Mark Stowers, research and development director of POET, America’s largest ethanol producer, says cellulosic ethanol technology is ready for prime time.
(Mark Clayton)Photos (1 of 1)
The ‘holy grail’ of biofuels now in sight
Long-promised cellulosic ethanol is in modest production, but hurdles remain.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ February 13, 2009 edition
Scotland, S.D.
With one foot planted in a pile of corn cobs, Mark Stowers explains how agricultural waste, transformed into ethanol, will turbocharge the US economy, boost its energy security, and help save the planet, too.
This holy grail of biofuels, called cellulosic ethanol, has been “five years from commercialization” for so long that even Dr. Stowers admits it’s become a joke.
But now the research director for POET, the nation’s largest ethanolmaker, based in Sioux Falls, S.D., says that despite bad economic news and major obstacles, cellulosic’s time is near. Other scientists agree.
Corn-based ethanol, which many critics argue does not do enough to slow climate change, is nearing US production limits. In Washington, cellulosic ethanol is gaining political traction. And cellulosic technology seems ready for prime time – at last.
‘Cellulosic ethanol is real’
The proof, Stowers says, lies inside a nearby windowless, high-roofed single-story metal building. Filled with a maze of pipes and vats, this $8 million test facility is a miniature cellulosic ethanol plant that pumps out 20,000 gallons a year of nearly clear alcohol extracted from cobs like the ones beneath his feet.
“This pilot plant shows cellulosic ethanol is real – that the technology is here,” Stowers says. “Ultimately, cellulosic will allow us to make significant inroads to replacing oil for our nation’s gasoline needs.”
The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) calls for boosting production of biofuels to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 – about 15 billion gallons of it corn ethanol, the rest cellulosic. (By contrast, the US produced about 9 billion gallons of corn ethanol last year.) That would replace about one-fifth of the nation’s gasoline needs without displacing current crops.
But looking forward, biofuels could play a far larger role. By 2030, biofuels may reach 60 billion gallons, according to a new report released Feb. 10 by Sandia National Laboratory. That would require 480 million tons of biomass, including 215 million tons of dedicated energy crops like switchgrass. Such fuel crops would require 48 million acres of what is now pasture or idle land, the report says.
Such a shift would slash annual US tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions by 260 million tons a year – about equal to the emissions from 45 coal-fired power plants. Cellulosic ethanol feedstock crops would require little or no irrigation, a big advantage over corn. The cost: about $250 billion, the same or less than that of boosting US oil production by the same amount.
One-third of nation’s needs by 2030?
With a few key technology improvements, the United States could do even better, creating up to 90 billion gallons of ethanol by 2030, enough to meet one-third of the nation’s transportation fuel needs, Sandia found. In that scenario, about 75 billion gallons would be cellulosic fuel. Just 15 billion gallons a year would come from corn, the report said.
Getting there will be a huge challenge. The handful of pilot cellulosic plants in the US produce maybe 1 million gallons a year. Production would have to be ramped up a thousandfold to meet the 2013 federal goal of 1 billion gallons. That seems unlikely, given the economy’s tailspin.
Of the six commercial-scale cellulosic biofuel plants funded by the US Department of Energy (DOE), two have bowed out. Another smaller-scale project supported by DOE, a partnership between Lignol Energy of Vancouver and Calgary-based Suncor, withdrew Feb. 9.
Not on track at the moment
As of right now, “we’re not on track” to produce 1 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2013, says Thomas Foust, biomass technology manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. “Obviously, the credit crunch and recession have put dampers on and delayed commercial plants. But a number of companies are still pursuing it very vigorously. We’re doing the same.”
Next year, the POET company will begin construction of its first 25-million-gallon commercial-scale cellulosic plant dubbed “Liberty” in Emmetsburg, Iowa, Stowers says.
The DOE is paying for 40 percent of the $200 million facility, expected to open in 2011. After that, POET plans to “bolt on” similar corn-cob-munching cellulosic factories at its 26 conventional corn-based ethanol production facilities, he says.
Not to be outdone, Range Fuels, a Broomfield, Colo., company, last month won an $80 million loan guarantee from the US Department of Agriculture for the nation’s first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant, now under construction in Soperton, Ga. It aims to begin production next year.
‘Blend wall’ may crimp ethanol
To succeed, cellulosic will have to buck not only low oil prices, the credit crunch, and recession, but also uncertain demand – thanks to the “blend wall.”
The RFS today requires refiners to blend into gasoline about 14 billion gallons of ethanol – about 10 percent of US gasoline consumption. But with ethanol production capacity near that level now, cellulosic producers may not find many buyers – unless the national blend mandate for ethanol is raised to 15 percent or higher, which is what ethanol producers and farmers would like.
“The blend wall has a huge potential impact on cellulosic ethanol development,” Foust says. “The No. 1 issue is a stagnant economy. But next to that, the issue that won’t resolve itself is the blend wall.”
Some environmental groups worry that this means traditional corn-based ethanol will benefit more than environmentally friendly cellulosic. Others say older vehicles’ emissions systems will be damaged by a higher percentage of alcohol in fuel, thus worsening air pollution.
Low oil prices hurt ethanol
“We can’t afford to play fast and loose with Clean Air Act protections,” says Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental activist group.
Another huge hurdle is cost-competitiveness. Cellulosic ethanol requires a more complex process that uses costly enzymes. At present, a gallon of cellulosic ethanol costs about $2.25 a gallon to produce: That’s 40 to 50 cents more than corn ethanol and 75 cents more than gasoline. But under Sandia’s projections, cellulosic ethanol’s retail cost could fall to just $1.72 a gallon without any incentives or taxes and still be competitive with gasoline – if oil costs $90 per barrel.
But with a barrel of crude now selling for roughly $40, it’s difficult for cellulosic or even corn ethanol to compete. Still, POET, Foust, and others are looking ahead to when the global economy stabilizes and oil bounces back to around $90 a barrel.
