Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

EPA Lowers Cellulosic Ethanol Targets: A Sign of the Times

By Stephen Lacey
February 4, 2010   |   12 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

12 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 12
February 5, 2010
Verenium has not received a loan guarantee yet. The DOE is expected to announce the loan guarantee sometime in Q1 2010.
Comment
2 of 12
February 5, 2010
The cellulosic ethanol failure illustrates the folly of government picking winners and losers. Moreover, America has no idea what better ethanol and biofuel technologies it has killed by picking cellulose as the winner and having it become a loser!
Comment
3 of 12
February 5, 2010
All this assumes that the cellulosic ethanol process works cost effectively. If you are pushign a pie in the sky project it should not get financing.

I think the EPA is correct cellulosic ethanol is not ready for prime time and not being able to get financing is proof.
Comment
4 of 12
February 5, 2010
The comment about the current price of oil, $75, being "much lower than in previous years" is very misleading: except for 2008, the current price is similar to or higher than at any point in the past five years. Thus, the current price per barrel is an advantage for the prospects of alternative fuels, not the detriment that the author contends.
Comment
5 of 12
February 5, 2010
Cellulosic ethanol is a myth! A mighty handy myth if you happen to be a corn ethanol producer, of course, but still a myth as the USEPA is slowly discovering.

To understand why it is a myth, consider the following:
1. You start with your feedstock that is part cellulose. With this process you lose all the carbon that isn't in the form of cellulose, hemi-cellulose or already sugar.
2. Next you try to convert cellulose to glucose, an incredible challenge, as several decades (centuries?) worth of research into the topic confirms. You need severe conditions to break up the cellulose. But too severe and you lose the glucose. End-result: a compromise where you lose some glucose and leave some cellulose intact.
3. Now you use fermentation to produce ethanol. Fermentation is slow, which means you need a large reactor. The yeast is sensitive to the end-product (ethanol) which futher limits the yield.
4. Next you have to spend a ton of energy (there goes your carbon footprint) to recover the ethanol from the dilute (remember those sensitive yeasts) solution.
5. And then you have the end-product: ethanol, a terrible fuel. Not only do you need to replace/duplicate a bunch of infrastructure to use it, but it absorbs moisture from the atmosphere and increases the vapor pressure when mixed with gasoline, meaning more evaporative losses and air pollution. And don't even mention E100: it burn with a colorless flame, as in "Why is that pump melting?" BOOM!

Add it all together and here's what you get: Low yields, high energy input and a terrible end-product. If you still think this is a feasible renewable energy solution I want to talk to you about an "investment opportunity".

There are better ways to do this. Thermo-chemical processes, such as gasification can use 100% of the feedstock carbon and produce drop-in replacements for current fuels. But I guess USEPA is dedicated to use your taxdollars as ANOTHER subsidy for Big Ag.
Comment
6 of 12
February 5, 2010
pjc -- you're correct. The DOE is in the due diligence phase. Thanks for the correction.

And Jeff, from about 2005 to 2008, we were between $60 and $145 per barrel. So the $75 figure is lower than the 2007-2008 period, but definitely right on par with the period before that.

Amazing that it took the greatest financial and economic disaster in the last 80 years to bring oil prices down only to this level....
Comment
7 of 12
February 5, 2010
Stephen, we were above $75 for just over a year, but that is an anomaly with all the years dating back to the last oil shock. There has been no sustained period other than this where the price was above $75. So we are actually at a high point if you look back over the past two or three decades. And, you said "much lower than in previous years"--that just isn't backed up by the historical data.

This is not to say that I think that $75 per barrel is enough to increase the uptake of alternative fuels, or that I think that the price won't get much higher, because I don't and I do.
Comment
8 of 12
February 5, 2010
Stephen, I took historical oil data from this website:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

With it, you can see that $75 per barrel, adjusted for inflation, has only been reached (as a yearly average) in the following years:

1980 - $98.07
1981 - $84.93
2008 - $91.35

I therefore stand by my comment that saying that $75 a barrel is "much lower than in previous years" is incorrect.
Comment
9 of 12
February 6, 2010
Thanks, Jeff!
Comment
10 of 12
February 8, 2010
Cellulosic ethanol, the fuel that is perpetually just five years away.

Great point, Mike-Holly
Comment
11 of 12
February 8, 2010
Great news from the EPA. Expanding RFS to 36 billion gallons by 2022 will take America's fuel production and consumption green. Let's hope the Obama administration supports the EPA with more funding and the biofuels industry with more tax credits, stimulus money, and job creation.

Researching how to make your company, product, or next project more Green? Go to http://www.greencollareconomy.com for sustainability white papers and the largest b2b green directory on the web.
Comment
12 of 12
February 11, 2010
The mandate for cellulosic ethanol was lowered because the US wasn't going to reach it. It is still a very viable alternative fuel.

The enzyme/yeast example cited above is only one of the many conversion processes currently used. The most efficient are NOT using enzymes, but rather a thermochemical reaction to produce the fuel.

Also, the same feedstocks that produce cellulosic ethanol are used to produce electricity, replacing coal and wood in those processes. Growing cellulosic feedstock is way cheaper than timber and way cleaner than coal to burn. It is, in fact, carbon negative for both fuel and electricity production.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Stephen Lacey

View Stephen Lacey's Profile
About: I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, wh... more »

Advertise With Us

MaRS Krannich Solar Inc. National Solar Trainers Conergy Inc. SolarTech Solar Leadership Summit 2012 Planet Solar Inc Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters