United States
              Environmental Protection
              Region 7
              324 East Eleventh St.
              Kansas City Mo 64106
October, 1979
              Office of Research & Development
Proceedings  of the
Environmental  Evaluation
Gasohol® Production and
Health Effects Seminar
                                     Co-Sponsored by the
                                     Industrial Environmental
                                     Research Laboratory
                                     Cincinnati, Ohio

                        SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS
                            HEALTH EFFECTS
                              PROJECT OFFICERS
                               James W. Mandia
                       EPA Region VII, Kansas City, Missouri
                              Thomas J. Powers III
                           EPA Industrial Environmental
                       Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
                             EPA Region VII Office
                             Kansas City, Missouri
                                June 27, 1979


                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Section                                    Title

  Page 5	Preface

  Page 6	Agenda

  Page 7	Attendee List

A-Page 9-10	Welcome and Objectives
                                           Charles H. Hajinian, Director of
                                           Office of Research and Development, EPA
                                           Region VII, Kansas City
                                           William A. Cawley, Deputy Director of
                                           EPA Industrial Environmental Research
                                           Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio

B-Page 11-22	 Industrial  Processes
(figure B-1 thru figure B-9)                              by
                                           Gilbert Ogle, Program Manager
                                           and Robert M. Scarberry
                                           Chemical  Engineers, Radian Corporation
                                           McLean, Virginia

C-Page 23-30	 Farm Energy Program
                                           Dr. William A. Scheller, Professor of
                                           Chemical  Engineering, University of
                                           Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska

D-Page31-36	 Department of Treasury Regulations
                                           Farm Production of Alcohol
                                           Thomas George, Chief Regulations and
                                           Procedure Division, Bureau of Alcohol,
                                           Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, D.C.

E-Page 37-44	 Gasohol Combustion Research
(figure E-1 thru figure E-7)                              by
                                           Richard Lawrence, Project Manager, EPA
                                           Motor Vehicles Emission Test Laboratory
                                           Ann Arbor, Michigan
                                             KEWYOEK. K.Y. 10007

F-Page 45-48
G-Page 49-56	
(figure G-1 thru figure G-6)
H-Page 57-62	
(figure H-1 thru figure H-3)
 Potential Health Problems with Farm Energy
 Dr. David L. Coffin, Senior Research
 Advisor, EPA Health Effects  Research
 Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
 North Carolina

 Energy and Economics of Gasohol Production
 Robert E. Mournighan, Program Manager,
 EPA Industrial Environmental Research
 Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio

. Biomass to Alcohol Research
 Charles J. Rogers, Physical  Scientist,
 EPA Municipal Environmental Research
 Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
Page 63
 William A. Cawley


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, is in the center of the grain production area of the the
nation. It is only natural, therefore, that the farm movement to produce fuel from grain should originate here.

This seminar is a joint effort by Region VII and the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio to bring together those groups actively engaged in programs to investigate the production of alcohol
from grain and to initiate research to study its potential environmental effects.

This report presents the proceedings of the first EPA/gasohol forum. The presentations and discussions
during the seminar were transcribed by a recorder and they, necessarily, required organization and editing.

                                  Environmerrtal Evaluation of
                             'Gasohol" Production and Health Effects
                              EPA Region VII, Kansas City, Missouri

June 27, 1979
 9:00 AM
 9:15 AM

 10:00 AM

 10:15 AM

 11:15 AM

 12:00 NOON

 1:00 PM

 1:45 PM

 2:30 PM

 2:45 PM

 3:15 PM
    Welcome & Objectives of Meeting
Alcohol Production
  Industrial Processes


  The Farm Energy Program

  Department of Treasury Regulations


Gasohol Fuel
  Gasohol Combustion Research
  Potential Health Problems with
  Farm Energy


  Energy and Economics of Gasohol

  Biomass to Alcohol Research
C. Hajinian
W. Cawley
EPA Region VII R&D
&IERL, Cincinnati
G. Ogle & R. Scarberry
Dr. W. Scheller
University of Nebraska

T. George
ATF Treasury Department
R. Lawrence
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Dr. D. Coffin, EPA
RTP, North Carolina
B. Mournighan, EPA
IERL, Cincinnati

C. Rogers
MERL, Cincinnati
 3:45 PM
W. Cawley

Charles Hajinian
Environmental Protection Agency
Kansas City, Missouri

James Mandia
Environmental Protection Agency
Kansas City, Missouri

William Cawley
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio

Dr. William Scheller
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska

Gilbert J. Ogle
Radian Corporation
McLean, Virginia

Dick Lawrence
Environmental Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Gordon Ortman
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina

Jerry  Allsup
Department of Energy
Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Donna Candler
Department of Energy
Kansas City, Missouri

Charles Rogers
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio

Clyde Dial
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio

Robert M.  Scarberry
Radian Corporation
McLean, Virginia

Thomas Powers
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio

Thomas George
Bureau of  Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms
Washington,  D.C.
M.W. (Bill) Sheil
Department of Environment Control
Lincoln, Nebraska

Pamela Mintz
Environmental Protection Agency
Kansas City, Missouri

Ralph Summers
Environmental Protection Agency
Kansas City, Missouri

Ron Ritter
Environmental Protection Agency
Kansas City, Missouri

David Berg
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington D.C.

Ed Struzeski, Jr.
Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado

Bob Mournighan
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio

Dr. David Coffin
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Todd Sneller
Nebraska Gasohol Commission
Lincoln, Nebraska


                               WELCOME  AND OBJECTIVES
                                    Charles Hajinian of R&D, Region VII
                                    William A. Cawley, Deputy Director
                                           IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio
Hi.  I  am Chuck Hajinian, Director of Research and
Development, Region VII. I would like to welcome all of
you  to  Kansas  City  to  the  EPA  Gasohol Seminar
sponsored by the Office of Research and Development,
Region VII and the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. This was one seminarthat
Dr. Kathleen Camin, Regional Administrator, wanted to
attend, but she is  committed to be in New York this week.
She  sends  her regrets and is in hopes this will be a
productive meeting.

There probably is not a better time for a meeting such as
this  — with  the  gasoline lines  growing longer, and
tempers growing shorter — the interest in bio-fuels is
growing at a dramatic rate.

Gasohol  appears to  have  found acceptance  in  the
marketplace and especially in the midwest. However,
supplies are not yet abundant enough to meet potential
demand.  Because  of  the competitive nature  of  our
system and the  world's  political problems, gasohol
appears to be a potential fuel  for future  use in the
internal combustion engine, especially  on the farm.

This co-sponsored  seminar is the first  step  toward
evaluating the efforts and progress  nationally and
regionally of the  gasohol and farm energy program and
to  obtain  an  overview  of  this  program  for an
environmental evaluation.

I  will  now   introduce  Mr.  William   Cawley,  IERL,

Mr. Cawley: Thanks, Chuck. I will say only a few words
and let you get to the  meat of the meeting.

Speaking for the Laboratory and  for the  Office  of
Research  and  Development,  we  appreciate  the
opportunity to work with Region VII on this potential
problem which is obviously a problem that is coming. I
think everyone will agree that you only  have to pick up
the  newspaper to  learn  of the  need  for alcohol  to
alleviate the gasoline situation. Production of alcohol for
this purpose could cause environmental  problems for
which we should  be prepared to do everything we can to
solve. Depending  on the  shape it   takes, we will
determine whether we have a  dispersed problem with
everyone making  alcohol in his backyard or as we hope,
in the direction of a centralized industry.
Within  the  Industrial  Environmental  Research
Laboratory, Mr. Clyde  Dial is the Division  Director
responsible for most of the activities. Tom Powers and
Bob  Mournighan are the project level staff within the
laboratory who  have  been  assigned responsibility for
the gasohol project and they are the staff members that
you should contact for information.


                                   INDUSTRIAL  PROCESSES
                              Gil Ogle and Robert Scarberry, Radian Corporation
Mr. Ogle:  I  look around and I  see we are the only
Government  contractor  here  and  I  am  a little bit
surprised at that.

I would like to give a little background on Radian and our
involvement with  gasohol before I start. A year ago,
someone in Cincinnati, I  am not sure who, but Tom
Powers  was  involved,  saw that gasohol  might be
something. At that time, gasohol  was a nebulous thing
and the only people active in gasohol were in Nebraska.
But IERL asked us to take a look at what environmental
impacts would  be  if  a  gasohol industry, or rather, an
alcohol   industry,  were  developed  to  support  the
projections of large-scale gasohol use. As many of you
are aware, there  were and  still  are a lot  of politics
involved. Some of the concerns regarding gasohol were
unfounded;  other  concerns were exaggerated  while
many of them are still being  investigated.

Over the  past year, we have visited a number of alcohol
facilities  and written two or three  reports regarding
alcohol processes as well as the environmental control
options and regulations that will  impact  a fuel alcohol

Alcohol production from biomass for fuel use is growing
now and it is difficult to  keep up with it, as I am sure most
of us here  have found in  trying  to stay  up on all the
changes and  processes.

Our presentation is based on the standard fermentation
process. We will, however, talk about  the options and
modifications that are coming along, and people like Bill
Scheller can add to it, I am sure.

Bob Scarberry  is going to present the part on alcohol
production because he is the one who has been  doing
the engineering part of it. Then  I will  try to cover the
regulations and control technology. So with that, I will
let Bob go ahead.

Mr. Scarberry: You should have two handouts in front of
you for our part in this presentation. The first talk,  which
I will give, is entitled "Industrial Ethanol Production" and
the second,  which  Gil  Ogle  will  give,  is  entitled
"Environmental Regulations  and Control Technology
for Ethanol  Production." There are copies  in  the
handouts of the slides we are going to show.

The first sHde (Figure B-1) is a general flow diagram for
an alcohol process. It is divided into six different units
and  is representative  of  most  existing  plants. This
scheme is for grain alcohol,  but can be used for other
sources  of  biomass,  such  as  sugar  crops.   When
cellulosic conversion processes  become economical,
wood products, agricultural residues, and municipal
solid  wastes  will  be  candidate feedstock for  the
fermentation process.
The first section is grain preparation. This is followed by
saccharification, a biological  process where enzymes
break down  the  carbohydrates  into sugars. Next is
fermentation  (another biological step)  where  yeast
convert the sugars to ethanol and COz. The next step,
distillation, separates the water from the alcohol. The
final step is by-product processing, which in most cases
produces distiller's dry grains, or DDG.

In a fuel alcohol process, a dehydration unit is used to
make  100 percent alcohol.  In a conventional ethanol
plant   designed   for  beverage  production,  this
dehydration  unit  does not  exist; instead there  are a
series of purification  columns which yield a closely
specified product. Most often 190-proof neutral spirits
are  produced for blending stock.  Let us examine each
one of these units separately in a little more detail.

When the distiller gets the grain, his first job is to grind
the  grain. This  is achieved  by either dry milling with
hammer mills or by wet milling processes, which also
remove some protein and fiber  from the grain. The
milled  grain  is  then slurried with  water to  facilitate
handling for downstream processing.

The second step is saccharification, or cooking. (Figure
B-2.) In this step  the mash  is heated up  to about 300
degrees (by direct  steam injection) to  solubilize the
starches. It isthen cooled and converted in an enzymatic
hydrolysis process where the long sugar molecules are
broken into  component five  and six carbon sugars.
Before the mash is sent to  fermentation, it  has  to be
cooled to about 80 degrees Fahrenheit to promote yeast

The next step  is  fermentation,  where  sugars are
converted by  the  metabolic processes of yeast. Ethyl
alcohol  and  carbon dioxide  are the chief  products.
Temperature,  pH, and nutrient level in this unit are very
important. The residence time for a batch fermentation
process is two  to three days, resulting  in a product
stream that ranges from 10 to 12 percent alcohol. There
is also about six to eight percent solids in this stream; the
solids are mostly fibers and dead yeast cells along with
some protein and oils which may not have been removed
prior to fermentation.

In distillation  (Figure B-3), solids are removed and the
alcohol is concentrated to about 95 percent. Also, some
of the impurities,  which include higher alcohols (fusel
oils) and aldehydes, are removed. Live steam is shown
here as the  heat source, indicating that this is quite
common in conventional distilleries. In a modern fuel
facility, a reboiler can be used to cut down on the energy
requirements. The feed to the rectifier is routed from the
first column, called the beer still,  at a concentration of
about 80 percent ethanol, 19 percent water, and one
percent impurities.

The  fusel oils  have higher boiling  points than the
ethanol/water overhead stream. Therefore, these fusel
oils will  condense before they reach the top of the
column. To avoid the accumulation of fusel oils in the
rectifier, side streams are taken off the rectifier.

At atmospheric  pressure it is impossible to remove the
last five percent of water from the distillation  column
without using some other type of system. A dehydrating
agent can be added to the mixture  in another set  of
columns  to remove  by  azeotropic distillation the
remaining five percent of  water (Figure B-4). The most
common  dehydrating  agent used today is benzene,
although  there are other compounds such as  hexane,
cyclohexane, ethyl ether,  and gasoline.

With  the  correct  feed  composition   and  proper
conditions of temperature and  pressure in the  column,
the properties  of the  system  permit  withdrawl  of
anhydrous or water-free ethanol from the bottom of the
column.  The  column  overheads contain  all  three
components — benzene, ethanol, and water. This stream
is routed  to the separator where two layers are formed: A
benzene/alcohol  rich  layer and a water/ethanol rich
layer. The  top  layer  is  recycled to the dehydration
column,  while the bottom layer is sent  to a recovery
column.  In the  recovery column, benzene and ethanol
are taken off the top of the column and recycled back to
the dehydration column; bottoms, consisting of mostly
water, are withdrawn for further treatment.

By-product processing  (Figure B-5) is very important to
the economics of a distillery. Because a very high
strength  waste stream  is  involved,  sending  it  to
wastewater treatment would be very expensive. Most
plants have found it profitable to convert this stream into
a useful by-product. Typically, water is  removed from
the waste stream using centrifugation, evaporation and
drying. The resulting by-product is a high protein animal
feed  supplement. This operation  unfortunately
consumes large amounts of energy.

This is  a  drawing (Figure B-5) of the by-product
processing,  indicating that prior to the centrifuge, the
solids are passed through a screen to remove  fibers or
large solids. Part of the thin liquids, which are about one
to three  percent solids, are  recycled to the cooker or
fermenter; the remainder are sent to an evaporator. This
stream is concentrated  in  the evaporator to  35-50
percent solids and then routed to the dryer.

In the dryer, most of the remaining moisture is removed.
The final product contains about 92 percent solids. If a
direct  contact  dryer  is  used, there will be a  high
concentration of particulates in the effluent stream. A
cyclone or wet scrubber is usually employed to remove
these particulates from the air stream before it is vented
to the atmosphere.

One innovation in  alcohol production  is the use  of
gasoline  as  a  dehydration  and denaturing agent.
Vacuum fermentation  is   another important
breakthrough  although  it  is currently  in the
experimental stage.

Anaerobic   digestion  is   an  alternative  to  DDG
production.  In this process, the stillage from the beer
still  is sent to anaerobic digesters. Methane is  the
primary product and can be used for heating; one plant
claims that methane  provides 60 percent of its energy
requirements. A digested sludge is also produced from
anaerobic digestion  and can be used as fertilizer or
disposal of in a landfill.

Thermophilic yeast are organisms which can survive at
higher temperatures.  There are two ways that these are
useful; one is in vacuum fermentation. If you  have an
organism  which can convert sugars into alcohol at
higher temperatures, you  need  less vacuum  on that
system. This can save substantial amounts of energy.
Since the fermentation reaction  produces heat,  using
yeast that can  survive at a higher temperature would
mean  lower cooling requirements  and hence  yield
another energy savings. Genetic research is also  being
conducted to develop higher crop yields.

I  would like to give a little  more detail on the first three
processes. This slide  (Figure B-6) shows denaturing and
dehydration with gasoline. This  varies from the  other
denaturing example in that the denaturing agent  is  not
recycled. Gasoline is added in the dehydration column
and it leaves the bottom of the column with the  alcohol.
Additional gasoline  is added to  achieve a 90  percent
gasoline, 10 percent  alcohol mixture which is gasohol.
The water is taken off the top of the dehydration column
and routed to a separator. The water is taken from  the
separator and  recycled back through the distillation
train and finally leaves the system via the beer still
bottoms. One obstacle to be overcome is ATF approval
of gasoline as the sole denaturing agent in a completely
denatured formula.

Continuous fermentation (Figure B-7) permits the use of
a much  shorter residence time  and results in  lower
alcohol  concentration   than   conventional  batch
fermentation. The  yeast are kept alive and centrifuged
out  of the  product  stream.  Most of the yeasts  are
recycled, but some of this material sent to by-product
processing as a blowdown  stream to reduce the buildup
of contaminants and  dead  yeast cells. The yeast stream
is aerated and supplied with nutrients for the organisms
prior to return to the fermenter. Also, fresh makeup yeast
are continually added to the fermenter.

Continuous fermentation conducted under a vacuum is
called vacuum fermentation (Figure B-8) In this process,
the alcohol is evaporated overhead by a vacuum jet as it
is formed.  It is very important  to  keep  the  alcohol
concentration  less than  about six  or eight  percent
because higher amount of alcohol are toxic to the yeast,
thus preventing effective yeast recycle.

Mr. Ortman: President Carter announced a couple of
days ago that he was proposing investing millions of
dollars in solar energy and  he identified one area  of the
investment, solar energy, for development of gasohol

processes. Where do you see the use of solar energy
your processes which you  described?
Mr. Scarberry:  Well,  solar energy currently is being
applied to the distillation section to evaporate the water
from the ethanol/water mixture. One man that is using a
solar still gets only about 140-proof (70 percent) alcohol,
so you need to come up with a type of system to remove
the remaining water.

Dr. Coffin: Would it be useful  to use solar heat in the
evaporation of the by-product for animal  feed?

Mr. Scarberry:  Yes, to  remove some of the water. One of
the problems with applying solar energy is that you can
only get so much heat — maybe 200, 220 degrees.

Dr. Coffin: With common technology?

Mr. Scarberry:  Right. So if you processed undervacuum
you could use solar energy but you would  need another
source of  energy to supply that vacuum which may be
another good area for solar energy application.