Economy’s long shadow hurts, too
Recession and the credit crunch are the deepest shadows over cellulosic development, Foust says. Of the 20 or so investment banks that financed billions in corn-ethanol development over the past decade, only five are still in business. And with oil cheap and ethanol demand weak, investor appetite for more ethanol production is tepid.
That may change. The new stimulus bill has $500 million allocated for the development of “leading edge biofuels.”
Besides economics, critical environmental concerns remain. Key among them: Which method is the most environmentally friendly?
Environmentalists like Mr. Greene aren’t eager to support cellulosic ethanol unless it can be proved that the impact from its development – including US and EU policies – is a clear plus for the environment.
Larger climate impact must be weighed
By law, “advanced biofuels” like cellulosic ethanol must be certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as producing at least 60 percent less greenhouse gas than gasoline does. Mr. Stowers and others are optimistic that that’s a slam-dunk.
But what about the climatic impact of biofuels as the result of crop shifts and land-use change worldwide? What would be the impact if farmers plow under marginal grasslands and forests to grow switchgrass? How much agricultural waste can be collected from farm fields before the result is more erosion?
The land-use question over corn-based ethanol has fired debate since last summer, when one study found diversion of US corn production for fuel had cut US corn exports. That, in turn, caused developing nations to plant more corn, a shift that may have negated the advantage of corn ethanol over gasoline in terms of its overall impact on global warming.
Now the same debate is likely to erupt for cellulosic ethanol, not only for its potential effect on food prices but also its net impact on climate.
Food crops vs. fuel crops
“One of the points often made in favor of cellulosic ethanols,” says Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental activist group, “is that the feedstocks for it, like switchgrass, would be grown on marginal land. But if it is that profitable on marginal land, imagine how profitable it would be on prime crop land. There’s nothing to stop it from happening.”
The EPA, charged with evaluating the carbon footprint of cellulosic ethanol to determine if it meets the 60 percent threshold, has done a preliminary land-use impact evaluation. But those tentative results haven’t been released because the methodology is being refined, experts say.
“Indirect land-use impacts is a new analysis area that’s very tough, from a modeling and data point of view,” says Wallace Tyner, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. “But we’re making progress. Within the next year we are going to narrow the bounds considerably.”
Getting ethanol feedstock right is key
All of this leaves NRDC’s Greene wanting government to take a slower, closer look at potential cellulosic feedstocks like switchgrass, miscanthus, poplar, and other crops in order to get federal policy toward cellulosic right from the start.
“The refining technology is obviously a challenge that will succumb to American innovation,” he says. “But getting the feedstock right is key. If we mow down corn to put in switchgrass, well, you’ve got that food versus fuel trade-off again.”
Harvesting agriculture “wastes” for biofuels also raises critical questions and needs closer analysis. POET, for instance, gets high marks from Greene for its careful evaluation of the impact of removing corn cobs from farm fields, which the company and others say appears to deduct only about 2 to 3 percent of the nutrients.
Even so, it turns out most corn stover – which is everything but the corn kernel (stalk, leaves, and cobs) – is badly needed for soil enrichment and to prevent erosion.
Crop waste helps fields, too
“A portion of the [corn] stover can be made available as feedstock for bioenergy purposes,” say Douglas Karlen, research leader for soil and water quality at the National Soil Tilth Laboratory in Ames, Iowa.
Harvesters would have to be outfitted with software to gauge exactly how much corn stover was taken from the field, he says.
“There’s not a blanket or uniform amount,” Dr. Karlen says. “It has to vary not only by farm, but within an individual field. The amount taken has to vary because the land varies.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. Obbie Z | 02.13.09
All of these hurdles would become moot if we simply decided to drive less… a LOT less. A century ago our society functioned perfectly well without this massive auto-centric infrastructure. We must reorient ourselves to a society and an economy where this environmentally wasteful culture is replaced with one centered on proximity and public transit.
3. BiomassBlog | 02.13.09
The two previous comments come from people who believe that improving public transportation is part of a long term solution to energy security. Agreed, it should be. Unfortunately this view doesn’t recognize that liquid fuels aren’t only utilized to get to the grocery store. They also power trucking, farming, and defense, areas that are just as vital. And yes, we are talking about capturing the sun’s energy in biofuels. Frankly most all “clean” fuels rely on the sun’s energy in one way or another. Unfortunately none of these other excellent technologies provides the same inherit storage and transport capabilities as liquid biofuels. Funny thing, wind and solar powered tractor trailers, combines, and F-16s just don’t seem to fly.
4. Peter Ludwig | 02.13.09
I cannot understand why diesel/biodiesel is not a better choice than gasoline/ethanol. Biodiesel production seems a lot less complex. Even with the modest extra cost of diesel engines, the bottom line ought to be better. Help, please!
5. Paul Glover | 02.13.09
This is a terrible idea. Cellulosic ethanol is a euphemism for cutting down forests so we can drive. Rebuild the train system. Revive regional economies. Cars are old-fashioned.
6. Steve | 02.13.09
There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now.
http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
7. Andy Bater | 02.13.09
The first two comments come from people who believe that improving public transportation is part of a long term solution to energy security. Agreed, it should be. Unfortunately this view doesn’t recognize that liquid fuels aren’t only utilized to get to the grocery store. They also power trucking, farming, and defense, areas that are just as vital. And yes, we are talking about capturing the sun’s energy in biofuels. Frankly most all “clean” fuels rely on the sun’s energy in one way or another. Unfortunately none of these other excellent technologies provides the same inherit storage and transport capabilities as liquid biofuels. Funny thing, wind and solar powered tractor trailers, combines, and F-16s just don’t seem to fly.
8. Lance Emerson | 02.13.09
I am disappointed in the assumption made by the CSM that man made global warming is a proven science. I once considered the CSM to be an excellent paper with a record of unbiased reporting. This article “accepts” the premise that global warming is man made. I have been paying less attention to the so called mainsteam media for many years. I am sorry to say that I now consider the CSM to be in the same category. The global warming issue isn’t the only issue that I have seen distorted by the CSM. I am really sorry to see (what I viewed as a publication above reproach)become another Mainstream Media Outlet.
