document_title: Ethanol fuel in the United States

question_text: when did the us start putting ethanol in gasoline

question_tokens: when did the us start putting ethanol in gasoline

text: Ethanol fuel in the United States

text: History[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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]

text: 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.

text: 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 2005 required use of 7.5×10^9 US gal (28×10^6 m3) of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, to 36×10^9 US gal (140×10^6 m3) of annual renewable fuel use by 2022. Of this requirement, 21×10^9 US gal (79×10^6 m3) had to be advanced biofuels, defined as renewable fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%.[15][31][32]

text: Recent trends[edit]

text:
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

text: 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]

text: Production[edit]

text: 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]

text: 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]

text: 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]

text: E85 vehicles[edit]

text: 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]

text: 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]

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

text: Fueling infrastructure has been a major restriction hampering E85 sales.[43]  As of  March 2013[update], 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]

text:
E85 flexfuel Chevrolet Impala LT 2009.

E85 flexfuel Chevrolet HHR

E85 flexfuel Ford E-250.

E85 flexfuel Ford Escape

text: E15 blend[edit]

text: 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]

text: 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]

text: 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[update], there are about 24 fueling stations selling E15 out of 180,000 stations operating across the U.S.[56]

text: As of  November 2012[update], 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]

text: Legislation and regulations[edit]

text: 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]

text: 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]

text: 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]

text: 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]

text: Contractual restrictions[edit]

text: 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]

text: Energy security[edit]

text: 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.

text: Effect on gasoline prices[edit]

text: 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[75] government quotas, and the dramatic recent increase in domestic oil production.[76]  According to a 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis, ethanol, and biofuel in general, does not materially influence the price of gasoline,[77] while a runup in the price of government mandated Renewable Identification Number credits has driven up the price of gasoline.[78]  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.[79]

text: The U.S. consumed 138.2×10^9 US gal (523×10^6 m3) of gasoline in 2008, blended with about 9.6×10^9 US gal (36×10^6 m3) of ethanol, representing a market share of almost 7% of supply by volume. Given its lower energy content, ethanol fuel displaced about 6.4×10^9 US gal (24×10^6 m3) of gasoline, representing 4.6 percent in equivalent energy units.[15]

text: The EPA announced in November, 2013, a reduction in mandated U.S. 2014 ethanol production, due to "market conditions."  [80][81]

text: Tariffs and tax credits[edit]

text: 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.[82][83] Historically, the tariff was intended to offset the federal tax credit that applied to ethanol regardless of country of origin.[84][85]  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.[86]

text: 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]

text: 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. A 2010 study by the Environmental Working Group estimated that the cumulative ethanol subsidies between 2005 and 2009 were US$17 billion. The same study estimated the future cost to taxpayers at US$53.59 billion if these tax credits were extended until 2015, yielding 15 billion US gallons (56.8 billion liters).[87]

text: 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]

text: 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.[82][83] Nevertheless, the U.S. Congress did not extend the tariff and the tax credit, allowing both to end on December 31, 2011.[88][89] Since 1980 the ethanol industry was awarded an estimated US$45 billion in subsidies.[88]

text: Feedstocks[edit]

text: Corn[edit]

text: Corn is the main feedstock used for producing ethanol fuel in the United States.[27][90] 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]

text: Cellulose[edit]

text: 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.”

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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]

text: Sugar[edit]

text:
United States fuel ethanol imports by country (2002–2007)[91](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

text: 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.[92] 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.[93][94]

text: 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 100×10^6 US gal (380×10^3 m3) of ethanol per year within five years.[94][95][96]

text: 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 (45×10^3–57×10^3 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 60×10^6 US gal (230×10^3 m3) a year and it was expected in 2011.[93]

text: 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.[97] 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.[98]

text: In 2007, combined exports from Jamaica, El Salvador, Trinidad & Tobago and Costa Rica to the U.S. reached a total of 230.5×10^6 US gal (873×10^3 m3) of sugarcane ethanol, representing 54.1% of imports. Brazil began exporting ethanol to the U.S. in 2004 and exported 188.8×10^6 US gal (715×10^3 m3) representing 44.3% of U.S. ethanol imports in 2007. The remaining imports that year came from Canada and China.[91]

text: Other feedstocks[edit]

text: 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 (11×10^3 to 19×10^3 m3) per year.[90]

text: Comparison with Brazilian ethanol[edit]

text: Sugarcane ethanol has an energy balance 7 times greater than corn ethanol.[99] As of 2007, Brazilian distiller production costs were 22 cents per liter, compared with 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[100] Corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before distillation into alcohol.[84] 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.[101]

text:
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[102]
355
270
Million hectares. Only contiguous U.S., excludes Alaska.