Mr. George: You made a statement that ATF would not
approve gasoline as a denaturing agent. Aren't we going
to change our formulas?

Mr. Scarberry:  I meant to say  that right now gasoline
alone is not a legal way to denature ethanol.

Mr. George:  Right now I think it is a  combination of
MIBK, gasoline and alcohol, and we are going to remove
the MIBK  as part of the formula and use gasoline to
completely denature the alcohol. I just don't want the
people to leave here thinking that we are going to leave
the formula as it is.

Mr. Scarberry:  Okay, I don't want to  get  into that.  I
thought you would be  talking about it here. Yes, ATF is
working on it right now. As a matter of fact, there is one
distiller in the Washington, D.C. area that plans to use
this system next March. I don't know if they have talked
to you at all about this.

Mr. George: It is just a matter of changing the formula.

Mr. Scarberry:  Right.

Mr. Lawrence:  A publication I  have  by DOE indicates
that Formula 28A does allow a  gallon of gasoline.

Mr. George: Well, that is a special denaturing formula.

Mr. Lawrence:  Yes.

Mr. George: A special  formula is much  more restrictive
than  a completely denatured formula.  Completely
denatured  alcohol, you can do anything  you want;
specially denatured, you can't.  That is the rub.

Mr. Lawrence:  But this one says: "For gasoline, for uses
in motor fuel."
Mr. George:  Right, but the restrictions on it would really
be a pain.

Mr. Lawrence: Okay. I am a little concerned about MIBK.

Mr. Scarberry:  That can only be sold to certain people
who  are  permitted to  buy it. There  are  a lot  of

Mr. Lawrence: MIBK has some problems of its own; it is
not very compatible with filtering  materials  and so I
guess the waiver, when it was approved for gasohol use,
intended to denature ethanol for blending gasoline.

Mr. Scarberry:  It is also very expensive.

Mr. Lawrence: It would be nice if gasoline could be used.
Will gasoline eventually be approved?

Mr. George: Yes, that is what I-was saying, there are
changes in  CDA  19. It could be  a  combination  of
gasoline and alcohol and with the MIBK left out.

Mr. Lawrence:  Okay. Thank you.

Dr. Scheller: Yes, I was  just going to comment that our
Nebraska two-million mile road test  program where we
purchased  anhydrous  ethanol from Georgia  Pacific
Corporation in  Washington where Co-op  Refiner's
Association did the blending  of thealcohol and gasoline
for us,  everybody  had  the  appropriate  permits and
bonds so that we were  able  to use 28-A as the special
denaturing formula; and by the time it was blended with
gasoline at the 10 percent level to produce gasohol, ATF
didn't seem  concerned  about the  alcohol  not being
completely denatured. So to  the best of my knowledge,
other than possibly small runs or laboratory runs, such
as Jerry Allsup  is doing down at Bartlesville, our two-
million mile road test was the only one that did not have
denaturants  in the  alcohol  such as we find today in
commercial gasohol.

Dr. Coffin: I want to ask you a question concerning the
benzene.  You  mentioned  benzene  as   being   a
dehydrating  agent. Is there some residual benzene left in
the gasoline?

Mr. Scarberry:  There is benzene in gasoline anyway —
quite a bit of it. In the sampling and  analytical program
that Radian is conducting, we hope to identify the levels
of benzene in the alcohol as well as in otherstreams. We
also  want to screen for  pesticides to determine the fate
of these compounds in  an alcohol plant. But,  benzene
right now is probably the most common dehydration
agent. It is used now almost exclusively in Brazil in their
alcohol  fuels  program  and there are a  couple of
companies in the United States using it. A lot of people
are thinking about using alternative dehydrating agents
because of all of the environmental problems associated
with  benzene.

Dr. Scheller: Here,  again, I might add that it is a simple
matter to simply replace benzene with cyclohexane in
the existing  equipment.

Mr. Rogers:  I would like to make a comment and ask a
question. You  made some reference to the effects of
pesticides on fermentation operations. Currently we are
looking at supporting research to determine how to treat
seed corn to remove the pesticides. This program  has
shown that a certain pesticide can be destroyed through
the  fermentation  process,  for  instance  captan.  I
understand there are millions of bushels of seed grain
that must be disposed of annually, and fermentation
may become a pesticide disposal process.

The question  is,  have you  considered the use of
detreated grain for alcohol production and determined
the operating  requirements  for using such  grain for

Mr.  Scarberry:  We haven't  made any fermentation
studies using detreated grain, but we are investigating
alternative alcohol processes.

We haven't  done any economic studies on any of the
process units.  Most of the studies I have read by other
people show that  the  newer processes  have positive
energy balances (i.e. use less energy to produce alcohol
than results  from burning it) by using energy conserving
measures like  use of column reboilers rather than live
steam. In the  distillation and dehydration system, the
object is to  get rid of water and when you inject water
into the  column to remove water it is not very energy-
efficient. The reason they do it now in beverage alcohol
production is for purification purposes. They dilute the
alcohol vapor stream down with large quantities of water
to remove contaminants.

Mr. Allsup:  I am concerned  about  using gasoline as a
denaturant  for  alcohol  without   using  some  other
denaturant along with it.

Mr. George: Yes, that's the rub. You mean it would be
easy to take gasoline out of the alcohol?

Mr. Allsup:  Yes, unless there is some other component
to prevent this.

Mr. George: I  think what we will come out with is some
percentage  of gasoline ratio  to alcohol. I don't know
what it is right now. We are working on it. We are try ing to
get  that  to  CDA,  and completely  denatured alcohol
formula 19 changed so that it would just be a mixture of
gasoline and alcohol.  I think it is  a small amount of
gasoline. I am  not  exactly sure of the ratio.

Mr. Lawrence:  Formula 19 specifies a gallon of gasoline
to 100 gallons  of ethyl  alcohol.

Mr.  George:  No,  that  is formula  18.  If I  remember
correctly, formula 19 is five gallons  of gasoline to every
100 gallons of alcohol. Something like that. But it will be
a specific ratio.

Mr. Allsup: The composition of the  gasoline will not be

Mr. Scarberry:  Hopefully, the blenders might want to
use a lower octane gasoline so that when they add the
alcohol the gasohol blend will  have the same number
octane as regular gasoline.

Dr. Scheller:  If I can inject my opinion, hopefully the
alcohol producers  will use a gasoline as a denaturant
that can be purchased at the bulk station so that there is
always a ready supply of  denaturant.

Mr. Scarberry:  That is one problem that hasn't really
been  addressed or identified  yet. Who will do  the
mixing? That is one problem that a lot of people haven't
faced; whether it should be done at the alcohol plant or
the refinery. One man from Brazil said that blending in
their country consists of the jobber loading it in the tank
trucks  and making a lot of quick starts and stops.

Dr. Scheller: Another point that we could probably make
on that formulation is that the gasoline specified should
be unleaded,  not leaded.

Mr. Mournighan:   How far do  you have  to go in  the
dehydration steps and is it necessary to go to  100
percent alcohol? How much water can  be tolerated in
the alcohol?

Mr. Scarberry: Using a dehydration process to remove
all of the water is not necessary. Several researchers are
conducting experimentation with  blending agents to
help keep ethanol blended with gasoline in the presence
of water. I don't think these chemicals are commercially
available yet.

Mr. Mournighan:  Without the  blending additives, how
much water can  be present in  gasohol at summertime

Dr. Scheller:   Yes, the amount of water that can be
present in  gasohol is a  function  of temperature, of
course, but 190-proof ethanol, for  example, is  five
percent water, which means in a gasohol mixture you
have a half percent water and  the cloud point of  this
mixture  is  somewhere  down  around  30  degrees
Fahrenheit, so in the  summer it can be used without
difficulty. In Thailand, for example, they are running
tests,  road  tests,  exclusively  with 190-proof.  Now,
Thailand does not have winter of course. In a number of
Carribean countries, sorgum is used to make alcohol,
and alcohol  is  required in  gasoline  by  legislation
because of low world molasses prices. I think in  this
country  experiencing  winter  conditions, anhydrous
ethanol or  nearly  anhydrous ethanol  is necessary of
make gasohol in order to insure customer satisfaction. If
190-proof is used, phase separation can occur in the fuel
lines. I  think that we would be making a big mistake if we
agreed to 190-proof ethanol, because I think it would be
a  higher  percentage  water  than is  acceptable for
customer satisfaction.

The amount of money which reflects the energy capital
cost, that is, the cost of converting the 190-proof to 200-
proof is about three cents per gallon of alcohol. Now,
don't get trapped in seeing the 10 percent differential in
price  between  190-proof  and  200-proof  ethanol,

because 190 is only 95 percent alcohol. You would have
to divide the quoted price for 190 proof by .95 to get the
cost of a gallon of 200-proof alcohol.

Mr. Lawrence:   What does 190-proof sell for  at the
present time?

Dr. Scheller:  Ten cents less than 200-proof per gallon.
This small difference between 190-proof alcohol andthe
200-proof alcohol Js not worth the risk of the potential
problems associated with phase separation.

Mr. Mournighan:  Do you think the  higher alcohols
present in the alcohols used for blending will serve to
reduce phase separation?

Dr. Scheller: Yes, but they are present in a relatively low
concentration  in fuel grade ethanol,  less than  one
percent. So they are less than a tenth of a percent in the
gasohol mixture. I don't think you can count on this
being significant. It may helptolowerthetemperatureof
phase separation a few degrees. It is not going to solve
the problem.

Mr. Ogle:  I am going  to  discuss the environmental
regulations and the control technology that will  apply.

First, I will start with the major sources of emissions from
an alcohol plant. As far as air emissions are concerned,
the major sources are a coal-fired  boiler, condenser
vents on distillation columns, and  exhaust from the
direct contact dryers. A lot of plants don't use coal-fired
boilers, but  it  is a worst case evaluation as far as air
emissions go.

The major source of wastewater volume-wise  is the
cooling tower blowdown. On a pollution basis, the more
important  waste  streams  include  the  evaporator
condensate (which might be sent to the cooling towers,)
equipment  washes, and  scrubber  blowdown.  The
wastewater is high in BOD and suspended and disolved

Sources of solid waste are fly ash from the coal-fired
boiler and bio-sludge if the plant has its own wastewater
treatment facilities. The sludge from bio-treatment can
be recycled to by-product processing for inclusion into
the distiller's dried grains.

Federal regulations on particulates, SO2 and NOx  only
apply to sources greater than  250,000,000 BTU's per
hour. A typical plant for alcohol production, assuming a
20 million gallon per year plant, is going to have a boiler
about half that size or less. There are  Federal opacity
standards for dryers,  grain elevators, truck or  railcar
loading  and  unloading and  other  grain  handling
operations which might apply. We have examined the
regulations for all four states in Region VII.

Very  strict  regulations  exist for SO2, and flue gas
desulfurization   is very  expensive.  Low-sulfur coal,
natural gas, or low sulfur fuel oil can be used to avoid
FGD   and  meet  compliance  requirements    NOx
regulations really are not applicable to this size facility.
All  states  have  standards  for  particulates  from
incinerators, dryers, and steam generating equipment.
In addition, Illinois and Iowa have particulate emissions
standards for grain handling and drying.

The particulate control options that we have looked at
include inertial  separators, such as  cyclones and
mechanical separators; electrostatic precipitators; wet
scrubbers; and fabric filters (bag houses).

Electrostatic  precipitators  are a  little questionable
because of the hazard that might result in handling grain
dust and coal dust. Normally, ESP's are used for fly ash,
they might be used on the boiler, but probably  not on a

Wet scrubbers and fabric filters are the most common;
with wet scrubbers there is liquid waste stream which
must be treated. The collected grain or coal dust can be
recovered from fabric filters, thgs eliminating a solid
waste problem.

There  are no federal water regulations  specific for
alcohol production. There are standards that may apply
to other processes like sugar mills and grain mills which
will require secondary treatment. General water quality
standards do exist which must be maintained. These
parameters are BOD and suspended solids. The  most
stringent regulations are found at the state and  local
level. There are specific levels on pH, organic materials,
and other pollutants that cannot be put into a  publicly
owned treatment works (POTW). All may be required to
meet a standard on the Waste Liability Section. That
would  be  especially  true  in  the case  of benzene,
pesticides, and  certain  solid  wastes.  The Resource
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) is still evolving, but
there are parts of RCRA that may apply. In general, these
facilities will not generate a hazardous waste  which is
going to cause any problem that is if any solid  waste is
generated at all.

The  criteria  we  use  for selecting  pollutant  control
equipment includes development  status, applicability,
performance, capital and operating cost, and secondary

The impurities can be removed  from the fermenter vent
stream and the  carbon dioxide can  be recovered.
Hydrocarbons do not exist in sufficient concentrations
to make their recovery economical.

NOx control options include combustion modifications
such as staged combustion, flue gas recir'culation, and
low excess air firing.

The lime/limestone throwaway process is the most likely
choice for flue gas desulfurization  to control SO2
emissions. Other less common options include sodium
carbonate  throwaway, sodium/lime  alkali, magnesia
slurry,  and Wellman-Lord.

The  control  options  for  hydrocarbons  include
adsorption,   compression-condensation,   absorption,

and direct flame and catalytic incineration.

To  control   fugitive   hydrocarbons,  a  systematic
preventative maintenance program is essential; floating
roofs or internal floating covers can be used to reduce
these emissions.

Wastewater treatment control options are screening,
sedimentation,  air  flotation,  flocculation,  aerated
lagoons,  trickling  filters,  anaerobic  digesters,  and
activated sludge units. All of these options are currently
being employed at alcohol wastewater treatment plants
to reduce BOD and suspended solids.

As one alcohol plant currently shows, it is possible to
recycle or reuse all the solid waste generated in atypical
alcohol plant. All organic matter can be included in the
by-product grains which is sold as feed,  or used  as
fertilizer (Figure B-9).

Other solid waste treatment and disposal options are to
dry the by-product waste on beds, use it for landfill, or
landfarm it.

Jn general,  I  would  like to  say  something about the
emissions  control options.  We  have looked  at this
extensively over the last year and we don't find anything
that we would  call  a  serious or an insurmountable
problem.  We look at it more from the engineering,
energy and conservation side, however, there are a lot of
things that could be pollutants or perhaps by-products.
Since most of the plants that will provide alcohol for
gasohol production  will be grass roots  plants, every
effort should  be  made  to recover everything possible
from them.

I  don't  believe there will be pollutants that cannot be
controlled   using proper  engineering  design  and

Mr. Dial: Your basic presentation was built around what
size of facility?

Mr. Ogle: Twenty million gallons per year.

Mr. Dial:  Have you  looked  at the implications from a
control standpoint for  all the little, what I call "mini-
plants" that may  crop up or are cropping up?

Mr. Ogle: No. I knew that question was going  to arise.
That was not part of the charter of this program but we
have  looked  at it informally, as everyone has. It will be
interesting, I am sure  there will be some different
problems arising. Probably  on the small on-farm unit
stillage will not be dried.

Stillage will be fed wet and that presents a new problem.
I  have heard that the urine output from cattle fed wet
grain supposedly increases substantially. It creates a
totally  new problem. You  know  as  well as I  do that
farmers are not diligent in collecting animal wastes. I can
cite an example. At the University of Maryland  dairy
experimental station, operators have not been collecting
animal waste over the years that the facility has been in
operation.  Pollution is starting to showup in the valley
below the farms as a result of years of accumulation of
cattle waste and runoff. They have not even gone so far
as  to  put  down  a  well  to check  the  groundwater.
Pollution is visible in the surface waters. So that is the
type of thing that is apparently going to happen with the
operation of a small farm alcohol plant. It is probably not
a problem  that will be seen in the first five years.

Mr. Dial: I  may have missed it, but I believe in your last
slide you were showing options for solid waste disposal
and it looked like there  was no process  waste in the
production of alcohol. Did you  cover that before?

Mr.  Ogle:    There  really isn't  any process  waste.
Everything goes either through the by-product or ends
up in the wastewater sludge. It depends on the front end
process, how grain is fed. There may be some grain dust
and grain materials as a solid waste; however, this can be
added to the DDG. But, there really isn't a process waste.

Mr. Dial: Is that characteristic just of a large facility or is
it also characteristic of a small  facility?

Dr. Scheller:  I think I am going to talk about the small
facility next, and that subject will be discussed.

Mr. Berg:  You believe that pollution is  not a major
problem with the industrial alcohol plant. What percent
of the total cost of one of these plants  is going to be
charged to pollution  control?

Mr. Ogle:   I  don't  know. There are alcohol  plants
operating now  in Region  VII that could probably give
you some data.

Dr.  Scheller:  I was just  going  to say that question is
difficult to answer because there has only been one new
alcohol  plant built in recent years and that one is a
Decatur, Illinois. This plant is part of a  corn sweetner
project, so it may be  hard to  separate the  pollution
control  aspects, the  alcohol production, and the corn
sweetner production.

Mr. Ogle: It looks like their waste treatment system,
water, air, everything is all tied together with the corn
sweetner operation and there is no waythatthedifferent
systems can be separated.

Dr. Scheller:  In the initial design and operation, water
treatment was part of the alcohol plant.

Mr. Ogle: Yes, that is right. The newest plant, in fact, in
North America is in Canada. We visited that plant and
they have a waste problem.

Dr. Scheller:  Are you referring to the one in British

Mr. Ogle: Yes. The plant is in a very pristine area which
has strict environmental requirements. The plant land
farms their  biosludge waste. Down stream from the land
farm,  bore  holes are drilled and their wells are tested

periodically. The  water  is  starting to  show  trace
elements downstream from the land farm.

Mr. Berg:  What trace elements?

Mr. Ogle:  I don't know. Maybe trace element  is the
wrong term there.

Mr. Scarberry: Salts.

Mr. Ogle: They  know that salts are coming from their
sludges and they freely admitted that to us.

Mr. Ogle: One of the things we would like to do is sample
a facility that land farms their waste and perform  a
screening analysis to find out if we can determine the
fate of pesticides and fungicides if they are still there. I
have a feeling that pesticides are probably destroyed in
the fermentation process. Most people who work with
grain fermentation feel that way, but it hasn't really been
adequately demonstrated.