9. Jake | 02.13.09
And yet the state division of air quality has approved the construction of a new power plant for burning petroleum coke, a petroleum fuel that is dirtier than coal and releases known carcinogens - worst of all in what is currently a residential zone. There’s a startling news story about the development here:
10. Harshad | 02.13.09
I simply cannot believe that a technology to harness energy from lignocellulosic substrates is still ‘viable’. i have been working in this area of research since the last 7 years.
11. Ron Bengtson | 02.13.09
This is a great story! It is good news for America, and for the world. It means that developing nations will also have access to this technology to produce their own fuels from their own domestic resources.
Now what is needed is the Alcohol Engine in order to take advantage of Ethanol’s superior combustion characteristics… a spark ignition internal combustion engine that runs on 100% ethanol.
An engine designed and optimized to specifically run on Ethanol will be able to convert more energy directly into mechanical power, thus enabling the vehicle to achieve mileage efficiency equal or greater than a gasoline engine.
http://www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/alcoholengines.aspx
12. Ciceroji | 02.13.09
What no one seems to be discussing is biofuels are a bandaid. If implemented properly with waste material and using diesel they will provide us a slight bit of time until the hour of doom.
I think everyone needs to understand the nature of growth and exponential functions. All constant growth is an exponential function. Exponential functions by definition grow to infinity. So we basically will need at some point in the future an inifinite amount of energy if we plan on having indefinite growth.
Check out this video on youtube. The professor really hammers the math and makes things very clear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Oh, and check out http://www.theorionproject.org for a real solution. If you think it scientifically impossible start making your downpayment on your bunker and supply of food.
13. horace greenleaf | 02.14.09
obviously, we have to stop using food for fuel and biomass seems to pollute as well as consume vast amounts of energy in the process of manufacturing it.
what about compressed air or natural gas?
14. doninhc | 02.14.09
The story is interesting, but incomplete. Does this make biofuel sustainable without Government subsidies? How does gasoline cost $1.50 to produce, but is being sold at or below that rate in so many U.S. regions? Does the biofuel cost the same or less to produce to yield the same energy output as diesel and gasoline? How will the engine manufacturers solve the more corrosive wear that ethanol and similar products produce? We need better journalists to cover more than the current pop culture, feel good aspects. Making the air cleaner is a worthy cause in itself, but man-made global warming is increasingly seen as preposterous.
15. Mike Higgins | 02.14.09
I agree with #8 Lance Emerson, the CSM’s once well-deserved reputation of unbiased reporting has apparently been hijacked by a management team which has NO interest in journalistic integrity. This is blatantly obvious in the paper’s coverage of the environment.
Just look at the Environment page of csmonitor.com, where you will NOT find a single link which questions man-made global warming. Search the entire list of past and present blog entries and you will find NO entries that report on the major flaws of man-made global warming science or the rapidly growing number of scientific skeptics. Interestingly, this is so in spite of the fact that a majority of reader comments to entries in the blog could be classified as skeptical of man-made global warming.
The real shame, besides the distortion of truth that it perpetuates and the evidence it presents that the CSM is no longer following the precepts upon which it was founded, is that the CSM is putting a lot of effort into finding a way to cover its costs and, theoretically, be of better service to its readers. It is in a unique position as an independent newspaper, free from the control of big business and big government, to report in a balanced and unbiased manner, yet it continues to serve as a mouthpiece for the special interests of big business and big government.
If the CSM really wants to expand its readership, it must decide to serve the people instead of big business and big government. Bring back unbiased reporting. Be more critical of big business and big government. These are the real issues of the day. For goodness sakes, think different!
Report more on the people’s loss of liberties and fight against the increasing concentration of business and government. These are areas that remain under served by the mainstream media and need more coverage. The continuing encroachment of big business and big government acting together is the biggest threat to our freedom and prosperity. Only pursuing this path can the CSM remain relevant and true to its founding precepts “to injure no man, but to bless all mankind.”
If you share these beliefs and want the CSM to regain its lost stature and reputation as an independent voice always seeking the truth, I encourage you to e-mail the clerk of the church at Clerk@churchofchristscientist.org and make your views known to the Board of Directors of the church. The management at the CSM is tone deaf. This kind of criticism is completely ignored. Let’s take our newspaper back and put it back on its rightful track so it can once again be an independent source of news instead of a mouthpiece of the monied interests of big business and big government.
16. Rob Mida | 02.14.09
Oh, wait…it’s just a mirage.
For a comprehensive analysis, I’d recommend reading
The Real Cost of Agrofuels
http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/publications/Therealcostofagrofuels.pdf
17. Don Heichel | 02.14.09
Ron Bengtson posts (2-13-09):”Now what is needed is the Alcohol Engine in order to take advantage of Ethanol’s superior combustion characteristics”
Europe’s Ricardo claims breakthrough in ethanol engine efficiency
February 6, 2009
Company says system reaches near-diesel levels of efficiency, and reduces operational costs.
The company’s Ethanol Boosted Direct Injection, or EBDI, takes advantage of ethanol’s best properties—higher octane and higher heat of vaporization—and achieves the performance of diesel, at the cost of a gas engine, and runs on ethanol, gasoline, or a blend of both, the company said.
18. Craig Hansen | 02.14.09
The obvious financial analysis of an $8 million plant producing 20,000 gallons per year comes to $40/gallon (10% of capital cost divided by output). How is this even remotely economically feasible?
19. Christina E | 02.14.09
Alternative fuels from feed sources are not a good idea. It is important to look at the energy balance between the fossil fuel energy used to make the fuel (input) compared with the energy in the fuel (output). Some biofuels like ethanol are not too favorable.
Out of all of the alternative fuel sources…algae is the most promising. Surprisingly no one has talked about this yet. Algae pretty much acts as a solution to all the negative effects of producing biofuels. Algae will be the most promising!