Total area used for ethanol crop (2006)[27][102]
3.6(1%)
10 (3.7%)
Million hectares (% total arable)

Productivity[27][99][102][103]
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][84][104]
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.[105]
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][106]
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)[107][108][109]
16.3 million
10 million
 All fleets as of December 2011. The Brazilian fleet includes 1.5 million flex fuel motorcycles.[110][111][112] 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,[113] U.S. by May 2011.[14] (170,000 total.[44])

Ethanol's share within the gasoline market[5][114][115][116]
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)[99]
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.[105] (3) CARB estimate for Midwest corn ethanol. California's gasoline carbon intensity is 95.86 blended with 10% ethanol.[21][106] (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.[117]

text: Environmental and social impact[edit]

text: Environmental effects[edit]

text: Energy balance and carbon intensity[edit]

text: 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.[118][119][120] However, a more commonly cited figure is 20 to 30 percent, and an 85 to 85 percent reduction for cellulosic ethanol.[119][121] 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.[120][122]

text: 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.[119][123]

text: Effects of land use change[edit]

text:
Summary of Searchinger et al. comparison of corn ethanol and gasoline GHG emissionswith and without land use change   (CO2 release rate (g/MJ))[24][124]

Fuel type(U.S.)
Carbonintensity
ReductionGHG
Carbonintensity + ILUC
ReductionGHG

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.[124]

text: Two 2008 studies, both published in the same issue of Scienceexpress, questioned the previous assessments.[23][24][125] 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]

text: 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]

text: Low-carbon fuel standards[edit]

text: 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.[126][127][128] The consultation process produced controversy regarding the inclusion and modeling of indirect land use change effects.[129][130][131][132][133] 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.[127][134][135][136][137][138][139] The emissions standard for 2011 for LCFS meant that Midwest corn ethanol would not meet the California standard unless current carbon intensity is reduced.[126][137][139][140]

text: 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).[141][142][143] EPA's proposal included the carbon footprint from indirect land-use changes.[144][145] 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,[146][147] to develop a plan to increase flexible fuel vehicle use, assist in retail marketing and to coordinate infrastructure policies.

text: The group also was tasked to develop policy ideas for increasing investment in next-generation fuels, and for reducing biofuels' environmental footprint.[146][147][148]

text: 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."[149][150] 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..."[151]

text: On February 3, 2010, EPA finalized the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) for 2010 and beyond.[152] EPA incorporated direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes along with comments and data from new studies.[153] Adopting a 30-year time horizon and a 0% discount rate[105] 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.[153] 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.[105]

text: 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.[154]

text:
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyLife cycle year 2022 GHG emissions reduction results for RFS2 final rule[154](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)
MeanGHG emissionreduction(1)
GHG emissionreduction95% 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.

text: Water footprint[edit]

text: 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.[155][156][157][158]

text: 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.[155] 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.[155] 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."[156]

text: 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.[157]

text: In 2010 RFA argued that more efficient water technologies and pre-treated water could reduce consumption.[90] 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."[90]

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

text: 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.[156]

text: 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 algae died, 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.[155][156][158]

text: Social implications[edit]

text: Effect on food prices[edit]

text: 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.[125][159][160][161][162] 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",[163][164] echoing his October 2007 call for a 5-year ban for the conversion of land for the production of biofuels.[165][166] 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."[167][168][169]

text: A July 2008 World Bank report[170] 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."[171][172] 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.[170]

text: 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."[173]

text: 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."[174]

text: A July 2008 OECD economic assessment[175] 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."[176]

text: 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.".[177]


document_title: Old Firm

question_text: who has won more titles rangers or celtic

question_tokens: who has won more titles rangers or celtic

root

text: Old Firm

text: Origin of 'Old Firm'[edit]

text: The origin of the term is unclear but may derive from the two clubs' initial match in which the commentators referred to the teams as "like two old, firm friends",[9] or alternatively may stem from a satirical cartoon published in a magazine prior to the 1904 Scottish Cup Final between the sides, depicting an elderly man with a sandwich board reading "Patronise The Old Firm: Rangers, Celtic Ltd", highlighting the mutual commercial benefits of their meetings.[10][11] The name may also be a reference to these two teams being among the original 11 members of the Scottish Football League formed in 1890.[12]

tag: p

text: Rivalry and sectarianism[edit]

text: The competition between the two clubs had roots in more than just a simple sporting rivalry.[3] It has as much to do with Northern Ireland as Scotland and this can be seen in the flags, cultural symbols and emblems of both clubs.[13] It was infused with a series of complex disputes, sometimes centred on religion (Catholic and Protestant), Northern Ireland-related politics (Loyalist and Republican), national identity (British or Irish Scots), and social ideology (Conservatism and Socialism).[14]

