Ethanol fuel in the United States

Blender fuels pump in 2012 selling the standard E10 ethanol blend together with E15, E30 and E85 in East Lansing, Michigan

Ethanol fuel production by state

The United States became the world’s largest producer of ethanol fuel in 2005. The U.S. produced 13.9 billion U.S. liquid gallons (52.6 billion liters) of ethanol fuel in 2011,^[1] an increase from 13.2 billion U.S. liquid gallons (49.2 billion liters) in 2010, and up from 1.63 billion gallons in 2000.^[2] Brazil and U.S. production accounted for 87.1% of global production in 2011.^[1] In the U.S, ethanol fuel is mainly used as an oxygenate in gasoline in the form of low-level blends up to 10 percent, and to an increasing extent, as E85 fuel for flex-fuel vehicles.^[3]

The ethanol market share in the U.S. gasoline supply grew by volume from just over 1 percent in 2000 to more than 3 percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2011.^[1]^[4]^[5] Domestic production capacity increased fifteen times after 1990, from 900 million US gallons to 1.63 billion US gal in 2000, to 13.5 billion US gallons in 2010.^[4]^[6] The Renewable Fuels Association reported 209 ethanol distilleries in operation located in 29 states in 2011, and 140 under construction or expansion as of December 2011, that upon completion, would bring U.S. total installed capacity to 15.0 billion US gallons. Most expansion projects are aimed to update the refinery’s technology to improve ethanol production, energy efficiency, and the quality of the livestock feed they produce.^[1]

By 2011 most cars on U.S. roads could run on blends of up to 10% ethanol(E10), and manufacturers had begun producing vehicles designed for much higher percentages. However, the fuel systems of cars, trucks, and motorcycles sold before the ethanol mandate may suffer substantial damage from the use of 10% ethanol blends. Flexible-fuel cars, trucks, and minivans use gasoline/ethanol blends ranging from pure gasoline up to 85% ethanol (E85). By early 2013 there were around 11 million E85-capable vehicles on U.S. roads.^[7]^[8] Regular use of E85 is low due to lack of fueling infrastructure, but is common in the Midwest.^[9]^[10] In January 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted a waiver to allow up to 15% of ethanol blended with gasoline (E15) to be sold only for cars and light pickup trucks with a model year of 2001 or later. The EPA waiver authorizes, but does not require stations to offer E15. Like the limitations suffered by sales of E85, commercialization of E15 is constrained by the lack of infrastructure as most fuel stations do not have enough pumps to offer the new E15 blend, few existing pumps are certified to dispense E15, and no dedicated tanks are readily available to store E15.^[11]^[12]^[13]

Ethanol production was expected to continue to grow over the next several years, since the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required 36 billion US gallons of renewable fuel use by 2022. The target for ethanol production from cellulosic feedstocks was 16 billion US gallons a year. The corn ethanol target was 15 billion US gallons by 2015.^[14]^[15] Ethanol industries provided jobs in agriculture, construction, operations and maintenance, mostly in rural communities.^[16]

In early 2009 the industry experienced financial stress due to the effects of the economic crisis of 2008. Motorists drove less, gasoline prices dropped sharply, capacity rose and less financing was available.^[17]^[18]^[19]

Historically most U.S. ethanol has come from corn and the required electricity for many distilleries came mainly from coal. Debate ensued about ethanol’s sustainability. The primary issues related to the large amount of arable land required for crops and ethanol production’s impact on grain supply, indirect land use change (ILUC) effects, as well as issues regarding its energy balance and carbon intensity considering its full life cycle.^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25] Recent developments with cellulosic ethanol production and commercialization may allay some of these concerns.^[26]

History

Typical label at the gas pumps warning drivers of ethanol content up to 10%, used as oxygenate additive instead of MTBE. Miami, Florida.

In 1826 Samuel Morey experimented with an internal combustion chemical mixture that used ethanol (combined with turpentine and ambient air then vaporized) as fuel. At the time, his discovery was overlooked, mostly due to the success of steam power. Ethanol fuel received little attention until 1860 when Nicholas Otto began experimenting with internal combustion engines. In 1859, oil was found in Pennsylvania, which decades later provided a new kind of fuel. A popular fuel in the U.S. before petroleum was a blend of alcohol and turpentine called “camphene“, also known as “burning fluid.”^{[citation needed]} The discovery of a ready supply of oil and unfavorable taxation on burning fluid made kerosene a more popular fuel.

In 1896, Henry Ford designed his first car, the “Quadricycle” to run on pure ethanol.^[27] In 1908, the revolutionary Ford Model T was capable of running on gasoline, ethanol or a combination.^[27]^[28]^[29] Ford continued to advocate for ethanol fuel even during the prohibition, but lower prices caused gasoline to prevail.^[27]

Typical manufacture’s warning placed in the fuel filler of U.S. vehicles regarding the capability of using up to E10, and warning against the use of blends between E20 and E85.

Gasoline containing up to 10% ethanol began a decades-long growth in the United States in the late 1970s. The demand for ethanol produced from field corn was spurred by the discovery that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was contaminating groundwater.^[27]^[30] MTBE’s use as an oxygenate additive was widespread due to mandates in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1992 to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. MTBE in gasoline had been banned in almost 20 states by 2006. Suppliers were concerned about potential litigation and a 2005 court decision denying legal protection for MTBE.^{[citation needed]} MTBE’s fall from grace opened a new market for ethanol, its primary substitute.^[27] Corn prices at the time were around US$2 a bushel.^{[citation needed]} Farmers saw a new market and increased production. This demand shift took place at a time when oil prices were rising.

The steep growth in twenty-first century ethanol consumption was driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005required use of 7.5×10⁹ US gal (28×10⁶ m³) of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, to 36×10⁹ US gal (140×10⁶ m³) of annual renewable fuel use by 2022. Of this requirement, 21×10⁹ US gal (79×10⁶ m³) had to be advanced biofuels, defined as renewable fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%.^[15]^[31]^[32]

Recent trends

U.S. fuel ethanol production and imports (2000–2011)^[1]^[33] (Millions of U.S. liquid gallons)
Year	Production	Imports	Demand
2000	1,630	n/a	n/a
2001	1,770	n/a	n/a
2002	2,130	46	2,085
2003	2,800	61	2,900
2004	3,400	161	3,530
2005	3,904	135	4,049
2006	4,855	653	5,377
2007	6,500	450	6,847
2008	9,000	556	9,637
2009	10,600	193	10,940
2010	13,230	10	13,184
2011	13,900	160	n/a⁽¹⁾
Note: Demand figures includes stocks change and small exports in 2005. (1) Exports in 2011 reached a record 1,100 billion gal.^[1]
Graph of monthly production and net imports of fuel ethanol in the U.S. 1993–2012. Data from EIA

The world’s top ethanol fuel producer in 2010 was the United States with 13.2 billion U.S. gallons (49.95 billion liters) representing 57.5% of global production, followed by Brazil with 6.92 billion U.S. gallons (26.19 billion liters), and together both countries accounted for 88% of the world production of 22.95 billion U.S. gallons (86.85 billion liters).^[2] By December 2010 the U.S. ethanol production industry consisted of 204 plants operating in 29 states,^[4]^[6] and 9 plants under construction or expansion, adding 560 million gallons of new capacity and bringing total U.S. installed capacity to 14.6 billion U.S. gallons (55.25 billion liters).^[6] At the end of 2010 over 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the U.S. was blended with ethanol.^[4]

Production[edit]

Most of the ethanol consumed in the US is in the form of low blends with gasoline up to 10%. Shown a fuel pump in Maryland selling mandatory E10.

