For decades now, the USDA has been dumping cash into cellulosic ethanol research (most recently through a joint venture with the DOE).
So the USDA's analysts should know something about the prospects for mass production of cellulosic ethanol, hailed by its boosters as a panacea that can wean us not only from oil, but also from corn as an ethanol feedstock.
So what's the latest from USDA analysts on this miracle fuel? From a report released last week:
Although cellulosic-based production of renewable fuels holds some longer-term promise, much research is needed to make it commercially economical and expand beyond the 250-million-gallon minimum specified for 2013 in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
What? Okay, let's break this statement down.
"Some longer term promise," huh? I realize that government analysts like to affect a dry, phlegmatic tone, but that's hardly the sort of language boosters want to see from the agency most responsible for nurturing a technology.
Then there's this bit: The analyst doubts cellulosic can be "commercially economical" enough to get beyond 250 million gallons by 2013. According to the same report, corn-based ethanol producers churned out 5 billion gallons in '06 and will likely hit 10 billion by '09.
What the researcher is saying is that six years from now, in 2013, cellulosic still won't be economically viable.
For decades now, cellulosic boosters have been promising a major breakthrough within five years. And the future cellulosic utopia keeps receding ever-further into the future.
Meanwhile corn, our most environmentally devastating crop, entrenches its grip over the nation's cropland. The USDA report projects corn acreage to hover near 92 million acres through 2016. In the decades before the big ethanol surge in 2005, corn typically took up 80 million acres.
So the government-mandated ethanol boom has gained us an extra 10-12 million acres bombarded by synthetic fertilizers and herbicides, and monocropped in the latest patent-protected, genetically altered Monsanto seeds -- and precious little else.
In other news, the USDA released its latest forecast (PDF) on the 2007 corn crop. They're expecting 13.3 billion bushels -- by far the biggest harvest ever, and up a jaw-dropping 26 percent from last year.
Ask Umbra on green moving companies
Et tu, Al? Franken gulps the ethanol-spiked Kool-Aid
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 6:21 am
13 Sep 2007
You forgot to mention
that conservation reserve carbons sinks are going under the plow to pull this off, oh, and food prices are screaming upwards as grain stocks drop. The world has failed to produce as much grain as it has consumed for six out of the last seven years. But this was a post on cellulosic, not ethanol in general so I'll let you ride.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:35 am
13 Sep 2007
Cellulosic Ethanol? Not likely.
Well, as compared to our current 140 billion gallons of gasoline produced per year.
And nearly 6 billion gallons of grain ethanol produced per year.
I thought it was rather interesting when a US Energy Information Agency Administrator, Guy Caruso, mentioned that:
One thing thats interesting to mention is that cellulosic ethanol has more than a few hurdles to overcome. Some of which may make it impossible, or atleast unrealistic.
http://venturebeat.com/2006/11/05/why-cellulosic-ethanol- ...
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf
Permalink
Joel Wilke Posted 7:46 am
13 Sep 2007
Acually...
I'm not a fan of Corn Ethanol, but please at least get the facts right.
You say: "You forgot to mention that conservation reserve carbons sinks are going under the plow to pull this off". TFA makes it seem as though most of the new acres are coming from what would have been soybean production.
"According to USDA's Acreage report, (June 29, 2007), farmers planted nearly 93 million acres to corn this year, up over 14 million acres, or 18.6 percent, from 2006."..."much of the 2007 increase in U.S. corn acreage will come from reduced soybean plantings, which are down more than 11 million acres (15 percent) from 2006."
Now Wikipedia weakens your case even more:"Due to the increasing prices for Maize and Soy, a larger than 3 million acres (12,000 km²) outtake of area from the conservation program was anticipated. The impact of this outtake is even smaller as "only 354,771 acres [1436 km²)] were in the top five corn and soybean producing states"
Now for your argument: "food prices are screaming upwards as grain stocks drop."
Not so much actually, CPI food prices are screaming upwards mostly because energy prices are increasing. "Increases in energy prices for example exert a
greater impact on food prices than does the price of corn. A 33 percent increase in crude oil prices -
which translates into a $1.00 per gallon increase in the price of conventional regular gasoline -
results in a 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent increase in the CPI for food while an equivalent increase in
corn prices ($1.00 per bushel) would cause the CPI for food to increase only 0.3 percent."
So please, if you are going to argue against corn, use a different tactic. A few of the better ones are the poor energy balance, reduction in biodiversity, damage to cropland from poor rotation decisions, fertilizer runoff, etc.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:48 am
13 Sep 2007
The real interesting thing is
The real interesting thing is that Bush has mandated 35 billion gallons of "alternative fuels" by 2030. But he insists that whether it results in less emissions than gasoline, is required.
But biofuels haven't got a prayer in becoming more than just turning copious ammounts of dollars into a liquid. An expensive sharade.
So of course what is this all about?
Coal-to-Liquids. The other hydrocarbon liquid which realistically could entirely replace our fuel demand.
The catch being that the carbon-to-hydrogen ratio of coal is the highest out of any hydrocarbon.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:01 am
13 Sep 2007
Oops
But he insists that whether it results in less emissions than gasoline, is NOT required.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:08 am
13 Sep 2007
Depends.
Correct. Domestic markets haven't really been effected. International markets have been hit very hard.
http://greyfalcon.net/grocerybill.png
Permalink
Joel Wilke Posted 8:11 am
13 Sep 2007
Cellulosic Ethanol links
Here are a few links to cellulosic ethanol plants which are either in development or already in operation. Each link is to a different project.
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/08/06/news/ ...
http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3175&am ...
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104& ...=
http://biopact.com/2007/07/fpl-energy-teams-up-with-citru ...
http://www.farms.com/news/readstory.asp?storyid=10707
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/ ...