text: Another primary contributor to the intensity of the rivalry in the west of Scotland was that Rangers supporters are historically native Scots and Ulster Scots,[15] and Celtic supporters are historically Irish-Scots. While the confrontation between the two sets of supporters was often labelled as 'Sectarianism', 'Native-Immigrant tension' was an equally accurate catalyst for hostility between the two teams' supports in Scotland. Rangers' traditional support was largely from the Protestant community, and for decades the club had an unwritten rule whereby they would not knowingly sign a player of the Catholic faith.[16] The policy was decried by Graeme Souness when he became manager, and he brought ex-Celtic forward Mo Johnston to the club in a very public move away from the practice, which no longer continues.[17][18][19] Celtic's support was largely from those of Irish Roman Catholic backgrounds and while the club practiced no exclusion of Protestants and signed many of them to play for the team, there was a pro-Catholic mindset among some of the employees.[20] One effect is that Scottish flags are rarer than might be expected amongst both sets of supporters; Celtic fans are more likely to wave the Irish tricolour while Rangers fans tend to wave the Union Flag.

text: "When I was growing up, I went to a Catholic school, and there wasn’t one Rangers fan in the entire school," said Neil McGarvey, 43, who is involved in the operation of Kerrydale Street, a popular Celtic fan Web site. "It’s much more mixed now — my boy goes to a Catholic school, and there are maybe 5 percent Rangers fans now."

text: Traditionally, Rangers, founded in 1872, attracted the Protestant, Scottish establishment: Celtic, founded later in 1887, represented the Catholic Irish people in Scotland, as Celtic were founded on the promise that the club would deliver much-needed money and resources to a poverty-stricken Catholic population in East Glasgow.[15] Nevertheless, this dividing line seems to be blurred today in Glasgow: "mixed marriages" between Protestants and Catholics have never been higher and the old certainties – the Rangers supporter voting Conservative and the Celtic supporter voting Labour – are lost.[22][23]

text: In 2005 both Celtic and Rangers joined a project to tackle bigotry and sectarianism in sport,[24] but there was little change in the behaviour and subsequent prosecution of the fans.

text: The majority of Rangers and Celtic supporters do not get involved in sectarianism, but serious incidents do occur with a tendency for the actions of a minority to dominate the headlines.[24][13] The Old Firm rivalry fuelled many assaults on Derby days, and some deaths in the past have been directly related to the aftermath of Old Firm matches.[25] An activist group that monitors sectarian activity in Glasgow has reported that on Old Firm weekends, violent attacks increase ninefold over normal levels.[26] An increase in domestic abuse can also be attributed to Old Firm fixtures.[27] A freedom of information request found that Strathclyde Police incurred costs of £2.4 million for the seven derbies played during the 2010–11 season, with the clubs only contributing £0.3 million towards that.[28] Other high-profile games involving Rangers and Celtic incurred much lower costs.[28] The reason for the disparity in costs and the contribution made is that Strathclyde Police had to increase its activity elsewhere in Glasgow and beyond, while the clubs were only responsible for costs incurred in the vicinity of their stadium.[28]

text: In 2015, former Rangers player Brian Laudrup said that the Old Firm topped all of the rivalries he had played in,[29] which included the Milan derby and the Fiorentina – Juventus meetings[30] in Italy. Jim Bett, who had already played in Iceland prior to joining Rangers in the 1980s and thereafter moved to Belgium, stated that he declined an opportunity to return to the Ibrox club due to the sectarianism associated with life as a footballer in the west of Scotland, in contrast to his positive experiences living abroad.[31]

text: Disorder within stadia[edit]

text: Opposing fans fought an on-pitch battle in the aftermath of Celtic's 1–0 victory in the 1980 Scottish Cup Final at Hampden. This remains one of the worst invasions onto a football pitch ever reported, and was instrumental in alcohol being banned from football grounds in Scotland.[32][33][34]

text: There was serious fan disorder during an Old Firm match played on a Sunday evening in May 1999 at Celtic Park, with the usual tensions heightened by the fact that Rangers could clinch the league title with victory (and it became clear that they would do so from the early stages of the match). Several objects were thrown by Celtic fans, one of which struck referee Hugh Dallas forcing the game to be stopped while he received medical treatment.[35] With many of those in attendance having spent a full weekend drinking alcohol prior to the event, at least four Celtic fans invaded the field of play to confront Dallas during the game,[35] and more missiles were thrown at players on the pitch after the game.[35] Since the events of that day, Old Firm league matches have normally been played in the early afternoon and the possibility of an Old Firm title decider has been deliberately avoided.[36][37]

text: Legislation[edit]

text: From 1 March 2012, the police were given more powers to act against Sectarian acts at football matches through the new Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act. The law was designed specifically to target the Old Firm rivalry by reducing the religious hatred between the two opposing sides. The Act created two new offences, one covering behaviour in and around football matches and the other related to posts sent by either electronic or postal methods. People convicted under the act could face up to five years imprisonment. This is a much higher sentence than was previously in place. It will now make it much easier to prosecute this misbehaviour, which has proved difficult in the past.[38]

