United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 7
324 East Eleventh St.
Kansas City Mo 64106
EPA-907/9-79-005
October, 1979
Office of Research & Development
&EPA
Proceedings of the
Environmental Evaluation
Gasohol® Production and
Health Effects Seminar
Co-Sponsored by the
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF "GASOHOL" PRODUCTION AND
HEALTH EFFECTS
PROJECT OFFICERS
James W. Mandia
EPA Region VII, Kansas City, Missouri
and
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
by
Charles H. Hajinian, Director of
Office of Research and Development, EPA
Region VII, Kansas City
and
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
by
Dr. William A. Scheller, Professor of
Chemical Engineering, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska
D-Page31-36 Department of Treasury Regulations
Farm Production of Alcohol
by
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
by
Dr. David L. Coffin, Senior Research
Advisor, EPA Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Energy and Economics of Gasohol Production
by
Robert E. Mournighan, Program Manager,
EPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
. Biomass to Alcohol Research
by
Charles J. Rogers, Physical Scientist,
EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio
Page 63
Summary
by
William A. Cawley
-------
PREFACE
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
AGENDA
June 27, 1979
Moderator
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
Break
The Farm Energy Program
Department of Treasury Regulations
Lunch
Gasohol Fuel
Gasohol Combustion Research
Potential Health Problems with
Farm Energy
Break
Energy and Economics of Gasohol
Production
Biomass to Alcohol Research
C. Hajinian
W. Cawley
EPA Region VII R&D
&IERL, Cincinnati
G. Ogle & R. Scarberry
Radian
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
Summary
W. Cawley
-------
ATTENDEES
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
by
Charles Hajinian of R&D, Region VII
and
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,
Cincinnati.
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.
A-9
-------
A-10
-------
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
by
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
industry.
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
activity.
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.
B-11
-------
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
B-12
-------
processes. Where do you see the use of solar energy
your processes which you described?
in
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
restrictions.
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.
B-13
-------
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
fermentation?
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
specified.
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
temperatures?
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,
B-14
-------
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
solids.
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
dryer.
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
pollutants.
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,
B-15
-------
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
operation.
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
Columbia?
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
B-16
-------
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.
B-17
-------
Grain
1
Grain
Preparation
i
i
Sacchari-
fication
— ^
GENERALIZED FLOW DIAGRAM
Fermentation
— *•
Distillation
I
By-Product
Processing
1
Animal
Feed
fr Dehydration
.Alcohol
Stillage
From Centrifuge
Figure B-1
SACCHARIFICATION
Water
Flash Cooler
Condensate
Corn Mash.
Steam-
Enzyme
Figure B-2
Mash To
Fermenter
Mash
Cooler
B-18
-------
DISTILLATION SEQUENCE
< Feed From Beer Well
Stillage To
By-Product
Water
Figure B-3
TYPICAL DEHYDRATION SEQUENCE
95% Ethanol
Solvent Recycle
95%
Ethanol1
Dehydration
Column
Solvent
Makeup
Ethanol
Recovery
Column
•Steam
Figure B-4
Water
B-19
-------
To Cooker
or Fermenter
Centrifuge
t
Solids Stream
From Beer Still
BY-PRODUCT PROCESSING
Evaporator
Hot, Dry Air
Atmosphere
Scrubber
Figure 8-5
DEHYDRATION AND DENATURING WITH GASOLINE
Mash From
Fermenter
Beer
Still
I
Rectifier
J
To By-Product
Processing
Separator
h
Dehydration
Column
Gasoline.
L-^Gasohol
Figure B-6
B-20
-------
Protein and
Fiber-Free
Feed
Yeast <
CONTINUOUS FERMENTATION
Centrifuge
Fermenter
Aerator
Figure 8-7
By-Product
Processing
VACUUM FERMENTATION
Feed.
Yeast-
Total I y
Condenser sn\
r"^
Fermenter
CC-2
By-Product
Processing
Beer
Still
By-Product
Processing
Ethanol/H2O
* To Rectifier
Figure B-8
B-21
-------
BY-PRODUCT PROCESSING
Utilizes a high strength stream
Removes water through centrifugation, evaporation and
drying
Produces a high protein animal feed supplement
Can consume large amounts of energy
Figure 8-9
B-22
-------
THE FARM ENERGY PROGRAM
by
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
irrigation.
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
grains.
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.
C-23
-------
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
concerned.
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
C-24
-------
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
lines.
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
plant.
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
C-25
-------
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
emissions.
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
alcohol.
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
C-26
-------
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
buys.
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
C-27
-------
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
source.
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
C-28
-------
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.
C-29
-------
C-30
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS
Farm Production of Alcohol
by
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
industry.
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
plants.
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
processes.
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
D-31
-------
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
energy.
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
responsibilities.
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
D-32
-------
proposal.
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
D-33
-------
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
it?
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
changed?
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
limit.
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-
A.
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
problems.
D-34
-------
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.
D-35
-------
D-36
-------
GASOHOL COMBUSTION
RESEARCH
by
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,
also.
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:
observation?
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:
carburetor?
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
soak.
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
emissions?
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.
E-37
-------
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
Agriculture.
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
economy.
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
measurements?
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 -
smog.
It may be advantageous to use the gasohol seasonally; in
E-38
-------
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
level.
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:
adjustment.
It was running at the manufacturer's
Dr. Coffin: The car was adjusted for gasoline and not for
gasohol.
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
gasohol.
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
nationwide?
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
E-39
-------
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.
E-40
-------
HI
D
LLJ
W
GO
o
(T
LL
UJ
O
z
<
I
o
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
Figure E-1
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
Fuel: 90% Gasoline = 10% Ethanol
-23
3M
egal
THREE-WAY CATALYST
GM
Sunbird
Ford
Bobcat
Ford
T-Bird
-22
-31
-48
OXIDATION CATALYST
Toyota
Corolla
Buick
Regal
GM
Impala
Plymouth
Salon
Chrysler
Omni
Ford
Pinto
-42
Ford
Maverick
Figure E-2
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
Fuel: 90% Gasoline + 10% Ethanol
OXIDATION CATALYST
«— THREE-WAY CATALYST—I
E-41
-------
120-
110
100
* 90
yj so
LL.
LU 70
co
m 60
O 50
CC
s 40
z 30
O 20
10
0
-10-1
60
Figure E-3
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
Fuel: Gasoline + 10% Ethanol
82
77
69
63
25
THREE-WAY CATALYST
GM
Regal
GM
Sunbird
Ford
Bobcat
Ford
T-Bird
56
OXIDATION CATALYST
Toyota
Corolla
Buick
Regal
GM
Impala
Plymouth
Salon
Chrysler
Omni
Ford
Pinto
Ford
Maverick
S?
_T
LU
LU
co
CD
2
O
QC
I
O
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
Figure E-4
OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMISSIONS
Fuel: 90% Gasoline + 10% Ethanol
26
22
8.7
23
0.5
-0.7
-3.3
-6.7
THREE-WAY CATALYST
•OXIDATION CATALYST-
GM
Regal
GM
Sunbird
Ford
Bobcat
Ford
T-Bird
Toyota
Corolla
Buick
Regal
GM
Impala
Plymouth
Salon
Chrysler
Omni
Ford
Pinto
Ford
Maverick
E-42
-------
5r
4
UJ
D
CO
CO
2
O
DC
U-
LU
<
X
O
-1
-3
-4
-5
Figure E-5
FUEL ECONOMY
(carbon balance method)
Fuel: 90% gasoline + 10% ethanol
THREE-WAY CATALYST
OXIDATION CATALYST
70 -
LU
D
LL
LLJ
CO
<
m
O
IT
U-
LLJ
O
•z.
<
T.
O
-10
-20
-30
-40
Figure E-6
EMISSIONS SUMMARY - ALL VEHICLES
Fuel: 90% Gasoline + 10% Ethanol
64
HC
CO
NOX
FE
DBL
HSL
TL
THC
E-43
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF GASOHOL
Figure E-7
DECREASES CO SIGNIFICANTLY
DECREASES FUEL ECONOMY SLIGHTLY
POTENTIAL INCREASE IN PHOTOCHEMICAL
SMOG
• Increases Total HC Emissions
• Increases NOx
• Increases Aldehydes
ADVANTAGEOUS FOR SEASONAL USE
"BLENDED" GASOHOL MIGHT REDUCE HC INCREASE
INCREASES FUEL OCTANE
E-44
-------
POTENTIAL HEALTH PROBLEMS
WITH FARM ENERGY
by
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
industries.
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
smog.
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
F-45
-------
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
agent.
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:
Alcohol
Gasoline
0%
10%
30%
50%
70%
100%
100%
90%
70%
50%
30%
0%
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
following:
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
F-46
-------
aldehydes?
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.
-------
F-48
-------
ENERGY AND ECONOMICS OF
GASOHOL PRODUCTION
by
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
ethanol.
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
product.
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
average.
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
G-49
-------
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
cents.
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
requirements.
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
plant.
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.
G-50
-------
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
cellulose.
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
requirements.
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
management.
