Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Mexico & Agaves: Moving from Tequila to Ethanol

By Andrew K. Burger, International Correspondent
August 7, 2008 | 56 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Mexico City, Mexico [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] With a history that stretches well back into pre-Columbian times, certain varieties of the Agave family are beginning to capture the attention of investors and researchers interested in indigenous plants and trees in countries around the world that are not used to produce food and have attributes that make them prospective sources of ethanol.

"Agave can bring in the new era of bio-economics giving the world enough clean energy for a peaceful and secure world."

-- Professor Remigio Madrigal Lugo, Ph.D., Agricultural Biotechnology

A small group of Mexicans from the academic and private sectors has been trying to get an Agave-to-ethanol project up and running. Years of effort have led to a tentative agreement with INE (Mexico's national ecology institute) to provide funding that will enable the project's research team to ramp up efforts to cultivate, conserve and patent-protect selected examples of the Agave tequilana weber and Agave angustifolia Haw. varieties and build up a germ plasm bank that would serve as repository for researchers and projects around the country, including their own Agave-to-ethanol project.

Notorious for their intoxicating effects, both tequila and mescal are derived from varieties of the genus Agave. In a country rich in botanical cultural heritage, Agave species have played a large role in traditional Mexican culture, one that rivals that of maize and cacao in significance.

Though they remain largely untested and untapped, a large and diverse range of potential products, environmental and socio-economic benefits can result from sound, long-term policies that support enhanced Agave cultivation, say proponents of the Agave-to-ethanol project, one notable member being Professor Remigio Madrigal Lugo, Mexico's first Ph.D. in agricultural biotechnology and internationally published author who serves as a Council member at the Autonomous University of Chapingo.

Flattering Comparisons

High in sugar content, the project team estimates that varieties of Agave tequilana weber can yield up to 2,000 gallons of distilled ethanol per acre per year and from 12,000-18,000 gallons per acre per year if their cellulose is included, some 14 dry tons of feedstock per acre every year.

These figures far outshine the plants that are dominating ethanol and biofuels' R&D and investment today, not only in terms of potential ethanol yield per acre, but also in terms of energy balance (the ratio of energy in the product to the energy input to produce it), as well as actual and prospective planted acreage.

Corn ethanol, for example, has an energy balance ratio of 1.3 and produces approximately 300-400 gallons of ethanol per acre. Soybean biodiesel, with an energy balance of 2.5, typically can yield 60 gallons of biodiesel per acre while an acre of sugar cane can produce 600-800 gallons of ethanol with an energy balance of 8.0. An acre of poplar trees can yield more than 1,500 gallons of cellulosic ethanol with an energy balance of 12.0, according to a National Geographic study published in October 2007.

"High quality agaves are very good feedstock material for biofuel...for the following characteristics: high total sugar density and content; high weight of the fruit and stems; cultivation and harvest cycles of six years; high density of plants per hectare; genetic diversity and high adaptability, low water requirements; CO2 and capture; methane metabolism; soil retention; plant nutrition; products from inulin; and low maintenance during cultivation," Madrigal said.

Moreover, "Agave is the ideal feedstock for an integrated biorefinery where biofuels, bioenergy and high-profit bioproducts are derived with a zero waste platform," said Arturo Velez, the Agave-to-ethanol project originator, team member and a former administrative coordinator for the Mexico Confederation of Foresters.

"Agave can bring in the new era of bio-economics giving the world enough clean energy for a peaceful and secure world.

"Our enhanced Agave tequilana weber variety plants have a sugar content of 27º to 38º Brix, [which is] 3-times sugarcane's and weigh around 300 kilos (660 pounds) each individual. But we've got plants from another agave species that weigh 1.2 metric tons each with sugar content around 25º Brix, double that of sugar cane. This means that annually per acre, we could easily get 5,000 gallons of distilled ethanol and fifty metric tons of dry biomass, with 33 metric tons of cellulose content."

Hardy, Adaptable & Widespread

According to Velez's calculations, 7 million hectares of the Agave-to-ethanol team's enhanced Agave tequilana weber variety could provide the entire 36 billion gallons of ethanol the U.S. government needs by 2022 to comply with the renewable fuel standard set forth in December of last year, as well as 250 million metric tons of the dry biomass it is aiming to obtain by 2017.

Two other key elements appear to make Agave-to-ethanol projects even more attractive and viable: Agaves are planted widely across Mexico and the methods and technology to cultivate them is already at hand.