Beginning in late 2008 and early 2009, the industry came under financial stress due to that year’s economic crisis. Motorists drove less and gasoline prices dropped sharply, while bank financing shrank.^[17]^[18]^[19] As a result, some plants operated below capacity, several firms closed plants, others laid off staff, some firms went bankrupt, plant projects were suspended and market prices declined.^[17]^[18]^[19] The Energy Information Administration raised concerns that the industry would not meet the legislated targets.^[17]^[34]

As of 2011, most of the U.S. car fleet was able to run on blends of up to 10% ethanol, and motor vehicle manufacturers produced vehicles designed to run on more concentrated blends. As of 2015, seven states – Missouri, Minnesota, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington – required ethanol to be blended with gasoline in motor fuels.^[35] These states, particularly Minnesota, had more ethanol usage, and according to a source at Washington University, these states accumulated substantial environmental and economic benefits as a result.^[36] Florida required ethanol blends as of the end of 2010,^[37] but has since repealed it. Many cities had separate ethanol requirements due to non-attainment of federal air quality standards.^[38] In 2007, Portland, Oregon, became the first U.S. city to require all gasoline sold within city limits to contain at least 10% ethanol.^[39]^[40] Chicago has proposed the idea of mandating E15 in the city limits, while some area gas stations have already begun offering it.^[41]^[42]

Expanding ethanol (and biodiesel) industries provided jobs in plant construction, operations, and maintenance, mostly in rural communities. According to RFA the ethanol industry created almost 154,000 U.S. jobs in 2005, boosting household income by $5.7 billion. It also contributed about $3.5 billion in federal, state and local tax revenues.^[16]

The return on investment (ROI) to upgrade a service station to sell E15 is quick given today’s markets. Given ethanol’s discount to gasoline and the current value of RINs, retailers offering mid-level ethanol blends like E15 can quickly recoup their investments in infrastructure. Federal, state and local incentives and grant programs are available in most areas, and would further help reduce the cost of equipment and installation. E15 is a higher octane fuel, it is currently available in 29 states at retail fueling stations. E15 was approved for use in model year 2001 and newer cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles (SUVs), and all flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2012.

E85 vehicles

Typical labeling used in the US to identifyE85 flexible-fuel vehicles. Top left: a small sticker in the back of the fuel filler door. Bottom left: the bright yellow gas cap used in newer models. E85 Flexfuel badging used in newer models from Chrysler (top right), Ford(middle right) and GM (bottom right).

E85 fuel dispenser at a regular gasoline station, Washington, D.C..

Ford, Chrysler, and GM are among many automobile companies that sell flexible-fuel vehicles that can run blends ranging from pure gasoline to 85% ethanol (E85), and beginning in 2008 almost any type of automobile and light duty vehicle was available with the flex-fuel option, including sedans, vans, SUVs and pickup trucks. By early 2013, about 11 million E85 flex-fuel cars and light trucks were in operation,^[7]^[8] though actual use of E85 fuel was limited, because the ethanol fueling infrastructure was limited.^[43]

As of 2005, 68% of American flex-fuel car owners were not aware they owned an E85 flex.^[9]^[10] Flex and non-flex vehicles looked the same. There was no price difference. American automakers did not label these vehicles.^[10]^[44] In contrast, all Brazilian automakers clearly labeled FFVs with text that was some variant of the word Flex. Beginning in 2007 many new FFV models in the US featured a yellow gas cap to remind drivers of the E85 capabilities.^[45]^[46] As of 2008, GM badged its vehicles with the text “Flexfuel/E85 Ethanol”.^[47]^[48] Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that in 2009 only 504,297 flex-fuel vehicles were regularly fueled with E85, and these were primarily fleet-operated vehicles.^[49] As a result, only 712 million gallons were used for E85, representing just 1% of that year’s ethanol consumption.^[50]

During the decade following 2000, E85 vehicles became increasingly common in the Midwest, where corn was a major crop.

Fueling infrastructure has been a major restriction hampering E85 sales.^[43] As of March 2013, there were 3,028 fueling stations selling E85 in the U.S.^[14] Most stations were in the Corn Belt states. As of 2008 the leading state was Minnesota with 353 stations, followed by Illinois with 181, and Wisconsin with 114. About another 200 stations that dispensed ethanol were restricted to city, state and federal government vehicles.^[43]

E15 blend[edit]

E15 warning sticker required to be displayed in all fuel dispensers selling that blend in the U.S.

2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid fuel filler cap showing a warning regarding the maximum ethanol blend allowed by the carmaker, up to E10 gasoline. The warning label indicates that ethanol blends between E15 to E85 shall not be used in this vehicle.

In March 2009 Growth Energy, a lobbying group for the ethanol industry, formally requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow the ethanol content in gasoline to be increased to 15%, from 10%.^[51] In October 2010, the EPA granted a waiver to allow up to 15% blends to be sold for cars and trucks with a model year of 2007 or later, representing about 15% of vehicles on the roads.^[11]^[12] In January 2011 the waiver was expanded to authorize use of E15 to include model year 2001 through 2006 passenger vehicles. The EPA also decided not to grant any waiver for E15 use in any motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles, or non-road engines because current testing data does not support such a waiver. According to the Renewable Fuels Association the E15 waivers now cover 62% of vehicles on the road in the country.^[13]^[52] In December 2010 several groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, filed suit against the EPA in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.^[53] In August 2012 the federal appeals court rejected the suit against the EPA ruling that the groups did not have legal standing to challenge EPA’s decision to issue the waiver for E15.^[54]^[55] In June 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from industry groups opposed to the EPA ruling about E15, and let the 2012 federal appeals court ruling stand.^[56]

According to a survey conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA) in 2012, only about 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles on the U.S. roads in 2012 are approved by manufacturers are fully compliant with E15 gasoline. According with the Association, BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen warned that their warranties will not cover E15-related damage.^[57] Despite the controversy, in order to adjust to EPA regulations, 2012 and 2013 model year vehicles manufactured by General Motors can use fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol, as indicated in the vehicle owners’ manuals. However, the carmaker warned that for model year 2011 or earlier vehicles, they “strongly recommend that GM customers refer to their owners manuals for the proper fuel designation for their vehicles.” Ford Motor Company also is manufacturing all of its 2013 vehicles E15 compatible, including hybrid electrics and vehicles with Ecoboost engines.^[8] Also Porsches built since 2001 are approved by its manufacturer to use E15.^[57] Volkswagen announced that for the 2014 model year, its entire lineup will be E15 capable.^[58] Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced in August 2015 that all 2016 model year Chrysler/Fiat, Jeep, Dodge and Ram vehicles will be E15 compatible.^[59]

Despite EPA’s waiver, there is a practical barrier to the commercialization of the higher blend due to the lack of infrastructure, similar to the limitations suffered by sales of E85, as most fuel stations do not have enough pumps to offer the new blend, few existing pumps are certified to dispense E15, and there are no dedicated tanks readily available to store E15.^[11]^[12] In July 2012 a fueling station in Lawrence, Kansas became the first in the U.S. to sell the E15 blend. The fuel is sold through a blender pump that allows customers to choose between E10, E15, E30 or E85, with the latter blends sold only to flexible-fuel vehicles.^[60] This station was followed by a Marathon fueling station in East Lansing, Michigan.^{[citation needed]} As of June 2013, there are about 24 fueling stations selling E15 out of 180,000 stations operating across the U.S.^[56]

As of November 2012, sales of E15 are not authorized in California, and according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the blend is still awaiting approval, and in a public statement the agency said that “it would take several years to complete the vehicle testing and rule development necessary to introduce a new transportation fuel into California’s market.”^[61]

Legislation and regulations

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, directed DOE to assess the feasibility of using intermediate ethanol blends in the existing vehicle fleet.^[62] The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) evaluated the potential impacts on legacy vehicles and other engines.^[62] In a preliminary report released in October 2008, NREL described the effects of E10, E15 and E20 on tailpipe and evaporative emissions, catalyst and engine durability, vehicle driveability, engine operability, and vehicle and engine materials.^[62]^[63] This preliminary report found that none of the vehicles displayed a malfunction indicator light; no fuel filter plugging symptoms were observed; no cold start problems were observed at 24 °C (75 °F) and 10 °C (50 °F) under laboratory conditions; and all test vehicles exhibited a loss in fuel economy proportional to ethanol’s lower energy density. For example, E20 reduced average fuel economy by 7.7% when compared to gas-only (E0) test vehicles.^[62]

The Obama Administration set the goal of installing 10,000 blender pumps nationwide by 2015. These pumps can dispense multiple blends including E85, E50, E30 and E20 that can be used by E85 vehicles. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a rule in May 2011 to include flexible fuel pumps in the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This ruling provided financial assistance, via grants and loan guarantees, to fuel station owners to install E85 and blender pumps.^[64]^[65]

In May 2011 the Open Fuel Standard Act (OFS) was introduced to Congress with bipartisan support. The bill required that 50 percent of automobiles made in 2014, 80 percent in 2016, and 95 percent in 2017, be manufactured and warrantied to operate on non-petroleum-based fuels, which included existing technologies such as flex-fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric and fuel cell. Considering the rapid adoption of flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil and the fact that the cost of making flex-fuel vehicles was approximately $100 per car, the bill’s primary objective was to promote a massive adoption of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on ethanol or methanol fuel.^[66]^[67]^[68]

In November 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency opened for public comment its proposal to reduce the amount of ethanol required in the US gasoline supply as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The agency cited problems with increasing the blend of ethanol above 10%. This limit, known as the “blend wall,” refers to the practical difficulty in incorporating increasing amounts of ethanol into the transportation fuel supply at volumes exceeding those achieved by the sale of nearly all gasoline as E10.^[69]^[70]

Contractual restrictions

Gasoline distribution contracts in the United States generally have provisions that make offering E15 and E85 difficult, expensive, or even impossible. Such provisions include requirements that no E85 be sold under the gas station canopy, labeling requirements, minimum sales volumes, and exclusivity provisions. Penalties for breach are severe and often allow immediate termination of the agreement, cutting off supplies to retailers. Repayment of franchise royalties and other incentives is often required.^[71]

Energy security

Ethanol fuel plant in West Burlington, Iowa.