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
good.
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
subsidy.
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.
G-51
-------
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
about.
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
G-52
-------
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
energy.
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.
G-53
-------
DEHYDRATED GRAIN ALCOHOL PROCESS
COLLECTION
OF
FEEDSTOCK
BLENDING
WITH
GASOLINE
FEEDSTOCK
PREPARATION
& HYDROLYSIS
275° F
DEHYDRATION
DF
ALCOHOL
FERMENTATION
80° F
DISTILLATION
&
PURIFICATION
PRODUCT
Figure G-1
ALTERNATE GASOHOL PROCESS
COLLECTION
OF
FEEDSTOCK
FEEDSTOCK
CONVERSION
<275°F
DEHYDRATION
OF
GASOLINE/
ALCOHOL BLEND
Figure G-2
FERMENTATION
80° F
FREEZE
CONCENTRATION
EXTRACTION
OF
ALCOHOL
WITH GASOLINE
SOLIDS
TO METHANE
PRODUCTION
G-54
-------
ETHANOL/GASOHOL
PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
LOWER TEMPERATURE FEEDSTOCK CONVERSION PROCESS
VACUUM DISTILLATION OF ETHANOL
FREEZE CONCENTRATION OF ETHANOL BEFORE DISTILLATION OR
EXTRACTION
EXTRACTION OF ETHANOL FROM WATER USING GASOLINE OR A
THIRD SOLVENT
USE OF GASOLINE (INSTEAD OF BENZENE) IN DEHYDRATION STEP
ELIMINATE DEHYDRATION STEP
ELIMINATE REMOVAL OF IMPURITIES (FUSELOIL, KETONES,
ALDEHYDES, ETC.)
ELIMINATE DRYING OF SOLID RESIDUES
PRODUCE METHANE FROM SOLIDS GENERATED BY THE PROCESS
Figure G-3
GASOHOL PERFORMANCE
• ETHANOL HAS AN "OCTANE" RATING OF 140 COMPARED TO 87-92
FOR GASOLINE
• MILEAGE IS USUALLY 3-6% BETTER
• EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED
• QUICKER, EASIER STARTS, EVEN IN COLD WEATHER
Figure G-4
G-55
-------
MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• BURNING OF CROP WASTE AS FUEL
• USE OF COAL IN PROVIDING PROCESS HEAT
• VOLATILE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER AND
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM DISTILLATION
• TYPICAL WASTEWATER PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH BEVERAGE
ALCOHOL PLANTS
• SOLID WASTE FROM BOILER AND WASTEWATER PLANT SLUDGE.
SOME PROCESS WASTES
• LOWER AUTOMOTIVE EMISSIONS
Figure G-5
JUNE 1979 WHOLESALE PRICE + TAX
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*
'SINCE ETHANOL'S OCTANE RATING IS 140, A CHEAPER CUT OF GASOLINE
CAN BE USED (51$)
Figure G-6
G-56
-------
BIOMASS TO ALCOHOL
RESEARCH
by
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.
Starch
_^ 2C2H5OH + 2CO2
Enzymes Glucose Yeast Ethyl
Enzymes Alcohol
Carbon
Dioxide
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
HrH
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:
Natural
Gas
Chemically,
Processed
H H
\-\-C = XC-H
Ethylene
Sulfuic Acid
Process
H H
H—C-COH
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
Porteous.
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
H-57
-------
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
mixing.
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.
H-59
-------
50
Hydropulped/leradiated (10 mr)
Acid = 0.87%
O
Hydropulped
Acid = 2.25%
10
0
0
10
20
30
40 50
60
Percent glucose yield vs. reaction time
for acid hydrolysis of paper at 450° F.
Figure H-1
H-60
-------
Seven Access Ports
1 acid injection
1 steam injection
4 temperture measurement
1 pressure measurement
Ball
^Valve
Dynamic —M
Plug |
Zone
Dewatering
Dram
- Reaction Zone -
•u
Hydraulic
Actuator
Flushing
Valves
Schematic of the twin screw acid hydrolysis system.
Figure H-2 —
I Hydraulic
Ventilation Exhaust
Extruder
Motor
3
TTT FTT TTT
LI.! LI LI Li
Safety
Shower
Crammer/' Twin screw I
Feeder Reaction Chamber
raulically-Actuated
Ball Valve
Control
Unit
Drying
Oven
Analytical Lab
Balances
Workbench
tfi
i >.
1 ~a
1 c
1 ^0
1 ^
[File"
O)
C ID
^ § Of
-------
H-62
-------
SUMMARY
by
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.
H-63
-------
H-64
------- |