Alternative fuels are not the only answer…but can act as part of the solution. Biodiesel can be a good partial answer in the short term…the infrastructure is already there…and running biodiesel on the mass amounts of transportation and agriculture vehicles would be a big start. But using food sources to make it biodiesel is a bad choice. I think the three best options for biodiesel production will come from: algae, yellow grease, and brown oil(from waste treatment facilities). These three don’t need agricultural land and don’t compete as food sources.
Natural gas…bad choice too…the key here is RENEWABLE resources. Turning to something like natural gas would be like switching from a machine gun to a hand gun. Another bad choice I hear people talk about is using water as a fuel source…do I even need to say why this would be bad?
Anyway, I do think that the coverage of alternative fuels by mainstream media has not been very well done. They could use some more time doing their homework!
20. Brian Ashman | 02.15.09
I like this article. I’m not surprised to see deniers of the current dominance of man made theories of global warming. I’ve read plenty about the millions being paid by big business to fund biased and often fraudulent research to cast doubt on the vast evidence suggesting that we need energy policy changes to address a CO2 issue. I believe CSM is under attack precisely because they are doing their job with independent journalistic integrity. Even if cellulose ethanol were a misguided pursuit, the implications for energy policy merit coverage. Denial gets us nowhere.
I agree investigative reporting on continuing collusion of business and government corruption on large scales that border on racketeering deserves CSM’s continued attention. However, I appreciate this update regarding an issue with profound implications for energy policy, our economy, and global business. The many complaints regarding this article’s incompleteness attest to a news worthy topic.
We need innovations, and analysis of potential consequences of implementing them. I wish CSM cited Tillman’s work showing how mixed plant assemblages out-produce monocultures for cellulose biomass production. This could lead to prairie restoration and soil fertility improvement rather than merely fields of pure switch grass.
No technology, not even oil, solves all problems. The USDA still occasionally burns waste corn, that could become ethanol. Paper mills still dispose of waste fibers, that could yield energy without harvesting more trees. Such diverse options add robustness to our economy. This robustness adds security to energy supplies we depend upon. Anything can be done to excess, and rapid oil drilling is surely one of them. Alternatives make demand flexible, so that resource development may proceed at a more deliberate and efficient pace rather than in boom and bust cycles of speculation and market manipulation by narrow interests.
The updates to the US power grid included in the recent “stimulus package” will increase the efficiency of energy transfers between solar or wind rich regions and energy poor regions. This greatly improves the economics of developing such resources. Energy is too big a topic for one article to summarize.
21. Phil Stevens | 02.15.09
For Lance and Mike -
Arguing for presentation of the political controversy over anthropogenic global warming is not the same as presenting significant research that adequately refutes the present-day findings of the body of modern climate science. Those findings are continually evolving and the message is not only becoming clearer, it’s showing trends that are accelerating due to positive feedback.
Instead of shrilly complaining that CSM editorial positions are marginalizing your skepticism, please refer us to the relevant peer-reviewed research in climate science which supports your claims. In other words: Put up or shut up.
22. zagyzebra | 02.15.09
This is a pathetic reporting job. It’s as if the author was 1) inexperienced or 2) in too much of a hurry to do adequate research on the subject.
A much more exhaustive piece of research is the study pointed out by Rob Mida a few posts earlier, The Real Cost of Agrifuels. You would think the reporter would have delved into the subject matter more…it’s all there, in overwhelming detail.
23. Anon | 02.15.09
THIS IS NO SOLUTION:
Problem is we still have to distill the “beer” to make the “whisky”.
The solution might be to grow an algae which creates a wax in ponds. Every few years just dredge the ponds to get the wax. Simple.
24. A. East | 02.15.09
Any internal combustion engine wastes the vast majority of the energy contained in the fuel, no matter what kind it is, as heat. That same energy from the same fuel can be efficiently converted to electricity with very little waste. Then electric cars can convert the electricity to motion with very little waste, completely avoiding the problem of corrosion.
The burning of the biofuels can take place at large power plants where it is easier to capture carbon emissions. The electricity can be transported over the existing power grid, slated for much needed upgrade by stimulus package funds. We could get probably ten times more energy out of liquid fuels in this way.
The delivery system, the existing power grid, is also the delivery system for power generated by solar, wind, ocean, or whatever other alternative electricity production method we devise. Thus, as we transition from carbon emitting combustion to cleaner energy sources we don’t have to build a new retail delivery system.
With all these advantages why are we talking about replacing dirty outdated gasoline combustion engines with dirty outdated ethanol combustion engines?
25. Daniel | 02.15.09
Biodiesel is a far superior component of energy independence. Corn is one of the most resource hungry crops. I did a study of biodiesel for college and we were supposed to find the energy balance from seed to pump using soybeans as a feedstock. In my study I found most people arguing the issue using a DOT study from the early nineties. The biggest problem was that report used crop yields from the seventies. Love it or hate it, but ADM and Monsanto have more than doubled soybean yields in many states. With this increase in yield, biodiesel generated a positive energy balance. Couple that fact with the new diesel cars that get 80 miles per gallon and a significant part of the transportation energy equation is solved.
26. d congour | 02.15.09
I agree with A. East, that electric vehicles are a trend that will eventually take over the market, at least for personal transportation. A few reasons why I think so:
1. Internal combustion engines - approx %15-20 efficient
Electric engines - greater than %90 efficent
2. Source for energy captured in all crops/molecular bonds in ethanol (gas and diesel also) - the Sun.
3. Photovoltaic panels WILL increase greatly in efficiency form their present %14, while falling in price due to better design/ more widespread usage; and when they do, the electric car owner could plug into a rooftop array and charge your EV batts for FREE.
4. Comparison of number of steps in conversion of sun’s energy to usable transportation energy- Ethanol:fertilize, tend, harvest, transport raw product, ferment, filter, blend, ship in large trucks to cracking plant, mix with gasoline,truck to gas station, pump into gas tank, burn at %20 efficency. Solar: direct conversion of suns rays to PV electricity, plugged directly into your battery pack to be consumed at %90 efficiency, or, worst case, transit grid to point of use!