"The technology for producing massive amounts of our enhanced Agave variety — uniform in sugar content, size, weight, and harvesting time — is ready. This allows mechanization in the field— from establishment to harvesting — reducing costs, time and labor, which in time allows the establishment of very large plantations of Agave, that is, in the millions of hectares," Velez said.

Some 95% of the Agavacea family lives in Mexico, Velez explained. "Agave thrives in semi-arid wastelands — 50% of Mexico — needs no watering or agrochemicals, requires very scarce field labor and grows well in any type of soil, even highly degraded and steep terrains, because it takes nitrogen from the air. One-third of the world's habitable land is arid and semi-arid where agave can be cultivated. Some agave species accept temperature ranges from -14ºC to 50ºC," he said.

In addition, the fact that Agave cultivation and use has roots that stretch deep into pre-Columbian Mexican culture affords Agave-to-ethanol projects additional advantages and benefits.

"The use of products derived from agaves goes back to pre-Hispanic cultures," Dr. Madrigal pointed out. "In the present, it is common to find examples of these products in Mexico in traditional beverages like tequila, mescal and pulque; in traditional Mexican cuisine; arts and crafts; and rope and fibers, among others. Agave is a class of plants familiar and part of the national culture. A project or program successful in producing biofuel in addition to these would only be a gainful extension of uses already existing."

Mexico's National Ecology Institute Shows Interest

The only outside funding the project has been able to attract has been from RenewableEnergyWorld.com's contributor Thomas Blakeslee's Clearlight Foundation, up until the INE contacted them a few weeks ago, that is.

"Prospectively, we plan with the agro-industry to employ agave varieties, which requires first of all to continue characterization and selection, establishment of an in vitro germ plasm bank for the preservation, protection and conservation of original examples of the best of varieties in order to increase the number registered in the national catalog, and preserving the rights of ownership, and have them available in the genetic and phytosanitary registry for rapid propagation and use by the agro-industry. This requires the support of government agencies, such as INE, or others to which this program applies," Madrigal explained.

Besides looking like an extremely promising source of ethanol, the list of primary and ancillary products that could result from developing and scaling up Agave-driven biorefineries is a long one.

Agave is a known source of at least 35 other commercially viable substances that are used in food and medicinal products: inulin and fructose sugar syrup; pulp, paper and fiberboard production; textiles and rope; plastics and other commercial and industrial products, Velez noted.

"I claim that there's no other plant or tree in the world that can produce as much sugar and cellulose...Cellulose is the organic oil substitute — green oil — and sugar can be converted into many things — Agave sugars can be even eaten by diabetics without any risk, and have a high probiotic value.

"If you make paper or notebooks with that pulp, you'll get several times more money. So the trick is to sell only the lignin biomass and use the cellulose for something else. There's a type of cellulose called Alpha cellulose. With it you can even make food for human consumption. It's very expensive."

Andrew Burger is a RenewableEnergyWorld.com international correspondent currently based in Cadiz, Spain.

Bioenergy

56 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 56

dan-nelson-81463

August 8, 2008

NOOOOO!!!!!

Agave takes many years to mature enough for Tequila production. Crops have taken a beating from a blight in recent years, driving up the cost.

We need to keep the priorities set straight for affordable Tequila.

Who do I write to to stop this madness?? O_o

Comment
2 of 56

tblakeslee

August 8, 2008

Agave grows on semi-desert land without irrigation. This is extremely important as many poor countries have limited water resources. Since agave can grow on land that is not useful for growing food, its cultivation should not interfere with the world's food supply. Sugar cane requires lots of water and is often grown on land that has been cleared of vegitation that was already absorbing CO2.
Agave does require patience because it is only harvested after about six years of growth. This can cause severe boom and bust cycles if there isn;t some kind of system for monitoring the planting. A futures market could provide a useful natural control of overplanting.

Comment
3 of 56

james-leavenworth-59704

August 8, 2008

Dan, didn't you mean to include a smiley in your post?

Comment
4 of 56

paul-passarelli-76582

August 8, 2008

I thought that this sounded like quite appropriate use of those big ugly weeds, considering that Tequila tastes like motor fuel. ;^)

Comment
5 of 56

ronald-steenblik-74298

August 8, 2008

Could somebody confirm that these numbers are right -- i.e., that in low-rainfall conditions, agave yields 14 dry tons of feedstock per acre every year? Sorry to be skeptical, but it is hard for me to believe that a cactus, growing with little water, can yield more biomas, and three times more ethanol from its sugary juice, per acre than rain-fed sugar cane grown in the tropics.

