: 1) biomass-based diesel production increases to meet the difference between the blend wall and corn ethanol production, 2) ethanol producers use high RIN values to reduce ethanol’s market price below that of gasoline on a gasoline-equivalent basis, 3) high RIN values spark a wave of investment in producers of drop-in biofuels, and 4) the RFS2 is either modified or prematurely ended. This article covers the first scenario. Biomass-Based Diesel to the Rescue? This first scenario is the most likely to occur but also the most limited in scope. The RFS2 is divided into four biofuel categories: 1) renewable fuel, 2) advanced biofuel, 3) biomass-based diesel, and 4) cellulosic biofuel. The categories are nested so that biomass-based diesel and cellulosic biofuel both count as advanced biofuel and all three count as renewable fuel. For example, biodiesel can be used to satisfy a refiner’s volumetric obligation for the biomass-based diesel category, the advanced biofuel category, or the renewable fuel category. Corn ethanol is only allowed to meet the renewable fuel category and has been responsible for virtually all production under it as a result. Historically biodiesel and renewable diesel were just used to meet the biomass-based diesel category due to differences in RIN prices (in 2011, for example, biomass-based diesel RINs traded at a premium of up to $1.4/RIN over advanced biofuel RINs and $1.78/RIN over renewable fuel RINs). Each gallon of biodiesel qualifies for 1.5 RINs due to its high energy content relative to ethanol (each gallon of renewable diesel qualifies for up to 1.7 RINs). The increase in renewable fuel RIN values since the beginning of the year has brought the renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and biomass-based diesel RIN prices into equilibrium , eliminating the price disparity between the categories that existed in 2011 and 2012. Biomass-based diesel production, which is on pace to reach 1.33 billion gallons for 2013, utilizes just under 50% of U.S. capacity when including both biodiesel and renewable diesel. (While imports can also contribute to the biomass-based diesel category, domestic production was responsible for 92% of the RINs generated under the category in 2012.) Most importantly, current production is equivalent to just 2.3% of diesel consumption (based on 2013 biofuel production and EIA estimated diesel consumption for the same year) while U.S. engine warranties permit biodiesel blends of at least 5 vol%. Renewable diesel, which is on pace to reach 120 million gallons in 2013 (and will likely be higher due to additional production coming online), is chemically identical to petroleum-based diesel and does not encounter blending limits. Based on these blending assumptions for biomass-based diesel fuels, then, the U.S. can handle another 1.4 billion gallons of biodiesel and much higher volumes of renewable diesel. Given the leeway that the biomass-based diesel category has before encountering its own blend wall, several voices in academia and the media have proposed producing sufficient biodiesel and/or renewable diesel to meet the difference between the volumetric mandate for corn ethanol production and the blend wall. Given the higher energy content of biomass-based diesel fuel, less production capacity would be needed to generate the necessary RINs than if additional corn ethanol were produced for the same purpose. For example, there is a difference of 400 million gallons between the 2013 blend wall ( 13.4 billion gallons of ethanol) and the 2013 volumetric mandate for corn ethanol (13.8 billion gallons). Were biodiesel used to make up this difference, only 267 million gallons would need to be produced over the 1.3 billion gallon biomass-based diesel volumetric mandate to generate the missing 400 million RINs for the corn ethanol category, equaling total biodiesel production of 1.57 billion gallons in 2013. The difference between the blend wall and the corn ethanol mandate is expected to increase to 1.2 billion gallons in 2014 (the mandate requires 14.4 billion gallons while the 10% blend wall will be 13.2 billion gallons of ethanol based on EIA consumption projections), so the volume of additional biomass-based diesel production would need to increase to 800 million gallons in that year, although that would still just result in total biomass-based diesel production of 2.1 billion gallons (assuming that the category’s volumetric mandate remains 1.3 billion gallons in 2014). This is still just roughly 67% of current U.S. capacity and excludes the use of imports to meet the mandate. Based on estimated future gasoline consumption and the 15 billion gallon annual cap on corn ethanol’s participation in the RFS2, new biomass-based diesel capacity wouldn’t be required until the next decade under this scenario. Note that the above doesn’t consider the advanced biofuels volumes not attributable to either biomass-based diesel or cellulosic biofuel, which reaches 1.5 billion gallons by 2015. At present this is largely met by imported Brazilian cane ethanol, which encounters the same blend wall as U.S. corn ethanol. At present, companies such as Gevo are attempting to produce corn biobutanol, which qualifies as an advanced biofuel but is capable of being used in higher blends than ethanol. Should these high-energy advanced biofuels fail to achieve commercialization by 2015 then biomass-based diesel will need to increase production by another 1 billion gallons, in which case additional U.S. capacity would be needed if the renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and biomass-based diesel categories are all to be met. Renewable Energy Group ( REGI ) is one of the largest U.S. producers of biodiesel. The company has an annual nameplate biodiesel capacity of 212 million gallons. Its share price has largely moved in line with its quarterly diluted EPS since its IPO in early 2012 (see figure below). RIN prices, by broadly functioning as the value needed to incentivize sufficient production to meet the RFS2 volumetric mandates, ensure that biofuel producers such as REG will always receive sufficient income per gallon of biofuel sold under the RFS2 to remain profitable. Given REG’s positioning in the U.S. biodiesel market, it is well-suited to maximize its profitability because of both of the increased demand and higher RIN prices that would result from biomass-based diesel being used to meet the difference between the corn ethanol mandate and the blend wall in the coming years. RIN prices would insulate REG from both a fall in petroleum prices and any increases to feedstock costs resulting from a substantial increase to biomass-based diesel production. A number of renewable diesel producers are also positioned to take