text: In March 2013 a protest by a number of Celtic fans took place to protest against the new laws and the subsequent match bans that a number of fans had received for breaking the Act. The protesters, known as the "Green Brigade," had marched without police authority and the event was therefore cracked down on by local authorities resulting in thirteen arrests. The protestors claim that the police instigated the trouble that occurred at this march.[39] Following the march, media coverage reported that the fans were growing further apart from the police than ever before. They claimed that the trust the fans hold with the police to work in cooperation with them is falling dramatically. The march that took place resulted in a number of complaints from both the Celtic and the Rangers fans that they were harassed by the police. Investigations are still underway to discover the legitimacy of these claims.[40]

text: Joint sponsorship[edit]

text: Glasgow-based brewers Tennent's were the primary commercial sponsor of both teams for several years;[41][42] any local business that only sponsored one would likely lose half its customers.[21] Previously, glazing company CR Smith (who later had a deal with Celtic alone),[43][44] communications firm NTL[45] and English brewers Carling[46] had also sponsored both clubs.

text: Events post-2012[edit]

text: In 2012, Rangers suffered a financial collapse leading to the liquidation of the commercial entity,[47][48] however the sporting assets were acquired by a new company[49] which allowed its playing membership to continue unbroken (albeit in the lowest division of the Scottish football league system).[50] It is regarded as a continuation of the same club by the relevant authorities.[51][52][53][54] As a result this would mean that for the first time in 120 years, no fixtures would be played between Rangers and Celtic.

text: The status of the Old Firm was also challenged,[15] following the logic that since Rangers 'died' during the events of 2012, the rivalry also expired and any matches played since that point would be between Celtic and a 'new Rangers', albeit playing at the same stadium, in the same colours, with the same supporters and some of the same players as before.[49][55] Adherents to this point of view refer to the club disparagingly as Sevco (the original name of the post-2012 holding company),[56] and Rangers supporters as 'zombies' or 'the undead'.[57] This difference of opinion became a new factor in the rivalry.[55]

text: Some Celtic supporters have been particularly vociferous in their assertions, to the extent of a group paying for a full-page newspaper advertisement in January 2015 announcing that their club would soon play its first fixture against the new Rangers.[58][59][60] By that point UEFA,[52] the European Club Association[53] and the Scottish Professional Football League[51] had made clear their position that Rangers remained the same club, and FIFA[54] also made statements to this effect shortly afterwards. Conversely, in 2013 numerous complaints had been made to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over official marketing communications from Rangers which stated they were “Scotland’s most successful club”, with this claim being disputed as the complainants declared the club had only been in existence for one year. Having considered the evidence, the ASA did not uphold the complaints.[61]

text: In July 2012, a large banner was displayed at Celtic Park during a game showing a cartoon zombie representing Rangers rising from the grave before being shot by a sniper, drawing criticism due to the gunman resembling a paramilitary from the Northern Ireland conflict, although Celtic escaped formal punishment over the matter.[62][63] Celtic fan groups have continued to display banners claiming Rangers are ‘dead’[64] as well as mocking other aspects of their economic problems.[65]

text: Celtic and their followers also became involved in other legal proceedings relating to Rangers,[66][67][68] including the outcome of the long-running EBT investigation.[69][70][71]

text: Results on the field[edit]

text: It took Rangers four years to climb through the lower divisions and re-take their place in the Scottish Premiership for the 2016–17 season; in the interim only two cup semi-finals were played between the clubs[72][73][74][75] and Celtic won all four league titles by significant margins (never less than 15 points).[76] The rivalry resumed in earnest by way of six matches during 2016–17, with Celtic eliminating Rangers from both cups at the semi-final stage on the way to lifting the trophies and emerging victorious in three of the matches in the league championship, which they also won without losing a game to secure their sixth successive title and a domestic treble.[77][78]

text: All-time head-to-head record[edit]

text: 1888–1999 statistics obtained from RSSSF; Remaining stats obtained from Soccerbase

text:
Competition
First match
Played
Rangers
Celtic
Draw

Scottish League
1891
311[a]
119
105
87

Scottish Cup
1890
50
16
24
10[b]

League Cup
1947
49
24
23
2

Totals
410
159
152
99

tag: table

text:
Jump up ^ League championship statistics include a play-off match for the 1904–05 title which Celtic won 2–1.[79][80]
Jump up ^ Some sources count the 2016 Scottish Cup match – won by Rangers on penalties[75] – as a victory for that club,[81] causing minor discrepancies in the tallies.

