<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Thus spake Chairman Peterson of the House Ag Committee]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Tom McKinnon http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:11:36 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/1 Cellulosic biofuels

Rep. Peterson is making two serious errors in his dismissal of cellulosic biofuels.  First, he is assessing the state of biochemical conversion of cellulose.  While, in principle, this is a promising approach, reduction to practice has been problematic.  Thermochemical conversion of cellulosic feedstocks, on the other hand, is already moving ahead commercially  with the first 20 million gal/yr plant to come on line next year.  

His second mistake is to assume that ethanol is the only biofuel option for cellulose, which brings along a host of infrastructure problems such as pipelines, etc.  When starting with cellulosic biomss we have a suite of biofuel options such as methanol, dimethyl ether, Fisher Tropsch diesel, synthetic gasoline, hydrogen, etc.  Ethanol is almost always the worst possible choice.  

Professor of Chemical Engineering Colorado School of Mines

]]> Cellulosic biofuels

Rep. Peterson is making two serious errors in his dismissal of cellulosic biofuels.  First, he is assessing the state of biochemical conversion of cellulose.  While, in principle, this is a promising approach, reduction to practice has been problematic.  Thermochemical conversion of cellulosic feedstocks, on the other hand, is already moving ahead commercially  with the first 20 million gal/yr plant to come on line next year.  

His second mistake is to assume that ethanol is the only biofuel option for cellulose, which brings along a host of infrastructure problems such as pipelines, etc.  When starting with cellulosic biomss we have a suite of biofuel options such as methanol, dimethyl ether, Fisher Tropsch diesel, synthetic gasoline, hydrogen, etc.  Ethanol is almost always the worst possible choice.  

Professor of Chemical Engineering Colorado School of Mines

]]> Comment #2 by JMG http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:07:00 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/2 A second-hand comment on this


about time someone shined a bright light on this boondoggle...and these aren't even the most fundamental problems with it - in the longer term it's not sustainable to remove all the cellulosic material from the dirt and just burn it up - it amounts to non-sustainable nutrient stripping and with no natural gas-based fertilizer the ground will be dead.  It's the well-known (for thousands of years) recipe for desertification (which may happen soon enough with agw anyway).  Has gristmill learned about peak phosphorus yet? Some good stories about that at energybulletin.
tooj

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.




]]> A second-hand comment on this


about time someone shined a bright light on this boondoggle...and these aren't even the most fundamental problems with it - in the longer term it's not sustainable to remove all the cellulosic material from the dirt and just burn it up - it amounts to non-sustainable nutrient stripping and with no natural gas-based fertilizer the ground will be dead.  It's the well-known (for thousands of years) recipe for desertification (which may happen soon enough with agw anyway).  Has gristmill learned about peak phosphorus yet? Some good stories about that at energybulletin.
tooj

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.




]]> Comment #3 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:27:54 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/3 biofuel != ethanol

And fermentation is not the only way to get there.

To amplify what Tom M. said: we can produce all kinds of interesting chemicals (including fuels) by gasifying biomass and synthesizing what we want from the syngas thus produced.

You can make ethanol, if you really want to.  This is what Range Fuels is doing, I believe.  Much more sensible would be to make syndiesel (and I think you can even make synthetic gasoline this way, but I'm not sure); I assume Range is focusing on ethanol in order to tap the ethanol subsidies, but hopefully the technology they develop will be generalizable.

Gasification systems are apparently capital intensive, but they are a proven technology (unlike biofermentation of cellulose).  Their conversion rate is apparently not very efficient, but on the other hand they can convert the entire plant (including difficult parts like lignin).  The synthesis is a dry process, so there's no distillation energy.  And (I think) the gasification process can be self-sustaining once it's started.  The residue of the process is essentially charcoal, which might be usable in terra preta for agricultural enhancement or carbon sequestration.

The best part is that you can use a range of biomass without much concern for exactly what it is.  This means you can get away from using terrestrial plants altogether, and use algae instead, which is HIGHLY productive of biomass.  The problems traditionally associated with algae for biodiesel production (contamination of the culture with low-oil varieties) go away because you no longer are much about the oil content of your algae -- you just want the biomass.

]]> biofuel != ethanol

And fermentation is not the only way to get there.