One rationale for ethanol production in the U.S. is increased energy security, from shifting supply from oil imports to domestic sources.^[31]^[72] Ethanol production requires significant energy, and current U.S. production derives most of that energy from domestic coal, natural gas and other non-oil sources.^[73] Because in 2006, 66% of U.S. oil consumption was imported, compared to a net surplus of coal and just 16% of natural gas (2006 figures),^[74] the displacement of oil-based fuels to ethanol produced a net shift from foreign to domestic U.S. energy sources.

Effect on gasoline prices

The effect of ethanol use on gasoline prices is the source of conflicting opinion from economic studies, further complicated by the non-market forces of tax credits, met and unmet government quotas, and the dramatic recent increase in domestic oil production.^[75] According to a 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis, ethanol, and biofuel in general, does not materially influence the price of gasoline,^[76] while a runup in the price of government mandated Renewable Identification Number credits has driven up the price of gasoline.^[77] These in contrast to a May, 2012, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development study which showed a $0.29 to $1.09 reduction in per gallon gasoline price from ethanol use.^[78]

The U.S. consumed 138.2×10⁹ US gal (523×10⁶ m³) of gasoline in 2008, blended with about 9.6×10⁹ US gal (36×10⁶ m³) of ethanol, representing a market share of almost 7% of supply by volume. Given its lower energy content, ethanol fuel displaced about 6.4×10⁹ US gal (24×10⁶ m³) of gasoline, representing 4.6 percent in equivalent energy units.^[15]

The EPA announced in November, 2013, a reduction in mandated U.S. 2014 ethanol production, due to “market conditions.” ^[79]^[80]

Tariffs and tax credits

Since the 1980s until 2011, domestic ethanol producers were protected by a 54-cent per gallon import tariff, mainly intended to curb Brazilian sugarcane ethanol imports. Beginning in 2004 blenders of transportation fuel received a tax credit for each gallon of ethanol they mix with gasoline.^[81]^[82] Historically, the tariff was intended to offset the federal tax credit that applied to ethanol regardless of country of origin.^[83]^[84] Several countries in the Caribbean Basin imported and reprocessed Brazilian ethanol, usually converting hydrated ethanol into anhydrous ethanol, for re-export to the United States. They avoided the 2.5% duty and the tariff, thanks to the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) and free trade agreements. This process was limited to 7% of U.S. ethanol consumption.^[85]

As of 2011, blenders received a US$0.45 per gallon tax credit, regardless of feedstock; small producers received an additional US$0.10 on the first 15 million US gallons; and producers of cellulosic ethanol received credits up to US$1.01. Tax credits to promote the production and consumption of biofuels date to the 1970s. For 2011, credits were based on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.^[31]

A 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that in fiscal year 2009, biofuel tax credits reduced federal revenues by around US$6 billion, of which corn and cellulosic ethanol accounted for US$5.16 billion and US$50 million, respectively.

In 2010, CBO estimated that taxpayer costs to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon were $1.78 for corn ethanol and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol. In a similar way, and without considering potential indirect land use effects, the costs to taxpayers of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through tax credits were about $750 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent for ethanol and around $275 per metric ton for cellulosic ethanol.^[31]

On June 16, 2011, the U.S. Congress approved an amendment to an economic development bill to repeal both the tax credit and the tariff, but this bill did not move forward.^[81]^[82] Nevertheless, the U.S. Congress did not extend the tariff and the tax credit, allowing both to end on December 31, 2011.^[86]^[87] Since 1980 the ethanol industry was awarded an estimated US$45 billion in subsidies.^[86]

Feedstocks

Corn

Corn is the main feedstock used for producing ethanol fuel in the United States.^[27]^[88] Most of the controversies surrounding U.S. ethanol fuel production and use is related to corn ethanol’s energy balance and its social and environmental impacts.^{[citation needed]}

Cellulose

Cellulosic sources have the potential to produce a renewable, cleaner-burning, and carbon-neutral alternative to gasoline.^{[citation needed]} In his State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006, President George W. Bush stated, “We’ll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks or switchgrass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years.”

On July 7, 2006, DOE announced a new research agenda for cellulosic ethanol. The 200-page scientific roadmap cited recent advances in biotechnology that could aid use of cellulosic sources. The report outlined a detailed research plan for additional technologies to improve production efficiency. The roadmap acknowledged the need for substantial federal loan guarantees for biorefineries.

The 2007 federal budget earmarked $150 million for the research effort – more than doubling the 2006 budget. DOE invested in enzymatic, thermochemical, acid hydrolysis, hybrid hydrolysis/enzymatic, and other research approaches targeting more efficient and lower–cost conversion of cellulose to ethanol.

The first materials considered for cellulosic biofuel included plant matter from agricultural waste, yard waste, sawdust and paper. Professors R. Malcolm Brown Jr. and David Nobles, Jr. of the University of Texas at Austin developed cyanobacteria that had the potential to produce cellulose, glucose and sucrose, the latter two easily converted into ethanol. This offers the potential to create ethanol without plant matter.^{[citation needed]}

Sugar

United States fuel ethanol imports by country (2002–2007)^[89] (Millions of U.S. liquid gallons)
Country	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003
Brazil	188.8	433.7	31.2	90.3	0
Jamaica	75.2	66.8	36.3	36.6	39.3
El Salvador	73.3	38.5	23.7	5.7	6.9
Trinidad and Tobago	42.7	24.8	10.0	0	0
Costa Rica	39.3	35.9	33.4	25.4	14.7

Producing ethanol from sugar is simpler than converting corn into ethanol. Converting sugar requires only a yeast fermentation process. Converting corn requires additional cooking and the application of enzymes. The energy requirement for sugar conversion is about half that for corn.^{[citation needed]} Sugarcane produces more than enough energy to do the conversion with energy left over. A 2006 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report found that at market prices for ethanol, converting sugarcane, sugar beets and molasses to ethanol would be profitable.^[90] As of 2008 researchers were attempting to breed new varieties adapted to U.S. soil and weather conditions, as well as to take advantage of cellulosic ethanol technologies to also convert sugarcane bagasse.^[91]^[92]

U.S. sugarcane production occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. The first three plants to produce sugarcane-based ethanol were expected to go online in Louisiana by mid-2009. Sugar mills in Lacassine, St. James and Bunkie were converted to sugarcane ethanol production using Colombian technology to enable profitable ethanol production. These three plants planned to produce 100×10⁶ US gal (380×10³ m³) of ethanol per year within five years.^[92]^[93]^[94]

By 2009 two other sugarcane ethanol production projects were being developed in Kauai, Hawaii and Imperial Valley, California. The Hawaiian plant was projected to have a capacity of between 12–15 million US gallons (45×10³–57×10³ m³) a year and to supply local markets only, as shipping costs made competing in the continental US impractical. This plant was expected to go on line by 2010. The California plant was expected to produce 60×10⁶ US gal (230×10³ m³) a year and it was expected in 2011.^[91]

Presidents George W. Bush and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva during Bush’s visit to Brazil, March 2007.