advantage of the scenario considered by this article. While renewable diesel capacity in the U.S. is much lower than biodiesel capacity, renewable diesel receives 1.7 RINs per gallon (compared to 1.5 RINs per gallon for biodiesel) and does not face biodiesel’s blending constraints. A number of companies have begun producing renewable diesel on a commercial scale in recent years, including Dynamic Fuels — a JV between Syntroleum ( SYNM ) and Tyson Foods ( TSN ) — Diamond Green Diesel — a JV between Valero Energy ( VLO ) and Darling International ( DAR ) — Amyris ( AMRS ) , and Solazyme ( SZYM ) . None of these companies are as well-positioned as REGI due to their diversified product lines and, in the case of the last two, lack of commercial-scale production at present. However, for investors willing to take on country risk in addition to industry risk, Neste Oil ( NTOIF.PK ) is the world’s largest producer of renewable diesel and jet fuel. The company operates four large facilities in Finland, Rotterdam, and Singapore. Neste’s renewable diesel can be (and has been) used under the RFS2, although its reliance on palm oil feedstock has opened it to controversy in the past. Playing Commodity ETFs A substantial increase in biomass-based diesel production would presumably result in a significant rise to agricultural commodity prices, particularly corn and soybeans. Economists at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign calculated back in February that 35.5 billion pounds of lipid feedstock would be needed in 2015 by biomass-based diesel producers under a scenario in which they increase production to meet the difference between the blend wall and the RFS2 mandate, including both the renewable fuel and advanced biofuel categories. This would be an increase of 260% over the 9.8 billion pounds needed to meet the 2013 biomass-based diesel volumetric mandate. By comparison, in 2010-11 the USDA estimated the total U.S. supply of lipid feedstocks to be 33.1 billion pounds. While many types of lipids can be used as biomass-based diesel feedstock, soybean oil remains one of the most attractive options due to its large supply and the ability to increase production relatively quickly; other lipid feedstocks, such as recycled cooking oil and animal processing wastes, are byproducts of unrelated processes and thus far less flexible when it comes to supply. Given the likely continued reliance on soybean oil as feedstock should biomass-based diesel be used to overcome the blend wall, investors could gain exposure to higher soybean prices by purchasing shares of the Teucrium Soybean Fund ( SOYB ) , which tracks soybean futures prices. Furthermore, an increase in soybean production on existing cropland could come at the expense of corn production since the two are frequently rotated on a seasonal basis, so investors could also consider purchasing shares of the Teucrium Corn Fund ( CORN ) , which tracks corn futures prices. (While continuous soybean production is not without its risks, it has been done in the past in response to favorable growing and/or market conditions.) Conclusion The arrival of the ethanol blend wall in the U.S. has caused RIN prices, particularly those of the corn ethanol category of the RFS2, to skyrocket as refiners have raced to meet their mandate obligations. High RIN prices have greatly increased refiners’ compliance costs under the program. Several options have been proposed in recent months as means of overcoming the blend wall, including the production of sufficient biomass-based diesel to meet both its own category as well as the difference between the corn ethanol category and the blend wall. Sufficient biomass-based diesel capacity exists in the U.S. to do so in the future, assuming that the biomass-based diesel volumetric mandate doesn’t increase. Furthermore, foreign capacity could also be utilized via imports of biomass-based diesel. A number of companies are positioned to benefit from such an increase in expansion, particularly Renewable Energy Group. The biomass-based diesel production increase required to overcome the blend wall would also strain domestic supplies of lipid feedstocks, putting upward pressure on corn and soybean prices. The Teucrium Fund offerings for these respective commodities are available for investors seeking to gain exposure to increased biomass-based diesel production in this manner. Continue reading
New Report Claims UK Able To Achieve Zero Carbon With Renewable Energy
23 July 2013 The Center for Alternative Technology has released an update to its Zero Carbon Britain scenario, which shows that the UK can reduce carbon emissions with existing technology. The research shows that by making changes to our buildings, transport systems and behaviour, and by investing in a variety of renewable energy generation technologies suited to the UK (without a nuclear component), the UK can provide a reliable zero carbon energy supply without negatively impacting on quality of life. Smart demand management, plus the intelligent use of surplus electricity in combination with biomass to create carbon neutral synthetic gas and liquid fuels, means that that the UK can meet its entire energy demand without imports, and also provide for some transport and industrial processes that cannot run on electricity. In the scenario the biomass we require is provided by growing second generation energy crops on UK land. The UK’s cropland is still used for food production, and we produce the vast majority of the food required to provide for the UK population on home soil. The research suggests that by changing what we eat (mainly a significant reduction in meat and dairy products, coupled with increases in various other food sources) means we eat a more healthy and balanced diet than we do today while our agricultural system emits fewer greenhouse gases and uses less land both at home and abroad, thus decreasing the environmental impact of our food production globally. The scenario balances out some greenhouse gas emissions that cannot currently be eliminated from non-energy processes (industry, waste and agriculture) by using safe, sustainable and reliable methods of capturing carbon. The research showed that by restoring important habitats such as peatland, and by substantially expanding forested areas, we not only capture carbon but also provide wood products for buildings and infrastructure, rich environments for biodiversity and more natural spaces for all of us to enjoy. The research also highlights the need for further research on adaptation, economic transition and policy that would achieve sufficient greenhouse gas emissions reductions quickly and equitably. Continue reading
Carbon Tax Dumped: How Do We Get To 100% Renewable Energy?