— ^


— *•

fr Dehydration

         From Centrifuge
                                    Figure B-1
Flash Cooler
Corn Mash.
                                     Figure B-2
                             Mash To

                           DISTILLATION SEQUENCE

                         <        Feed From Beer Well
           Stillage To
                                      Figure B-3
                                                                     95% Ethanol
                                            Solvent Recycle
                                      Figure B-4

          To Cooker
         or Fermenter
Solids Stream
From Beer Still
                        BY-PRODUCT PROCESSING

                                Hot, Dry Air
                                     Figure 8-5
          Mash From
   To By-Product

                                     Figure B-6

Protein and
      Yeast <
                         CONTINUOUS FERMENTATION
                                       Figure 8-7
                            VACUUM  FERMENTATION
                   Total    I y
                 Condenser sn\
                                                              * To Rectifier
                                       Figure B-8


Utilizes a high strength stream

Removes water through centrifugation, evaporation and

Produces a high protein animal feed supplement

Can consume large amounts of energy
                    Figure 8-9

                               THE FARM  ENERGY  PROGRAM
                                    William Scheller, University of Nebraska
The Farm Energy Program is the subject I am supposed
to speak  on,  but I  am not quite clear  where  the
boundaries are on this topic. Of course, the farmer's
main concern today is diesel oil, but I don't think that is
what we are here to talk about. More specifically, what I
want to  speak about is the farm alcohol  plant,  the
production of alcohol in small plants on farms. I think in
order to  understand  this, we have to  understand  the
personality of the farmer. Could  I have a show of hands
of how many of you have grown up in a rural area or lived
on a farm? (The gentlemen  in the audience complied.)

Then it is not necessary to describe life on the farm to
this group. The farmer is continually at someone else's
mercy, whether this be  the elements or whether it be
major companies, big business, as he sees it, but he  has
this strong compulsion to be independent— to be totally
independent.  I think if we look at the farmer's situation
carefully and realistically, we see that he is one of the  last
holdouts for a true, free enterprise system. He has never
organized into a union or an association that will control
production and set the price on his products. He works
for probably below minimum wage in many cases. When
he looks at the money he has made at the end of  the
season, he would, as a result, like to feel he has some
control over his own destiny. Well, there are  a  lot of
things  involved in controlling one's own destiny. One of
the immediate concerns is that the farm has become
highly  mechanized and to maintain this mechanization
and maintain the production levels and farm these large
acres of land,  the farmer needs fuel. I am sure you all
have read in the newspapers the concerns over diesel
fuel supply and most recently the comment that diesel
fuel for farm use was going to be removed as a number
one priority, so the farmer is feeling insecure.

Well, what  does this  really  mean?  I have not  made a
comprehensive study of this, but one farmer who I have a
good deal  of  respect for and  who does not  tend to
exaggerate (except when he speaks of his ability to
produce cattle) was telling me of an instance last year.
He has center pivot  irrigation equipment on  three
quarter sections of land and he has historical records on
the productivity of this land. Last year, due to an error,
when it was time to turn on the irrigation equipment,  the
center  pivots got turned on two sections but not on  the
third section,  and  it was five days  later that  he
recognized this and turned on the irrigation equipment
on the  third section.

The  corn  productivity  on that  third section  was  10
bushels per acre less than the productivity on the other
two sections where the irrigation equipment was turned
on at the right time. Ten bushels per acre for 160 acres is
1,600 bushels of lost corn production at $2 a bushel; that
is $3,200 in income that was lost for a five day delay in

I think many farmers again see the situation developing
where maybe they will not have the fuel to turn on that
irrigation equipment at the critical time simply because
fuel will be in short supply and they will not be able to get
the fuel delivered.

On the other hand, we know that there is a lot of grain
stored on the farms. In Nebraska, for example, the recent
figures that I read said that we have stored in  Nebraska
somewhere around  500  million  bushels  of corn.  Our
corn production last year was 700 million bushels forthe
State of Nebraska. About half of this corn, perhaps a
little over half of the corn, is stored on the farm rather
than in commercial grain elevators.

So the farmer looks out on his corn storage equipment
saying "Gee, you know,  I could make some fuel out of
this corn." Well, how much fuel could he make? I think a
pretty well-accepted figure on industrial production is
2.5 gallons of alcohol per bushel of corn. However, in a
small plant,  the  farmer  might not be able to get 2.5
gallons of alcohol per bushel  but only 2.4 gallons per
bushel. But this really does not concern him.

If a farmer were to convert five or six percent of his corn
crop into ethanol, he could power his irrigation engines,
assuming they are internal  combustion engines, with
ethanol. He could put about 20 percent ethanol in all his
moving machinery. There is no farmer that thinks he is
going to set up his own industrial chemical complex. So
the amount of energy needed to run equipment on the
farm is relatively  low, and five percent of his crop would
provide enough alcohol to satisfy his energy  needs.

A  small  ethanol  plant producing 20  to 30 gallons per
hour of ethanol would use 8 to 10  bushels per hour of
corn. The farmer with a  thousand  acres of corn could
easily produce his alcohol fuel needs during the winter
months; to power such an alcohol plant the farmer might
burn the corn stalks, corncobs from that 8 to 10 bushels
of fermented corn mash that he  distills. The farmer
needs only to use ag-residue from the bushels of corn
mash distilled to be energy self-sufficient.

All of this is practical, the combustion equipment is there
and the farmerconsiders  it attractive. Today small plants
are  being  proposed that  are  really  pretty  much
miniturized  commercial  plants.  The  alcohol  to  be
produced is 190-proof. I do not know any small plant
proposals that include dehydration of the alcohol, and,
as was mentioned earlier, the by-product cattle feed
would be fed wet. Therefore, additional energy would be
needed  for  alcohol  dehydration  or  drying  distillery

What do the economics look like on the small plant like
this? This  is another place  where  a farmer has an
advantage, because  he  has his own economics and
these  may  be  very  different from  the   business
economics that we are used to dealing with.

I think the farmer's principal consideration is what the
plant  is going to cost. There  are two  firms that are
considering, or actually in the process, of putting on the
market a small alcohol plant of the size  range that I
mentioned of producing 20 to  30 gallons per hour  of
ethanol. Neither of them has a completely firm price  as
yet, but they are proposing to sell the major equipment
to the farmer. For exam pie, the manufacturers  do not see
any reason for buying a bunch of pipes and shipping
them to the farmer when the farmer can purchase those
locally. It will be necessary to pour some  kind  of a
concrete pad as a base for the plant and construct some
kind of building to keep the plant out of the weather.
These things are not included in the price which is in the
order of 20 to 25 thousand dollars.

By the time  the farmer finally builds this plant, he will
have probably around $40,000 invested. This  amount is
not too bad when you see that he spends $40,000  to
$50,000 for a tractor. The price $40,000 doesn't scare the
farmer. He is used to having equipment in  that price
range; he is  accustomed to using equipment  only part-
time and, the general thinking among the farmers is that
in the winter, or at least when they are not extensively
involved  with their farming operations,  they could be
running their alcohol plant.

It is not quite clear yet how automated these  plants will
be,  so it is  not clear  how much time the farmer will
actually have to devote to watching the plant to make
sure that it is running properly  and safely.

If we  consider a situation  where the  farmer might
produce  6,000 gallons per year of ethanol  in a plant
which costs  $42,000, he wouJd have$7perannual gallon
of alcohol produced as his investment.  A commercial
plant  of 20 million gallons per year might be in the order
of a $1.50 per gallon of annual  capacity.

Now,  30  gallons per hour  of ethanol, if  we think of an
around-the-clock  operation, seven days  a  week is a
quarter of a million gallons  per year production. I do not
know if these small plants could really run for  long
periods of time without shutdown, even though they are
supposed to have an operating  factor in the order of  92
or 93  percent. If the farmer paid $42,000 for a plant and
produced a  quarter of a million gallons per  year, that
would be $1.68 per  gallon of annual capacity which is
comparable  in investment to a  very large plant.

I talked to a farmer about his labor and tried  to include
labor  in the  cost of  producing  alcohol. He said, "Oh, I
don't want to charge anything for my time."  I told him,
"Gee, that's great;  you know, if you would come up to my
house I have a garden at the back of the lot that needs
some  tending, and if you would do that for  nothing, I
would  be much appreciative.''  Well, that is a different
story.  When he  is  working for himself to produce
something he needs, he does not seem to want to put a
value  on  his time.
I   brought  up  the  matter   of  maintenance  and
maintenance cost during the discussion, and again he
said, "Well, if I have to repack a pump or something like
that, I will just pay for the pump packing and do the job
myself. I'm not going to worry about what value my laJbor
adds to the price of alcohol." I think he may be justified in
this kind of thinking, because he has a more deep-seated
understanding of what his problems are, and the most
important of which  is the last increment of fuel needed in
his farming operation; otherwise he is going to lose one
whale of a lot of money. Putting it another way, the value
of that last increment of fuel is very high to the farmer. So
whether his plant is  costing him $7 in investment per
gallon  of  alcohol  produced or whether it  is less or
whether he charges his time or does not charge his time,
he knows that last increment of fuel is probably worth $5
or $10 a gallon to  him. He is pretty confident that the
alcohol he produces  is going to be  cheaper than that,
and I am inclined to agree with him. He has networked
his way through the energy economics the way business
people might do, but  on the other hand, he has found a
real justification for producing alcohol on his farm.

What about the environmental problems that might be
associated with the Farm Energy Program?  I guess  I
would have to start out by saying that environmental
control considerations are not really my bag, but I do see
some things that might cause a problem. The farmer
generates  50  gallons per  hour, approximately, of
wastewater during the plant operation. Now remember,
if his plant can produce 30 gallons an hour of alcohol,
and if he is going to  produce 6,000 gallons of alcohol
annually, he is going  to generate approximately 10,000
gallons of wastewater per year.  I think the BOD in that
wastewater might be on the order of 1,000 or 1,200 parts
per million. There is  definitely  a  plant wastewater
problem that needs attention. Now to look at the boilers
that will be part of  the plant.

The potential sellers of these alcohol plants are buying
conventional low-pressure boilers for generating steam
for the plants. They want to be sure that the farmer does
not need  a second class engineering  boiler tender's
license in  order to  operate the alcohol plant.

The boiler is a small commercially  available fire tube
type boiler, good efficiency, up to the 85 to 86 percent,
and burning probably on the first pass some kind of fuel
oil, liquid  fuel  rather  than corn  stalks and corncobs.  I
think these boilers  already meet certain standards and
the boilers are already sold commercially. I think they
meet all EPA standards as far as the stack emissions are

There may be an odor problem with the fermentation
process. There is a vent on the fermentation vessels
which vents the carbon dioxide to the air. This vented
carbon dioxide carries with it a little bit of ethanol. Of
course, this will have an odor  of a bakery,  a typical
yeasty-type odor. Whether this is objectionable or not
out on the  farm,  I can't  say. But  there could be a
disagreeable odor which could easily be cleaned up with
a little scrubbing apparatus on the vent.

The environmental  problem that I am a little concerned
about is that the plants  which are  proposed for the

farmer are batch fermentation plants and every now and
then there is going to be a bad batch of fermentation.
This bad batch is going to wind up as some kind of slop
that contains no alcohol and cannot be distilled.

In the simplest  case, the  bad  batch would  contain
acetic acid which probably can be spread on the land.
The worst case  I  can imagine  might be a badly
contaminated batch which consists of some kind of a
slimy, smelly mess. The farmer has in the order of 5,000
gallons of this  mess and now he has to get rid  of 5,000
gallons of something he does not want and cannot feed
to livestock. What is  he going to do with it? He would
probably haul  it out  and dump it in the field. It is all
organic material, as far as that is concerned. It contains a
few ammonium compounds, which are nutrients for the
yeast; but, he puts  ammonium compounds on the land
anyway for fertilizer.  If it is  in the summer,  it probably
would attract some flies. He also might want to plow it
under. The question  is what are  the  environmental
effects of this type of waste disposal? Are there any
other alternatives?

If all this is going on in the winter, when the temperatures
are low,  I suppose there will not be odor problems,
except probably with the melting  of snow. Again, I am
thinking  of  basically Nebraska,  Iowa, Kansas  and
Minnesota type environments on this.

A  lot of the soluble materials in the spoiled mash are
going to be leaking down into the ground and possibly
contaminate the groundwater in the area  where the
farmer has dumped  this material. However,  another
possibility which has been investigated by Cloddsbury
in Milwaukee some years ago and  at Schlitz, too,  is
storing wet brewer's grain by digging a pit and filling it,
creating  basically  an anerobic condition.  They have
been able to store the wet grains for a month or more in
this fashion. The farmer  might be able to work his way
out of a temporary problem without a dryer and still save
the grain  by putting it into some kind of a pit silo. These
are some of the problems that I see. The farmer handles
grain and stores grain on his farm every day, so storing
wet grain will  not be a new problem.

If there are any environmental controls regarding his
loading corn into a truck or moving it from one  place to
another,  the  farmer  is  already  familiar  with these
regulations. I think the new problems will begin  once he
starts producing alcohol.

Jim Mandia said that I should also mention something
about possible research projects that might go along
with the on-farm production  of alcohol. The first project
is, of course, to look at the farmer's potential problems
with  on-the-farm  alcohol  production   from  an
environmental  standpoint and determine if any  good
ways of handling these potential problems can be found.
This information should quickly be made available to the
farmer so he can become familiar to thinking along these

Since my principal work in alcohol  production is  in
processing, the research ideas I envision are mainly in
this  area.  This  includes  alcohol  recovery  by
nondistillation type  separation;  such  as  membrane
separations, liquid extraction, and selective absorption.

These processes might be very beneficial to the small
on-farm plant since most of the energy to produce the
steam is used for the distillation section of the plant. If
the farmer could replace distillation with one of these
other processes,  he  could  reduce the  steam
requirement,   the   condensation  production  and,
hopefully, then some of  the wastewater effluents from
the plant.

Continuous  fermentation is another area  that is of
interest to the farmer. It would be pretty nice if the farmer
could ultimately have an  alcohol plant where he fills the
hopper with corn, goes about his business while at the
other end, fuel comes out of one pipe and  cattle feed
runs into a trough. He wouldn't have to worry about what
was in that black box.

Well,  so long as we have batch fermenters,  the farmer
does have to worry about what is in that black box; if he
had continuous fermentation, it would free him of some
of the responsibility associated with operating a small

Of course, another area  in which to experiment is in
cellulose hydrolysis. The hydrolysis facility  could also
be a small on-farm plant.  The farmer has residues such
as corn stalks, corncobs, wheat straw, etc.,  that might
hydrolysize to glucose and then in turn, ferment to
produce ethanol.

The potential of cellulose hydrolysis is in the fact that it
creates an incremental fuel. A small on-farm hydrolysis
plant could process even egg residues as a source of
glucose for producing alcohol. Other areas for research
are in the production  of other fermentation products in
addition to ethanol. For  example, there are organisms
which can utilize pentases to produce butyl alcohol and
prophyl  alcohol.

The farmer is interested in any kind of liquid fuels. These
higher alcohols tend to be more like hydrocarbon than
water and, I might add,  alcohols lie somewhere on a
scale between water at  one end which  is  HOH,  and
alcohol which has some kind of hydrocarbon group (R)
and is indicated as ROH. Methanol is closest to water
since it contains only one carbon atom for R. Ethanol
contains two carbon atoms. It is further away from water
and  actually,  it  lies pretty well between  these  two
because it is completely soluble in water and coVnpletely
soluble in most hydrocarbons. As we move down the line
to butanol and pentanol and so forth, we find situations
where the alcohol  is no longer completely soluble in
water but is soluble in hydrocarbons. The propanol and
butanol  are moving down toward the hydrocarbon end
of the scale and they are certainly good fuels. They have
high heating values. The octane number, however, is a
little lower than that for  methanol or ethanol.

Another  product  which  can  be  produced  by
fermentation  is  acetone.  I  do not  know what the

environmental effect might be of burning acetone as a
fuel  in  the internal  combustion  engines. Probably
aldehyde levels would become very high in the exhaust

Finally,  research is needed  in the  use of thermophilic
organisms  for ethanol  production. Actually, there is
almost an endless amount of research work needed to
develop the on-the-farm  energy program.  I get calls
every day from three or four farmers wanting to know
something about alcohol production, small plants, how
to burn it in diesel engines; a lot of these calls and
questions, the farm energy program could just about use
up the  Gross National Product on alcohol research.
There are many,  many unanswered questions.

Mr Struzeski: In reference to the small farmer, why does
he limit production to 6,000 gallons per year and how
many fermentation batches does this require in a year?

Dr. Scheller: In  order to understand the 6,000 gallon
alcohol  production limit, it is necessary to view the total
farm energy picture. Most  of the engines are diesel
engines. Alcohol and diesel fuel cannot be blended in
the same way that alcohol and gasoline are blended.

The simplest way to handle the alcohol/diesel system is
to put a carburetor into the air intake for the diesel fuel
and provide asecond alcohol fuel tank and carburate the
alcohol  into the  diesel cylinder while the diesel fuel is
still  coming  in  from the fuel  injection system as it
normally does.  This way, only a percentage  of th|e
alcohol  is burned in the diesel engine.

The  number of gasoline fueled engines on  the farm is
relatively small. Gasoline engines operate the pumps for
the irrigation system, and these engines can be modified
to run on straight alcohol.

The goal of the farmer is to have sufficient fuel to operate
his farm. When  gasoline supplies are not available, he
can  convert the gasoline engines to run on straight
alcohol  by changing the carburetor jets and by running
the alcohol fuel line close to the exhaust line so that the
alcohol  can be heated as required for operation. All that
is required to con vert an engine from gasoline to alcohol
is to change the jets and  preheat the fuel. The engine
efficiency may not be up to what it was with gasoline, but
if gasoline  is not available,  farmers can continue  to
operate  their farms. There  really  is no potential for
replacing 100 percent of his fuel needs with alcohol.

So 6,000 gallons of alcohol is sufficient  fuel to operate
the average farm for a year. Now if he has 6,000 gallon
fermenters  and  if the alcohol concerntration in those
fermenters  is 10 percent, producing  600  gallons  of
alcohol  in a fermenter, he is going to need somewhere in
the order of 10  fermenters to  make 6,000 gallons of

He could manage this, he  feels, as a chore after dinner;
all that is required is a trip to the barn to start a batch.
This  is his attitude.
Dr. Coffin:  I guess the spirit on the farm has changed
since my day. We used to have a spirit of cooperation,
onefarm helping another. We did a lot of work like this. I
wonder if there is any tendency to consider this in
building these alcohol plants.