In March 2007, “ethanol diplomacy” was the focus of President George W. Bush’s Latin American tour, in which he and Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, promoted the production and use of sugarcane ethanol throughout the Caribbean Basin. The two countries agreed to share technology and set international biofuel standards.^[95] Brazilian sugarcane technology transfer was intended to permit various Central American, such as Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, several Caribbean countries, and various Andean Countries tariff-free trade with the U.S., thanks to existing trade agreements. The expectation was that such countries would export to the United States in the short-term using Brazilian technology.^[96]

In 2007, combined exports from Jamaica, El Salvador, Trinidad & Tobago and Costa Rica to the U.S. reached a total of 230.5×10⁶ US gal (873×10³ m³) of sugarcane ethanol, representing 54.1% of imports. Brazil began exporting ethanol to the U.S. in 2004 and exported 188.8×10⁶ US gal (715×10³ m³) representing 44.3% of U.S. ethanol imports in 2007. The remaining imports that year came from Canada and China.^[89]

Other feedstocks

Cheese whey, barley, potato waste, beverage waste, and brewery and beer waste have been used as feedstocks for ethanol fuel, but at a far smaller scale than corn and sugarcane ethanol, as plants using these feedstocks have the capacity to produce only 3 to 5 million US gallons (11×10³ to 19×10³ m³) per year.^[88]

Comparison with Brazilian ethanol

Sugarcane ethanol has an energy balance 7 times greater than corn ethanol.^[97] As of 2007, Brazilian distiller production costs were 22 cents per liter, compared with 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.^[98] Corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before distillation into alcohol.^[83] However, corn-derived ethanol offers the ability to return 1/3 of the feedstock to the market as a replacement for the corn used in the form of Distillers Dried Grain.^[27] Sugarcane ethanol production is seasonal: unlike corn, sugarcane must be processed into ethanol almost immediately after harvest.^[99]

Comparison of key characteristics between the ethanol industries in the United States and Brazil
Characteristic	Brazil	U.S.	Units/comments
Main feedstock	Sugar cane	Corn	Main cash crop for ethanol production, the US has less than 2% from other crops.
Total ethanol fuel production (2011)^[1]	5,573	13,900	Million U.S. liquid gallons
Total arable land^[100]	355	270	Million hectares. Only contiguous U.S., excludes Alaska.
Total area used for ethanol crop (2006)^[27]^[100]	3.6 (1%)	10 (3.7%)	Million hectares (% total arable)
Productivity^[27]^[97]^[100]^[101]	6,800–8,000	3,800–4,000	Ethanol yield (liter/hectare). Brazil is 727 to 870 gal/acre (2006), US is 321 to 424 gal/acre (2003–05)
Energy balance (input energy productivity)^[27]^[27]^[83]^[102]	8.3 to 10.2	1.3 to 1.6	Ratio of the energy obtained from ethanol/energy expended in its production
Estimated greenhouse gas emission reduction^[20]^[24]^[27]	86–90%⁽¹⁾	10–30%⁽¹⁾	% GHGs avoided by using ethanol instead of gasoline, using existing crop land, without ILUC effects.
EPA‘s estimated 2022 GHG reduction for RFS2.^[103]	61%⁽²⁾	21%	Average % GHGs change as compared to gasoline and considering direct and indirect land use change effects.
CARB‘s full life-cycle carbon intensity^[21]^[104]	73.40	105.10⁽³⁾	Grams of CO₂ equivalent released per MJ of energy produced, includes indirect land use changes.^[24]
Estimated payback time for greenhouse gas emission^[22]	17 years⁽⁴⁾	93 years⁽⁴⁾	Brazilian cerrado for sugar cane and US grassland for corn. Land use change scenarios by Fargione et al.^[23]
Flexible-fuel vehicles produced/sold (includes autos, light trucks and motorcycles)^[105]^[106]^[107]	16.3 million	10 million	All fleets as of December 2011. The Brazilian fleet includes 1.5 million flex fuel motorcycles.^[108]^[109]^[110] USDOE estimates that in 2009 only 504,297 flex-fuel vehicles were regularly fueled with E85 in the US.^[49]
Ethanol fueling stations in the country	35,017 (100%)	2,749 (1.6%)	As % of total gas stations in the country. Brazil by December 2007,^[111] U.S. by May 2011.^[14] (170,000 total.^[44])
Ethanol’s share within the gasoline market^[5]^[112]^[113]^[114]	50%⁽⁵⁾	10%	As % of total consumption on a volumetric basis. Brazil as of April 2008. U.S. as of December 2010.
Cost of production (USD/US gallon)^[97]	0.83	1.14	2006/2007 for Brazil (22¢/liter), 2004 for U.S. (35¢/liter)
Notes: (1) Assuming no land use change.^[24] (2) Estimate is for U.S. consumption and sugarcane ethanol is imported from Brazil. Emissions from sea transport are included. Both estimates include land transport within the U.S.^[103] (3) CARB estimate for Midwest corn ethanol. California‘s gasoline carbon intensity is 95.86 blended with 10% ethanol.^[21]^[104] (4) Assuming direct land use change.^[23] (5) If diesel-powered vehicles are included and due to ethanol’s lower energy content by volume, bioethanol represented 16.9% of the road sector energy consumption in 2007.^[115]

Environmental and social impact

Environmental effects

Energy balance and carbon intensity

Until 2008, several full life cycle (“Well to Wheels” or WTW) studies had found that corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions as compared to gasoline. In 2007 a team led by Farrel from the University of California, Berkeley evaluated six previous studies and concluded corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by only 13 percent.^[116]^[117]^[118] However, a more commonly cited figure is 20 to 30 percent, and an 85 to 85 percent reduction for cellulosic ethanol.^[117]^[119] Both figures were estimated by Wang from Argonne National Laboratory, based on a comprehensive review of 22 studies conducted between 1979 and 2005, and simulations with Argonne’s GREET model. All of these studies included direct land use changes.^[118]^[120]

The reduction estimates on carbon intensity for a given biofuel depend on the assumptions regarding several variables, including crop productivity, agricultural practices, and distillery power source and energy efficiency. None of these studies considered the effects of indirect land-use changes, and though their impact was recognized, its estimation was considered too complex and more difficult to model than direct land use changes.^[117]^[121]

Effects of land use change

Summary of Searchinger et al. comparison of corn ethanol and gasoline GHG emissions with and without land use change (CO₂ release rate (g/MJ))^[24]^[122]
Fuel type (U.S.)	Carbon intensity	Reduction GHG	Carbon intensity + ILUC	Reduction GHG
Gasoline	92	–	92	–
Corn ethanol	74	-20%	177	+93%
Cellulosic ethanol	28	-70%	138	+50%
Notes: Calculated using default assumptions for 2015 scenario for ethanol in E85. Gasoline is a combination of conventional and reformulated gasoline.^[122]

Two 2008 studies, both published in the same issue of Scienceexpress, questioned the previous assessments.^[23]^[24]^[123] A team led by Searchinger from Princeton University concluded that once direct and indirect effect of land use changes (ILUC) are considered, both corn and cellulosic ethanol increased carbon emissions as compared to gasoline by 93 and 50 percent respectively.^[24] The study limited the analysis to a 30-year time horizon, assuming that land conversion emitted 25 percent of the carbon stored in soils and all carbon in plants cleared for cultivation. Brazil, China and India were considered among the overseas locations where land use change would occur as a result of diverting U.S. corn cropland, and it was assumed that new cropland in each of these regions correspond to different types of forest, savanna or grassland based on the historical proportion of each natural land converted to cultivation in these countries during the 1990s.^[24]

A team led by Fargione from The Nature Conservancy found that clearing natural lands for use as agricultural land to produce biofuel feedstock creates a carbon debt. Therefore, this carbon debt applies to both direct and indirect land use changes. The study examined six scenarios of wilderness conversion, Brazilian Amazon to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to soybean biodiesel, Brazilian Cerrado to sugarcane ethanol, Indonesian or Malaysian lowland tropical rainforest to palm biodiesel, Indonesian or Malaysian peatland tropical rainforest to oil palm forest, and U.S. Central grassland to corn ethanol.^[23]

Low-carbon fuel standards

On April 23, 2009, the California Air Resources Board approved specific rules and carbon intensity reference values for the California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that was to go into effect on January 1, 2011.^[124]^[125]^[126] The consultation process produced controversy regarding the inclusion and modeling of indirect land use change effects.^[127]^[128]^[129]^[130]^[131] After the CARB’s ruling, among other criticisms, representatives of the ethanol industry complained that the standard overstated the negative environmental effects of corn ethanol, and also criticized the inclusion of indirect effects of land-use changes as an unfair penalty to home-made corn ethanol because deforestation in the developing world had been tied to US ethanol production.^[125]^[132]^[133]^[134]^[135]^[136]^[137] The emissions standard for 2011 for LCFS meant that Midwest corn ethanol would not meet the California standard unless current carbon intensity is reduced.^[124]^[135]^[137]^[138]

A similar controversy arose after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on May 5, 2009, its notice of proposed rulemaking for the new Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).^[139]^[140]^[141] EPA’s proposal included the carbon footprint from indirect land-use changes.^[142]^[143] On the same day, President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Directive with the aim to advance biofuel research and commercialization. The Directive asked a new Biofuels Interagency Working Group comprising the Department of Agriculture, EPA, and DOE,^[144]^[145] to develop a plan to increase flexible fuel vehicle use, assist in retail marketing and to coordinate infrastructure policies.