tag: ol

text: Defunct minor/wartime competitions[edit]

text: There are a number of matches between the two clubs that are not recognised in the official records, such as their first competitive meeting in the 1888–89 Glasgow Cup, in which Celtic defeated Rangers 6–1.[82]

text:
Competition[81][83]
Years
Played
Rangers
Celtic
Draw

Glasgow Cup
1887–1988
79
36
23
20

Glasgow Merchants Charity Cup
1892–1919[a]
19
8
10
1

Glasgow League / Inter City League
1895–1906
19
6
9
4

Glasgow International Exhibition Cup
1901
1
1
0
0

British League Cup
1902
1
0
1
0

Drybrough Cup
1971–1980
2
1
0
1

text: Jump up ^ Records incomplete: cup was played for between 1877–1966

text: Wartime competitions (all WWII)[edit]

text: During the Second World War, the Scottish Football League and Scottish Cup were suspended and in their place unofficial regional league competitions were set up (these were dominated by Rangers).[84] One of these games was a New Year's Day derby in 1943 which Rangers won 8–1.[85][86] In 2017, some Rangers supporters called for the wartime tournaments to be regarded as official via a petition.[87]

text:
Competition[81][83]
Years
Played
Rangers
Celtic
Draw

Emergency Western League
1939–1940
2
1
0
1

Southern League
1940–1946
12
7
3
2

Southern League Cup
1940–1946
4
4
0
0

Summer Cup
1940–1946
2
2
0
0

Victory Cup
1946
2
1
0
1

text: Biggest wins[edit]

text: * Four or more goals difference between the teams.

text: Celtic[edit]

text: 6-goal margin[edit]

text: Celtic 7–1 Rangers on 19 October 1957. Scottish League Cup

tag: ul

text: 5-goal margin[edit]

text: Celtic 5–0 Rangers on 21 March 1925. Scottish Cup

text: 4-goal margin[edit]

text:
Celtic 6–2 Rangers on 1 January 1896. Scottish Division One
Rangers 0–4 Celtic on 1 January 1898 Scottish Division One
Celtic 4–0 Rangers on 10 March 1900. Scottish Cup
Celtic 4–0 Rangers on 1 January 1914. Scottish Division One
Celtic 6–2 Rangers on 1 January 1939. Scottish Division One
Celtic 5–1 Rangers on 1 January 1966. Scottish Division One
Celtic 4–0 Rangers on 26 April 1969. Scottish Cup
Celtic 5–1 Rangers on 21 November 1998. Scottish Premier League
Celtic 6–2 Rangers on 27 August 2000. Scottish Premier League
Celtic 5–1 Rangers on 10 September 2016. Scottish Premiership
Rangers 1–5 Celtic on 29 April 2017. Scottish Premiership

text: Rangers[edit]

text: 5-goal margin[edit]

text: Rangers 5–0 Celtic on 1 January 1894. Scottish Division One

text: 4-goal margin[edit]

text:
Celtic 0–4 Rangers on 1 January 1899. Scottish Division One
Rangers 4–0 Celtic on 14 April 1928. Scottish Cup
Celtic 1–5 Rangers on 10 September 1960. Scottish Division One
Rangers 5–1 Celtic on 27 August 1988. Scottish Premier Division
Rangers 4–0 Celtic on 26 March 2000. Scottish Premier League
Rangers 5–1 Celtic on 26 November 2000. Scottish Premier League

text: Players who played for both teams[edit]

text: The ferocity of the rivalry has made it rare for a player to represent both teams during his career.[88] Players who played for both sides of the Old Firm included Alec Bennett,[89] Scott Duncan, Robert Campbell, and George Livingstone, who all played before the intensity of the rivalry had started prior to 1912, as well as later players: Alfie Conn,[90] Maurice Johnston,[18][19] Kenny Miller,[91][92] Steven Pressley[93] and Mark Brown (none of whom moved directly between the two clubs).

text: Pre-war[edit]

text:
Tom Dunbar (Celtic 1888–1891, Rangers 1891–1892, Celtic 1892–1898)[94]
John Cunningham (Celtic 1889–1892, Rangers ?–?)[95][96]
Allan Martin (Rangers 1891–1892, Celtic 1895–1896)[94]
George Livingstone (Celtic 1901–1902, Rangers 1906–1909)[94]
Alec Bennett (Celtic 1903–1908, Rangers 1908–1918)[94][89]
Tom Sinclair (Rangers 1904–1906, Celtic 1906–1907)[94][97]
Robert Campbell (Celtic 1905–1906, Rangers 1906–1914)[94]
Hugh Shaw (Rangers 1905–1906, Celtic 1906–1907)[94]
Willie Kivlichan (Rangers 1905–1907, Celtic 1907–1911)[94]
David Taylor (Rangers 1906–1911, Celtic 1918–1919 wartime guest)[94]
Davie McLean (Celtic 1907–1909, Rangers 1918–1919)[94]
Scott Duncan (Rangers 1913–1918, Celtic 1918–1919 wartime guest)[94]
James Young (Celtic 1917–1918, Rangers 1917–1918)[94]
Tully Craig (Celtic 1919–1922, Rangers 1923–1935)[94]