Dr. Scheller:  I  have actually urged the farmers to get
together with their neighbors and pool their $40,000 to
buy something  bigger and ultimately they could buy a
plant that could produce a large amount of alcohol; then
they could afford to hire an operator, or more than one
operator to run  the plant around the clock. They do not
have to worry about what  they are going to do if they
want to go down to Florida for  two  weeks and have a
fermenter full of mash that should be processed through
the still.

I reminded them that they got out of the dairy business
because they did not  like  to scrub all of the stainless
steel equipment and meet the health standards that were
associated with  producing milk. I also reminded them of
the fact that  before  they put  a charge  into  their
fermenters that  those fermenters are going to have to be
sterile. They are going to be performing the same kind of
cleaning and sterilization duties with fermenters which
they did not like in the dairy business. If they had a big
enough plant that they could hire somebody to do all of
this, then it could be an investment.

Dr. Coffin: If they could come out better on their capital
investment, that is the way to do it.

Dr. Scheller:  Yes,  it depends on  how you look at the
capital investment. If it is per gallon of alcohol actually
produced in a year, the investment is quite high if you
consider continuous operation, producing say a quarter
of a million gallons per year for $40,000. Well, you are not
going to beat that with a bigger plant. However, it is low
considering  6,000 gallons per  year  production for
$40,000. Again,  it is hard to determine the economics of
small alcohol plants. I have a feeling that, in the long run,
the farmer would be better off pooling his money and
building a larger plant.

He prefers  to have, on the other hand,  his own plant
down in the  barn because  it  gives him a feeling of
security and perhaps a pride of ownership. But what I am
concerned  about is after the novelty wears off is that
$40,000 investment going to sit there after it has been
used for only a  year or two and  collect dust?

Mr. George: I just had a question and a comment on Dr.
Coffin's remarks. There is a very similar situation out in
Southern California  where  the grape growers have
banded together to consolidate  their costs. Winery out
there, the sweet wine market out there, has a distillery
right next to it.  If they can't put their grapes on the table
and make raisins out of them, they turn them over then to
the co-op and make sweet wine or commercial grain or
high-proof alcohol. It seems to work pretty well with a
minimum amount of acrimony.

I think it is an excellent way to manage a vineyard. Each
grower puts in  so much money to fund the co-op. My

question is — could you expand your remarks a little bit,
Dr. Scheller, on the type of still that you were referring to
that could be commercially available for the farmer?  I
was curious about that.

Dr. Scheller: Yes, these stills are single columns with a
lot of trays  in  the order of 40 to 50 trays for simple
fractionation and a column taking 190 proof off the top.
There are other designs which use direct steam injection
into one distillation column with no trays. You know, if
the column is going to be put in a building, the farmer
does not want to build  a skyscraper;  he feels these
columns should not be higher than about 13 or 14 feet.
So actually, there are four columns standing side by
side, but they  operate as  one fractionation column.
There is only a reboiler at one end and a condenser at the
other end.

Mr. George:  So, it is like a pair of columns,  a pair of
rectifier columns?

Dr. Scheller:  Yes, right.

Mr. George: That will produce over  190 proof?

Dr. Scheller:  Well, yes. One hundred ninety  proof is a
term that the farmer learned and recognizes.

Mr. Mournighan: Aren't  the four split columns  pretty
complicated for the farmer to operate?

Dr. Scheller: No, not really. With some level controls in
the bottom of each column section, you can  pump the
liquid back to the top tray of the next column down a
well-insulated vapor transfer line.

Mr. Mournighan: So this is not just something a farmer
can throw together?

Dr. Scheller: Oh no, this will be a part of the kit that he

Mr. Mournighan:  It appears to  be rather sophisticated.

Mr. Lawrence: If the farmer does not dry the stillage by-
products will he dump it or feed it?

Dr. Scheller: He will probably feed it wet. He will only
dump it if he gets a bad batch  of fermentation or if he
doesn't have enough cattle around to feed. A significant
percentage of his herd must be maintained, otherwise he
will wind up with more distiller's grains than  he can feed.

Mr. Lawrence: You quoted a price of $42,000 per plant.
That certainly isn't a one-year captial investment.

Dr. Scheller:  That is the farmer's total cost in buying the
kit and erecting it.

Mr. Lawrence: It is really not fair to figure amortizing the
6,000 gallon $42,000 plant over one year at $7 per gallon.
The plant has to be amortized over a period of time.

Mr. Rogers: Does the on-the-farm scenario include on-
site  processing  of grain rather  than a  centralized
processing area?

Dr. Scheller:  Yes, the scenario includes on-the-farm
milling. I think the farmer is going to have the complete
crop-to-alcohol process right there on his farm.

Mr. Rogers: Because of the acid nature of the residues
from fermentation, would it be wise to attempt to ferment
such material anaerobically to produce methane?

Dr. Scheller: The acidity would have to be neurtralized,
but the methane could be used as fuel for the boiler. I
think the costs of producing methane and the capital
investment required  would  be important factors  to
consider. The production of methane could be an add-
on to  the alcohol  farm energy program. The farmer
could build an alcohol plant  and if he wasn't satisfied
with the  feeding  operations  he could have had an
anerobic digestion system to take care of the stillage.

Mr. Dial:  From your association and understanding of
the farmers, do you feel that any of them are thinking of
producing alcohol  for purposes other than their own
use? Do they  see it as a  money-making proposition,
rather than a survival situation?

Dr. Scheller:  If the farmer can produce some  extra
alcohol and his neighbor does not have a plant, he would
probably sell some to him. There have been some people
(not farmers) who have tried to promote the ideathatthe
farmer should place alcohol in milk  cans out  at the
roadside; a truck picks up the cans (similar to the milk
pickup); and then takes them to a  central  processing
plant where the alcohol is converted into 200-proof for
blending. I have not explored the economics of this kind
of operation.

I  think the farmers first thought is basically to produce
fuel for himself. If he has extra production capacity and
has  a  neighbor who  needs fuel,   he  would consider
producing and selling to his neighbor. I don't  think,
however,  that any of them would  really do this as a
commercial venture.

Mr. Shiel:  The farmer can produce alcohol on his farm,
as I see it,  and from the comments I have heard, he can
utilize the so-called down-time that he has on the farm as
he chooses. He will not take time during the summer
when he  must be out there  changing the irrigation
pumps, pulling his corn and what all he does. But, he is
looking for this three month period  in the middle  of the
winter  when he doesn't have anything else to do.

Dr. Scheller:  That is right.

Mr. Sheil: He is not looking for a year-round production.
He is looking for three months and 20 days out of that
three months would just about take up his relaxation
time, his work time and his hobby.

Mr. Dial: Well, that sort of ties in with the point that I was
trying to make. It appars to me that eventually the farmer
could build a co-op group; it could be an actual income

source, as well as a source of alcohol that is assured to
him through the co-op. I just wonder if the farmers are
giving this idea much consideration?

Dr. Scheller: At this point, I think there is still too much
enthusiasm among farmers in regards to owning their
own plants. But again, I think I mentioned that one thing
farmers ought to consider is the possibility of pooling
their money and putting up a larger plant and this would
be a cooperative arrangement. They could bring their
grain in for processing and receive theirquota of alcohol
and  cow feed. This  would give them flexibility; if they
needed more fuel and more cattle feed, they could get it
with established credit at the co-op.  It offers a lot of
flexibility in establishing the balance  between alcohol
and cattle feed that is needed. Also, this will improvethe
economics of the alcohol production.

Mr. Ortman: The farmer has a bushel of corn. Is it more
profitable for him to use it to make ehtanol or sell it?

Dr. Scheller: Here again, Gordon, it depends on how
you  evaluate  the   economics.  If  you  evaluate  the
economics in terms  of needing ethanol to meet the fuel
needs on the farm, then he  is way ahead making the
alcohol rather than selling the corn. If he has to have this
alcohol to compete  with diesel fuel, which he  can buy
from his local supplier, then he probably ought to sell the
corn. His concern, his whole interest in this, is to assure
sufficient fuel to run  his farm and in that case, it is better
decision to make the alcohol.

Mr. Ortman: Dr. Scheller, have you performed an energy
balance on the processes involved in the production of
energy on the farm?

Dr. Scheller: I have thought about doing this; however, I
haven't the necessary data available to accomplish this
at the present time. One  of the things that will greatly
help the farm  energy program  is the  high  thermal
efficiency of  small boilers.  Superior  Boiler  Works,
Hutchison, Kansas, for example, tells  me that they can
provide boilers that  produce 25,000 pounds an hour of
steam with a saturated steam of 15 pounds per square
inch, with a thermal efficiency of 86 to 88 percent.

Mr. Ortman: Burning fuel oil?

Dr. Scheller: Burning fuel oil. I have talked with some of
the producers of some of the commercial boiler plants
that make boilers to be installed in the 20 million gallons
a  year  grain  alcohol  plants. These  boilers  cannot
compete  with that kind of efficiency at all. Maybe the
balance of energy  is  pretty good using these small
boilers as the principal source of heat for the  farmer's
still.  Apparently, they are very efficient.

Mr. Ortman: Is it possible to  use  the stover for a fuel
rather tharxputting it back on the land?

Dr. Scheller: Oh, I think it is certainly possible. There are
on-the-farm  plants designed to utilize this kind of fuel
and burn it efficiently and effectively. To use stover to
fuel a commercial boiler, I thinkthefarmerwould have to
provide a separate combustion unit, a separate fire box,
and then pipe those hot gases around into the boiler. It
would have to be some kind of add-on arrangement, I am
sure.  You know, farmers are very inventive individuals
and  we are going  to find farmers  building small
combustion  units and  supplementing  the  fuel with
biomass or even replacing the liquid fuel with biomass.

Mr. Ortman:   If we  have sufficient  petroleum power
available to us,  I do not think it would be economically
feasible for this country to go to gasohol.

Dr. Scheller:  I do not agree with that.  The only way you
can find out whethersomething is economically feasible
or not is to  determine if it is available in sufficient
quantity, and its price. At some price alcohol becomes a
more  economical fuel than gasoline.

Mr. Ortman:  Are we at that point now?

Dr. Scheller: Yes, I believe we are with the small on-the-
farm plants. I do not believe alcohol from farm plants is
going to compete in the marketplace as an alcohol

Dr. Coffin:  It seems to me it would be  more economical
to ferment stillage anaerobically producing methane as
a fuel rather than using it to feed livestock.

Dr. Scheller: That could be true, but again, I do not know
the costs involved in methane production. Certainly, in
looking at the overall energy needs of the farm plant, this
appears very  attractive.

Mr. Lawrence:   I understand  that to use fuel  oil to
produce alcohol probably requires less energy than the
amount of alcohol that is produced; that is if the alcohol
is not dehydrated. The  intent then would be to use the
low proof alcohol only in diesel engines.

Dr. Scheller:  During the summer months 190-proof
ethanol can be mixed with gasoline and not risk having a
phase separation problem. The farmer could also use it
in his gasoline powered  engines in the summer. The
farmer can convert his spark ignition irrigation engines
to run on 190 proof alcohol.

Mr. Lawrence: They could run on a lot less than 190.

Dr. Scheller:  Yes he could, that is right.

Dr. Coffin:  What would be the relative portion of fuel oil
required to produce a gallon of alcohol?

Dr. Scheller:  Until we get a good energy balance on a
small  plant, I  cannot really answer that. Since we do not
have a dehydration step in producing alcohol in a small
plant, we save one energy source that is required in a
commercial plant. The farm plant has a boiler with a high
thermal efficiency and  I am  sure that on a BTU basis
fewer BTU's of fuel oil are used in producing the alcohol
than the BTU content of the alcohol produced. What this
difference is , I do not know. Whether it is 1,000 BTU's
per gallon, or 10,000 BTU's per gallon, I am inclined to

think from the flow diagrams I  have seen that the small
plants have the capability of having an energy balance
that a large commercial plant would really envy.


                               DEPARTMENT  OF  TREASURY
                                  Farm  Production of Alcohol
                                Thomas George, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
                                               and Firearms
                                             Washington, D.C.
My name is Tom George, and I am Chief, Regulations
and Procedures  Division for  the  Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms.

This marks about a ten year anniversary for me. About
ten years  ago next week,  I  went up to Cloverdale,
California and gave a little talk on the Gun Control Act of
1968. The audience was very hostile —to say the least. I
always like to plan my talk so that it will go through a
certain  period   of time,  10  minutes,  15   minutes,
something like that. I started looking at my watch and
someone in the audience hollered out that I didn't need
that, there was a  calendar right behind me. So anyway,
today, I  won't take too much of your time.

ATF, or the Bureau of Alcohol,  Tobacco and Firearms is
responsible for administering taxing statutes  in the
Internal  Revenue Code of 1954 which relate to distilled
spirits, or ethyl alcohol. These laws, whilethe guidelines
within which all producers of ethyl alcohol must operate.
In previous years, the Bureau's principal  involvement
has been with the beverage alcohol industry. The main
mission  of the  Bureau, under the  Internal  Revenue
Code,  is  protection   of the  revenue.  We  collected
approximately $5.4 billion in 1978. With this much of a
financial interest, it is easy  to see why the federal
government  is involved  in regulation  of the alcohol

For many years people have proposed various ideas for
using ethyl alcohol for fuel.  It was used  in  Germany
during World War II. There were some books published
in the 1940's that talk about using it in the United States.
Of course,  with the cost of energy now, weare turning in
that direction  in this country.

In any event, I would like to talktoday about ourcontrols
over the distilled spirits plants;  how  ATF  qualifies
distilled  spirits plants,  and the  program the Bureau has
embarked  on to make things a little easier for the small
producer of fuel alcohol.

We have two types of distilled spirits  plants that are
authorized by law. The first type is a commercial distiller
and the second is an experimental plant, for the person
who wishes to experiment or  develop  new processes
with the use of alcohol.

The first type of  distilled spirits plant that I am talking
about is  a commercial facility, one which is authorized to
operate  by the government with  an operating permit
under the Internal Revenue Code.  This plant can either
produce alcohol  for  beverage  use of  alcohol  for
commercial purposes, such  as denatured alcohol.  I
might mention that there are  two types of denatured
alcohol. There is completely denatured alcohol which
we talked about earlier, and there is specially denatured
alcohol which is used in products like perfumes, shaving
lotions, hair tonics or mouthwash.

To qualify as a commercial distilled spirits plantisavery
complicated process. The premises and buildings have
to be constructed  in such  a way as to provide very
substantial   security for  the  purpose  of  revenue
collection.  We have ATF officers stationed at these

At these plants, we  literally  maintain security by locks
and  keys  under control of  our assigned officers.  A
commercial distillery is also required to post  a bond
which will cover the potential tax liability on this alcohol.
The present tax is $10.50 a proof gallon, which amounts
to about $1.70  for your favorite fifth or 750 milli-
liter bottle of bourbon. By comparison, the tax is a small
part  of  the price  of  bourbon  but  there  is quite a
substantial  difference in tax for a gallon  of absolute
alcohol. Here the tax is $21 a gallon. Our taxing statute is
set up on a gallon of 100 proof alcohol, so when you have
200 proof alcohol the volumetric gallon turns out to be
two proof gallons from the viewpoint of taxation. That
means the  potential tax  liability to the government is
about $21 a gallon for fuel grade alcohol.

You can easily see that if a person wishes to qualify as a
commercial distiller under  the present law, it would
mean a significant investment in time and money.

The  second type of plant  authorized by  law is the
experimental plant. The law imposes less stringent
requirements than   those required for a  commercial
distiller. We have waived most requirements and have
proposed liberalizing legislation.

The  premises for an experimental plant can  be  any
suitable site where one could build a distillery. We do not
assign any  ATF officers to these plants. We only require
very  basic  records of  operation.  The  commercial
distiller  must,  on  the  other   hand,  maintain very
comprehensive records system. This system not only
provides protection  for the taxes, but provides us with
statistics which can be used by the industry members
themselves  to  aid  the  commercial and  business

However, people who hold  expermental plant permits
must file a bond to cover their potential tax liability. But if
the alcohol is properly used, we don't collect any  tax
from them.

The  experimental distiller, though, is restricted in  the

conduct of his operations in two important aspects. He
can't sell nor can he give away his alcohol. It must be
used for and on the experimental premises, except for
certain exceptions. His permit is only valid for a limited
period of time. In most instances, we grant permits for
two years. It can  be seen that, in the existing  law,
extensive regulatory and statutory controls are imposed
on the distillery plants.

Persons involved in the production of alcohol, whether it
be for beverage use or industrial use, are required by the
current regulation scheme to follow a very complicated
qualification procedure, which includes the registration
of the distilled  spirit plant,  obtaining  an operating
permit, filing  bonds and various other documents that
are required.  In addition, the present scheme provides
for commercial  production  of distilled spirits  in an
enclosed distilling system, which is sealed off from any
unauthorized  access. It  also requires on-premise
supervision by ATF officers.

With this in mind, the Bureau is very much aware for the
need for a more flexible approach to production of ethyl
alcohol for fuel  use, and of the contributions which
alcohol may make in providing an  alternate source of

During the past few months, we have received over 4,000
inquiries concerning fuel related alcohol plants in our
headquarters office  alone.  The regional offices have
also seen an increasing  interest in the plants. We have
seven regional offices in the major cities throughout the
United States.

The Energy Tax Act of 1978 required the Treasury
Department (or ATF) to recommend  legislation to
change the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to
simplify the regulation for persons producing distilled
spirits for fuel use. These changes must be consistent
with certain safeguards to protect the revenue. However,
this legislation facilitates alcohol fuel production and
distribution. This has been presented to Congress.

The proposal  that we have  drawn  up provides  for a
simple application process for the  person wishing to
make alcohol into fuel. It also provides for less stringent
controls than are presently enforced for the commercial
distilling operation.

Senator Bayh introduced the measure on May 22, and
Representative Ullman introduced the  bill in the House
on  May  23.  The changes in law  which have  been
presented will provide ATF with greater flexibility so we
can be more responsive to the needs of people wanting
to produce alcohol as a  fuel.