5. Experiments are underway to have battery stations at existing gas stations (transition technology) that will swap your depleted battery pack with freshly charged, and you’re on your way even quicker than with a gas refil probably at a much lower price.
By the way, battery technology WILL continue to improve to the point where lighter vehicle designs will be able to keep up with the internal combustion model (has anyone ever seen technology stand still?). By the way, large interstate trucks will also be able to use electric propulsion in time, after all, what kind of engines run the Queen Mary and most Locomotives? You guessed it, their engines are electric. The fuel source is diesel, converted to electricity and fed to the electric motor. They will probably be run this way for many years to come, as the energy density of diesel far esceeds that of present day batteries on a energy/weight basis, but still…
Will we still need petro based fuels, OF COURSE we will, but save it for airplanes/other vehicles that will need it both the short and long term.
Maybe a better use for ethanol will be for use in producing the other products we need that are presently based on petroleum. From where you are sitting, reach out blindly, and you will touch something that was produced with petrochemicals. We are presently burning most of our petroleum. We’ll be sorry someday that we did.
27. Dimitrijevic | 02.15.09
There are hundreds of thousands of square miles of desert and marginal land west of mid-Texas all the way north to the Canadian border. Much of that land supports virtually zero commercial agriculture. However that land WILL support native species such as mesquite, desert willow, huisache, various pines and others. If that land were intensively planted with those species NOW we’d be creating an enormous supply of feedstock for the near future.
By the way, growing trees for use as biomass does not involve planting seedlings then waiting twenty or fifty or one hundred years for the tree to reach maturity. The trees are coppiced, or cut short at the age of five or ten years old, then the sprouts that grow from the stump are harvested as biomass every year or two. That technique has been used for centuries to grow
green, flexible branches for use in basketry and wickerwork. Coppicing, and pollarding (a similar technique) actually prolong the life of the tree beyond the age it would attain naturally if were allowed to grow to full size.
28. Yergle | 02.15.09
Algae biodiesel is a better choice. Land use issues
complicate any large scale development of cellulose
feedstock — the big picture of sustainability needs to be
considered before a large scale reconfiguration of
our nation’s fuel supply takes place. Algae offers
1) larger yields of biofuel per unit area 2) zero
competition for cropland 3) industrial style
process development better able to offer reliability
and economies of scale and 4) cellulose.
And I might add to those that extol efficiency that
becoming mostly vegetarian goes a long way to reducing
the old carbon footprint too.
29. Rich Patterson | 02.15.09
There are simply too many of us and we are simply too greedy. Where I live in the middle latitude range, soil is what we use to grow all crops, including switch grass or any weed. The process of making soil is continuous. Cellulosic fibers fall to the ground and interact in a complex process of micro organisms and other animals and plants. No matter what humans do in hauling away cellulose from the local soil, the quality of the soil depletes and has a limited time of fertility for growing anything. I don’t know what grows in silica, mica, granite dust, etc., but living soil is not something that can be taken for just dirt from which will endlessly produce ethanol, whose combustible byproducts gas into the atmosphere to be re-collected by plants, continuing the cycle forever. Why do you think the Department of Agriculture enacted policy decades ago, paying farmers to leave farming ground fallow? Why do you think farmers in Brazil who have temporarily created pasture land to supply American consumers with Whoppers, find their pasture land depleted in short order, only to destroy more rain forest as slash and burn farming hourly destroys species what hold petabytes of genetic information built across millions of years of nature’s work, lost forever. Maybe the industrial revolution and modernity weren’t such great ideas after all. Neither permit us to propagate from our instinctual drive and grab for ourselves every molecule of worth from a biosphere that is more marvel, wonder and beauty than it is utility–caught up in our petty egos, or was this about cellulosic ethanol?
30. Dave F | 02.16.09
No subject is loaded with more biomass than the subject of ethanol fueling.
So little concern or coverage about the manufacturing process, the VOCs flying around, the unfortunate odor we have noticed after the ethanol plants move in.
Also, ethanol is NOT clean, enviro-friendly and does NOT have superior combustion characteristics IN THE REAL WORLD OPERATING CONDITIONS.
Let’s go back in time, to the “double nickel”. Remember that? Gasohol? The interstates rotted out during that phase. Why?
Ethanol is water soluble in ways that gasoline is not. All the discussion about superiority assumes it’s always maintained in a perfect anyhdrous state, which is nonsense. Water gets into it every way possible.
Then when it burns, formic acid, AKA methanoic acid, is a byproduct.
It eats things, engine parts, streets, highways, bridges, even trees.
Why worry about methane and global de-icing and then turn around and convert EVERYONE’s car into a methanoic acid generator? MAKE ANY SENSE?
That’s what we’ve done. No wonder the global economy is crashing.
31. Mike Higgins | 02.16.09
#21 Phil Stevens,
You’re right, arguing is not the same as presenting peer-reviewed research… I’ll be happy to oblige…
And I will ask you to do the same regarding the linchpin issue of man-made global warming - that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide cause dangerous global warming.
I’ve been trying hard to find ANY real world empirical evidence that supports this theory. It appears that this effect only occurs within computer climate models, which can manipulated to produce any desired effect.
Evidence That CO2 Does Not Cause Dangerous Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fCP_nHRjP8
Bob Carters Five Tests of CO2 - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHZOYtAztU
Bob Carters Five Tests of CO2 - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9IHKfzDdn8
32. Herb | 02.16.09
We need to consume less of everything. There is no reason for the level of consumption in the United States. My garbage is full of packaging. People go shopping and purchase items for entertainment, and on and on. Our energy problem is a byproduct of our culture. A change of habits alone could have a huge impact on our energy consumption and independence.
33. Marcus | 02.16.09
I simply do not believe in ethanol as a viable solution for our transportation needs.
For personal transportation I’d guess that when gasoline eventually is phased out it will be the electric car that wins over any liquid biofuel alternative. The reason is simple: Electricity can be produced in so many ways - wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, coal powered plants, biomass powered plants, etc. If we go with ethanol then we’re stuck with ethanol, which can only be produced from a limited number of sources and competes with food production in many cases.
