September 25, 2006
With the decline in domestic oil production and continued strong increases in oil demand, the U.S. is more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. America imported 12.9 million b/d in 2004, or about 63% of total consumption of roughly 20.5 million b/d. That is up from 35% in 1973. The share of imported oil is projected to grow to close to 70% by 2020, with the United States becoming increasingly dependent on Persian Gulf supply. U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf are expected to rise from 2.5 million b/d (22% of total U.S. imports) in 2003 to 4.2 million b/d (62%) by 2020, according to forecasts by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Future U.S. oil consumption is centered squarely in the transportation sector which represents more than two thirds of total petroleum use and will constitute over 70% of the increase in demand.
In light of this expected rise in transportation fuel demand and in the wake of the aftermath of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, American policy makers have become acutely aware of the need to appear to be offering long term strategies that would prevent gasoline shortages in the future and to lessen America's vulnerability to oil supply shocks from abroad. As debate on the issue emerged in the media and among specialists, the problem of decades of underinvestment and an ongoing shortage of refining capacity in the United States has become more widely understood. Public discussion of the state of the U.S. refining industry focused on two elements: the difficulties of expanding domestic capacity to meet rising U.S. gasoline demand and the possible dangers of having so much U.S. refining capacity concentrated in one geographical region that is vulnerable to weather-related disruptions.
Biofuels has been suggested as an environmentally friendly means to supplement the U.S. transportation fuels supply system. Today, the United States produces 254,000 barrels a day of ethanol, mainly from corn, almost as much as Brazil, which produces 275,000 b/d of sugarcane-based ethanol. However, current U.S. ethanol production is but a small fraction of the 9.1 million barrels a day of gasoline fuel used in the United States today.
The major obstacle to expanding the role that biofuels can play in the U.S. transportation system is the lack of infrastructure. American car makers have expressed a willingness to increase production of flex-fuel cars that can run on ethanol fuel. However, current U.S. ethanol production is concentrated in the Midwest region and difficulties remain with the ethanol distribution system in other parts of the country. Of the 563 E-85 ethanol fuel pumps in the U.S., over 45% of them are located in two states, Minnesota and Illinois. Archer Midland Daniels controls about 25% of the ethanol producing market share, with the remaining production distributed among 97 biorefineries owned by various, mainly smaller entities.
Thanks to the generous 51-cent-per-gallon federal tax credit for ethanol refiners and blenders, as well as the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff placed on imported ethanol, the domestic ethanol industry is booming and is being touted as a viable U.S. alternative fuel of choice. Despite its public prominence, however, critics question whether corn-based ethanol is the best choice among the options for biofuels and other non-petroleum based alternatives. Some scientists and economists question whether corn-based fuels offer a less efficient energy balance than other alternatives because corn-based ethanol requires a large expenditure of energy to produce.
Still, ethanol fuels are on the rise in the United States, bolstered by regulations that require it to serve as a cleaner substitute to former gasoline additive MTBE, whose use is being phased out because of concerns its widespread distribution was creating a danger to groundwater.
Other biofuel alternatives currently under consideration in the United States include soybean-based biofuel and cellulosic ethanol produced from switch grass or wheat straw. Although these fuels are thought to be more efficient than corn-based ethanol, the benefits of soybean biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol still face several limitations. Soybean biodiesel is said to generate 93% more energy than is required for its production, yet per acre it produces only one-seventh the amount of fuel that corn-based ethanol is currently yielding. Cellulosic ethanol is thought to have the most long-term viability and has the added benefit of using a non-foodstuff source, yet this alternative is far from cost-effective using present technology. Investment is also increasing in facilities to produce biodiesel fuel from waste oil and oil-rich plants as well as ethanol produced from agricultural waste. All these options present opportunities to diversify the U.S. fuel system.
The variety of alternatives raises many questions regarding the relative cost-effectiveness and feasibility of the various sources for biofuels and other commodity chemicals that can be produced from biomass materials.
The "Biomass to Chemicals and Fuels: Science, Technology and Public Policy" conference is aimed to investigate the potential for biofuels to contribute to U.S. energy security and to highlight the research and development of new technologies and scientific breakthroughs needed to make biofuels a viable alternative to oil based fuels. This conference is also part of a broader campaign to reinvigorate public interest in the physical sciences. A bipartisan effort to address our energy security dilemma through revolutionary technologies could generate an excitement and idealism similar to the one that swept the nation - and particularly our young people -- during the height of the space program in the 1960s and 1970s. The conference, organized by the Baker Institute and the Rice Department of Chemical Engineering and the Energy and Environmental Systems Institute, will bring together policy-makers, scientists, opinion-shapers, and business leaders to showcase potentially revolutionary breakthroughs in the biomass area.
To view webcast details, view the Rice University Webpage.
Kirstin R.W. Matthews , Ana S. Iltis
Apr 23 2021 | Science & Technology Policy
Peter J. Hotez
Apr 22 2021 | Center for Health and Biosciences