The group also was tasked to develop policy ideas for increasing investment in next-generation fuels, and for reducing biofuels’ environmental footprint.^[144]^[145]^[146]

In December 2009 two lobbying groups, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and Growth Energy, filed a lawsuit challenging LCFS’ constitutionality. The two organizations argued that LCFS violates both the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, and “jeopardizes the nationwide market for ethanol.”^[147]^[148] In a press release the associations announced that “If the United States is going to have a low carbon fuel standard, it must be based on sound science and it must be consistent with the U.S. Constitution…”^[149]

On February 3, 2010, EPA finalized the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) for 2010 and beyond.^[150] EPA incorporated direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes along with comments and data from new studies.^[151] Adopting a 30-year time horizon and a 0% discount rate^[103] EPA declared that ethanol produced from corn starch at a new (or expanded capacity from an existing) natural gas-fired facility using approved technologies would be considered to comply with the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold.^[151] Given average production conditions it expected for 2022, EPA estimated that corn ethanol would reduce GHGs an average of 21% compared to the 2005 gasoline baseline. A 95% confidence interval spans a 7-32% range reflecting uncertainty in the land use change assumptions.^[103]

The following table summarizes the mean GHG emissions for ethanol using different feedstocks estimated by EPA modelling and the range of variations considering that the main source of uncertainty in the life cycle analysis is the GHG emissions related to international land use change.^[152]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Life cycle year 2022 GHG emissions reduction results for RFS2 final rule^[152] (includes direct and indirect land use change effects and a 30-year payback period at a 0% discount rate)
Renewable fuel pathway (for U.S. consumption)	Mean GHG emission reduction⁽¹⁾	GHG emission reduction 95% confidence interval⁽²⁾	Assumptions/comments
Corn ethanol	21%	7–32%	New or expanded natural gas fired dry mill plant, 37% wet and 63% dry DGS it produces, and employing corn oil fractionation technology.
Corn biobutanol	31%	20–40%	Natural gas fired dry mill plant, 37% wet and 63% dry DGS it produces, and employing corn oil fractionation technology.
Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass	110%	102–117%	Ethanol produced using the biochemical process.
Cellulosic ethanol from corn stover	129%	No ILUC	Ethanol produced using the biochemical process. Ethanol produced from agricultural residues does not have any indirect land use emissions.
Notes: (1) Percent reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared to the average lifecycle GHG for gasoline or diesel sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005. (2) Confidence range accounts for uncertainty in the types of land use change assumptions and the magnitude of resulting GHG emissions.

Water footprint

Water-related concerns relate to water supply and quality, and include availability and potential overuse, pollution, and possible contamination by fertilizers and pesticides. Several studies concluded that increased ethanol production was likely to result in a substantial increase in water pollution by fertilizers and pesticides, with the potential to exacerbate eutrophication and hypoxia, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.^[153]^[154]^[155]^[156]

Growing feedstocks consumes most of the water associated with ethanol production. Corn consumes from 500–2,000 litres (110–440 imp gal; 130–530 US gal) of water per liter of ethanol, mostly for evapotranspiration.^[153] In general terms, both corn and switchgrass require less irrigation than other fuel crops. Corn is grown mainly in regions with adequate rainfall. However, corn usually needs to be irrigated in the drier climates of Nebraska and eastern Colorado. Further, corn production for ethanol is increasingly taking place in areas requiring irrigation.^[153] A 2008 study by the National Research Council concluded that “in the longer term, the likely expansion of cellulosic biofuel production has the potential to further increase the demand for water resources in many parts of the United States. Biofuels expansion beyond current irrigated agriculture, especially in dry western areas, has the potential to greatly increase pressure on water resources in some areas.“^[154]

A 2009 study estimated that irrigated corn ethanol implied water consumption at between 50 US gal/mi (120 L/km) and 100 US gal/mi (240 L/km) for U.S. vehicles. This figure increased to 90 US gal/mi (210 L/km) for sorghum ethanol from Nebraska, and 115 US gal/mi (270 L/km) for Texas sorghum. By contrast, an average U.S. car effectively consumes between 0.2 US gal/mi (0.47 L/km) to 0.5 US gal/mi (1.2 L/km) running on gasoline, including extraction and refining.^[155]

In 2010 RFA argued that more efficient water technologies and pre-treated water could reduce consumption.^[88] It further claimed that non-conventional oil “sources, such as tar sands and oil shale, require far more water than conventional petroleum extraction and refining.“^[88]

Dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

U.S. standard agricultural practices for most crops employ fertilizers that provide nitrogen and phosphorus along with herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and other pesticides.

Some part of these chemicals leaves the field. Nitrogen in forms such as nitrate (NO3) is highly soluble, and along with some pesticides infiltrates downwards toward the water table, where it can migrate to water wells, rivers and streams. A 2008 National Research Council study found that regionally the highest stream concentrations occur where the rates of application were highest, and that these rates were highest in the Corn Belt. These flows mainly stem from corn, which as of 2010 was the major source of total nitrogen loading to the Mississippi River.^[154]

Several studies found that corn ethanol production contributed to the worsening of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. The nitrogen leached into the Mississippi River and out into the Gulf, where it fed giant algae blooms. As the algaedied, it settled to the ocean floor and decayed, consuming oxygen and suffocating marine life, causing hypoxia. This oxygen depletion killed shrimp, crabs, worms and anything else that could not escape, and affected important shrimp fishing grounds.^[153]^[154]^[156]

Social implications

Effect on food prices

Some environmentalists, such as George Monbiot, expressed fears that the marketplace would convert crops to fuel for the rich, while the poor starved and biofuels caused environmental problems.^[123]^[157]^[158]^[159]^[160] The food vs fuel debate grew in 2008 as a result of the international community‘s concerns regarding the steep increase in food prices. On April 2008, Jean Ziegler, back then United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeated his claim that biofuels were a “crime against humanity“,^[161]^[162] echoing his October 2007 call for a 5-year ban for the conversion of land for the production of biofuels.^[163]^[164] Also in April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick stated that “While many worry about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs. And it’s getting more and more difficult every day.“^[165]^[166]^[167]

Corn is the main feedstock for the production of ethanol fuel in the U.S.