Of course electric powered transportation is not without its problems, the main one probably being the needed combined battery capacity and how/if that can actually be realised. Lithium batteries seems to be the best current energy storage device in an electric car, but is there enough lithium to power a global car fleet?
But I still feel the electric car is a more realistic approach and I wouldn’t go and buy an ethanol car myself, because I just don’t see that technology taking off for real.
34. farm boy | 02.16.09
cars are old fashioned?
I guess you live in the middle of a city or community where everything you need is close by. That is not where the food you eat comes from, and NO it doesn’t come from the grocery store.
Not every one lives like you do, and you’d be pretty hgungry if I were expected to work the crops that become your food with a MULE!
35. Clayton Cornell | 02.16.09
I’m surprised that nooone bothered to respond to the very first comment in this thread.
“Here, the other 50% of the story that wasn’t covered is whether this laborious and energy intensive process captures enough “energy” to be worth it? As it stands, the article is exclusively about turning one material into another.”
I think the author assumed that by now most are familiar with, at least vaguely, the energy balance numbers related to different types of biofuels. Cellulosic ethanol is considered a good investment since it returns about 7 units of energy for every one unit put into it. Do some investigating and you’ll find the research that backs these numbers up.
36. Gary | 02.16.09
I have not reviewed many of the sources cited by the other comments, so one of them may answer my comment. How many gallons of ethanol are produced from the sources cited in the article for every gallon of gasoline consumed? The most optimistic calculations for corn are 1.3 gallons. A very inefficient trade. National Geographic did this comparison about 1 to 1 1/2 years ago, and provided numbers for several feedstocks. I believe the best was sugarcane, which starts as sugar, so there is no need to convert the cellulose to sugars, which the expensive, in terms of energy expended, issue with corn.
37. Tim | 02.16.09
It’s pretty much standard fact that the amount of energy used to create ethanol far exceeds the energy savings ethanol produces. Another thing that ethanol proponents sweep under the rug is that it takes a minimum of 3 gallons of water to produce a single gallon of ethanol just in the production phase not to mention the water used to grow the stock material. Ethanol is a bad policy that just keeps getting worse.
38. Roger | 02.16.09
Article talks about the depletion of nutrients from the soil by using agra-waste that would normally be recycled and spread upon the field. The bi-product from the new ethanol process should provide a sizeable offset. Bi-product from the facility (undigested waste) could then be spread on the fields for fertilizer and as a soils stabilizer.
It’s nice to see Poet as one of the first to market this new technology. The enzymes required to break down cellulose is completely different than corn. I would assume that Cellulose digestion requires a slightly different digestion process as well.
39. Sergeirichard | 02.16.09
To those who doubt that global warming is a consequence of human action, I would point out that this isn’t quite the issue here. It is arguable that the jury is still out on that one, but in parallel there is another issue of equal immediacy. Importing oil costs America a great deal of money, and makes it reliant on countries that it would sooner not be reliant on. Biofuels - if they can be done efficiently - are therefore an attractive alternative, whether they lower carbon emissions or not.
40. Andrew | 02.16.09
If we drive less think of how many people will be laid off from work. Driving creates a lot of jobs. you have car dealer ships, auto repair shops, tire shops, body shops, car insurance, gas stations etc.
41. jasa | 02.17.09
it’s definitely time for a shift to more alternative energy scources, rather than trying to create alternative fuels to burn.. as it is now we’re burning up all the oxygen in the atmosphere too fast, I believe science says there is about half the O2 in the atmosphere now as there was in 1950. why we are being encouraged to self destruct is an interesting question??
maybe a lack of oxygen in the air we breath is one reason there is confusion and conflict on this issue, as the brain needs proper amounts of O2 to function healthily and come to reasonable, intelligent conclusions, policies, etc,, which could be another feedback loop manifesting as a bunch of deranged, greedy, myopic dumb a**s try and formulate our energy policies…
42. Sistermeg | 02.17.09
Okay, so I don’t believe that we should be making fuel from food, but I’ve seen two different stories about making ethanol from other bio-sources. One gentleman is fueling his vehicle using the bane of the South, kudzu. Another company is capping their carbon output by using it to feed an algae farm, which is then used to make… Ethanol! What better idea is there, as far as controlling carbon emissions, sparking a new wave in ‘clean’ jobs & helping ease our fossil fuel dependence than using the very factories that spew carbon into the air as fodder for a clean, never-ending renewable resource. And yes, algae is probably never going to go away. And it THRIVES on carbon. But other than the single reference I heard on my nightly news, I haven’t heard of anyone else praising this accomplishment.
43. Dimitrijevic | 02.17.09
===> Dave F | 02.16.09
No subject is loaded with more biomass than the subject of ethanol fueling. ….Also, ethanol is NOT clean, enviro-friendly and does NOT have superior combustion characteristics IN THE REAL WORLD OPERATING CONDITIONS. ….Ethanol is water soluble in ways that gasoline is not. All the discussion about superiority assumes it’s always maintained in a perfect anyhdrous state, which is nonsense. Water gets into it every way possible. ….Then when it burns, formic acid, AKA methanoic acid, is a byproduct. ….It eats things, engine parts, streets, highways, bridges, even trees.
- - - - - - - -
Funny, the Brazilians seem to be quite happy with their ethanol program. In fact they continue to expand it. They do not seem to be be having the problems you mentioned. Either that or Brazilian farmers, tree growers, auto technicians, bridge builders and road builders are superior to their American counterparts. Ref:
Ethanol sales top gasoline sales in a first in Brazil
30 Dec 2008
SAO PAULO (AFP) — Ethanol sales for 2008 for the first time are outpacing those of gasoline in Brazil, a top ethanol producer, the National Petroleum Agency reported Tuesday.
Sales of hydrated ethanol, through October, hit 15.8 billion liters (4.2 billion gallons), up 44.9 percent from a year earlier, it added.