The purpose of this new law will be to simplify regulatory
controls for distilled spirits fuel use by changing the
Internal Revenue Code  to provide for a third type of
distilled spirits.

The third  type of plant would be authorized to produce
alcohol for fuel uses  only.  No  other  industrial or
beverage use of the alcohol would  be authorized. We
anticipate, after the enactment of this  bill, that a broad
range of individuals and organizations will apply to ATF
for a permit to establish a plant to produce alcohol fuel.

Some producers of alcohol will use it to make gasohol, a
mixture of  alcohol  and gasoline,  which  is gaining
popularity as a motor fuel. ATF desires to facilitate the
production of fuel alcohol, while at the same time we
want to minimize the resource costs for the individual
and  the government while we sustain  our statutory

Attached to the bill we proposed to Congress was a
statement  of our intentions,  called an Administrative
Action Plan.  After enactment of this  legislation,  ATF
proposes to issue regulations in this framework.

We  envision three  types  of fuel  producers.  Small
producers are those producing less than  5,000 proof
gallons of alcohol a year. The second  category is what
we call a medium producer. They will produce less than
100,000 proof gallons  of alcohol  per  year. The  large
producers will be  those plants producing  more than
100,000 proof gallons of alcohol per year.

The regulatory control will vary with the production level
The  smallest  plants will  have  the  least  regulation
controls while the  largest plants will have the  most
controls.  All  fuel  alcohol  plants  under the   new
legislation will be expected to : (1) file an application to
operate an  alcohol production  plant,  (2) with the
exception of thesmall producers, alcohol fuel producers
will file a bond to cover any tax liability, and (3) they must
destroy the  beverage  character of  the  alcohol be
denaturation.  All   fuel   producers  must  maintain
security adequate to prevent the diversion of alcohol to
beverage use and must maintain some system of records
to keep track of how much alcohol is being produced.

We do not anticipate very much dangerto the revenue by
the small producer, so we would like to greatly simplify
our procedures to qualify these people to produce fuel
alcohol. Regulatory requirements  for the medium and
large  producer  will  be  somewhat  more restrictive
because they present a greater jeopardy to the revenue.
Essentially, requirements are going to vary directly in
proportion  to the output of alcohol. The larger the
output, the more restrictive the requirements.

Our present experience indicates  a  large interest in
alcohol fuel production on the part of the farmers. In
previous years,  the statute restrictions  precluded the
farmer from producing alcohol for his own personal use.
(Although we allowed them  to use cider without any
taxes on it.)

Recent  developments  now  make  this  activity
economically  feasible  and  attractive  and  we  have
liberalized our requirements as much  as possible. The
experimental  authorization  is a  stop-gap  measure
between a  very restrictive,  tax-oriented  law,  and  a
relaxed situation to be enacted with our Congressional


We have adopted a liberal posture  to try to simplify
regulations as much  as  possible under the  present
statutes. All the qualified  people who wish to produce
alcohol for fuel are granted experimental plant permits.
We will  be very liberal about extending  the two-year
qualifications. If our proposal is not passed by Congress
and signed by the President in the near future, we will
have to administer this program under the present code,
continue the  policy  of approving experimental plants
and to renew  the applications of those people who are
producing alcohol for  fuel.

My purpose in talking today was to  inform you of the
present  statutory  requirements, and of the proposed
changes in the tax requirements that  we will have in the
new law.

If there are any questions I can answer, I will be happy to
do so at this time.

Mr. Dial:  I think I heard you say that the lowest volume
producer would have less stringent requirements.

Mr. George: Right.

Mr. Dial: But you mentioned that they would  have to
have some kind of security arrangement and some kind
of record keeping. Could you elaborate  a little bit on
that, and what that would mean to an  individual farmer?

Mr. George: Well, I think that really we are looking for
nothing more  than what farmers usually lock up as part
of regular farm security.

Mr. Dial:  It is just that simple?

Mr. George:  Right. With  the type of investment Dr.
Scheller was  talking about, $40,000, I don't think the
farmer is going to leave his alcohol plant out where it is
going to  be stolen. We are not too  concerned at this
point that security is going to be a problem.

The real problem is the bond and high premiums. I think
it is  about  $12 to $20 per thousand dollars of bond
coverage. So, if someone is going to produce  100,000
gallons of alcohol, that is quite a tax liability, and a  high
premium. The miximum bond requires about a $2,000
annual premium.

Dr. Scheller: Tom, could you say a few words about the
actual concerns that ATF might have about alcohol from
a farm plant getting into the beverage market. I know by
the regulations that the government should get its taxes
if alcohol is used for beverage purposes. But, what about
the bootleg market, could farm produced alcohol havea
potential for finding its way into that  marketplace?

Mr. George: Well, there is always a bootleg market. It is
just something that you can't stop. Most of our problem
in the bootleg market is in the southeastern part of the
United States.
Actually,  bootlegging  started out due to economic
reasons. Folks just  couldn't afford to buy  beverage
alcohol. But two things happened: one was an operation
dry-up in the late 1950's and the other, the price of sugar
started to shoot up, so the price of moonshine began to
approximate that of legal liquor.

As far as the sale of fuel alcohol as a beverage on the
illegal market is concerned, yes it could be a significant
problem especially when the producer may have a lot of
alcohol on hand and cannot sell it or use  it.

Eventhough there is the possibility of illegal diversion,
we  are willing to take the risk. We don't have enough
manpower in our Bureau to really enforce this program
to the degree  we would like to  Out of necessity,
therefore, a lot of things will  have to be ignored. It will be
a very good opportunity for us to see how a part of the
alcohol industry operates. We are going to say this is
part of the industry, in comparison to an industry that we
have  regulated since Prohibition by almost over-the -
shoulder supervision.

Not only is there a lot of exise tax money involved, but
ATF has regulated very closely standards of identity for
liquor and trade prices for the regulated industry.

Mr. Mandia: Tom,  can you  explain the procedure ATF
uses  to determine the environmental impact of these
farm stills before granting permits?

Mr. George: When ATF issues a distiller's permit we look
into   the  environmental  impact of  the  proposed
operation. We generally will not do field investigations
when qualifying experimental plants.

In qualifying a commercial distillery, we send inspectors
out to investigate the corporate finances and the plant
premises and equipment. Atthesametime, weverifythe
information contained in their environmental and water
quality statements. The experimental distilled spirits
plants we are discussing are big enough to have a million
gallons of distillery wastes and by-products.

Mr. Hajinian:  Tom, I reviewed some of your application
forms  and  there  appears  to be  an environmental
assessment as  a  permit   requirement.   Have  you
considered possibly combining the permits issuance?

Your  statement indicates  environmental concerns.
These small plants may not damage the environment
depending on where they are located. Haveyouthought
of combining the permit issuance?

Mr. George: We have not thought about the possibility
of combining efforts with the Environmental Protection
Agency; however, it is an idea which deserves further
study and evaluation.

Mr. Allsup: As far as the road tax credit for gasohol, do
you think there is adequate control to make sure that the
gasohol supplier actually put 10 percent alcohol in the
product, or could he get the tax credit and blend only

one percent alcohol. Could the gasohol producer only
blend one gallon of alcohol instead of 10 gallons?

Mr. George: He is going to have the IRS  on his back.

Mr. Allsup: I just wondered if ATF recognized accurate
blending as a problem or would ATF have control over

Mr. George: Not any more than we can enforce.

Mr. Cawley:  We have a gasoline sampling  program.
Field  crews are out  sampling gasoline across  the
country for its  lead content.

Mr. Allsup: Now we need to sample for ethanol.

Mr. Cawley:   We  don't  have an ethanol  sampling
program now.  We could certainly consider one.

Mr. George: I  believe any will equipped commercial
laboratory could perform  the tests. Our headquarters
laboratory has the equipment to perform these tests.

Dr. Scheller:  I was just going to say on this matter of
whether the producer is putting in 10 percent alcohol in
the fuel. In many states,  the Bureau of  Weights and
Measures would have that responsibility.

Mr. Mournighan: The same sort of thing is going on in
unleaded gas and leaded gas, right now. It is an easy task
to transfer unleaded gas into a leaded tank. The is why
we have the state inspection system.

Mr. Dial: Apparently the cut-off pointforthe low on-the-
farm alcohol producer is 5,000  gallons per year?

Mr. George:   Right. According to the Administrative
Action Plan in  the proposed legislation.

Mr. Dial: It seems like that is right at the level the average
farmer might be producing.  What was the criteria for
choosing 5,000 gallons  per year say rather than 10,000.
To go to 10,000 would meanthatthefarmerwould not be
considered as an on-the-farm experimental  plant.  It
seems like you are willing to cooperate with the farmers
in this. If you move the  5,000 gallon limit up you would
just exclude an awful lot more producers and probably
not really lose any tax. Is there still a chance of that being

Mr. George:  Yes,  I believe we could raise the limits
because they are not imposed by statute only suggested
by an Administrative Action Plan.  We would probably
have to show good cause to Congress and the public
why we raised the minimum amount,  but I think we
would  be  perfectly  legal under  the  Administrative
Procedures Act.

Under the rulemaking procedure we will issue proposed
regulations to  implement the new  law.  I would advise
anybody who takes a serious  interest in this to take the
time and submit written commentsto us. Wecan include
these  comments  as testimony in  the public record to
 possibly justify why we are raising the 5,000 proof gallon

 Mr. Dial: What is the timing on the new legislation?

 Mr. George:  S  1200 and H.R. 4215 were introduced
 around May 22,1979 and as of now I don't know how far
 the bills have progressed. Before, I believe we had some
 discussion  concerning  completely denatured alcohol
 formulas,  especially denatured  alcohol formulas.  I
 believe  Dr. Scheller  mentioned some fact about the
 permit system.  Just  briefly,  I want to talk about the
 controls ATF has over the specially denatured alcohol
 formulas; I believe Dr. Scheller talked about formula 28-

 Mr. Lawrence: That is right.

 Mr. George: Right now someone could use a mixture of
 alcohol  and gasoline and call it specially denatured
 alcohol. But both the producer and the user would come
 under the  permit  system in order to use specially
 denatured alcohol in gasoline.

 Specially denatured alcohol is also used in hair sprays,
 shaving lotion, mouthwash, etc. So if someone wanted
 to use specially denatured alcohol  in the production of
 gasohol the paper work could be much more than it is
 now with the experimental DSP permit.

 If  ATF can get a new  completely  denatured alcohol
 formula CDA 19 including only a mixture of gasoline and
 alcohol, this will preclude any body having to qualify and
 obtain a permit as a user of specially denatured alcohol.
 In essence, the  completely  denatured alcohol route
 avoids a lot of paperwork.

 Mr. Lawrence:   Do you  know  why the  southwest
 Alabama's  Farmer  Cooperative  Association took the
 specially denatured alcohol formula 28-A and then they
 denatured it further?

 Mr. George: Well, I think they made CDA-19 out of it.

 Mr. Lawrence: No. They came out  with a  half gallon of
 MIBK or TBA. Five gallons of  methanol and five gallons
 of gasoline.

 Mr. George: Right.

 Mr. Lawrence: I wonder why they would have to take a
 specially denatured formula  that is already approved
 effective for gasoline use and then denature it further?

 Mr. George: I think tlrey wanted to avoid the paper work
and expense of the  industrial users permit system. ATF
 is  trying to  get the completely  denatured  formula
changed. We have been holding discussions with our lab
to see if a mixture  of gasoline and alcohol would not
jeopardize the revenue. The latest information I have is
that the lab will approve of the formula change.

 Mr. Lawrence:  That seems that will alleviate a lot of

 Mr. George:  Oh, yes, it should make it much easier.
Earlier, I think there was a question about who must
denature  the  alcohol  and I  believe I  said  that the
producer of the alcohol must  do the denaturing before
using it as a fuel. I also believe there was some comment
about  a commercial  still  making  approximately 95
percent alcohol, however, I have seen a little higherthan
that, up to 97  percent without an anhydrous column.

There are one or two commercial 96" column stills in the
San Joaquin Valley of California. One has a rectifying
column which was on top of another rectifying column.
A second column was the aldehyde column and it stood
off to the side. This still produced 194 proof. The other
was a 96" column divided in sections instead of having
the columns one on top of the other. Both stills would
produce alcohol at 194 proof.

So far, information that we have on solar stills is not very
encouraging,  they don't seem  to heat the  distilling
materials to a high enough temperature to get high proof
products. The best information that we have is they can
produce 60 and 100 proof which is not high enough.

Dr. Scheller: The place that some of these lower proofs
might be used, such as 160 proof would be in the dual
fuel diesel lines, that I mentioned, where you carburate
the alcohol. Then you don't have things mixed and you
don't worry about phase separation and standing in the
tank.  Jerry Allsup, I am sure, could comment on the
effect of  additional  water on the  performance of the
diesel engine.

Mr. Allsup: No, we have had no experience on  using
alcohol in diesels, especially  with the amount of water
you are  talking  about.  One of the main problems,
though, is using it in tractors, where air-fuel mixture can
 be controlled. It  is a pretty good idea. But using it in
carburetors, where there are  no controls,  you have to
depend on the carburetors doing the controlling, it has
to be set up for that specific fuel formula. It can't be set
up to  run on  low proof alcohol and  then use a higher
proof  alcohol.


                                  GASOHOL COMBUSTION
                                   Richard Lawrence, EPA Motor Vehicles
                                Emission Test Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Just  a  word of background;  our  reason for getting
involved with the Gasohol Program was that, as most of
you are aware,  EPA regulates in-use fuel additives. We
ran a test program on 11 cars and Jerry Allsup, down in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma, ran  10 cars. In addition to that,
Southwest Research, one of our contract labs, ran  a
couple  of cars  and  Research Triangle Park ran a few,

The data that I am going to present  is  from our test
program in Ann Arbor. What we found is shown in this
first slide (Figure E-1). I will just go through the data
briefly,  so you can get an overview. We tested 11  cars.
Four of them  had  three-way  catalytic converters on
them. There were two GM cars; a Regal and a Sunbird,
and two Ford vehicles; a Bobcat and a Thunderbird.
There were  seven  cars with oxidation catalysts;  a
Toyota, two General Motors vehicles, two Chryslers and
two Fords.

The tests showed the percent change in emission that
resulted from the use of Gasohol as com pared to the use
of base gasoline.  Gasoline used was summer grade
gasoline. The gasohol was  made by adding 10 percent
ethanol  to the  base gasoline.  What we see  here with
carbon  monoxide is a decrease in about 33 percent
overall  on those fuels.
Dr. Scheller:
  What  is  the  significance  of this
Mr. Lawrence: The three-way catalytic converters which
have oxygen sensors were trying to compensate for the
change in air/fuel ratio that occurs when alcohol fuel is
used. The  converters in  two Ford  vehicles did  not
compensate for the change in air/fuel ratio.
Mr. Ortman:
Was  there no  adjustment  made in the
Mr. Lawrence: That is correct. The cars were provided to
us by the manufacturers and they all had somewhere
around 4,000 to 15,000 miles on them. We verified that
they were in good operating condition,  properly tuned
up, and we just made a gasoline run; then added gasohol
and made  another  run.  We  tried to  simulate field
conditions in order to determine changes in emissions
and fuel economy.

The next slide (Figure E-2) shows a decrease in exhaust
hydrocarbons of about eight percent. The two Chrysler
vehicles showed the  largest decrease.

The  next  slide (Figure  E-3)  looks at evaporative
hydrocarbon  emissions  and  here  we  see  a  large
increase. Now evaporative emissions occur during two
periods of time; one, when the fuel in the fuel tank is
allowed  to  be  heated  from  an  overnight  soaked
temperature, in  this case  60  degrees to a daytime
temperature of 85 degrees. This is simulated. We call this
a diurnal emissions test and it simulates the overnight

We also ran a hot soak test and this simulates a car which
is allowed to stand for one hour upon completion of a
driving cycle.  We measured emissions  during that
period of time. We saw about the same increase. The
combustion of the two is shown in this slide. Basically,
there  is  a  62  percent  increase  in  evaporative
hydrocarbon emissions on a 3.3 trips per day basis. So
this would be like on diurnal test, an equivalent of 3.3 hot
soaks, which is an average number of hot soaks.

Mr. Dial:  What is the reason for the Thunderbird low

Mr. Lawrence:  The  Thunderbird happened to be an
experimental car. It  had two charcoal cannisters in
series. The other cars were production cars. The graph
shows the effect  of the increased vapor pressure in the
fuel or in the front-end volatile components.

Mr. Mournighan:  Is  there a significant difference in
hydrocarbon emissions between the emissions from the
tailpipe and those from combustion?

Mr. Lawrence: Yes.  From the tailpipe, emissions are
given in grams per mile and  from the evaporative tests,
they  are given  in grams.  So these  emissions  are
expressed in different units. I combined them on an
equivalent grams-per-day basis and the result is an 18
percent increase.  The  decrease  from the  exhaust
hydrocarbons  combined  with the increase  from  the
evaporatives results in a net increase of hydrocarbon on
a grams per  day  basis.

In the next slide (Figure E-4) the oxides of nitrogen also
increased. The average of all these vehicles comes out
as a  six percent increase.

Dr. Scheller: Are  these observations consistent with the
paper Jerry Allsup presented out in Asilomar? Wasn't
there a reduction in oxides of nitrogen on  the vehicles
that were tested?

Mr. Allsup: That  is a very interesting question. The data
is consistent with the same  data that we generated on
another ten car fleet that Dick Lawrence talked about.
Also, previous to that, we had completed studies on a
seven car fleet. In that program we did not do the diurnal
portion of this bill.

Dr. Scheller: I'm  referring to the nitrogen oxides rather
than the heat differences.

Mr. Allsup: I know. But we did not measure the oxides of
nitrogen  and so the cannisters  were not artificially
loaded. In most tests the NOx was reduced. I believe the
reduction was due to the  test  procedure employed
rather than the vehicle selection or the fuel.

Mr. Lawrence: In the emission studies, we observed that
the aldehydes increased.

This slide (Figure E-5) shows a percent change from the
base  fuel,  fuel  economy.  It worked out  with  the
commercial gasohol,  compared  with  the commercial
gasoline base fuel, as  a 1.6 percent decrease on a miles
per gallon basis. This agrees with the other four or five
papers which included fuel  economy measurements
that were presented atthe International Symposium. It is
in general agreement  with most data that  I have seen.