A July 2008 World Bank report^[168] found that from June 2002 to June 2008 “biofuels and the related consequences of low grain stocks, large land use shifts, speculative activity and export bans” accounted for 70–75% of total price rises. The study found that higher oil prices and a weak dollar explain 25–30% of total price rise. The study said that “…large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices.”^[169]^[170] The report argued that increased production of biofuels in these developed regions was supported by subsidies and tariffs, and claimed that without such policies, food price increases worldwide would have been smaller. It also concluded that Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol had not raised sugar prices significantly, and recommended that both the U.S. and E.U. remove tariffs, including on many African countries.^[168]

An RFA rebuttal said that the World Bank analysis was highly subjective and that the author considered only “the impact of global food prices from the weak dollar and the direct and indirect effect of high petroleum prices and attribute[d] everything else to biofuels.”^[171]

A 2010 World Bank study concluded that its previous study may have overestimated the impact, as “the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called ”financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.”^[172]

A July 2008 OECD economic assessment^[173] agreed about the negative effects of subsidies and trade restrictions, but found that the impact of biofuels on food prices was much smaller. The OECD study found that existing biofuel support policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more than 0.8 percent by 2015. It called for more open markets in biofuels and feedstocks to improve efficiency and lower costs. The OECD study concluded that “…current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase average wheat prices by about 5 percent, maize by around 7 percent and vegetable oil by about 19 percent over the next 10 years.“^[174]

The 2008 financial crisis illustrated corn ethanol’s limited impact on corn prices, which fell 50% from their July 2008 high by October 2008, in tandem with other commodities, including oil, while corn ethanol production continued unabated. “Analysts, including some in the ethanol sector, say ethanol demand adds about 75 cents to $1.00 per bushel to the price of corn, as a rule of thumb. Other analysts say it adds around 20 percent, or just under 80 cents per bushel at current prices. Those estimates hint that $4 per bushel corn might be priced at only $3 without demand for ethanol fuel.“.^[175]

References …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States

Story 3: Stock Market Heading For Historic Highs — Need More Volume and Broadening To Celebrate — Videos

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	142267(1)	142456	142434	142751	142388	142591	142278	142514	142518	142622	142962	143248
2001	143800	143701	143924	143569	143318	143357	143654	143284	143989	144086	144240	144305
2002	143883	144653	144481	144725	144938	144808	144803	145009	145552	145314	145041	145066
2003	145937(1)	146100	146022	146474	146500	147056	146485	146445	146530	146716	147000	146729
2004	146842(1)	146709	146944	146850	147065	147460	147692	147564	147415	147793	148162	148059
2005	148029(1)	148364	148391	148926	149261	149238	149432	149779	149954	150001	150065	150030
2006	150214(1)	150641	150813	150881	151069	151354	151377	151716	151662	152041	152406	152732
2007	153144(1)	152983	153051	152435	152670	153041	153054	152749	153414	153183	153835	153918
2008	154063(1)	153653	153908	153769	154303	154313	154469	154641	154570	154876	154639	154655
2009	154210(1)	154538	154133	154509	154747	154716	154502	154307	153827	153784	153878	153111
2010	153484(1)	153694	153954	154622	154091	153616	153691	154086	153975	153635	154125	153650
2011	153263(1)	153214	153376	153543	153479	153346	153288	153760	154131	153961	154128	153995
2012	154381(1)	154671	154749	154545	154866	155083	154948	154763	155160	155554	155338	155628
2013	155763(1)	155312	155005	155394	155536	155749	155599	155605	155687	154673	155265	155182
2014	155352(1)	155483	156028	155369	155684	155707	156007	156130	156040	156417	156494	156332
2015	157053(1)	156663	156626	157017	157616	157014	157008	157165	156745	157188	157502	158080
2016	158371(1)	158705	159079	158891	158700	158899	159150	159582	159810	159768	159629	159779
2017	159693(1)	159854	160036	160169	159910	160124	160383	160706	161190	160436	160626	160636
2018	161123(1)	161900	161646	161551	161667	162129	162209	161802	162055	162694	162821	163240
2019	163229(1)	163184	162960	162470	162646
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	67.3	67.3	67.3	67.3	67.1	67.1	66.9	66.9	66.9	66.8	66.9	67.0
2001	67.2	67.1	67.2	66.9	66.7	66.7	66.8	66.5	66.8	66.7	66.7	66.7
2002	66.5	66.8	66.6	66.7	66.7	66.6	66.5	66.6	66.7	66.6	66.4	66.3
2003	66.4	66.4	66.3	66.4	66.4	66.5	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	65.9
2004	66.1	66.0	66.0	65.9	66.0	66.1	66.1	66.0	65.8	65.9	66.0	65.9
2005	65.8	65.9	65.9	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.0	66.0
2006	66.0	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.2	66.3	66.4
2007	66.4	66.3	66.2	65.9	66.0	66.0	66.0	65.8	66.0	65.8	66.0	66.0
2008	66.2	66.0	66.1	65.9	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.0	66.0	65.9	65.8
2009	65.7	65.8	65.6	65.7	65.7	65.7	65.5	65.4	65.1	65.0	65.0	64.6
2010	64.8	64.9	64.9	65.2	64.9	64.6	64.6	64.7	64.6	64.4	64.6	64.3
2011	64.2	64.1	64.2	64.2	64.1	64.0	64.0	64.1	64.2	64.1	64.1	64.0
2012	63.7	63.8	63.8	63.7	63.7	63.8	63.7	63.5	63.6	63.8	63.6	63.7
2013	63.7	63.4	63.3	63.4	63.4	63.4	63.3	63.3	63.2	62.8	63.0	62.9
2014	62.9	62.9	63.1	62.8	62.9	62.8	62.9	62.9	62.8	62.9	62.9	62.8
2015	62.9	62.7	62.6	62.7	62.9	62.6	62.6	62.6	62.4	62.5	62.6	62.7
2016	62.7	62.8	62.9	62.8	62.7	62.7	62.8	62.9	62.9	62.8	62.7	62.7
2017	62.9	62.9	62.9	62.9	62.8	62.8	62.9	62.9	63.1	62.7	62.8	62.7
2018	62.7	63.0	62.9	62.8	62.8	62.9	62.9	62.7	62.7	62.9	62.9	63.1
2019	63.2	63.2	63.0	62.8	62.8

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	136559(1)	136598	136701	137270	136630	136940	136531	136662	136893	137088	137322	137614
2001	137778	137612	137783	137299	137092	136873	137071	136241	136846	136392	136238	136047
2002	135701	136438	136177	136126	136539	136415	136413	136705	137302	137008	136521	136426
2003	137417(1)	137482	137434	137633	137544	137790	137474	137549	137609	137984	138424	138411
2004	138472(1)	138542	138453	138680	138852	139174	139556	139573	139487	139732	140231	140125
2005	140245(1)	140385	140654	141254	141609	141714	142026	142434	142401	142548	142499	142752
2006	143150(1)	143457	143741	143761	144089	144353	144202	144625	144815	145314	145534	145970
2007	146028(1)	146057	146320	145586	145903	146063	145905	145682	146244	145946	146595	146273
2008	146378(1)	146156	146086	146132	145908	145737	145532	145203	145076	144802	144100	143369
2009	142152(1)	141640	140707	140656	140248	140009	139901	139492	138818	138432	138659	138013
2010	138438(1)	138581	138751	139297	139241	139141	139179	139438	139396	139119	139044	139301
2011	139250(1)	139394	139639	139586	139624	139384	139524	139942	140183	140368	140826	140902
2012	141584(1)	141858	142036	141899	142206	142391	142292	142291	143044	143431	143333	143330
2013	143292(1)	143362	143316	143635	143882	143999	144264	144326	144418	143537	144479	144778
2014	145150(1)	145134	145648	145667	145825	146247	146399	146530	146778	147427	147404	147615
2015	148150(1)	148053	148122	148491	148802	148765	148815	149175	148853	149270	149506	150164
2016	150622(1)	150934	151146	150963	151074	151104	151450	151766	151877	151949	152150	152276
2017	152128(1)	152417	152958	153150	152920	153176	153456	153591	154399	153847	153945	154065
2018	154482(1)	155213	155160	155216	155539	155592	155964	155604	156069	156582	156803	156945
2019	156694(1)	156949	156748	156645	156758
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	5708	5858	5733	5481	5758	5651	5747	5853	5625	5534	5639	5634
2001	6023	6089	6141	6271	6226	6484	6583	7042	7142	7694	8003	8258
2002	8182	8215	8304	8599	8399	8393	8390	8304	8251	8307	8520	8640
2003	8520	8618	8588	8842	8957	9266	9011	8896	8921	8732	8576	8317
2004	8370	8167	8491	8170	8212	8286	8136	7990	7927	8061	7932	7934
2005	7784	7980	7737	7672	7651	7524	7406	7345	7553	7453	7566	7279
2006	7064	7184	7072	7120	6980	7001	7175	7091	6847	6727	6872	6762
2007	7116	6927	6731	6850	6766	6979	7149	7067	7170	7237	7240	7645
2008	7685	7497	7822	7637	8395	8575	8937	9438	9494	10074	10538	11286
2009	12058	12898	13426	13853	14499	14707	14601	14814	15009	15352	15219	15098
2010	15046	15113	15202	15325	14849	14474	14512	14648	14579	14516	15081	14348
2011	14013	13820	13737	13957	13855	13962	13763	13818	13948	13594	13302	13093
2012	12797	12813	12713	12646	12660	12692	12656	12471	12115	12124	12005	12298
2013	12471	11950	11689	11760	11654	11751	11335	11279	11270	11136	10787	10404
2014	10202	10349	10380	9702	9859	9460	9608	9599	9262	8990	9090	8717
2015	8903	8610	8504	8526	8814	8249	8194	7990	7892	7918	7995	7916
2016	7749	7771	7932	7928	7626	7795	7700	7817	7933	7819	7480	7503
2017	7565	7437	7078	7019	6991	6948	6927	7115	6791	6588	6682	6572
2018	6641	6687	6486	6335	6128	6537	6245	6197	5986	6112	6018	6294
2019	6535	6235	6211	5824	5888