….about 90 percent of cars sold in Brazil’s market can be run on either ethanol, gasoline or a mix of both in any proportion.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iVs6-yJ30ZuuVAzb-Mpi9DWUuz4Q
44. Legend | 02.17.09
There’s a lot of misinformation being perpetrated with an air of authority here. Don’t try to remove the mote from the eye of csm until you look in the mirror, my friends! Just a few quick corrections and comments.
1. Ethanol derived from corn is a stopgap, but not half as bad as portrayed above. Typical ethanol plant energy comsumption is about 30,000 BTU/gal produced (some plants are well below 25,000), and agriculture (mostly from production of urea from nat gas, insecticides, transportation) adds another 20,000 BTU/gal.
2. Only about 15% of the US corn is irrigated…so are you going to deduct the cost of using rain? How about the cost of using sunshine? (One infamous professor in the northeast did just this in his attempt to slam ethanol!)
3. Who eats corn? The two largest producers, USA and China, both feed over 60% of their corn directly to animals. Cows and cattle STILL get all of the protein, oil, and fiber from the corn used in ethanol production. And heaven knows they don’t need the starch…anymore than the average American does!
4. Water usage? The best plants today use 1.6 gallons/bu, 3 isn’t too far off the track, but realize that nearly all of that water is used to run the cooling towers, which work by using the latent heat of vaporization to cool water. Almost no water goes out to our streams and rivers.
5. Petroleum: is not free either. Do you ever think about how much fossil fuel it takes to make a gallon of gasoline? Add about 25-30% on to the what you get at the pump.
6. Electricity: The cars are efficient. The power plants are not. Most electricity today and for the foreseeable future is made from fossil fuels. These plants are on average 36% efficient (see Int’l Energy Agency report of July 2008). How important is that? 41% of the world’s CO2 emissions are from these power plants. What is the most rapidly growing electrical source? Try Coal in China. So, on a world-scale, consider that you will burn 3 gallons of oil or coal equivalent to produce the electricity to power your “clean” electric car, then x 90% efficiency, so you really get out about 30% of what is put in. This is better than gasoline at about 15-20%, but don’t become arrogant about being clean!
Bottom line: I’ve gone on too long, but cellulosic, especially using waste and special energy crops, and using the waste (lignin) to power the plants as Brazil does, is the best answer available today. Oh, and don’t worry about Poet’s costs. Pilot-scale research costs have nothing to do with what the real production plants will cost.
45. Phil | 02.17.09
They are too many myths in the comments to take time to address but I will comment on a few;
1) it does not take 1 gal of gas to create 1.3 gal of ethanol. Gasoline is rarely usedon the farm today. I think what you meant was 1 btu of input = 1.3 btu of output for ethanol (the input is primarily natural gas with only a small amount of diesel) Ethanol production is a process of converting what is not typically a transportation fuel today (nat gas) adding some “free sunlight” energy and making a liquid fuel usable in our current vehicles. BTW- the 1 btu in vs 1.3 out is old- 1 vs 1.65 is more like it for today’s ag and today’s ethanol plants. For comparison 1 btu of crude will only yield 0.8 btu of all finished products and that is from the easiest wells- not the new “incremental” oil- the tar sands of Canada which have to be cooked.
2) bridges and road are not going to eaten by formic acid- after 20+ years distributing fossil fuels- I believe we have far far more to worry about from the leaks of gasoline, vapor losses, and it’s outright combustion byproducts than a trace of formic. Think of the sulfur compounds from fossil fuels. Ethanol also burns with far lower PM than gas- important to those worried about respiratory issues.
3) when some of you mention food vs fuel issue- all grain based biofuels create huge amounts of feed more concentrated than the original grain. Much of the hype on this is just that- hype. Animals cannot digest properly whole soybeans- they for the most part have always eaten beanmeal- made after the oil was removed and the meal was heat treated to correct a digestion inhibitor/toxin. Few animals do well on very heavy corn diets- to much starch can be bad- thus ethanol production moves the starch and returns the protein, minerals, and vitamins in a more dense form, now requiring less corn & less beanmeal in the diet. Remember ruminants such as cattle were created to eat forages not heavy corn diets.
4) biofuels have a strong place in the future- not by themselves, but as a part of a total picture of conservation, many alt fuels including wind, sloar, geothermal,nuclear, etc- and yes even fossil fuels which will be in decline but still needed. One must remember that NO ONE fuel will be our future- that is ending with the short run we have had with fossil fuels total dominance. Some will like electric cars- short commutes/city, some will like liquid fuels- construction, farm, rural.
46. Julie | 02.17.09
Folks!
What you all don’t realize is that no matter what kind of fuel we use,
we’ll still have to have one or the other.
THE QUESTION IS - HOW CAN ONE RECYCLE OUR GASOLINE, OR WHATEVER ELSE
KIND OF FUEL WE USE IN OUR CARS TO KEEP THEM GOING LONGER AND LONGER. THE
LONGER THEY RUN, THE LESS GASOLINE WE HAVE TO USE AND THE LESS WE USE THE
BETTER OF OUR POCKETBOOK IS AND THE LESS DEPENDENT WE ARE ON FOREIGN OIL!
THE U.S. WON’T NEED AS MUCH AND THEREBY THE U.S. SAVES MONEY NOT ONLY FOR
ITS GOVERNMENT, BUT FOR ITS CONSUMERS!
Is this possible yes, I believe it is, but than I am just a little person
in the big world of ours. And what one person can invent, another would
say no way, that’s not possible, and we the oil companies will lose money
and that person is crazy. Yet, Columbus sailed across the waters without
fear and not caring about other’s opinions. So, who are we to say that this
and that is not possible. Maybe, we need to get the inventors, dreamers
in and give them a chance to come up with some innovative ideas! Would
that be possible in this world of ours I wander or would we be laughed at
like Columbus was? I wander - wander?
47. Josh | 02.17.09
Tax gasoline heavily: substantial reduction in demand for gasoline seems a cleaner way forward than integrating more and more industries into the petroleum/petroleum-equivalent supply system. People might lose some weight as they increase their walking/bike riding, too — think of the health benefits! :-)
48. Ben | 02.17.09
Two billion cars…… driving off a cliff. I did not choose to live in highwayland, I was born into it.