text: Post-war[edit]

text:
Alfie Conn (Rangers 1968–1974, Celtic 1977–1979)[94][90]
Mo Johnston (Celtic 1984–1987, Rangers 1989–1991)[94][18][19]
Kenny Miller (Rangers 2000–2001, Celtic 2006–2007, Rangers 2008–2011, Rangers 2014–present)[98][91][92]
Steven Pressley (Rangers 1990–1994, Celtic 2006–2008)[99][93]
Mark Brown (Rangers 1997–2001, Celtic 2007–2010)[100]

text: Played for opposite clubs during youth and senior careers[edit]

text:
John Dowie (youth career Rangers, senior career Celtic)[101]
Gordon Marshall (youth career Rangers, senior career Celtic)[102]
Craig Beattie (youth career with both Rangers and Celtic, senior career Celtic)[103][104]
Sean Fitzharris (youth career with both Rangers and Celtic, senior career Celtic)[105][106]
Greig Spence (youth career Rangers, senior career Celtic)[107][108]
Joe Thomson (youth career with both Rangers and Celtic, senior career Celtic)[109][110]
Dylan McGeouch (youth career with both Celtic and Rangers, senior career Celtic)[111][112]
Gregg Wylde (youth career with both Celtic and Rangers, senior career Rangers)[113]
Barry Robson (youth career Rangers, senior career Celtic)[114]
Michael O'Halloran (youth career Celtic, senior career Rangers)[115][116]
Liam Burt (youth career with both Celtic and Rangers, senior career Rangers)[117][118]

text: Individual records[edit]

text: Most appearances[edit]

text: As of end of season 2016–17. Any current players in bold.

text:
All competitions[119][120]

Rank
Name
Club
Games
Years

1
Alec Smith
Rangers
87
1894–1913

2
John Greig
Rangers
74
1962–1978

3
Paul McStay
Celtic
70
1982–1997

4
Billy McNeill
Celtic
65
1958–1975

Dougie Gray
Rangers
65
1925–1945

6
Sandy Jardine
Rangers
64
1967–1982

7
Roy Aitken
Celtic
62
1976–1990

8
Pat Bonner
Celtic
60
1979–1995

John McPherson
Rangers
60
1890–1902

10
Danny McGrain
Celtic
58
1970–1987

11
Alec McNair
Celtic
56
1905–1924

League games only[121][122]

Rank
Name
Club
Games
Years

1
Paul McStay
Celtic
54
1982–1997

2
Roy Aitken
Celtic
51
1976–1990

3
Pat Bonner
Celtic
50
1980–1995

4
Sandy Jardine
Rangers
44
1967–1982

Danny McGrain
Celtic
44
1970–1987

6
Ally McCoist
Rangers
43
1983–1998

7
Davie Cooper
Rangers
40
1977–1989

8
Tommy Burns
Celtic
39
1976–1989

Peter Grant
Celtic
39
1984–1997

10
John Greig
Rangers
38
1962–1978

11
Derek Johnstone
Rangers
37
1971–1985

text: Highest goalscorers[edit]

text:
All competitions[119][120]

Rank
Name
Club
Goals
Games
Ratio

1
Ally McCoist
Rangers
27
55
0.49

2
R.C. Hamilton
Rangers
24
46
0.52

3
Jimmy McGrory
Celtic
22
35
0.63

4
Sandy McMahon
Celtic
22
43
0.51

5
Jimmy Quinn
Celtic
18
37
0.49

6
John McPherson
Rangers
17
60
0.29

7
Alex Venters
Rangers
16
26
0.61

8
Jimmy Duncanson
Rangers
16
30
0.53

9
Henrik Larsson
Celtic
15
30
0.50

10
Bobby Lennox
Celtic
15
51
0.29

11
Willie Reid
Rangers
14
21
0.67

12
Alec Smith
Rangers
14
87
0.16

League games only[121][122]

Rank
Name
Club
Goals
Games
Ratio

1
Ally McCoist
Rangers
17
43
0.39

2
Sandy McMahon
Celtic
15
22
0.68

3
Henrik Larsson
Celtic
11
23
0.48

4
Jimmy McGrory
Celtic
10
19
0.53

5
Kenny Miller
Both[a]
10
19
0.53

6
John Campbell
Celtic
9
19
0.47

7
Jimmy Quinn
Celtic
9
21
0.43

8
Derek Johnstone
Rangers
9
37
0.24

9
Derek Parlane
Rangers
8
17
0.47

10
Charlie Nicholas
Celtic
8
18
0.44

11
Mark Hateley
Rangers
8
19
0.42

12
Tom McAdam
Celtic
8
30
0.27

text: Jump up ^ Miller has 9 league goals for Rangers, 1 for Celtic

text: Managerial statistics[edit]

text: As of end of season 2016–17. Minimum 10 Old Firm games as manager (Brendan Rodgers not yet eligible).