Comment
6 of 56

jeff-stewart-65439

August 8, 2008

Please dont encourage people to go out into the desert and illegally remove agaves. I take exception to your article's characterization of the Mexican countryside as a "wasteland." Go there and you will see an incredibly diverse natural environment. That said, farming these plants might make sense...

Comment
7 of 56

jerry-unruh-23783

August 8, 2008

[varieties of Agave tequilana weber can yield up to 2,000 gallons of distilled ethanol per acre per year and from 12,000-18,000 gallons per acre per year if their cellulose is included, some 14 dry tons of feedstock per acre every year.]

These numbers cannot be correct. A gallon of ethanol weighs about 6.6 lbs so 2000 gallons weighs 6.6 tons (6 Metric tons). Assuming 1 lb of sugar produces 1 lb of ethanol (not correct - takes about 3 lbs sugar/lb ethanol), the total productivity would be 20.6 tons (18.7 metric tons)/acre or 4.6 kg/sq meter which is 50% higher than the most productive natural ecosystems in the world -swamps and marsh at about 3 kg/ sq meter. Using 3 lb sugar/lb ethanol they yield would be outrageous for a desert plant at 7.6 kg/sq meter. For comparison, the net primary productivity for desert and semi desert scrub is about 0.09 kg/sq meter. Even worse 10,000 gallons of ethanol (12,000 - 2,000) would weigh 33 tons or 2.3 times the dry weight of reported dry feedstock. Truly a manna form heaven proposition!!

These numbers are so absurd that I have reread and calculated what I wrote about 10 times. If I have made a mistake, please tell me.

Comment
8 of 56

mary-saunders-73470

August 8, 2008

You can already find agave nectar at your local health food vendor. It is expensive.

Agave is something of a rage in avant-guard vegan gourmet cooking. People who want healthy lifestyles are horning in.

Those who aspire to patent heritage plants and to sell them back to those who have stewarded the plants over time are guilty of hubris far beyond that of Marie Antoinette. The clock is running on this sort of exploitation.

Western people who oppose this are in a world battle with those who are determined to do it. Guess which side the Gates and some of the Rockefellers are on?

Of course, we know why hemp

Comment
9 of 56

mary-saunders-73470

August 8, 2008

(cont.) is the subject of Prohibition-like silliness.

The hemp plant can be grown with minimal inputs to yield all sorts of useful products that would compete with the oil industry.

The powers that be have been able to keep the profits from legal hemp away from most American business, but that may change in a more substantive way soon. A popular organic soap company decided to spend the money to duke it out, and they won.

Given our current crises, more interest groups are signing on for reform.

Comment
10 of 56

daniel-danch-148880

August 8, 2008

This idea seems like a nice academic project - BUT from a practical point of view financially will not work. At the current rate of dilution -50%water 50% tequila the fermentation would have to exceed $80.00 US per gallon in order to be on par with the consumer's consumption in order to compete with alcoholic beverage sales. I really can't see that happening. And besides it probably takes a substantial amount of this cacti just to create a 92% alcohol level per gallon just to make it usable as a fuel for IC use.

But at least people are thinking in new directions!! keep trying!!

Comment
11 of 56

tblakeslee

August 9, 2008

The tequilla business is based on marketing, packaging and name brands just like premium vodkas. It's a limited market. According to your argument there should be no ethanol business because its more attractive to sell ethanol as expensive vodka.
Agave prices are very low now because there is a glut compared to the limited demands of the tequilla market. Ethanol production will greatly expand the demand for agave causing increased demand so careful planning is required to prevent a price spike.
The agave's prolific output is a result of its one time flowering after six years or so. It is harvested just before it sends up a giant flower stalk after six years of growing. The sugar is stored energy for this final reproductive burst.

Comment
12 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 9, 2008

-------" I take exception to your article's characterization of the Mexican countryside as a "wasteland." "--------------

I agree. People who have never even seen the desert are the ones who call it "wasteland"----------personally it looks to me like urban areas are the "wastelands".

The desert is a beautiful place.

I wonder if drip irrigations would work with this. It has proven very successful at producing crops in Isreal..........would be relatively conservative of water resources, and not interfere with local microclimate.