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/E3_BioFuels_grand_ ...
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=311 ...
http://biopact.com/2007/05/dedini-achieves-breakthrough-c ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:43 am
13 Sep 2007
Point #2
Thats just the Conservation Reserve Program land.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/
_
Many corn farmers rotate between corn-soy, and may even switch to cotton.
And what you have is a process of planting corn-on-corn.
Which not only depletes the soil, but also drastically shrinks the market availibility of soy/cotton.
That said, much of the Soy market demand has been met by surging increases in Soy/Cotton in the Amazon rainforrest.
Isn't that just grand?
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2
Permalink
Joel Wilke Posted 9:36 am
13 Sep 2007
And..
Isn't that exactly what I said would be a better argument against corn ethanol? "damage to cropland from poor rotation decisions"
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 9:53 am
13 Sep 2007
Joel,
Not sure I get your point. You give a great list of wonderful cellulosic projects, but you ignore the central point of this post: that the USDA, cellulosic's great patron, thinks the technology is still years and years away from coming online. Let me repeat the quote:
I suspect that most of the nifty projects you mention exist not because hard-headed investors think the companies have hit upon a winning technology; but rather because those investors are convinced the government will keep throwing cash as cellulosic projects, results be damned.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Joel Wilke Posted 10:03 am
13 Sep 2007
somewhat
For most of those projects, yes, they are initially depending on government funding to get off the ground. One of them comes to mind however which is receiving nothing.
http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3175&am ...
Permalink
Joel Wilke Posted 10:08 am
13 Sep 2007
oops
posted it starting with page 3
http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3175&am ...
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 10:22 am
13 Sep 2007
Taxpayer financed cellulosic plant in Everglades
The University of Florida will build a taxpayer financed cellulosic ethanol plant in the Everglades
In a unanimous vote on August 22nd, a UF site selection committee unanimously chose West Palm Beach-based Florida Crystals (Fanjul family) from a list that included five other contenders to construct an ethanol-from-cellulose plant.
The $20 million project is being financed through a state grant to encourage the development of alternative energy resources.
December McSherry, an Alachua County farmer who serves as chairwoman of the Sierra Club's state agriculture committee and who sits on the organization's national agriculture committee, said the Okeelanta site next to the Everglades is inappropriate.
It poses a threat to the ecosystem from pollution, water withdrawal and soil depletion, she said.
"This is a foot in the door to a huge industrial complex right in the middle of the Everglades. Our land should be used for growing food for people, not cars," said McSherry, who attended Tuesday's meeting but was not allowed to speak.
"This whole ethanol thing will fail," she said. "There is not enough water to go around...The Everglades is an international biosphere reserve and a world heritage site. It is a wetland of international importance."
Florida Crystals also partnered with Florida International University earlier this year to do additional cellulosic ethanol research.
Palm Beach Post article:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/business/ep ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:11 pm
13 Sep 2007
Well the interesting thing to note
1. Cellulosic ethanol currently only produces a 4% alcohol solution.
Considering it takes 20% of corn ethanol energy to from 95% to 99.5% purity.
Going from 4% to 99.5% is much more intensive.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/11/cellulosic-ethano ...
2. Then you get into the logistics of moving highly bulky plant matter in huge quantities.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem ...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:42 am
14 Sep 2007
Joel, I spend enough time refuting strawmen
You say the increase in the price of food has nothing to do with corn ethanol. Go to this link and tell me agrofuels are not increasing the price of food. A few headlines:
Why 25% of your income could soon go on food
Japanese consumers feel the pinch of biofuel demand
New bid to halt rising food bills
Food inflation out of hand?
Low grain harvest, rising food prices and China's ethanol plan
Rising food prices The agonies of agflation
Oh, wait, you didn't say it has "nothing" to do with the price of food? That's right, I just created a strawman so I could refute something you didn't even say. Welcome to my world. You just spent 108 words refuting something I didn't say, specifically "most" of the increase in the price of food was the result of corn ethanol.
Now let's touch on your other claim that no conservation reserve land or carbon sinks are being put under the plow as a result of corn ethanol. Not true at all. In fact, some food producers are calling for government to open up reserve land to corn farmers to ease their costs:
In addition, every acre of soy displaced by corn is made up somewhere else, like South America, which often involves the usurpation of another carbon sink.
Oh, wait, you didn't say that "no" conservation reserve land or "no" carbon sinks are going under the plow? That's right, I just created another strawman so I could refute something you didn't even say. Welcome to my world. You just spent 130 words refuting something I didn't say, specifically " most of the new acres are coming from" conservation reserve land.
So please, if you are going to discuss these issues, use a different tactic than strawman arguments. One more word of advice, since we are sharing advice; avoid sources like The American Coalition for Corn Ethanol when looking for corn ethanol "facts."
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:40 am
14 Sep 2007
In response to Joel's example
The company to which Joel refers, Colusa Biomass Energy Corp. (CBEC), has plans for turning a difficult agricultural waste, rice straw, into ethanol. The story in Ethanol Producer Magazine, says that planned 12.5 million gallon a year plant has not received any funds (to date) to build their project.
But let's not forget that, as with any ethanol plant built in the United States, this plant would nonetheless benefit from all the subsidies available for ethanol from corn-fed plants -- to wit, product prices that are elevated by the renewable fuels standard (RFS) mandate, the $0.54/gallon import tariff, the $0.51/gallon federal volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC), and California's 9-cents-per-gallon reduction in the fuel excise tax for E85. In addition, since the plant will produce less than 15 million gallons of ethanol a year, it will receive an additional $0.10 per gallon federal "Small Ethanol Producer Tax Credit" on evergy gallon it produces.
Permalink