To amplify what Tom M. said: we can produce all kinds of interesting chemicals (including fuels) by gasifying biomass and synthesizing what we want from the syngas thus produced.

You can make ethanol, if you really want to.  This is what Range Fuels is doing, I believe.  Much more sensible would be to make syndiesel (and I think you can even make synthetic gasoline this way, but I'm not sure); I assume Range is focusing on ethanol in order to tap the ethanol subsidies, but hopefully the technology they develop will be generalizable.

Gasification systems are apparently capital intensive, but they are a proven technology (unlike biofermentation of cellulose).  Their conversion rate is apparently not very efficient, but on the other hand they can convert the entire plant (including difficult parts like lignin).  The synthesis is a dry process, so there's no distillation energy.  And (I think) the gasification process can be self-sustaining once it's started.  The residue of the process is essentially charcoal, which might be usable in terra preta for agricultural enhancement or carbon sequestration.

The best part is that you can use a range of biomass without much concern for exactly what it is.  This means you can get away from using terrestrial plants altogether, and use algae instead, which is HIGHLY productive of biomass.  The problems traditionally associated with algae for biodiesel production (contamination of the culture with low-oil varieties) go away because you no longer are much about the oil content of your algae -- you just want the biomass.

]]> Comment #4 by odograph http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:27:37 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/4 Hey, I don't care

Just kill the subsidies and let the innovators sort it out.

]]> Hey, I don't care

Just kill the subsidies and let the innovators sort it out.

]]> Comment #5 by Charlie Peters http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:06:13 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/5 Cellusic ethanol: It might be a bust

Who is BP/DuPont, what is biobutanol?

 * Clean Air Performance Professionals  

]]> Cellusic ethanol: It might be a bust

Who is BP/DuPont, what is biobutanol?

 * Clean Air Performance Professionals  

]]> Comment #6 by GreyFlcn http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:09:38 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/6 Who you ask?

Who is BP/DuPont, what is biobutanol?

They are a company which said they would have their product to market last summer, and yet still haven't done anything yet.

And biobutanol is largely similar to ethanol, but so far has had all the same production faults as cellulosic ethanol.

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/06/problem-with-biob ...
_

As for Khosla's Coskata claims.
Funny thing to note, they won't be distributing a single drop of fuel to the public until 2011.
And don't anticipate their magical $1 pricepoint until 2017.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_70iNUF3fE

Sure goes to show how "confident" they are.





]]> Who you ask?

Who is BP/DuPont, what is biobutanol?

They are a company which said they would have their product to market last summer, and yet still haven't done anything yet.

And biobutanol is largely similar to ethanol, but so far has had all the same production faults as cellulosic ethanol.

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/06/problem-with-biob ...
_

As for Khosla's Coskata claims.
Funny thing to note, they won't be distributing a single drop of fuel to the public until 2011.
And don't anticipate their magical $1 pricepoint until 2017.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_70iNUF3fE

Sure goes to show how "confident" they are.





]]> Comment #7 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:06:23 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/7 Cellulose derived fuels available today

I liked the comment that subsides should be eliminated and the free market should dictate supply and demand. The fact is that ethanol or similar oxygenate is required for reformulated fuels. Bio-diesel stocks are extremely low because of the high costs of soy, rapeseed, and other source plants. Switchgrass seems hearty but is not the only plant matter that can be processed into alcohol or distillate fuels.  It's not a bad investment and does not have the stigma of working with corn.  

One upstart company came into the Rio Valley and started asking farmers to grow switchgrass and other stuff, hundreds of acres at a time this spring. If it works, more power to them. Why be resentful of that? If it doesn't work here, does that mean that bio-mass fuel doesn't work anywhere?  Of course not. Ease up, brah.  

Onward through the fog

]]> Cellulose derived fuels available today

I liked the comment that subsides should be eliminated and the free market should dictate supply and demand. The fact is that ethanol or similar oxygenate is required for reformulated fuels. Bio-diesel stocks are extremely low because of the high costs of soy, rapeseed, and other source plants. Switchgrass seems hearty but is not the only plant matter that can be processed into alcohol or distillate fuels.  It's not a bad investment and does not have the stigma of working with corn.  