After all, what we are trying to do is capture the sun's energy with natures solar cells----if we do it right with drip irrigation we can speed up the natural growth timetable, capture the sun's energy efficiently with a species that native to the environment(I generally oppose imported species, they cause more problems than they solve---like Kudzu for instance). Being a native species, if some spread out of cultivated areas---they would cause no problem, and simply revert back to the natural growth timetable based on water availability. It seems to me worth looking into, proper cultivation would be good for indiginous people and the local economy and safe for the environment. Both are good goals---and local economic improvement often is a big help to conserving the rest of the environment by reducing the "slash and burn" mentality that has its roots in economic poverty and despair.

What does everyone else think?

Comment
13 of 56

john-galt-154289

August 9, 2008

This is insanity. Ethanol is a net waste of energy and ethanol production cannot succeed anywhere without government subsidy.

Comment
14 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 9, 2008

Not according to the US Department of Energy. To produce one million BTU with ethanol requires 730,000 BTU of energy with corn, relatively inefficient----to produce the same one million BTU with petroleum requires 1, 230,000 BTUs. .73 vs 1.23 efficiency--using petroleum does not make sense.

As for subsidies---it is estimated that we are supporting over $350 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels right now,

So, get rid of all the minor subsidies to alternative energies. Get rid of the HUGE subsidies to fossil fuels.

Then, let's see which looks better on a level playing field.

Comment
15 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 9, 2008

Actually----getting rid of ALL subsidies and getting government interference out of the way in energy production would be the very best thing that could possibly happen for biofuels.

Petroleum would be as dead as the dinosaurs it was formed from.

http://groups.msn.com/BreakingTheChains/_whatsnew.msnw

Comment
16 of 56

keeper-trout-154288

August 9, 2008

Deserts are often thought of as sterile and barren but they are very often both fragile and species diverse environments.
The notion that Agaves are harvestable as a renewable resource with a 6 year harvest cycle is surely based on growing irrigated cultivated plants produced from transplanted offsets? (I have both propagated and grown assorted Agave species for many years.)
For around 10 years or so I have been encountering articles and field reports that the Mexican Agave populations chosen for tequila are being adversely impacted by tequila production to the extent that is threatening to surpass their rate of renewability in the not distant future.
The numbers in this piece are so optimistic my guess is they were written for attracting investors and are based on rosy projections rather than being based in reality.
I hope that environmental impact gets adequately factored into the creation of this industry. The deserts of the world and the life forms they contain are already threatened by a lot of other pressures.
I would suggest it would be much better to propagate & cultivate Agaves outside of a desert environment.
They do not require good farmland soil to thrive and do not mind clay, ultramafic, limestone or rocky soils. It would be a simple matter to farm Agaves in a field containing rows of berms permitting easy harvest of both adults and offsets for replanting.
The word "renewable" needs to be made real in this scenario or its just another instance of "business ueber alles" as usual.
Agaves could be a renewable resource but they could also come with an unacceptably high price depending on how this industry goes about its start up.

Comment
17 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 9, 2008

-------"The word "renewable" needs to be made real in this scenario or its just another instance of "business ueber alles" as usual.
Agaves could be a renewable resource but they could also come with an unacceptably high price depending on how this industry goes about its start up."---------

I agree.

Comment
18 of 56

Thaidiamond

August 9, 2008

Maybe the title was a typo: they meant to say "algae".

The world's oldest plant which can reproduce itself in 24 hours and doesn't even need land to grow.

Importantly, it sequesters up to 90% of it's dry weight in CO2. As we evolve into cap & trade, the ability to remove literally tons of greenhouse gases can be monetized.

The byproducts can be easily made into high protein animal feed, processed into fertilizer, or fermented into ethanol/butanol.

There's at least 60,000 different species of microalgae - grown on every continent in every climate - some containing up to 50% lipids or vegetable oil.

Two companies have some interesting approaches.

Valcent produces algae in their closed loop "bioreactors" -- initial test runs were at 33,000 gallons an acre -- on semi-arid land that can't be used for food cultivation. To put that in perspective, palm can get some 6,700 gallons an acre.

Valcent claims that if 1/10 of the state of New Mexico were used for algae production, they could meet the energy demands for the entire United States.

Go here for a "must see" video interview on algae per se and the technology: http://www.scribemedia.org/2007/11/15/glen-kertz-valcent-vertigro-algae-biofuel/.

Also intriguing is Solyzyme. They're private and claim not to even need sunlight to make algae. If true, they just solved one of the major obstacles to industrial production of biodiesel from algae.

Chevron seems to be impressed. America's number 2 oil producer just signed an agreement. I'm guessing to get Chevron to open their wallets they told them a lot more about their proprietary methods than almost 'nothin' they told me!

Solyzyme claim they their "oil" can be used to make anything that currently comes from a convention barrel of hydrocarbons. Jet fuel, petrol, plastics...the whole nine yards!

Importantly, algae also promises no change in infrastructure required.

After all, oil itself is essentially fossilized algae.

Comment
19 of 56

steven-mielke-81365

August 10, 2008

In comment 16, Fred Linn writes:
"Actually----getting rid of ALL subsidies and getting government interference out of the way in energy production would be the very best thing that could possibly happen for biofuels.

Petroleum would be as dead as the dinosaurs it was formed from."

Well, a large fraction of the oil currently being pumped costs less than $10 a barrel to produce. You will never get ethanol production down to those prices. The notion that government subsidies alone prop up the current energy market structure is not true.

Comment
20 of 56

mark-schindler-72812

August 10, 2008

www.greentechmedia.com. Blue Fire Ethanol has
a contract with Los Angeles to build a biomass facility to use city trash to make ethanol in two years. This recycles waste to a usable form and does not raise the cost of agave as with corn. It also has advantages over drilling for oil.

Comment
21 of 56

arturo-velez-136267

August 10, 2008

Hello everyone!

Being responsible for most of the figures in Andrew's article I feel obligued to respond to some of your comments:

First, we are using an enhanced cultivar of Agave tequilana weber that was developed by Prof. Madrigal after 29 years of biotechnollogy research. This cultivar has been tested during two full life cycles of the plant with amazing results. Production per hectare numbers are right, in fact, they're a little low: On an annualized basis agave produces 100 tonnes of biomass per acre. From these, agave heads (where sugars are) weigh 44 tonnes (with 27 to 38 degrees Brix). It takes 6 kilos of common agave (with around 20 degrees Brix) to produce one litre of tequila. We use 7 to 8 kilos of our cultivar to produce one litre of distilled ethanol, so each acre of agave produces around 1,500 gallons of distilled ethanol.

Our cultivar of Agave tequilana yields one hundred annual tonnes of biomass per acre or 20 tonnes of dry biomass. Since each tonne of dry biomass can yield up to 180 gallons of cellulosic ethanol, you get from 3,600 gallons of cellulosic ethanol per acre

If you add the 1,500 gallons of distilled ethanol to the 3,600 gallons of cellulosic ethanol you get roughly 5,000 annual gallons of ethanol per acre from Agave tequilana weber cultivar.

(cont...)

Arturo Velez Jimenez
agaveproject2@gmail.com

Comment
22 of 56

arturo-velez-136267

August 10, 2008

(cont...)

Now, Prof. Madrigal has developed another agave species cultivar (Agave angustifolia) that can produce 3.5X more biomass than his agave tequilana weber cultivar, althoug with less sugar content. There's where the 12,000 to 18,000 annual gallons per acre came from.
On an annualized basis agave produces 3X more distilled ethanol than sugar cane in Brasil; 6X more distilled ethanol than yellow corn in the US; at least 3X more cellulosic ethanol than switchgrass or poplar tree. Producing one gallon of distilled ethanol from agave costs at the most half the cost of one gallon from sugar cane and one fourth of corn's production cost.
One hectare of Agave captures at least 5X more CO2 than one hectare of the fastest growing Eucalyptus on a high density plantation and in one single year agave produces the same cellulose pulp Eucalyptus produces in 5 years.
I know the numbers seem fantastic, made up to attract stupid investors... but they are true. They've been rigorously proven. In the next few years we will see agave industry flourishing, spouting biorefineries like mushrooms.
As for the term 'wasteland'. please, pardon my English, my vocablulary is not as wide as I'd like.

Regards,

Arturo Velez Jimenez
agaveproject2@gmail.com

Comment
23 of 56

russ-finley-53703

August 10, 2008

Fred,

You are inadvertantly propogating an internet urban legend on the issue of energy balance. This link explains why:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/04/energy-balance-for-ethanol-better-than.html

Comment
24 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 10, 2008

Russ, from your blog---

-----"Look at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture claim again: "the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline". If the energy balance was really this good for ethanol and that bad for gasoline, why would anyone ever make gasoline?"----

Very good question.

-------" Where would the economics be?"--------

In the White House, Congress and the energy lobby seeking special favors. No one really knows for sure, but I have seen estimates of taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry ranging as high as $350-$400 Billion per year. Coal and Nuclear industries are the same type of deal.

----------" Why would ethanol need subsidies to compete? "---------

It doesn't. Get rid of all the subsidies for ethanol or biodiesel. AND get rid of all the subsidies for oil, coal and nuclear. Let the commodity price reflect the TRUE cost of energy prouduction and you would see a vastly different picture.

Here are some other things to consider. Corn also produces oil. About 2-4 gallons per bushel. This can be taken off before the corn is made into mash to produce ethanol. Oil is not metabolised by the yeast that produce the ethanol so it does not enter into the equation. The REAL product of fermentation is DDG(dried distillers grain)---high protien animal feed. Grain is not a particuarly good animal feed, it only contains 2-4% protien, after it is fermented and dried however it contains 12-14% protien. It is comparable to soy bean meal in protien content which it became a substitute for. The corn is cheaper than soy meal as an animal feed protien source because it is 2.5-3X as productive per acre as soy beans.

Comment
25 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 10, 2008

Corn produces 2.7 gallons of ethanol per bushel. And corn is not a particularly good source of ethanol----look at what a small part of the plant(the grain) is actually used. Ethanol from cellulose is an even better picture. Ethanol from cellulose is produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process first developed in 1924. Germany used the F-T process to make alcohol fuels using wood and coal in WW2 after the loss of N. Africa and the bombing of Ploesti. Alcohol fuels ran everything from 140 metric tonne Panzer tanks, V-1 and V-2 rockets, and the Me-262. The first Model T Ford was designed to run on ethanol. There is nothing new or exotic about ethanol fuels, there were there right from the begining. The first internal combustion engines were designed to run on ethanol----gasoline from petroleum hadn't been invented yet.

Just think about it a minute Russ. Which has the better energy balance. The fuel that is produced close to the point of use, and once produced needs no more refining----or a fuel that has to be produced, shipped half way around the world, THEN refined(and remember, the ship that carried the oil has to go back empty---there are no suitable return cargos for large tankers).
There has been a lot of talk about ethanol increasing greenhouse gases because so much petroleum is used to produce it. OK, then use biofuels to produce it. You can use biodiesel in most farm machinery already with no modification---they are already diesel. It makes more sense for farmers to make their own biodiesel by pressing corn for two gallons of biodiesel per bushel(petrodiesel is selling close to $5/gallon) and get two gallons from a bushel of corn they could only get less than $6 on the corn market. That makes their biodiesel ~$3 per gallon, 60% of the cost of petro.

Comment
26 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 10, 2008

------"It should be clear that the proponents in this case are promoting false information."------------------------

Yes, it is. But it is not ethanol proponents. It is petroleum companies that want to keep people buying their product.

PetroSun is right now producing 4.4 million gal/yr of biodiesel from saltwater algae in 1180 acres of saltwater holding ponds in Rio Hondo Texas.

Ethanol can be made from any type of plant material at all. Rangeline Fuels has a plant under construction right now in Soperton Georgia that will produce 100 million gal/yr from logging and millwork wood waste.
Spain produces 750 million liters/yr of ethanol from waste wood and plant material.

Biofuels do anything and everything that oil does. And they do it better, cheaper, cleaner and they are non greenhouse and renewable.

All the racers in the Indianapolis 500 run on 100% ethanol. And they have run on alcohol fuels for over 30 years. The only thing that matters in the fastest race in the world---winning.

Comment
27 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 10, 2008

BTW---NEVER run through an agave field!

Comment
28 of 56

dominic-jermano-62365

August 11, 2008

It takes more energy to grow crops for fuel, than to convert water into hydrogen. Really this whole fuel debate is not about fuel, but about protecting the combustion engine industry from drying up. The combustion engine is on its way out, and no amount of growing corn and subsidizing the midwest or growing agave or cactus in Arizonia or Mexico is going to change that. We are on a quest to develop a fuel less engine, and to preserve the remaining oil supply we have left. Better to grow algae for oil than agave any day of the year if you are going to grow something.

Comment
29 of 56

ronald-steenblik-74298

August 11, 2008

Fred writes: "Corn also produces oil. About 2-4 gallons per bushel. This can be taken off before the corn is made into mash to produce ethanol."

Fred, from where are you getting your yield figures? Two to four gallons of con-oil from a bushel of corn would be quite a yield. The figures I have seen suggest oil yields of only around 18 gallons per acre:

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html#ascend

Assuming roughly 150 bushels of corn per acre, that would translate to less than 0.12 gallons per bushel, not 2 to 4.