text:
[hide]Name
Team
Years
Overall Record[123][124][125][126]
League Record[127][128]

Games
Wins
Win %
Games
Wins
Win %

Martin O'Neill
Celtic
2000–2005
27
16
59%
20
13
65%

Bill Struth
Rangers
1920–1954[a][b]
116
66
57%
54
29
54%

David White
Rangers
1968–1969
10
4
40%
4
3
75%

Graeme Souness
Rangers
1986–1991
27
14
52%
20
10
50%

Walter Smith
Rangers
1991–1998, 2006–2011
56
28
50%
46
22
48%

Jock Stein
Celtic
1965–1978
58
29
50%
28
12
43%

Neil Lennon
Celtic
2010–2014
12
6
50%
9
5
55%

Scot Symon
Rangers
1954–1967
61
29
48%
27
17
63%

Billy McNeill
Celtic
1978–1983, 1987–1991
46
22
48%
36
16
44%

Gordon Strachan
Celtic
2005–2009
18
8
44%
16
6
37%

Jock Wallace
Rangers
1972–1978, 1984–1986
38
15
39%
28
9
32%

Dick Advocaat
Rangers
1998–2001
16
6
37%
14
5
36%

Alex McLeish
Rangers
2002–2006
25
8
32%
18
4
22%

William Wilton
Rangers
1899–1920
96
30
31%
42
11
26%

Davie Hay
Celtic
1983–1987
21
6
29%
16
6
37%

Willie Maley
Celtic
1897–1940[c]
146
43
29%
84
22
26%

John Greig
Rangers
1978–1983
27
7
26%
21
4
19%

Jimmy McGrory
Celtic
1945–1965
80
18
22%
38
6
16%

Tommy Burns
Celtic
1994-1997
15
3
20%
12
2
17%

Jimmy McStay
Celtic
1940–1945[d][e]
21
4
19%
0
0
0%

Liam Brady
Celtic
1991–1993
11
2
18%
9
2
22%

Willie Waddell
Rangers
1970–1972
12
1
8%
5
0
0%

text:
Jump up ^ 116 includes 27 unofficial wartime games
Jump up ^ 66 includes 19 unofficial wartime games
Jump up ^ 146 includes one unofficial wartime game
Jump up ^ All 21 are unofficial wartime games
Jump up ^ All 4 are unofficial wartime games

text: Attendances[edit]

text: The stadium attendance records for Rangers' Ibrox (118,567, January 1939)[129][130] and Celtic's Celtic Park (at least 83,500, January 1938)[131][132] were both set at Old Firm matches; however while the Ibrox figure is the Rangers club record (and the record for any domestic league match in the United Kingdom),[129] Celtic's biggest 'home' attendance was the 1969–70 European Cup semi-final with Leeds United, moved to the larger Hampden Park due to the anticipated interest: the crowd of 136,505 is a record for any match in European international club competitions.[133][129]

text: Hampden, Scotland's national stadium and home of Queen's Park, is situated roughly an equal distance from Ibrox and Celtic Park in Glasgow. Due to the frequency of the two teams appearing in semi-finals and finals held there (often facing one another), its West and East stands are always allocated to the same club and are informally known as the Rangers end and Celtic end respectively.[134][135] That stadium, once the largest in the world,[133][129] attracted the largest Old Firm attendance of all time with 132,870 at the 1969 Scottish Cup Final[129] (it is not the record for the competition, with 147,365 having attended the 1937 final which also featured Celtic, versus Aberdeen).[129][133] The record Scottish League Cup final attendance (107,609; October 1965) was an Old Firm affair,[129] although the tournament record was set in 1947 when Rangers overcame Hibernian in a semi-final before 123,830.[136]

text: Since redevelopments completed in the 1990s, all three venues are all-seater with much smaller capacities of between 50,000 and 60,000, meaning the above records may never be beaten.

text: The 1971 Ibrox disaster – in which 66 Rangers supporters died in a crush on an exterior stairway – occurred at the end of an Old Firm match,[130] although the identity of the opposition was not a factor in the incident other than having drawn a large crowd of at least 75,000 to the event.[137]

text: Dominance of Scottish football[edit]

text: The intensity of the rivalry is fuelled by the clubs' historical duopoly in Scottish football, with most meetings between them being pivotal in deciding the destiny of a championship or cup and anything but a title-winning season seen as a major disappointment, particularly as it would usually mean 'the enemy' has won the trophy.