Dr. Scheller: It is in disagreement with the Nebraska two
million mile road test program, tests that are being run in
Thailand, test that have been run in Illinois, and tests that
were run in Iowa some 40 years ago.

Mr. Lawrence: What test are you referring to in Illinois?

Dr. Scheller: The Telephone Company Test, where the
company emperimented with a small fleet, and the
results were  reported by  the Illinois Department of

Mr. Lawrence: I have the data from the Illinois Bell Fleet
and I  also talked to the people who ran the program.
Their  intent in running the test program was due to the
fact that  Illinois Bell this year is on an 80 percent fuel
allocation. They wanted to see what 10 percent ethanol
would do to their maintenance program.

In the fleet that they used for their recent gasohol study,
15 vehicles average mileage performance was  better
than that observed in  1977, where 9.6 thousand miles a
year was 1972 where 39,000 miles were travelled; there is
no way to compare different fleet performances where
there  is a five year difference in models.

Dr. Scheller: Also, data published by General Motors by
Brinkman, Palucci  and others at the  SAE meeting in
Detroit in 1975, when considering their data for road
speeds of 140 miles per hour, found that there was a 10
percent increase in fuel economy using gasohol.

Mr. Lawrence:  I think that  we have  to be careful in
evaluating any of these tests that report fuel economy. I
feel that  fuel economy depends  upon typical driving
patterns for a specific fleet of cars as  observed on the
road.  I think there may be  problems in evaluating fuel
economy tests where the tests were performed on the
EPA Driving Site.

I guess what I want to say is that, based on data that I
have seen and data that I have, I am not ready to accept
the statement that fuel economy decreases with the use
of gasohol.

Dr. Scheller:  I still, and  I will repeat,  I still have never
 seen  data that says you can get better economy with
 gasohol. You mentioned the Illinois Bell Fleet and you
 have  looked into that. You mentioned the  Nebraska
 study and I would really like to see that data.

 Mr. Lawrence: There is not a single statement that says
 99  percent  probability of a five  percent  increase in

 Mr.  Koken:   Were  there studies  made  where  the
 carburetor was adjusted to optimize performance?

 Mr. Lawrence:  No. We did not do any of that, for this
 program. We were just trying to see what would happen
 without any  changes. I think the fuel economy per se is
 not really the key issue. The difference in fuel economy
 is very close. The average person would not notice a 1.6
 percent or aJwo percent difference in fuel  economy.

 Mr.  Cawley:    What  is  the  reliability  of  these

 Mr. Lawrence:  The ability to  consistently repeat the
 same miles per gallon performance is on the order of a
 couple of a  tenths of a  mile per gallon, and the data
 shown here was obtained on commercial gasohol versus
 commercial  gasoline.

 We repeated the tests using indolene, which is our
 standard test fuel, versus the commercial gasoline. The
 indolene we tested contained 10 percent ethanol and we
 found the same approximate results.

 Mr. Cawley:  You don't think that two percent difference
 is within the noise level of the test?

 Mr. Lawrence: No, in fact in those tests which showed
 percent reductions (1.9, 2.2, 3.9), the Toyota did  come
 out 2.2 percent higher. This is the only test that resulted
 in that much improvement.

 Mr. Berg:  You have any explanation for that?

 Mr. Lawrence: No. The next slide (Figure E-6) is a basic
 summary of all of that data. It shows the decrease in
 hydrocarbons  to be 30 percent; decrease in CO, 33
 percent; decrease in NOx 6.4 percent; fuel economy
 decreases 1.6 percent; diurnal breathing loss, which was
 the first part of the evaporative tests,  increased 61
 percent; hot soak loss of 62 percent. When we combine
 all of the hydrocarbons on a 3.3 trips per day basis, the
 hydrocarbon level is up 18 percent.

The conclusions, as shown in this slide (Figure E-7), are
that the alcohol fuel that we used in the test program
decreased carbon  monoxide significantly,  decreased
fuel economy slightly, and has a potential for increasing
photochemical smog as exists in such areas as Los
Angeles and Denver.  This is due  to increased total
hydrocarbon,  NOx  and increased aldehydes. These
emissions all form oxidants which cause photochemical -

It may be advantageous to use the gasohol seasonally; in

other words, during the winter time when there is not a
photochemical smog problem. It may be possible to
properly blend the alcohol into the gasoline to better
match  the  volatility  characteristics  for  marketable
gasoline in a specific area that has a high hydrocarbon

Dr. Coffin:  Is there any data on the  influence of the
alcohol on the combustion engines?

Mr. Lawrence: I don't  know.

Dr. Coffin: I was wondering aboutthe increase in NOx. I
had  heard  that  the  combustion  temperature was
reduced by the  addition of alcohol. If that were so, it
seems the NOx level would come down; however, your
data shows it went up. Should the carburetor mixture be
enriched when using alcohol?

Mr. Lawrence: Theoretically, yes.

Dr. Coffin:  So your car was not running at the proper
carburetor adjustment?
Mr. Lawrence:
It was  running  at the manufacturer's
Dr. Coffin: The car was adjusted for gasoline and not for

Mr. Lawrence:  Which is the way people will  use the
gasohol in the field. They are not going to change main
mixture jets when using gasohol  so we performed the
tests in such a way as to determine what would happen
when the average person begins to use gasohol.

Dr. Coffin: Apparently the carburetors were set lean?

Mr. Lawrence:  Yes, about half an air/fuel ratio.

Dr. Coffin:  Have you  made any radiation  studies of
gasohol exhaust to determine NOx formation?

Mr. Lawrence:   No,  I  haven't.  We did not  do gas
chromatographic (GC) analysis.

Dr. Coffin: I think it would be a good idea to run  a GC
profile on the hydrocarbon emissions. The hydrocarbon
might be significantly different in gasohol exhaust than
in  gasoline exhaust.

Mr. Dial:  In regard to the Thunderbird which  had the
special cannister arrangement  — do you know  if the
cannister had performed  as  well  with gasohol  as
compared to straight gasoline?

Mr. Lawrence: The test results indicated two cannisters
were needed  with gasohol  in  order to  meet exhaust
emission standards.

Mr. Dial:   It is  very  expensive  to put the additional
cannister on a car, and it is only potentially effective with
Mr. Lawrence:  You  are right. But in addition to the
cannister, you  also  need to be assured  that the
evaporative emissions that come off the carburetor float
area get through the  cannister.

Mr. Dial: Do you have  any idea what it costs for that extra
device on the car?

Mr. Lawrence: No, and most  of the cars will  not have
them  and therefore,  cannot meet  the standards. This
device is basically a flapper in the air horn that forces
any evaporative emissions to go through the cannisters.

Mr. Ortman:  Is the carbon cannister adequate  to totally
remove all of the evaporative losses from the cars?

Mr. Lawrence:  It is  designed so  that the cars using
indolene fuel can meet the standards to which they were
designed, whether it be six grams or two grams of vapor
loss.   The   standard was  designed  as  available
technology standard  indolene fuel  in  mind.  Certain
gasolines will lose more than six grams, while others will
lose much less. So the device is  specifically of a standard
design for use with the indolene fuel.

Mr. Berg: Why do you assume that a car which  normally
runs  on  gasoline, tuned  for  gasoline,  couldn't use
gasohol and meet the emission standards?

Mr. Lawrence:   Because  the way gasohol  becomes
available to the consumer is that the station just starts
selling it. Somebody drives into a station and says fill it
with gasohol. They are not going  to  go back to their
dealer and say you have to change the main jets. They
might try to make a carburetor adjustment, which is only
an idle adjustment. It  is not likely, however, that people
are going to go back and try to do major adjustments to
their systems.

Consider, for example, the Brazilian study, where the
cars used up to  20 percent methanol,  but the cars sold
there are set up quite  rich so that they can compensate
for differences in fuel. When using 20 percent methanol,
the car is running a little bit lean,  but when using
gasoline, the mixture is rich.  The same thing would
happen with  gasohol. When  the  car is adjusted for
gasohol,  it  is running fine. When  using  gasoline, the
mixture becomes very rich and emissions increase.

Mr. Berg: What if gasohol  becomes our national fuel?

Mr.   Lawrence:    You  mean  10  percent   gasohol

Mr.  Berg:   Right. Then what would happen to the
national fuel economy?

Mr. Lawrence:   I believe that by  the time that would
happen,  gasohol  would  most   likely  become our
standard gas fuel. But from every indication I get, that is
a long way down the road.

Mr. Berg: We do not  have the alcohol  production. What

would that do to overall fuel economy? What would itdo
to the overall emissions?

Mr. Lawrence:  Fuel  economy on a miles per gallon
basis, I do not know. There probably would be a slight
decrease.  I still can claim that because there is  less
energy there. A gallon of ethanol has two-thirds the
energy gasoline has. That is one-third loss; 33 percent
loss at 10 percent; it should be a 3.3 percent loss using
gasohol. When 100 percent methanol  is  used, if  you
make  adjustments to  the  engine,  increase  the
compression ratio to whatever, 13 to 1 or so and change
the carburation, I think it needs a 6.8 to 1 ratio, methanol
demonstrates 52 percent of the energy of gasoline  and
yet I  think there is perhaps 65 percent improvement in
the fuel economy.










                                      Figure E-1

                       CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS

                              Fuel: 90% Gasoline = 10% Ethanol
                                               OXIDATION CATALYST
                                      Figure E-2

                          HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS

                              Fuel:  90% Gasoline + 10% Ethanol
                                                OXIDATION CATALYST




*    90

yj    so
LU    70
m    60

O    50

s    40
z    30

O    20



                                         Figure E-3

                            EVAPORATIVE  EMISSIONS
                                 Fuel:  Gasoline +  10% Ethanol
               THREE-WAY CATALYST
                                                    OXIDATION CATALYST









                                           Figure E-4

                        OXIDES OF NITROGEN  EMISSIONS
                                Fuel:  90% Gasoline + 10% Ethanol
              THREE-WAY CATALYST
                                                   •OXIDATION CATALYST-







                                Figure E-5

                          FUEL ECONOMY

                          (carbon balance method)
                      Fuel: 90% gasoline + 10% ethanol
                                       OXIDATION CATALYST
          70 -
                                       Figure E-6

                             Fuel: 90% Gasoline + 10% Ethanol

                Figure E-7
        • Increases Total HC Emissions
        • Increases NOx
        • Increases Aldehydes

                              POTENTIAL HEALTH  PROBLEMS
                                      WITH FARM ENERGY
                              David L. Coffin, Health Effects Research Laboratory
                                    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
The idea of using alcohol for fuel appeals to me possibly
because I  am  a  winemaker  and  come  from  the
Southeastern states which  are  said to constitute the
moonshine belt.

Incidentally, I read  in the Wall Street Journal the other
day that a farmer in Minnesota constructed a workable
apparatus for the production of alcohol at  a cost of
$15,000. Possibly his success and low  cost may  be
attributed to the fact  that he  had an  ex-Alabaman
moonshiner for a consultant.

I  agree, however,  with  the previous  speaker that
moonshining is a dying art. The cost of fuel and sugar
make it currently unprofitable. Seriously, there has been
much talk of making alternate  fuels  for a number of
years, but the idea of using alcohol as a fuel in itself, or as
a gasoline extender, has caught  the popular  fancy
probably  because  it  is  the  one fuel  now  being
considered which can be made at the grassroots with
materials readily at  hand and  with quite  low capital
expenditure. This is certainly not the case with shale oil
or fluidized coal which are terribly  complex, capital
intensive and far  beyond the scope of all but the greatest

The  subject of  this  conference is gasohol and the
possible role of the individual farmer in producing his
own fuel from grain  or other materials present on his
farm. The  appeal  here  is that it would   make him
independent of the unpredictable shortages of fuel at
harvest  or planting  time, and  utilize his  surplus  or
damaged grain for this purpose. Furthermore, it appeals
to him as something  which  he can accomplish himself
without  governmental handouts.

The  potential toxicity of the production of alcohol for
fuel and its blending to gasohol should be considered at
once so that any pitfalls which may be present can be
obviated without delay.  The potential  points  to  be
considered are as follows:

There is potential toxicity to cattle or other livestock
from feeding residues from  fermentation and distilling.
Here should be considered such  factors asfungal toxins
from  spoiled grain  or from herbicide or  pesticide
residues. It would  appear that  most of  the facts are
known,  and a  literature and feasibility study of these
problems by  individual  contractors can   be  made
economically.  If health  problems are  found  to  be
associated  with  the  waste  from on-the-farm alcohol
'production,  it  is possible that  an alternate route of
handling the waste is  feasible, perhaps by  means of
anaerobic fermentation to methane and its use as a fuel
for the stills.

There is  a potential problem with combustion products.
While  little  or  no toxicity should  arise  from  the
combustion of pure ethanol, its addition to gasoline may
lend new combustion problems not due to the alcohol
itself, but to its enhancement of pollutants in effluents
derived directly  from  gasoline  or altered  gasoline
combustion products. A previous speaker has indicated
that  preliminary  data  from EPA, Ann Arbor,  shows
increased  total Hydrocarbon emissions due  to direct
gasohol evaporative losses. This is apparently brought
about by the alcohol altering the vapor pressure of the
fuel.  According  to the  same  speaker,  Ann  Arbor
combustion  data also  indicated an  increase  in  the
tailpipe  emissions  of   nitrogen oxides.  These
observations may have considerable toxicologic import
since it is well known that hydrocarbons and nitric oxide
are the essential chemical precursors of photochemical

In- the gasohol  case, we must  determine why these
perturbations of gasoline effluents are present; and will
they contribute to an overall deterioration of air quality
to the  extent  that gasohol-powered  cars  exceed
gasoline-powered  cars in  this  respect. In   order to
incriminate the hydrocarbon emitted from a  gasohol-
powered vehicle, it will be necessary to specifically
analyze chemically.

Additionally, the diluted exhaust should be subjected to
light irradiation and studied for oxidant formation and
characteristic photochemical  plant damage. If these
steps show oxidant formation, it will be necessary to
perform animal  exposures. The reported  increased
nitrogen oxide is  somewhat of a poser. According to the
molecular structure of alcohol, it should  combust at a
lower temperature and thus emit lower nitrogen oxide.
However,  it  is possible that an  air/fuel  ratio set for
gasoline combustion is sufficiently lean for gasohol so
that   increased  nitrogen  oxide would  result  from
incorrect air/fuel mixture.

There is a potential health problem with polynuclear
hydrocarbons. At this time, we do not know what effect
the admixture of ethyl alcohol will have on the tailpipe
emissions of potentially carcinogenic or mutagenic
compounds  which might  either  be  augmented  or
diminished in gasohol combustion.

There is a direct toxicity of gasohol fumes to man. It has
been pointed out that the addition of alcohol enhances
evaporative   losses  from  gasoline.  If  such   were
significantly increased  from tanks,  filling stations and
especially alcohol/gasoline blending facilities, there is a
possibility workers in  proximity to these operations
might receive enough exposure  to  low  molecular
weight  volatile  compounds  present  in gasoline to
experience symptoms of dizziness, nausea, and the like
when on the job. These factors should receive attention

particularly in the face of the fact that benzene, an acute
toxicant  already present in  gasoline  and suspect of
being associated with leukemia in low-and long-term
contact,  may  be added to alcohol as a dehydrating

Toxicological  studies are recommended on gasohol
utilization of brewers and distillery yeasts as stock feed.
Agriculture colleges  and veterinary schools should be
contracted to study the following:

a.  Possible toxicity  due to mycotoxins or herbicide or
insecticide residue in stillage fed to livestock.

b.  Advisability of feeding wastes wet  or expending
energy to dry them.

c.  Initiate an  engineering  study to determine  the
energy economics of feeding wastes to livestock versus
utilizing the waste for fuel to operate a still, i.e., through
the anaerobic production of methane.

Gasohol  may possibly  contribute to photochemical
smog. Repeated engineering studies should be made on
emissions,  particularly  reactive  hydrocarbon  and
nitrogen  oxide for gasohol (10% alcohol, 90% gasoline).
If these prove to be still  elevated, proceed as follows:

Set up engine dynamometer studies as indicated below
utilizing  most efficient  carburetor or fuel  injection
adjustments for each. Vary concentration of alcohol and
gasoline  approximately as follows:










Chemical comparisons should be made of evaporative
losses, hydrocarbon profile,  NOx emissions and other
pollutants from each  set. if, as expected, chemical
parameters differ, the emissions should be diluted and
irradiated in a photochemical smog setup.

Irradiated emissions  should  be examined  for  smog
parameters including  oxidant,  nitric  oxide, nitrogen
oxide and peracyl nitrate. Sensitive plants ought to be
exposed  to  irradiated  exhaust  and  examined  for
characteristic smog lesions. If the above studies indicate
toxicity, experimental animals should be exposed in an
infectivity system. All results with gasohol combustion
emissions should  be compared with straight gasoline
combustion emissions.
Gasohol  combustions  may possibly contribute to
mutagenic or carcinogenic exhaust content. Particulate
and vapor phase effluent should be collected from both
irradiated and nonirriated  cooled  exhaust.  Sentinel
carcinogenic  compounds  should  be   monitored
chemically,  and  examined  by  the  Ames Test  for
biological evidence of mutagenesis.

There is no question concerning the feasibility of the
combustion of alcohol as a fuel for motor vehicles. It
would appear that alcohol  production is economically
feasible at present fuel prices and that it can, if widely
adopted, result in  a considerable savings in imported
petroleums. Feed stocks for the production of  alcohol
are ubiquitous. These include not only the use of grain,
as in the subject of this conference, but agricultural
wastes such as straw, corn stalks,  forest waste, and
crops especially grown for this purpose.

While it is immediately practical to use ethyl alcohol as a
gasoline extender, as in the 1 to 10 ratio for gasohol, it
may  well  be  that,  in  light of  the  possibilities  of
alcohol/gasoline interaction to form toxic products, it
might be a  good  idea to  consider  other mixtures,
possibly some mixture of alcohol or gasoline, may very
well not only produce a savings of exported petroleum,
but tend  to  reduce toxic  products from automobile
emissions. The plan presented above should  develop
information  on which to base such decisions.