49. John Freeman | 02.18.09
I want to ask Lance (#8) a question: If a mile-wide meteor were hurdling toward the Earth and had a 80-90% chance of striking our planet, what would you do? Bemoan our bad luck? Or try to come up with a way to prevent the collision? Mankind clearly did not set this meteor on its course. While I believe that you are ignoring some pretty solid evidence about man’s recent burning of fossil fuels, the issue is saving the planet for future generations, not what is the cause of global “wierding” (as some have called it).
50. Gordon | 02.18.09
Still too much money chasing too many “solutions”. What is the payback on conservation?
51. Dave F | 02.18.09
==> Dimitrijevic 02.17.09
The subject of ethanol fueling in Brazil is long and interesting.
Brazil is much closer to the equator than North America or most other high-volume ethanol-consuming nations. As such, it’s a huge natural “ethanol evaporator”, among other things, due to relatively high ambient temperatures. And whatever evaporates are released will tend to reach high levels of volatility and be dispersed, so they are released locally but act globally.
Due to the high temperatures, it will be relatively free of the dual-phase state atmoshperic issues that more northerly climates may experience when any of these emissions reach significant concentrations.
As a rule, ethanol is a dessicant, so it’s unavoidably interesting that drought has increased globally in direct proportion to ethanol fueling and the resulting emissions. I believe Brazil also suffers locally from drought and Amazon low tides and the like.
And also ethanol is an efficient de-icer, as we know the globe has had chronic de-icing tendencies progressively throughout the Ethanol Era.
52. Steve D | 02.19.09
49. John Freeman | 02.18.09
The meteor analogy is a strawman argument. Ignoring mankind’s “role” in the discussion, there’s reasonable doubt that we’re even *in* a warming trend. Google “Goddard NASA revised temperatures” for lots of fudgey goodness. Even taking the supposition as true, there’s doubt whether the effects of warming would be as full of portent as we hear in the media. But, like Rahm Emanuel would say, never waste a crisis. They’re great for research grants and pork-barrel bills.
Enviro-political arguments aside, it makes sense from financial and security perspectives to research alternative energy sources. I don’t think ethanol is “The Answer”, but it’s research like this that will give us ways to wean ourselves off of foreign oil. And that’s all good.
53. Phil Stevens | 02.19.09
#31 Mike Higgins -
YouTube videos do not equate with peer-reviwed scientific findings. Please don’t insult us this way.
If you want to get started on the study of the mechanics of CO2 heat trapping, you’ll be gratified to know that the atmopheric chemistry has been well established since the end of the 19th century. Begin with Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, _On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground_, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275. There’s a mountain of research built upon this foundation, leading up to the present day and the proceedings of the IPCC.
Now, if you do indeed have citations of academic publications which explicitly contradict or refute this, you let us know, OK?
54. saildog | 02.19.09
The problem (apart from soil - another huge issue) is that total fossil fuel use in the US exceeds total photosynthetic gain across the US by some 20%. So if you turned every blade of grass, every rose, dandelion, redwood and the complete agricultural output of the US - you still wouldn’t have enough.
This is no holy grail; there are no silver bullets, but it might help, just a little. If it ever happens.
55. ozymandias888 | 02.20.09
These morons tried to panic everyone with talk of ‘global warming’. Now that temperatures are dropping, they are re-packaging the snake oil as ‘climate change’. I suppose they have to come up with something vague since the fear du Jour in the 70’s was global cooling. And they do this without the slightest hint of embarrassment.
56. Jack M. | 02.24.09
Al Gore’s now famous chart showing a strong correlation between increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and increasing global temperatures is missing something.His chart shows a dramatic spike-up in both CO 2 emissions and global temps over the last few decades falsely leading most to believe that global warming is most certainly caused by man’s increased use of fossil fuels.The chart seems to be the cornerstone of the “Man Made” global warming theory”.
However,if one were to overlay a transparent chart of sunspot activity over Gore’s chart they would see that graph of sunspot activity over the last half century clearly demonstrates the same spike-up as that of CO 2 emissions and global temperatures. Sunspot activity correlates with global temperatures ( more sunspots= warmer temperatures) fewer sunspots= colder temperatures) going back many centuries, not just a few decades.
Gore’s chart should include sunspot activity. Excluding this obvious evidence could not have been done by accident.
57. Gayle Miller | 04.05.09
The other half of the fuel policy debate is food policy - which desperately needs an overhaul to reflect the realities of health and sustainability. Corn has turned out to be a plague on the planet (making people fat and unhealthy, through too much red meat and far too much high fructose corn syrup) and making the planet unhealthy (with tons of chemical fertilizers and pesticides). The price of beef needs to go up by requiring sustainable, non-idustrial production - thus making consumption go down to a sustainable and more healthy level. That will reduce the acres devoted to corn, opening up land for sustainably harvested biocrops.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
3. Electric Cars Today Carol Shelby And Electric Cars Electric Cars Mike Brown | Concertinawire | 02.17.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Gregor | 02.13.09
This article shows again that the journalist class is still unequipped to handle the complex issues that surround Energy. Here, the other 50% of the story that wasn’t covered is whether this laborious and energy intensive process captures enough “energy” to be worth it? As it stands, the article is exclusively about turning one material into another.
During WW2, Germany turned coal into petrol. They had lots of coal but no oil. So, they were willing to take a heavy net-energy loss on a process that turned coal into petrol. With regard to biomass, the following question remains: What is there to capture from biofuel feedstock, besides the solar energy it received during its brief time in the sun? That’s the question any reporter working in this area needs to ask.
The biofuel industry is all too happy to encourage the “miracle” meme. The idea of a “breakthrough” is key because of course there is no miracle coming in biofuels in the sense that some great quantity of energy can be unlocked from young, organic material.
Perhaps the CSM could take another whack at this story, and realize that no matter how many gallons of liquid fuel produced by the biofuel–that metric really says little to nothing at all.