I think you are confusing the total possible yield of biofuels from a bushel of corn (biodiesel PLUS ethanol) using conventional technologies with just the biodiesel yield:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_July_31/ai_n26941907

Comment
30 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 11, 2008

You are right, if you make ethanol, you don't get the full oil production you would with oil alone. However, you can still produce both from the same feedstock. Oil removal also lowers drying times and decreases the energy input needed in the production process.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_July_31/ai_n26941907

Comment
31 of 56

jerry-unruh-23783

August 11, 2008

Aurturo:

I simply do not understand your comments and numbers still do not make sense to me.

1) What does "annualized" mean in the context of your reply? It is actual weights measured over a year or some extrapolation from some smaller period of growth?
2) Whatever the answer to #1, I suspect you are not growing these under desert conditions. How much water, fertilizer, etc do you use and how do you intend to supply same under desert conditions?
3) It sounds like your net primary productivity is almost 16 kg/sq meter. While I do not have data to dispute this, it seems extremely high. The "3.5 cultivar" would yield about 50 kg/sq meter and is about 17 times higher than the most productive natural systems (marshes at 3 kg/sq meter) and about 55 times higher than natural desert systems. That stretches credibility.
4) In order to even consider obtaining such yields, there needs to be considerable energy input. What is the energy balance?
5) As far as I know, there are currently no viable cellulosic processes for ethanol although I know there is speculation about the yield, but yours seems much higher than other numbers I have seen.
6) Three times sugar cane yield for ethanol would be about 2,000 gallons. It is not clear what numbers you are comparing when you say Agave yields are 3 times higher than sugar cane. Do you mean the 2,000 gallon numbers or the 18,000 gallon numbers?

Comment
32 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 11, 2008

------"5) As far as I know, there are currently no viable cellulosic processes for ethanol although I know there is speculation about the yield, but yours seems much higher than other numbers I have seen."--------

Iogen has had a demonstration plant in operation in Ottowa Canada in operation for awhile now. I have seen a reported yield of 70 gallons/ton---a little better than the 60 gallons per ton reported for traditional thermochemical process used in paper pulping, however, ??? could be a difference in the definition of the tons reported. Maybe the Canadians are using metric tons.
http://www.iogen.ca/cellulose_ethanol/what_is_ethanol/cellulose_ethanol.pdf

Comment
33 of 56

jerry-unruh-23783

August 11, 2008

Fred:

The numbers on the website were 340 liters/metric ton (tonne). Ethanol weighs 0.79 kg/l so 340 liters would weigh 270 kg. Therefore, strictly on a wt/wt basis the yield would be 27%. Arturo reported that one tonne of dry biomass can yield up to 180 gallons of ethanol (3 kg/gallon) for a yield of 54% on a wt/wt basis or twice the yield of Iogen's demonstration process. Assuming all of the carbon from the sugars goes to ethanol, the extra hydrogen needed comes from water, and and the excess oxygen in the sugars go to water or leave as O2, the maximum wt/wt yield for ethanol from sugars would be about 77%.

I must admit to being skeptical of the economics and energy use of the Iogen process (although I recognize this is an indefensible opinion). The separation from dilute aqueous solutions remains a killer. I suspect that gasification to make synthesis gas (H2 + CO) followed by production of methanol or Fischer-Tropsch chemistry to gasoline type fuels makes more sense.

Comment
34 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 11, 2008

It coud be a problem of whether we are talking about wet or dry weight.

I'm pretty sure that the Iogen numbers would be wet(green) wood, you wouldn't hold wood one or two years to dry to use a biologic(wet) process on it.

The numbers are not too different for the Fischer-Tropsch process(thermal) and about the same yield.

I'm not too wow'd with Iogen. They were scheduled to build a large demonstration plant in Idaho, and then dropped it when the DOE didn't offer them enough money(they thought). They are building a large plant in Saskatchawan though(according to what they say so far).

I prefer F-T process, it has been around since 1924 and is well known and used. It was the process that Germany used in WW2 to produce alcohol base fuels from wood and coal, after Germany lost N. Africa and the allies bombed Ploesti. They powered everything from 140 tonne Panzer tanks to V1 and V2 rockets and the Me 262 Swallow jet fighter with alcohol.
F-T process is pretty versitile I guess, it can produce anything from alcohol to heavy diesel with the right tweeking and catalysts.

Comment
35 of 56

ronald-steenblik-74298

August 12, 2008

The moisture content of agave is much, much higher than green wood.