Studies   should be undertaken  to  accomplish  the

a.  Insure maximum effective use of waste products for
stock feed.

b.  Determine  the  least  polluting  mixture  of
alcohol/gasoline which is feasible for use in presentand
future internal combustion engines.

c. Check  possible  toxicity for  gasohol handlers at
blending stations  and service stations  to  determine
safety regulations if required.

The use of alcohol as a substitute fuel should be of great
interest to EPA for the following reasons: Alcohol can be
made from  renewable  resources, much of  which are
being wasted today. Compared to  shale  oil  or coal
extraction, its production is relatively nonpolluting. The
technology is fully developed and can be applied quickly
to the  fuel  problem. Finally, most  important to  our
Agency, it provides hope for a cleanerfuel than gasoline
for automobile use. In order to realize this potential, an
integrated engineering and health effects program such
as outlined above needs to be implemented, so that we
not only can achieve a viable substitute for petroleum,
but a net gain in our vehicular pollution problems.
                            I think that is about all that
                            entertain any questions.
                          have to say. I would like to
                            Mr. Ortman:  Dr. Coffin, I do not think there is anyone
                            that is here who  would  dispute  that aldehydes  are
                            increased. Would you address the issue of the toxicity of


Dr. Coffin:  Yes. Aldehydes could be a pollution factor,
depending upon their concentration. I do not know what
levels of aldehydes have been observed.

Dr.  Scheller:   Published data  on the  increase  of
aldehydes from  gasohol compared to the unleaded
gasoline show aldehyde levels to be very small.

Mr.  Allsup: I  find that to be  the general opinion. The
work  we  have   done  suggests  that  aldehydes are
destroyed by  the catalysts used in  the combustion  of
exhaust hydrocarbons.

Dr.  Scheller:  I have another comment I would like  to
make on  this concern about air pollution. I  think one
thing  that we have to remember is that our gasoline
market is based on a certain number of miles a car is
driven each year. We should not get into the controversy
of whether gasohol gets more or less miles per gallon;
for the sake of this discussion we will just assume that it
gets the same miles pergallon. Then the refineries in this
country will refine 10 percent less  gasoline. I do not
know if you have any opinions on what this will do to the
quantity of crude oil  needed, but we will produce  10
percent less  gasoline,  which  could  mean that the
refineries will be putting fewer pollutants into the  air. I
think  we  need to consider the total impact the use  of
gasohol will have on  the environment. We need to see
whether producing alcohol and adding that to gasoline
does or does not have an overall net  beneficial effect on
the environment. We  should  not just be concentrating
specifically on the tailpipe of the automobile. We should
look at the total environmental impact.


                               ENERGY AND ECONOMICS OF
                                   GASOHOL PRODUCTION
                               Robert Mournighan, EPA Industrial Environmental
                                    Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
I  think this is  going to  wind-up as being more of a
summary than anything else, because of the information
that has been developed here so far.

I see a major environmental issue that is associated with
on-the-farm alcohol production, and Dave Coffin has
brought up a number of other issues such as, burning
the crop waste and coal as fuel. This all is assuming that
we get away from using liquid fossil fuel to provide the
energy to make the ethanol from grain for gasohol. So,
we have a problem  of widespread use of coal  as the
process steam.

We would have to develop controls for hydrocarbon
emissions,  wastewater  treatment  and also for the
fugitive emissions if we are going to use the distillation
process for making alcohol.

We  also  have  the  typical  wastewater  problems
associated with beverage alcohol plants. We have the
solid  waste  from  the  boiler and  ash  from  the
precipitate rs. Possibly from the use of high sulphur coal,
we may  have an  sulfur dioxide  problem. We have
wastewater plant sludges and process waste, depending
on the kind of waste treatment  process in  use.

The automotive emissions seem to be in  debate. The
question is whether or not we  have lower automotive
emissions; as far as carbon monoxide is concerned, yes
we do.

Taking the beverage alcohol as the base for making 200
proof, I would like to go over so me process development
goals where we could  reduce  the  amount  of  energy
needed to produce the alcohol. We would have to use
the lower  energy processes in the feed stock. The
energy feed stock would have  to be something other
than fossil fuel. But to get to the replacement of 100 or so
billion  gallons a year of gasoline by gasohol, we would
need an increase in alcohol fermentation capacity to 35
million gallons per day. This represents about 500 plants
producing 70,000  gallons  of  alcohol  per day. We
estimate that the capital required for this would be eight
to ten million dollars, depending on how fast we are able
to go.

The increased  capacity through the next five years
would  probably require  five billion dollars  more. We
need to assess the economic environmental impact to
make sure we are going in the right direction and we
need the continuing Federal and State  commitment to
keep us on the  right track. We have the four cents a
gallon Federal tax taken off gasohol, so that is a step in
the right direction, at least to set up the gasohol industry.

The first slide (Figure G-1) is a block diagram. You have
seen  this  before.  It  was  shown  in  the  Radian
presentation.  It shows the collection of the feed stock
and  hydrolysis  processes.  The  fermentation  step
requires cooling. Distillation, purification, dehydration
and blending of  gasoline requires a large  amount of
energy.  The main thing that concerns us here is the
ability to reduce  the amount of energy to produce the

This was just a suggested scheme to do just that; mash
from fermentation could be fed to a freeze concentrate
(Figure G-2).  The solids from the process could go to
produce methane, a  fuel for the process heat which
would  go into the  extraction step of alcohol  with
gasoline, removing the alcohol from the water that is left
after distillation;  if further dehydration is needed, it is
possible to distill the  mixture, strip the water out of the
gasoline and alcohol, and obtain a 10 percent gasohol

We have sort of a laundry list of things that can be done
to reduce  the  cost of producing ethyl alcohol. These
include: vacuum  distillation  (Figure G-3), lowering the
temperature   of  the  feed  stock  and  conversion
processes,  the  use  of freeze  concentration  and
extraction. These steps would eliminate distillation. The
use of gasoline rather than benzene in the dehydration
step is a possibility. As stated before, benzene is a very
toxic  compound  and  should be  eliminated in  the
dehydration  process. It is  possible to eliminate the
dehydration step and  use the 190 proof alcohol as the
summer blend with gasoline.

Drying solids  accounts for  50 percent of the energy
inputed into the process. If we turn around and make it
into an energy producer, we  are heading in the right
direction. If it is competitive with gasoline we are headed
in the right direction.

Does gasohol  improve engine performance (Figure G-
4)? Some say yes,  some say no. The Nebraska two
million mile test indicated,  I believe, a  3-6 percent
increase in mileage with a five percent increase on the

Mr. Lawrence: There is an  increase in mileage in the
Nebraska two  million mile test but not in performance.

Mr. Mournighan: Right.

Mr. Lawrence: Granted, gasohol increases octane in the
fuel and also  improves the car's performance.

Mr.  Mournighan:    We need  to  know  what  the
environmental problems are. Some of these problems
are shown in this slide (Figure G-5). What is the current
commercial status? I touched on that. What are the steps
needed to gain wide  acceptance? The main thing is to

show that gasohol is a good quality fuel. The next slide
(Figure G-6) gives a comparison based on the wholesale
price of gasoline  and the current cost of ethanol at 200
proof at $1.40 a gallon, and 190 proof at $1.30 a gallon.
This is taking into account the removal of the four cent
excise tax on gasoline-alcohol blend. The current price
of gasoline on the wholesale market becomes 52 cents a
gallon; adding the  13 cent tax, brings the total to 65

The higher octane content of the ethanol reduces the
octane requirements of the gasoline used for blending.
A penny per gallon  can  be saved when a lower octane
gasoline is used for blending. Using 200 proof alcohol in
blending, there is a contribution  of 45.9  cents from
gasoline (90 percent of  51), 14 cents from  the alcohol
portion and 9 cents for the tax. The state tax is  an
average  nationwide.  When  190  proof is used  for
blending the price  is 67.9 cents versus 65 cents for
regular gasoline.

Making the comparison on wholesale price eliminates
all  the  variables  that are  inevitable when including
transportation, marketing and retailing. I think it shows
that if OPEC is going to cause another four cent to six
cent rise in gasoline, it will take about $1.00 a gallon on
the wholesale level before gasoline prices will be equal
to the market price  of gasohol.

Mr.  Berg:   How  about  the quantity? Gasohol looks
competitive and  everything, but  what percent can we
really expect to see in the marketplace, let's say by 1985,
by 1990? Even if OPEC prices  go up,  we still can't
produce the quantity of alcohol needed  over the next
few years.

Mr. Mournighan: I think that is why the Federal and State
governments are offering assistance.

Dr. Scheller: If we are to take the grain which is not being
produced on the set-aside  acreage, there would  be
sufficient grain to  produce two and one-half (2.5) billion
gallons of ethanol, which could make 25 billion gallons
of gasohol.

Mr.  Lawrence:  Two and one-half billion  gallons of
ethanol  is  roughly  two   percent  of  our  energy

Dr. Scheller: I don't care what percent of theenergy it is,
in grain producing areas of the nation, it would let us
produce two and a half million gallons of ethanol, which
would be 25 million gallons of gasoline consumption. So
we have the potential, just from the set-aside acreages,
of converting 25 percent  of our fuel needs into gasohol,
if we had the  ethanol plants on line to produce the
alcohol. Now to look at utilizing  some of the  surplus
crops such as  sugar and other starch crops and bring
them into the picture, there is created a current total of
about four  billion  gallons  of ethanol  which  could
conceivably  be  produced   in this country  without
invading the food and feed markets. Four percent of our
gasoline consumption can be obtained by converting 40
percent of our fuel requirements to gasohol. Since 1971
Nebraska has always considered the gasohol program
as a regional program for the starch and sugar crops
produced in the various farm areas of this nation. I don't
expect to see many alcohol crops raised in Nevada. I do
expect  to see  alcohol  crops  raised  in  Plattsville,
Nebraska, Iowa and Louisiana.

Mr. Lawrence: How fast could we build 500 plants?

Dr. Scheller: I think we should be moving very rapidly in
building plants capable of producing 50 million or a 100
million  gallons per year of ethanol, which means  we
would  need somewhere under 100 plants of this large
size capacity.

Mr. Mournighan:  Well, the reason that I  mentioned
70,000 gallons a day was that this size plant would be
adequate for regional locations, and we need about 500
of these plants.

Mr. Lawrence:  Well, how  long does it take to build a
plant?  If this country puts its mind to it, could  we build
500 plants in two years, five years?

Mr. Mournighan: Well, it takes 12 to 18 months to build a

Dr. Scheller:  Yes.  Bowling Brothers of America claim
they can build a  plant from scratch in 18 months.

Mr. Lawrence: Can they build ten plants in 18 months?

Dr. Scheller: Well, this is the question. I do not know how
our fabricating shops stand right now, in terms of work
loads. The program is certainly going to depend on what
the overall capital construction is in the nation.

Mr. Lawrence:   It  looks  like plant construction is a
relatively long-term approach, in other words, it will be a
few  years  before we can  replace  our  gasoline
consumption with alcohol.

Mr. Mournighan:   There is also  a  lot  of  process
development that has to be done. Gasoline, you know, is
90 percent of gasohol. The ethanol price can change an
awful  lot, but the relative  difference in price  between
gasohol  and  gasoline  is   not  going   to  change
appreciably. The real critical factor is the price of the .
alcohol. If the price can be reduced by 10centsagallon,
that would be a big help.

Dr. Scheller: Well, in a 100 million gallon a year plant, of
course there is some economics  of large scale. Please
do not confuse the market price of $1.09 per gallon of
fuel grade ethanol  with the cost of production.

Mr. Mournighan: Exactly.

Dr. Scheller:  This is  all  the  market will bear. Their
production costs are way down.

Mr. Mournighan:  That is just $1.40 or $1.30 straight
alcohol, wholesale price.

Dr. Scheller: Incidentally, in that 190 column (Figure G-
6) you do not have 10 percent alcohol. You have 9.5
percent alcohol and 0.52 percent water.

Mr. Mournighan:  Right.

Mr. Berg:  I was wondering  where do you think we are
going to get this 30 to 40 cents per gallon production
cost which comes out to about 25 percent cost savings?
Where are the engineering opportunities for that?

Mr. Mournighan: That is what I was just outlining. I think
by judicious engineering, the price can be brought down
by almost 30 cents a gallon.

Mr.  Berg:   So you  think there is a 20 or 25 percent
flexibility in the cost of production?

Mr.  Mournighan:  I have no hard data to  back  up, but
considering energy costs only and not including the
cost of the grain, I heard a number quoted as 70 cents a
gallon as the  wholesale price for ethanol.

Mr. Sheil:  I think you are referring to the reduction in
energy requirements during  production and that you are
talking about  using some kind of petroleum or coal fuel.
What about the refuse derived fuel which costs  as high
as $50 a ton? Where does that  come in, or where will  it
come in?

Mr. Mournighan:   Yes, fuel can be derived from the

Mr. Sheil: Well, the cellulose converts to sugar, and can
serve in the energy production requirements. Steam can
be generated  from refuse derived  fuels; I saw nothing
about that in your presentation. I am certain you can get
a tremendous amount of trade-off using refuse fuels
though there  would  not be   a reduction  in  energy

 Mr. Mournighan:  We do not want to  use fossil  fuels.

 Mr. Sheil:  The use of fossil fuels can be avoided and a
 refuse derived fuel  can be  a spinoff from solid waste

 Dr. Scheller:   There is something  else we should not
forget in this cost analysis which is the fact that gasoline
 is already subsidized to the consumer. Theexact figures
 may be debated by some people who may feel it is as
 much  as  20  cents per gallons.  Again,  I say to the
consumer,  not necessarily to the oil company,  it is not
fair to expect  that alcohol should  compete  without
subsidy in a fuel system that is  already subsidized. So, I
think we should include in the cost some subsidy for the
alcohol as being theirfairshareof subsidy. Furthermore,
there could be a re-allocation of  subsidies in  the set-
aside program for this year which is costing 1.6 billion
dollars. If this sum had been given as an alcohol  subsidy
to permit the  farmer to produce full tilt, that would have
been  64 cents a gallon, or two  and one-half billion
gallons of alcohol production. That would have done a
lot for the economics.
Mr. Mournighan: Yes. My main point in showing this is
that it is the worst case.

Dr. Scheller:  I agree.

Mr. Mournighan: It is the worst case, and it looks pretty

Dr. Scheller:  Yes.

Mr. Mournighan:  I think with the right steps it will be
more competitive.

Dr. Scheller:  I agree  with you.

Mr. Lawrence:  You said there is 20 cents a gallon of
gasoline subsidy somewhere. If I read that correctly, that
is four cents a gallon for gasohol, which is 40 cents a
gallon on ethanol. So it seems like there is already some

Dr. Scheller:  Yes. That is right.

Mr. Mournighan: There is a choice of using lower proof
alcohol or 200 proof alcohol which amounts to 3.9 cents
difference before the  cost is  added in.

Mr. Struzeski: This is not the cost of actually producing
alcohol. This is  the cost of alcohol on the market.

Mr. Mournighan:   Right.  If  you were a blender,  for
example, this is what you would have to pay.

Mr. Struzeski:  How firm is the $1.40 per gallon for 200
proof or 190 proof?

Mr. Cawley: That is not projected, but that is the price.

Mr. Struzeski:   What would it cost me to set up and
produce ethyl alcohol?

Mr. Mournighan:  Twenty-nine million  dollars for 20
million gallons a year roughly.

Dr. Scheller: Yes. Thirty  million dollars for a twenty
million gallon  per year plant.  The conversion costs
would  probably be around 35 cents per gallon. For a 20
million gallon a year  plant, the conversion costs which
consist of utilities, labor, maintenance, supervision and
overhead,  property taxes, insurance and  chemicals
would  run about 35  cents  per gallon  of anhydrous
ethanol. Then the net grain cost, which is the cost of the
grain minus the in come from the by-product, cattle feed,
would  be  in the order of 40 cents per gallon of alcohol
produced. At that point, net grain costs, plus conversion
costs, a re about 75 cents a gallon. Out of this you have to
add any  profit,  corporation  taxes and ,  depending on
how you  handle depreciation of capital  recovery,  you
have to put in a line  for that. But, there  are marketing
costs which are relatively small because of selling large
volumes to a few customers. So this, depending on all of
the assumptions made, amounts to a dollar a gallon of
alcohol with a  12 to 14 percent rate of return on the
capital investment.

 Mr.  Struzeski:    Does  this take  into  account
 environmental factors such  as waste treatment? As I
 have seen different sets of cost figures here, that is why I
 am having difficulty coming back to the$1.40 per gallon.
 I am wondering if the waste factor  has been included in
 these cost estimates.

 Dr. Coffin: I would like to make a few comments, if I may,
 concerning the costing. I think we get too hung upon the
 cost. What cost are we talking about? It seems to me the
 most important thing is the energy balance. What is it
 going to be if we have to pay that muchforgasohol, what
 is it—we are not getting enough of petroleum so we have
 to get something else. It seems to me that there are
 several  factors. One is that petroleum is not truly an
 economic  factor;  either  we  have  been  stealing
 petroleum for  many, many years with very low costs or
 now we are paying what it is worth and complaining
 about  it.  Actually,  petroleum is  a  very  valuable
 commodity when  it is in short supply.

 We have to have alternate energy sources. This country
 has got to have fuel to exist as it does now. So where are
 we going to get it? We want to get it from alcohol, we are
 going to get it from shale, we are going  to get it from
 coal. Now it is alcohol, I am not saying it is competitive
 with petroleum, because  petroleum is subsidized.  It
 maybe competitive with  coal, or it may be competitive
 with shale.  I think  it is  competitive with these  fuels;
 furthermore, I  do  not think we should make the mistake
 in this country again of trying to get one big system that
 runs everything. We are going to have to have a variety of
 energy sources.

 We are  going to have to have alcohol, we are going to
 have to have oil shale. We are going to have to have coal
 and  God knows what else liquified, if we are going to
 meet our energy needs. I think that the small matter of
 balance of dollar  bills here or there in the long  run is
 going to be very small. It is not going to be worth arguing

 Mr. Mournighan: It is like arguing about the mileage, the
 differences are not worth arguing  about.