One upstart company came into the Rio Valley and started asking farmers to grow switchgrass and other stuff, hundreds of acres at a time this spring. If it works, more power to them. Why be resentful of that? If it doesn't work here, does that mean that bio-mass fuel doesn't work anywhere?  Of course not. Ease up, brah.  

Onward through the fog

]]> Comment #8 by biofuelsimon http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:51:19 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/8 fuel from pyrolysis

Tom,  I get the feeling that ethanol from chemical or enzyme catalysed reactions with cellulose to sugars and then to ethanol is like nuclear fusion that's been "five years away" for the past 50 years. There's a lot to be said for using pyrolysis, not only of celluose but also other waste material like garbage to make producer gas that can be further processed.
Automotive efficiency needs to be greatly improved though.

]]> fuel from pyrolysis

Tom,  I get the feeling that ethanol from chemical or enzyme catalysed reactions with cellulose to sugars and then to ethanol is like nuclear fusion that's been "five years away" for the past 50 years. There's a lot to be said for using pyrolysis, not only of celluose but also other waste material like garbage to make producer gas that can be further processed.
Automotive efficiency needs to be greatly improved though.

]]> Comment #9 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:00:29 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/9 Thanks for the plugs, Tom

But in the future, could you please refer to the 2007 Update of the GSI's estimates of government support for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States. The numbers have been revised since the report to which you provide a link. The update can be found here.

By the way, here's more bad news for biofuel enthusiasts. According to a report in today's Financial Times newspaper, "EU scientists query bloc's biofuel strategy", an unpublished study by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's in-house scientific institute, is reported to say that the EU's plan to increase the use of biofuels in Europe (more details are to be revealed next week), may do nothing to help fight climate change and that the costs incurred to meet the targets are likely to outweigh the benefits.

To quote from the article:

"The costs [of the target] will almost certainly outweigh the benefits," says the report, a copy of which has been obtained by the Financial Times. Taxpayers would face a bill of €33bn-€65bn between now and 2020, the study says.

"The uncertainty is too great to say whether the EU 10 per cent biofuel target will save greenhouse gas or not," it adds.

...

The JRC suggests that it would be more efficient to use biofuel to generate power rather than fuel cars. It also suggests that the separate transport target be scrapped. It is even doubtful about the merits of using plant waste, such as straw, since transporting large quantities to biofuel factories itself requires fuel.

Adrian Bebb, of Friends of the Earth, said: "The report has a damning verdict on the EU policy. It should be abandoned in favour of real solutions to climate change."

]]> Thanks for the plugs, Tom

But in the future, could you please refer to the 2007 Update of the GSI's estimates of government support for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States. The numbers have been revised since the report to which you provide a link. The update can be found here.

By the way, here's more bad news for biofuel enthusiasts. According to a report in today's Financial Times newspaper, "EU scientists query bloc's biofuel strategy", an unpublished study by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's in-house scientific institute, is reported to say that the EU's plan to increase the use of biofuels in Europe (more details are to be revealed next week), may do nothing to help fight climate change and that the costs incurred to meet the targets are likely to outweigh the benefits.

To quote from the article:

"The costs [of the target] will almost certainly outweigh the benefits," says the report, a copy of which has been obtained by the Financial Times. Taxpayers would face a bill of €33bn-€65bn between now and 2020, the study says.

"The uncertainty is too great to say whether the EU 10 per cent biofuel target will save greenhouse gas or not," it adds.

...

The JRC suggests that it would be more efficient to use biofuel to generate power rather than fuel cars. It also suggests that the separate transport target be scrapped. It is even doubtful about the merits of using plant waste, such as straw, since transporting large quantities to biofuel factories itself requires fuel.

Adrian Bebb, of Friends of the Earth, said: "The report has a damning verdict on the EU policy. It should be abandoned in favour of real solutions to climate change."

]]> Comment #10 by Patrick Mazza http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/ Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:48:44 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cellulosic-ethanol-it-might-be-a-bust/10 Royal Society view

The new Royal Society report, "Sustainable Biofuels: prospects and challenges," is as thorough and balanced a perspective as I have seen on the issue. http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=7366  For instance, it notes, that "widespread deployment of biofuels will have major implications for land use, with associated environmental, social and economic impacts that must be assessed. Here, in particular, unintended consequences may reduce or override the expected benefits."  

Point is this is not an industry-biased document.

Re cellulose the Society says, "Biofuel production from lignocellulose holds very considerable potential, given the amount of energy in the biomass and the extent of biomass that is available globally, particularly in residues, co-products and waste from many sectors such as agriculture, horticulture, forestry, paper and pulp and food processing.  When dedicated energy crops and forest trees are added to the sources of lignocelluloise, the immensity of the opportunity for conversion to biofuel can be readily recognized."

The Society recommends low carbon fuel standards and sustainability certification for biofuels, and "to find approaches to biofuel production that address the problem of restoring degraded lands and watersheds."

That is one of the promises for perennial grass crops seen as feedstocks for cellulosic biofuels.  University of Minnesota has field demonstrated the potential to soak up more carbon in roots than is released in the biofuels cycle.  The grasses can also produce amino acids for animal feed, so this is food + fuel.  

These are the kind of solutions we are going to need, and they are worthy of public RD&D support.  As I survey modern technology industries, from computers and telecommunications to aerospace and biomedicine, I do not find an example of a major new industry that was not substantially seeded by public support.  Wind and solar are in the same position today, and one can look at the example of Japanese solar subsidies as seeding the takeoff of a now globally leading industry that is selling significant unsubsidized product in is domestic market.  See Travis Bradford's "Solar Revolution" for that story.

The 2010-2015 timeframe will see six 700/ton-day cellulosic demonstration plants come on line in the U.S.  Federal plus private capital is funding them.  They use a range of processes, from bio to thermo to traditional acid hydrolysis.  They will use a range of feedstocks from wood and farm residues to corn cobs to municipal waste. This will be where "rubber meets the road."  If these are successful and oil prices stay high, which is likely, commercial-scale operations should appear 2015-2020.  Maybe before, if we really are at an oil peak or plateau. Details here, slide 21 and beyond. http://www.ostpartnership.org/events/biofuels2/presentati ...

Patrick Mazza

]]> Royal Society view

The new Royal Society report, "Sustainable Biofuels: prospects and challenges," is as thorough and balanced a perspective as I have seen on the issue. http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=7366  For instance, it notes, that "widespread deployment of biofuels will have major implications for land use, with associated environmental, social and economic impacts that must be assessed. Here, in particular, unintended consequences may reduce or override the expected benefits."  

Point is this is not an industry-biased document.

Re cellulose the Society says, "Biofuel production from lignocellulose holds very considerable potential, given the amount of energy in the biomass and the extent of biomass that is available globally, particularly in residues, co-products and waste from many sectors such as agriculture, horticulture, forestry, paper and pulp and food processing.  When dedicated energy crops and forest trees are added to the sources of lignocelluloise, the immensity of the opportunity for conversion to biofuel can be readily recognized."

The Society recommends low carbon fuel standards and sustainability certification for biofuels, and "to find approaches to biofuel production that address the problem of restoring degraded lands and watersheds."

That is one of the promises for perennial grass crops seen as feedstocks for cellulosic biofuels.  University of Minnesota has field demonstrated the potential to soak up more carbon in roots than is released in the biofuels cycle.  The grasses can also produce amino acids for animal feed, so this is food + fuel.  

These are the kind of solutions we are going to need, and they are worthy of public RD&D support.  As I survey modern technology industries, from computers and telecommunications to aerospace and biomedicine, I do not find an example of a major new industry that was not substantially seeded by public support.  Wind and solar are in the same position today, and one can look at the example of Japanese solar subsidies as seeding the takeoff of a now globally leading industry that is selling significant unsubsidized product in is domestic market.  See Travis Bradford's "Solar Revolution" for that story.

The 2010-2015 timeframe will see six 700/ton-day cellulosic demonstration plants come on line in the U.S.  Federal plus private capital is funding them.  They use a range of processes, from bio to thermo to traditional acid hydrolysis.  They will use a range of feedstocks from wood and farm residues to corn cobs to municipal waste. This will be where "rubber meets the road."  If these are successful and oil prices stay high, which is likely, commercial-scale operations should appear 2015-2020.  Maybe before, if we really are at an oil peak or plateau. Details here, slide 21 and beyond. http://www.ostpartnership.org/events/biofuels2/presentati ...

Patrick Mazza

]]>