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	3208	3167	3231	3186	3283	3209	3144	3211	3217	3179	3467	3243
2001	3332	3296	3280	3289	3439	3792	3556	3380	4233	4437	4317	4393
2002	4112	4289	4101	4199	4103	4048	4145	4301	4329	4314	4329	4321
2003	4607	4844	4652	4798	4570	4592	4648	4419	4882	4813	4862	4750
2004	4705	4549	4742	4568	4588	4443	4449	4474	4487	4820	4547	4427
2005	4389	4250	4388	4278	4315	4432	4400	4491	4675	4269	4219	4115
2006	4123	4174	3972	3900	4111	4318	4303	4195	4115	4352	4190	4187
2007	4279	4220	4253	4313	4473	4342	4410	4576	4521	4325	4494	4618
2008	4846	4902	4904	5220	5286	5540	5930	5851	6148	6690	7311	8029
2009	8046	8796	9145	8908	9113	9024	8891	9029	8847	8979	9114	9098
2010	8530	8936	9233	9178	8845	8577	8500	8800	9246	8837	8873	8935
2011	8470	8464	8645	8652	8576	8427	8281	8788	9166	8657	8447	8171
2012	8305	8238	7775	7913	8101	8072	8082	7974	8671	8203	8166	7943
2013	8151	8178	7722	7964	7937	8103	8099	7816	7764	7936	7718	7827
2014	7296	7299	7435	7509	7254	7422	7402	7177	7020	7025	6898	6856
2015	6808	6671	6629	6608	6628	6383	6249	6423	6043	5811	6174	6084
2016	5941	5978	6066	6006	6467	5748	5926	5995	5918	5971	5738	5621
2017	5753	5603	5455	5279	5234	5266	5281	5237	5179	4912	4866	4986
2018	4982	5115	4969	4952	4920	4736	4588	4368	4656	4630	4781	4657
2019	5147	4310	4499	4654	4355

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	69142	69120	69338	69267	69853	69876	70398	70401	70645	70782	70579	70488
2001	70088	70409	70381	70956	71414	71592	71526	72136	71676	71817	71876	72010
2002	72623	72010	72343	72281	72260	72600	72827	72856	72554	73026	73508	73675
2003	73960	74015	74295	74066	74268	73958	74767	75062	75249	75324	75280	75780
2004	75319	75648	75606	75907	75903	75735	75730	76113	76526	76399	76259	76581
2005	76808	76677	76846	76514	76409	76673	76721	76642	76739	76958	77138	77394
2006	77339	77122	77161	77318	77359	77317	77535	77451	77757	77634	77499	77376
2007	77506	77851	77982	78818	78810	78671	78904	79461	79047	79532	79105	79238
2008	78554	79156	79087	79429	79102	79314	79395	79466	79790	79736	80189	80380
2009	80529	80374	80953	80762	80705	80938	81367	81780	82495	82766	82865	83813
2010	83349	83304	83206	82707	83409	84075	84199	84014	84347	84895	84590	85240
2011	85441	85637	85623	85603	85834	86144	86383	86111	85940	86308	86312	86589
2012	87888	87765	87855	88239	88100	88073	88405	88803	88613	88429	88836	88722
2013	88900	89516	89990	89780	89827	89803	90156	90355	90481	91708	91302	91563
2014	91563	91603	91230	92070	91938	92107	92016	92099	92406	92240	92350	92695
2015	92671	93237	93454	93249	92839	93649	93868	93931	94580	94353	94245	93856
2016	94026	93872	93689	94077	94475	94498	94470	94272	94281	94553	94911	94963
2017	94389	94392	94378	94419	94857	94833	94769	94651	94372	95330	95323	95473
2018	95657	95033	95451	95721	95787	95513	95633	96264	96235	95821	95886	95649
2019	95010	95208	95577	96223	96215

Category	May 2018	Mar. 2019	Apr. 2019	May 2019	Change from: Apr. 2019- May 2019
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population	257,454	258,537	258,693	258,861	168
Civilian labor force	161,667	162,960	162,470	162,646	176
Participation rate	62.8	63.0	62.8	62.8	0.0
Employed	155,539	156,748	156,645	156,758	113
Employment-population ratio	60.4	60.6	60.6	60.6	0.0
Unemployed	6,128	6,211	5,824	5,888	64
Unemployment rate	3.8	3.8	3.6	3.6	0.0
Not in labor force	95,787	95,577	96,223	96,215	-8

Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over	3.8	3.8	3.6	3.6	0.0
Adult men (20 years and over)	3.6	3.6	3.4	3.3	-0.1
Adult women (20 years and over)	3.3	3.3	3.1	3.2	0.1
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)	12.7	12.8	13.0	12.7	-0.3
White	3.5	3.4	3.1	3.3	0.2
Black or African American	5.9	6.7	6.7	6.2	-0.5
Asian	2.2	3.1	2.2	2.5	0.3
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity	4.9	4.7	4.2	4.2	0.0

Total, 25 years and over	3.1	3.1	2.9	2.9	0.0
Less than a high school diploma	5.5	5.9	5.4	5.4	0.0
High school graduates, no college	3.9	3.7	3.5	3.5	0.0
Some college or associate degree	3.2	3.4	3.1	2.8	-0.3
Bachelor’s degree and higher	2.0	2.0	2.1	2.1	0.0

Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs	2,882	2,837	2,651	2,664	13
Job leavers	844	779	737	803	66
Reentrants	1,868	2,007	1,926	1,870	-56
New entrants	569	614	530	599	69

Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks	2,019	2,126	1,904	2,147	243
5 to 14 weeks	1,906	1,815	1,842	1,559	-283
15 to 26 weeks	967	950	854	799	-55
27 weeks and over	1,197	1,305	1,230	1,298	68

Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons	4,920	4,499	4,654	4,355	-299
Slack work or business conditions	2,992	2,909	2,891	2,646	-245
Could only find part-time work	1,478	1,329	1,446	1,339	-107
Part time for noneconomic reasons	21,134	21,297	21,322	21,366	44

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force	1,455	1,357	1,417	1,395	–
Discouraged workers	378	412	454	338	–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data. NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Robert Higgs

Born	1 February 1944 (age 75)
Nationality	United States

Field	Economic history, political economy, natural resource economics, health economics, military economics
School or tradition	Austrian School
Doctoral advisor	Edwin Mills H. Louis Stettler
Doctoral students	Price V. Fishback
Influences	Simon Kuznets, Douglass C. North, Ronald Coase, Joseph Schumpeter, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard

**Series Id:** LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted **Series title:** (Seas) Unemployment Rate **Labor force status:** Unemployment rate **Type of data:** Percent or rate **Age:** 16 years and over

**Download:**
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.8	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.1	3.9	3.9	3.9	3.9
2001	4.2	4.2	4.3	4.4	4.3	4.5	4.6	4.9	5.0	5.3	5.5	5.7
2002	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	5.8	5.8	5.8	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	6.0
2003	5.8	5.9	5.9	6.0	6.1	6.3	6.2	6.1	6.1	6.0	5.8	5.7
2004	5.7	5.6	5.8	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.4	5.4	5.5	5.4	5.4
2005	5.3	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.9
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.9	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.1	6.5	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.3	8.7	9.0	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.8	9.3
2011	9.1	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.0	9.1	9.0	9.0	9.0	8.8	8.6	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.1	7.8	7.8	7.7	7.9
2013	8.0	7.7	7.5	7.6	7.5	7.5	7.3	7.2	7.2	7.2	6.9	6.7
2014	6.6	6.7	6.7	6.2	6.3	6.1	6.2	6.1	5.9	5.7	5.8	5.6
2015	5.7	5.5	5.4	5.4	5.6	5.3	5.2	5.1	5.0	5.0	5.1	5.0
2016	4.9	4.9	5.0	5.0	4.8	4.9	4.8	4.9	5.0	4.9	4.7	4.7
2017	4.7	4.7	4.4	4.4	4.4	4.3	4.3	4.4	4.2	4.1	4.2	4.1
2018	4.1	4.1	4.0	3.9	3.8	4.0	3.9	3.8	3.7	3.8	3.7	3.9
2019	4.0	3.8	3.8	3.6	3.6