 Dr. Coffin: Yes. Because a dollar spent overseas is more
 significant to  our economy than a dollar  spent in
 America.  We   must  not  discount the  balance of
 payments, inflation and all these  other  factors. So,  I
 think that these are very small matters that  we are talking
 about. We have to get this show on the road with these
 alternate fuels.

 Mr. Thornton:  I have heard it claimed that it takes more
 energy to make ethanol than we can get back out.  Is
 there any  truth to that?

 Mr. Mournighan:  It all depends on  where you start. Has
 anybody done an analysis for  gasoline? How  much
 energy does it take to make a gallon of gasoline and is it
 worth it?

Mr. Thornton:  I have no idea.
Mr. Mournighan:  I think that is the subject Dr. Scheller
has discussed many times, and it is really notfairto start
arguing about difference  in cost, when as Dr. Coffin
says, the point is that we must get away from using the
very  thing we are trying to avoid using,  which is
imported liquid fuel as a feed stock to make the ethanol.

We can use alternate energy sources, like refuse derived
fuels. If natural gas ever comes in a big supply again, we
can use coal.  As long as we get away from the very thing
we are trying to avoid, which is using imported liquid
fuels, we can use alternate energy sources.

Mr. Thornton: The plans for making ethanol on  a large
scale  right  now  all  involve  using  fuel other than
petroleum to  provide the energy to make the ethanol.

Dr. Schetler:   May  I give  a very concrete number, a
process design, careful  process design, including  the
recovery facilities to optimum level have a fossil fuel
energy  requirement of 70,000 BTU's  per  gallon  of
ethanol produced. The energy content of the ethanol, if
it is  a fuel grade content of ethanol is about  84,200
BTU's. So alcohol can be made utilizing less energy than
the energy obtained from alcohol produced. The fossil
fuel content of energy  in corn is about 46,000 BTU's per
gallon of fuel produced.

The energy content of the distiller's grains and cattle
feed  by-products, as  digestable energy, used by  the
cattle is about 40,000 BTU's. So the overall net effect on
this is that there is a total net energy going over all fossil
fuel that is used in making alcohol.  This is not the key
area, we need an energy balance on the whole system.

We are comparing the energy  consumption  for a
gasoline  system  with  the  energy consumption for a
gasohol system and right there you start off by replacing
one gallon of petroleum with a gallon of alcohol.

Then there is  the energy credit, which is obtained when
you put all of this together, including octane effects an
heat production effects. Remember, when you compare
gasoline with  gasohol the same amount of heat must be
produced in both cases, in  order to compare the overall
energy balance. There is a saving on the order  of one
gallon of petroleum for every gallon of alcohol  that is
substituted for the gallon of gasoline resulting in a net
savings of one gallon of gasoline.

Mr. Mournighan:  I have seen figures on methanol from
coal. Just using the coal input to methanol conversions
plant, it takes two BTU's of coal to produce one BTU of
methanol fuel. That does not take into account  the
energy  used  in  gathering  and  mining  the  coal,
transporting the coal, etc. It seems there is always a loss
of energy in transformation.

Mr. Berg:  Just one other  question,  Dr. Scheller. How
many BTU's does it take to produce a bushel of corn?

Dr. Scheller: About 46,000  BTU's to produce a bushel of
corn and the energy in  a  bushel of corn is  2.6 times

46,000 or 120,000 BTU's.

Mr. Berg:   So to produce the corn requires  120,000
BTU's. I  calculated only 46,000.

Dr. Scheller:  No, no, no. I am considering fossil fuel
energy,  that  is,  fertilizer,   insecticides,  herbicides,
running  all the machinery and everything else. In fact,
there is  even  a little  bit of energy included in human
labor.  It is 120,000 BTU's per bushel. Now to get back to
estimating  cost,  we  know that  the  Farmer's  Union
National Newsletter  had  a  comparison showing the
effect  of increased gasoline  prices  on the  cost to the
consumer;  they had  assumed two  fuel  levels,  one a
certain number  of miles  per gallon and the other a
certain amount of driving per year. Gasoline prices came
out at the first fuel level, $450 a year and at the other fuel
level $620 a year — fuel costs. The difference is $170 per
year or 50  cents a day which is not something that is
going  to make me leave my car in the garage if I want to
go somewhere. This is the situation  with most people.
We are so tied to mobility that we become accustomed to
having the automobile and are  quite willing to pay for the
gasoline. We are willing to pay more for it in the future
than we  are paying now.

Mr. Dial: We are talking about 500 alcohol plants. The
production of  alcohol from ethylene  which is obtained
from oil was in 1977, about 305 million gallons per year.

The ethylene which is a feed stock from oil  is what we
want to avoid.  I was trying to present a case  of going to
production  of alcohol from  grain  equivalent  to the
production of ethylene from  oil. The  present alcohol
production is 85 million gallons;  we need to replace a
100 billion gallons a year of gasoline with gasohol which
is roughly 12 percent of the quantity  needed. We would
have to increase from 85 to 12,000 -- that ratio.

Dr. Scheller: No, that is 12 billion gallons of gasohol, 1.2
billion gallons of alcohol.

Mr. Dial: To replace the whole  market of gasoline, which
I believe was also quoted earlier as 100 billion gallons a
year, right?

Dr. Scheller:  So  10  billion  gallons of  alcohol  would
convert the whole gasoline market to gasohol, right?

Mr. Dial: Right. But the production  two years ago was
only 85 million gallons. We would have to get up to 12
billion gallons per year. That  is a  large order.

Mr. Mournighan: We look at it from our own little area of
interest. We should cooperate with other agencies. Now
we  have  developed  programs  of  environmentally
acceptable  methods  of  waste  disposal. We  have
developed  programs  for the  utilization  of agricultural
wastes in the oil fuel program and in the wasted fuel area
and analyzed the socioeconomic effects of gasohol and
development on policy of  the grain  markets.

There  is one quote that I remember: "If we went  to the
bone to  replace the gasoline with gasohol, we would
 have enough distiller's dry grains to feed ten times the
 number of cows we have here.''

 Dr. Scheller: Yes, I know. But you know, people make
 these statements  and they  do  not  throw  in  the
 appropriate fiscal  handbooks  and find out how many
 head of cattle there are.

 Mr.  Mournighan:   I think in  order  to  make  ethanol
 production self sufficient, we would have to use grain as
 a source, or grain waste as a source. We could develop a
 program to use the distillers grains as an energy source,
 by converting it to methane, as Dr. Coffin suggests.

 Dr. Scheller: I have seen so many gasohol reports come
 out where all the report writer has done is to read the
 previous report. This is chased around and around and
 now there is all  kinds of misinformation in those reports.
 If  they  had just gone back to the basic information
 sources, rechecked their  numbers, they would have
 found out that  in a number of these reports there are
 figures that  resulted from mistakes in copying.

There is an engineering firm that builds alcohol plants;
has a long history of  building them and has  many of
them  in  operation in South  America and Europe. They
will guarantee a plant that will operate on 74,000 BTU's
per gallon of alcohol produced. Furthermore, they will
sign  a contract  saying that if it does not operate at that
fuel economy they will take, at their own expense, all
steps necessary to bring about that economy.  This is a
subsidiary of the Austrian government and the financing
is by the Austrian government which is behind them.  I
have seen the detailed heat exchanger,  arrangements
for the deep recovery facilities in that plant. I have 10
years of experience myself in the oil industry in process
design and  development. It works. There is no doubt
about it. Just prior to  1973 nobody had any economic
interest in  recovering energy. I think on the other hand,
 there is one  company out in the east which claims to be
 able  to make alcohol at 20,000 BTU's per gallon. That is
starting  with milled grain.  They are claiming this on a
 corn-based plant doing a milling operation in front of the
 alcohol  plant.  They do not count any of the milling

 Mr. Scarberry:  A purified  dextrose is  their feed stock
 from corn.

 Mr. Mournighan:  So  that is misleading to say 20,000
 BTU's per gallon. The 74,000 is based on starting with
 corn grain.

 Mr. Scarberry:   But then  what they are proposing is
 probably the right way to go about it.

 Dr. Scheller: Georgia  Pacific does that in the state of
 Washington. Alcohol is produced from waste derived
 from the sulphide paper plant.



275° F


80° F

                       Figure G-1
                   ALCOHOL BLEND

                       Figure G-2
    80° F
                                   WITH GASOLINE
                            TO METHANE


                  PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

                         Figure G-3
                         Figure G-4



                          Figure G-5

             UNLEADED        GASOHOL        GASOHOL
             GASOLINE        (200 Proof)        (190 Proof)

GASOLINE         52              45.9*              45.9
ALCOHOL           0              14.0              13.0

TAX              13               9.0               9.0
                 65              68.9*             67.9*
    CAN BE USED (51$)
                          Figure G-6


                                   BIOMASS TO ALCOHOL
                                             Charles J. Rogers
                                Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                                              Cincinnati, Ohio
Researchers have been seeking for more than 150 years
to find economical ways of turning cellulosic wastes into
fuels and chemical feedstock to stave off shortages.
Many scenarios  envision  the  use of wood chips, old
newspapers, municipal sewage and agricultural wastes
as sources of inexpensive raw  materials. Conceptually,
conversion of such materials into energy or into more
usable forms of fuel offers the potential  for reducing
dependence upon  foreign sources  of energy while
helping solve waste disposal problems.

The   ORD  Municipal   Environmental  Research
Laboratory   in  Cincinnati  has  been   investigating
methods of converting cellulosic waste into alcohol for
use with gasoline in the production of gasohol. The most
promising  approach  involves conversion of  waste
cellulose to  glucose by the acid hydrolysis process,
followed by conventional glucose fermentation to ethyl
alcohol.  The results of  experiments  at the EPA-New
York University 1 ton/day acid  hydrolysis pilot plant
indicate that this approach may be more cost-effective
than  production fo alcohol from grain or other sources.
                                                            _^ 2C2H5OH  + 2CO2
                                                 Enzymes  Glucose  Yeast     Ethyl
                                                                   Enzymes  Alcohol
                                                EPA-supported  experimental  investigations  on  the
                                                dilute acid hydrolysis of waste cellulose to glucose have
                                                been conducted at the Department of Applied Science
                                                of New York University (NYU) over the past four years.
                                                The waste  cellulose feedstock  employed  in  these
                                                studies was primarily used in newsprint.

                                                Initially, the hydrolysis experiments at NYU were carried
                                                out  in  a  1-liter  stirred  autoclave  equipped  with
                                                appropriate  accessories  including  electrical  heating
                                                units and  a quick-discharge ball valve removal of the
                                                reaction mixture from the autoclave after hydrolysis.
                                                The data  obtained  with  the  1-liter stirred autoclave
                                                reactor experiments  were analyzed to  determine the
                                                glucose yield at various reaction conditions. This  work
                                                was followed by additional testing  in a 5-liter stirred
                                                autoclave reactor.
 Chemically, ethyl alcohol is the common name for the
 hydroxyl derivative of the hydrocarbon ethane:
                 H— C— C— OH
                  Ethyl Alcohol

 Most industrial  grade ethyl alcohol  produced in the
 United  States  is of synthetic  origin.  The  chemical
 process for  industrial  grade  ethyl  alcohol  involves
 production of ethylene by the sulfuric acid process:
   H H
\-\-C  = XC-H
Sulfuic Acid
              H H
          Ethyl Alcohol
Ethyl alcohol used  in beverages is  produced through
fermentation of  carbohydrates such as  molasses and
grain.  Starches and molasses are easily converted by
enzymes to glucose. Glucose is biologically converted
(fermented) by  yeast  to  ethyl alcohol. The glucose
conversion is represented in the equation below:
The  batch-scale hydrolysis experiments showed that
glucose yields up to 50 percent or more of the available
cellulose  can  be  obtained.  The  optimum  reaction
conditions were found to be temperatures of around
220° C   230° C and  reaction times of  less  than  30
seconds,  with  about  1  wt%  of  sulfuric  acid.  These
conditions agree rather  well with the results  of the
kinetic rate studies previously reported by Pagan and

In  the course of the  EPA-NYU  studies,  several pre-
treatments for  the  waste newspaper  feedstock were
investigated  in  the  hope   of  improving  cellulose
conversion to glucose. The most effective pretreatment
was  hydropulping and irradiation. The irradiations were
carried out at ambient  temperatures and in the presence
of   air  with   a 3MeV   Dynamitron  electron  beam
accelerator. Irradiation dosages  ranging from 5 to 50
megarads were investigated and the 10 megarad dosage
was  selected as the most cost-effective. The combined
costs of this hydropulping/irradiation pretreatment are
conservatively  estimated  at 0.3    1.1  cents/lb.  waste
cellulose  feedstock. Figure H-1 shows the significant
improvement in the glucose yield obtained by irradiating
the hydropulped waste cellulose.

The  irradiation treatment was  accomplished  rather
simply. Slurries of hydropulped waste newspapers were
placed  in  polyethylene bags and the bags were heat
sealed.  Each  bag contained  about 20  pounds  of
hydropulped waste newspaper slurry of known cellulose

 concentration.  The bags  were  then  placed on  a
 conveyor that moved past the beam of the Dynamitron
 electron beam  accelerator. The total dosage per pass
 was 5 megarads.

 The  EPA-NYU  work  includes  investigation  of
 continuous processing technology for industrial-scale
 conversion of waste cellulose to glucose. From this part
 of the study emerged a continuous waste-cellulose-to-
 glucose pilot plant  with a capacity of one ton per day.
 This  pilot plant will utilize hydropulping, irridiation for
 pretreating waste cellulose feedstock, and  a  reactor
 device for continuously reacting pretreated cellulose in
 an aqueous slurry at suitably elevated temperatures.

 Figure  H-2 is a schematic  of the Werner & Pfleiderer
 ZDSK53 (53 mm) twin screw extruder, selected because
 of its capacity for conveying, mixing and extruding the
 required amounts of cellulosic feedstock. This machine
 allows accurate control of  temperature,  pressure, and
 residence time  and  temperature during  intensive

 For   continuous  processing, the  extruder  must  be
 coupled with a feeding mechanism forcellulose  slurries
 and   a  discharge system for reacted material, while
 maintaining pressure and temperature in the reaction
 zone. A steam-jacketed crammer-feeder made by
 Werner & Pfleiderer was integrated with the twin screw
 extruder  to maximize  throughput  with preheating  as
 required. A Kamyr  intensive-service 2-inch ball valve
 (Kamyr  Valve Company, Glens Falls, New York) was
 selected as the major component for the design of the
 discharge system. Other ancillary equipment includes a
 high  pressure steam generator for supplying energy to
 the reactor, an acid pump capable of high pressure
 injection  of acid, and  a slurry pump for  introducing
 feedstock into the crammer-feeder.

This equipment was installed at NYU's Antonio Ferri
Laboratories. Figure H-3showsafloorplan ofthefacility
which includes space for pulp storage, routine analysis
and an office.

The  shakedown of this  continuous acid hydrolysis
system  has been completed and optimization studies
are continuing. Even though the study has achieved a 50
percent  conversion of cellulose to glucose,  further
experiments  are   underway  to   optimize  reaction
conditions for maximum glucose yields.

In 1978,  Kendrick, et al. estimated that ethanol costs
about $1.56 a gallon to produce, assuming  that one
bushel of corn yields 2.6 gallons of ethyl alcohol, and
that the cost of producing corn is $2.27 a bushel. The
$1.56  includes the cost of transforming a bushel  of corn
into ethanol and the cost of the distillers' dried  grains.

Ethyl alcohol produced chemically fromethylenecostis
15$ per pound, the  cost to produce a gallon of ethyl
alcohol  is $1.00 (cost of ethylene at 60
Mr. Rogers:  There is some fibrous material remaining
after hydrolysis. This fibrous residue may be recycled to
produce more sugar.

Dr. Scheller:  One of the by-products left over from the
acid  hydrolysis  or  enzymatic  hydrolysis process  is
legume. During the war in Germany, actually starting in
1933,  the  first acid hydrolysis  plant was built using
Schoeller  process,  which  is high  temperature,  low
concentration sulfuric acid  hydrolysis of wood.

Mr. Rogers: The residue can be put into a form known as
macroporous, which has the ability to denature certain
compounds processed through it. There was a doctoral
thesis done in Germany, as I recall, at the University of
Munich which appeared in a  German pharmaceutical
journal which indicated that this microporous material
had properties similar to those of antibiotics.

The  co-inventor of the Schoeller process, Rudolph
Eichelmeyer, lives in Munich and I had an opportunity to
spend a few days talking with him about this process,
and of course, one of the things he pointed out was that
he believes this microporous has properties  similar to
antibiotics and that this could solve a lot of the problems
of using antibiotics in conjunction with meat production
 if these animals can  be given microporous instead.
This could reduce a potential hazard to the humans.

lam very interested in promoting a  mobile unit  acid
hydrolysis demonstration program  in the agricultural
community of Region VII in Fiscal Year 80.

          Hydropulped/leradiated (10 mr)
                           Acid = 0.87%
                        Acid = 2.25%
40    50
       Percent glucose yield vs. reaction time
       for acid hydrolysis of paper at 450° F.

                     Figure H-1

                                    Seven Access Ports

                                    1  acid injection
                                    1  steam injection
                                    4  temperture measurement
                                    1  pressure measurement
          Dynamic —M
          Plug         |
   - Reaction Zone -

                Schematic of the twin screw acid hydrolysis system.
                                     Figure H-2                    —
                     I Hydraulic
Ventilation Exhaust


       Crammer/' Twin screw     I
       Feeder      Reaction Chamber
                                    Ball Valve


Analytical Lab


i >.
1 ~a
1 c
1 ^0
1 ^
^ § Of

                                              William A. Cawley

I don't think I will make any futile attempts to gather together all of the various thoughts and ideas that were presented
today. Rather, I would like to thank everyone for their help.

This has been a very  useful and  helpful meeting. We seem to be getting more and more of our thoughts together or, at
least, sharing them with one another, which is a very productive way to approach this problem. We are moving very rapidly
into the area of on-the-farm energy, which is going to require increased activity on the part of our agencies. I suggest that
we give serious thought to another meeting of this type in the reasonably near future, possibly on a larger scale, so tr at we
can broaden the  inputs.  This we hope will result in a coordinated  government effort, rather than separate efforts by
different agencies.

In closing, 1 wish to thank you all very much for an excellent meeting.