22 July 2013, 5.24am BST Carbon tax dumped: how do we get to 100% renewable energy? AUTHOR Jenny Riesz Research Associate – Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets at University of New South Wales DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Jenny Riesz receives funding from the CSIRO and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) It’s hard to imagine a future without fossil fuel, but sound modelling can help. Dave Clarke The Federal Government has sparked significant debate with the confirmation it intends to move from a fixed carbon price to an emissions trading scheme next year. But where is the description of the long term, low carbon future for Australia? Aside from the 90% renewable energy target proposed by the Greens, the major parties are slim on long-term vision. International experience suggests that when we start talking about long term futures, it can dramatically shift debate towards a long term vision. It’s particularly important to outline those futures that are most different from the present, so that they can be clearly understood. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) recently released a landmark report showing that shifting to 100% renewable electricity is a feasible and affordable option for the Australian National Electricity Market. Coming from the highly conservative body responsible for “keeping the lights on”, this carries a hefty credibility. The operator’s modelling shows that a 100% renewable power system could be installed for around a 20‑30% increase from present retail electricity prices. In the context of rising fuel prices and mounting pressure to reduce greenhouse emissions, the cost of a 100% renewable power system could be similar to what we would be paying for electricity anyway by around the year 2030 . But a 100% renewable system is very different from the one we currently operate. We currently source only around 10% of Australia’s electricity from renewables. The energy market operator’s modelling of a 100% renewable future has already significantly shifted the debate within industry. Seen as “crazy talk” only a few years ago, 100% renewable scenarios are now being discussed as genuine and valid options by an increasing number of industry organisations. opment of renewable energy technologies means results from this modelling will date rapidly. For the 100% renewables option to stay on the table we need to update the modelling regularly. This makes sure our leaders are well informed of all the options, and the market understands all possible futures in which they might be operating. Familiarity bias and institutional barriers often make it hard to consider alternatives based upon radical changes in technology, and this is particularly prevalent in the electricity industry. Often, the very methods we use limit possible outcomes, potentially ruling out entire technology classes. This certainly applies in the recent modelling conducted by the electricity operator. The existing models for routine long term planning could not deal with large quantities of wind and photovoltaics. The operator had to develop a whole new model. When the electricity market operator is making long term projections it has to look beyond the three year political cycle and be guided by hard science. It should consider a range of scenarios in line with Australia’s international commitments to do our “fair share” of limiting global warming to 2°C. We have to consider and plan for rapid trajectories for emissions reduction as one of a range of futures that may eventuate. This informs our leaders and helps market participants make effective decisions about large investments. The energy market operator has invested substantial time and effort in developing the modelling tools and methodologies to make this study possible. We should keep using them: the ongoing expense is likely to be very modest in the context of the investment we need to address all the challenges the electricity industry faces. The modelling is vital to properly understanding the limitations, costs, risks and opportunities of the full range of options on the table. We are, after all, talking about Australia’s energy future. Decisions made now will affect our nation for generations to come. Beyond modelling, how would we get to this 100% renewable future in reality? Many policy mechanisms are available – we could expand and extend the Renewable Energy Target as suggested by the Greens , or we could ensure stable carbon prices at a sufficiently high level. Other nations have also applied utility scale feed-in tariffs to great effect, similar to that now being put in place to drive solar development in the ACT . In the short term debate on the carbon price, let’s not forget about the long term vision. Policy makers have a great opportunity to inexpensively shift debate by asking the electricity market operator to continue modelling 100% renewables scenarios in the years to come. This is an essential first step to get us there. Continue reading