**Series Id:** LNS13327709 Seasonally Adjusted **Series title:** (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers **Labor force status:** Aggregated totals unemployed **Type of data:** Percent or rate **Age:** 16 years and over **Percent/rates:** Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

**Download:**
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	7.1	7.2	7.1	6.9	7.1	7.0	7.0	7.1	7.0	6.8	7.1	6.9
2001	7.3	7.4	7.3	7.4	7.5	7.9	7.8	8.1	8.7	9.3	9.4	9.6
2002	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.7	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.7	9.8
2003	10.0	10.2	10.0	10.2	10.1	10.3	10.3	10.1	10.4	10.2	10.0	9.8
2004	9.9	9.7	10.0	9.6	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.4	9.7	9.4	9.2
2005	9.3	9.3	9.1	8.9	8.9	9.0	8.8	8.9	9.0	8.7	8.7	8.6
2006	8.4	8.4	8.2	8.1	8.2	8.4	8.5	8.4	8.0	8.2	8.1	7.9
2007	8.4	8.2	8.0	8.2	8.2	8.3	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.8
2008	9.2	9.0	9.1	9.2	9.7	10.1	10.5	10.8	11.0	11.8	12.6	13.6
2009	14.2	15.2	15.8	15.9	16.5	16.5	16.4	16.7	16.7	17.1	17.1	17.1
2010	16.7	17.0	17.1	17.1	16.6	16.4	16.4	16.5	16.8	16.6	16.9	16.6
2011	16.2	16.0	15.9	16.1	15.8	16.1	15.9	16.1	16.4	15.8	15.5	15.2
2012	15.2	15.0	14.5	14.6	14.7	14.8	14.8	14.6	14.8	14.4	14.4	14.4
2013	14.6	14.4	13.8	14.0	13.8	14.2	13.8	13.6	13.5	13.6	13.1	13.1
2014	12.7	12.6	12.6	12.3	12.2	12.0	12.1	12.0	11.7	11.5	11.4	11.2
2015	11.3	11.0	10.8	10.8	10.9	10.4	10.3	10.2	10.0	9.8	10.0	9.9
2016	9.8	9.7	9.8	9.7	9.9	9.5	9.7	9.6	9.7	9.6	9.4	9.2
2017	9.3	9.1	8.7	8.6	8.5	8.5	8.5	8.6	8.3	8.0	8.0	8.1
2018	8.2	8.2	7.9	7.8	7.7	7.8	7.5	7.4	7.5	7.5	7.6	7.6
2019	8.1	7.3	7.3	7.3	7.1

Story 1: Two Tankers Transitioning The Strait of Hormus in Gulf of Oman Shelled, Torpedoed and On Fire — Videos —

Why isn’t the oil market reacting to the oil tanker attacks?

Iran responsible for attack on two tankers: Pompeo

US has video of Iran removing unexploded mine from oil tanker: Report

Iran rejects US accusation of involvement in tanker attacks

U.S. officials: Iran likely behind new tanker attacks

BREAKING – 2 Oil Tankers in Gulf of Oman (straight of Hormuz) on fire

Crew have been rescued after abandoning two oil tankers hit by explosions in the Gulf of Oman

US Navy Heads for Oil Tanker Incident in Gulf of Oman

Two Oil Tankers Attacked Near Straight of Hormuz

Tanker Attacks In Gulf of Oman Fuel Security, Oil Supply Fears

Oil tanker attacks echo Persian Gulf’s 1980s ‘Tanker War’

SMOKING GUN?

BRITAIN BLASTS ‘DEEPLY UNWISE’ ATTACKS

Recent US and Iran tensions

Two tankers: all you need to know

US and Iran – a troubled history

What is the Iran nuclear deal?

Tankers ablaze in suspected attacks near Gulf oil chokepoint

Oil rallies after apparent attack on tankers near Strait of Hormuz, but finish off session high

There is no party of fiscal responsibility today: David Walker

Deficits soar: ‘US fiscal responsibility is a lie!’

US national debt under Trump climbs $2 trillion

This debt ceiling does not work: David Walker

National debt surpasses $22 trillion

Harvard’s Feldstein Says Debt to Reach 100% of GDP by End of Decade

Alan Greenspan on U.S. Debt, Deficit, Tax Cuts

Trump unveils $4.4 trillion budget proposal

Why the federal deficit is rising, despite economic growth

Trump is focused like a laser beam on the deficit: Kevin Hassett

Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget for FY 2019

America’s debt will exceed size of economy within 10 years: Study

U.S. Debt, Deficit ‘Completely Irresponsible,’ Evercore’s Schlosstein Says

Why U.S. Deficit Spending Is a Good Thing

Trump’s tax law increased US national deficit: Stan Collender

Budget Deficit Hits Highest Level In 6 Years After Tax Cuts | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

The US’s other Debt Crisis – VisualPolitik EN

World Dumping US Debt & Hoarding Gold: De-dollarization Explained

How The Rising National Deficit Hits Your Wallet | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

2019 Fiscal Responsibility Index Release

US student loan debt hits record high: Report

The days of $1 million student loan debt are back

Federal Spending Tops $3 Trillion Through May for First Time; Deficit Hits $738 Billion

Story 3: United States Government To Purchase 478 New Joint Strike Fighter F-35s Lightning II for the Air Force, Navy and Marines and Allied Militaries From and Lockheed Martin for About $34 Billion — Videos

Here’s: What 310 Air Force Pilots Who Flew the F-35 Really Think

WHAT ARE THE TOP 5 ISSUES OF F35 THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED?

5 Most Powerful U.S Jet Fighter on the Planet

F-35 Overview – The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

DoD, Lockheed Martin reach tentative F-35 deal

Air Force Pilots Explain Why Nothing Is Deadlier Than F-35 Stealth Fighter

Next Purchase Of F35s Will Cost Pentagon Less

Pentagon Prepares To Purchase More F-35 Stealth Fighter Planes That Fail Tests

F-22 Raptor Vs F-35 Lightning II

Why an F-22 Raptor Would Crush an F-35 in a ‘Dogfight’

Here’s What the F-22 Raptor Will Do in a Combat with China

F-22 RAPTOR VS F-35 LIGHTNING II – Which is better..?

1 F 22 Vs 5 F 15s, Real Dogfight, Shocking Result

F-35A Lightning II Demo 2019 Melbourne Air Show

F-35 stealth fighter jets conducts flyover at White House | ABC News

Trump Announces Japan’s Purchase of 105 New F-35 Stealth Fighter

Incredible Video of F-35 Shows Its Insane Ability – Dropping Bom, Vertical Takeoff and Landing

Can Russia and China Detect the F-35 Stealth Aircraft?

Stealth – How Does it Work? (Northrop B-2 Spirit)

How Does Stealth Technology Work?

DOES S400 MAKES F 35 OBSOLETE ? FULL ANALYSIS

Why everyone wants S-400 as India buys in

5 Scary Facts about F-35 Stealth Fighter, You Probably Didn’t Know

Incredible Video of F-35 Shows Its Insane Ability – Dropping Bom, Vertical Takeoff and Landing

Finally: The F-35 Jets Get First Taste of Combat for Israel

Watch This Crazy Video: UK F-35s Will Use Strange Rolling Carrier Landings in HMS Queen Elizabeth

The Reason Poland Sent an Official Request to Buy The F-35 Fighter Jets from the U.S.

F-35C First Integrated Carrier Ops Aboard USS Lincoln

Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Deliver 300th F-35 Aircraft

This jet fighter is a disaster, but Congress keeps buying it

Defence analyst Pierre Sprey on the F-35 (2012) – the fifth estate

F35, The jet that ate the Pentagon • BRAVE NEW FILMS: SECURITY #1 • DOCUMENTARY

F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths – Episode 1

F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths – Episode 2

F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths – Episode 3

F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths – Episode 4