text: League[edit]

text: Statistics show that Rangers and Celtic have been by far the most successful clubs involved in the Scottish Football League since its formation in 1890. The pair were the only participants in every edition of the competition until 2012, when Rangers were removed from the top tier for economic reasons; they returned for the 2016–17 season. Of the 120 championships played, 102 (85%) have been won by one of the Old Firm with Rangers ahead on 54 titles to Celtic's 48, and 19 between ten other clubs (including a shared title between Rangers and Dumbarton).

text: Although there have been brief periods when silverware went elsewhere, there have also been long spells of domination by each Old Firm club, the longest run of 9-in-a-row being first set by Celtic between 1966 and 1974, matched by Rangers between 1989 and 1997.

text: On just five occasions since 1891 have neither of the Glasgow giants been the league winner nor the runner-up. This includes 1964–65, the only season in which both Rangers and Celtic failed to finish in the top three places. The Old Firm have finished 1st and 2nd 48 times overall. Between the resurgence of Celtic in the mid-1990s and the liquidation of Rangers in 2012, '1–2' finishes were recorded in all but one of 17 SPL-era seasons.

text: The longest sequence without an Old Firm title is three years between 1983 and 1985, while the longest unbroken run of championships between the two clubs began immediately afterwards and is ongoing: 32 seasons and counting since 1986 (overtaking a previous sequence of 27 years between 1905 and 1931).

text: As of end of season 2016–17. Runners-up in (parentheses)

text:
Outcome[4]
Celtic
Rangers
Combined
%

One club 1st, other 2nd
24 (24)
24 (24)
48
40%

One club 1st, other not top 2
24
30
54
45%

Title wins by Old Firm club
48
54
102
85%

One club 2nd, other not top 2
N/A (7)
N/A (6)
13
11%

Neither club in top 2
N/A
N/A
5
4%

Title wins by another club
N/A
N/A
18*
15%

Totals
48 (31)
54 (30)
120
100%

text: For the purpose of the calculation, the shared 1891 title is attributed to Rangers only here to prevent it being counted twice.

text: Scottish Cup[edit]

text: Although the initial Scottish Cup was played in 1874, 15 years before Celtic were formed, they have still won the competition more than any other club - 37 times, plus 18 runners-up - with Rangers not far behind on 33 (also 18 runners-up).

text: There have been 14 Old Firm finals, while there have been just 39 finals involving neither Rangers or Celtic, 17 of which were in the 1800s.

text: The longest run of Old Firm wins is 11 between 1971 and 1981.

text:
Outcome[5]
Celtic
Rangers
Combined
%

Old Firm final
7 (7)
7 (7)
14
11%

One winner, other not involved
30
26
56
43%

Cup wins by an Old Firm club
37
33
70
54%

One runner-up, other not involved
N/A (11)
N/A (11)
22
17%

neither club involved
N/A
N/A
39
29%

Cup wins by another club
N/A
N/A
61
46%

Totals
37 (18)
33 (18)
131
100%

text: Old Firm Scottish Cup finals[edit]

text: Rangers wins: 1893–94, 1927–28, 1962–63, 1965–66, 1972–73, 1998–99, 2001–02

text: Celtic wins: 1898–99, 1903–04, 1968–69, 1970–71, 1976–77, 1979–80, 1988–89

text: Cup withheld: 1908–09[10][11][138]

text: League Cup[edit]

text: The Scottish League Cup has been contested 72 times since 1946–47. Rangers are dominant in terms of wins with 27 from 34 finals, with Celtic some way behind on 17 wins from 32 finals. 13 other clubs share 28 wins between them. 14 of its finals have been Old Firm occasions,[139] while 20 featured neither of them.

text: The longest run of Old Firm wins is 8 between 1964 and 1971.

text: As of end of the 2017–18 competition which concluded in November 2017. Runners-up in (parentheses)

text:
Outcome[6]
Celtic
Rangers
Combined
%

Old Firm final
5 (9)
9 (5)
14
19%

One winner, other not involved
12
18
30
42%

Cup wins by an Old Firm club
17
27
44
61%

One runner-up, other not involved
N/A (6)
N/A (2)
8
11%

neither club involved
N/A
N/A
20
28%

Cup wins by another club
N/A
N/A
28
39%

Totals
17 (15)
27 (7)
72
100%

text: Old Firm League Cup finals[edit]

text: Rangers wins: 1964–65, 1970–71, 1975–76, 1977–78, 1983–84, 1986–87, 1990–91, 2002–03, 2010–11[139]

text: Celtic wins: 1957–58, 1965–66, 1966–67, 1982–83, 2008–09[139]