In the case of green wood, the moisture content at which the cell walls become completely saturated (but the cell cavities contain no water) is called the "fiber saturation point." The fiber saturation point of wood averages about 30 percent moisture content, though individual species and individual pieces of wood may vary by several percentage points from that value.

http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/woodmove.shtml

According to this source

http://extension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/forestry/g05450.htm ,

the weight ratio between "green" short-leaf pine and oven-dried short-leaf pine is about 1.8 to 1. According to Arturo Velez (Comment # 21 on this string), the ratio for agave, a succulent, is more like 5 to 1. That is a big difference. Hence, even if Iogen has been reporting its figures on the basis of green weight, rather than oven-dried weight (which is more usually the norm), it still would not account for the huge discrepancy in predicted yields of cellulosic ethanol.

Comment
36 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 12, 2008

========"Really this whole fuel debate is not about fuel, but about protecting the combustion engine industry from drying up."========

Well, yes, sort of it is. Even if suddenly you had the totally perfect fuel/engine combination that does everything that anyone ever hoped for sitting right in front of you now, it would do no good whatever. You could not use it. There are something like 240 million vehicles in the US alone. Even if you could produce you new vehicle at a rate of 2 million a year it would take you 120 years to replace just what is on the road now---let alone any vehicles that wear out(your hypothetical vehicle.) But to do that, you'd have to replace the entire car industry production and supply system----in order to do that, manufactures need to have income when making the change over, otherwise they are bankrupt and there is no change over. To do that, limited resources have to be diverted to making what is already being made. The new design has to take back seat----slowing any progress at change. Changing the system would be too slow and expensive.
What the problem is, is not the cars we have now, the problem is the fuel source. If we change the fuel source, to a system compatible with the 240 million cars on the road now---we can do that relatively quickly.
People resist change. That is natural. People will resist changing to a completely different technology.
Biofuels are the only technology that can do that. People want to drive from Kansas City to Denver. And they don't want to have to take four days to get there because they had to stop every 100 miles to charge a battery. People want to get there in 10 hours. And they want 4x4 and the boat on a trailer when they get there so they can go fishing in the mountains.
Biofuels are the only technology we have that can do that and answer ALL of the problems that are facing us over oil.

Comment
37 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 12, 2008

It seems to me that if agave cactus is productive of ethanol to an acceptable degree(we know that already from tequila production)---it is a native species that isn't going to cause problems by spreading when we cultivate it---it is already adapted to the climate and conditions. And we have a resource of unused land suitable land, a work force who needs work to do, and the ability to adapt the water problem (drip irrigation) then we should use those resources. In the end it will come down to a mater of economics. All the arguement over whether the specific numbers are exagerated or underestimated will not matter. Maybe they are, so what.
It seems to me that agave answers so many of the big problems about fitting well in the natural environment, using currently unused resources, and fits the sustainability and renewablitity so well that we will use, we have to.

I just have two questions about agave. Can it be adapted to drip irrigation culture?
Can it be adapted to permaculture? Can we for instance raise a field of agave----and when it comes time for them to flower---remove the flowers so that they don't die off. Can we harvest some, and leave the main plant so that we can keep harvesting it year after year. More like an orchard, than a field crop that we take out and have to start all over again each time.
Take some, leave the main plant, and have a continueing crop year after year. Also, what other plants can we adapt to produce complex hydrocarbons? What ever happened with Jojoba beans? Jojoba produces a very light oil that is highly resistant to high temperatures and oxidation, and makes a superior lubricant, cosmetic base and other things that petroleum is used for. Jojoba thrives in the harshest desert conditions. How about gum weed? It produces a lot of complex latex sap.

Comment
38 of 56

ronald-steenblik-74298

August 12, 2008

"In the end it will come down to a mater of economics. All the arguement over whether the specific numbers are exagerated or underestimated will not matter."

Were that only true. Up to now, biofuel policies have not worked that way. When you mandate something, economics goes out the window.

Comment
39 of 56

ian-sampson-72933

August 12, 2008

Wow lots of comments and differing numbers! The production numbers for the agaves and the writing of the article smell like a stock promotion. I agree with Mary about the crooked nature of those wanting to patent nature's plants. (Let's go hemp!)

I didn't know that the oil and coal industries receive subsidies but if that is the case it is outrageous. There are millions living in abject poverty in the USA and to take money from us (i.e. taxes) and give it to polluters of the planet is awful. They fossil fuel companies should not only not receive subsidies but should have to pay taxes sufficient to capture all of the pollution from mining, refining and burning fossil fuels. (all CO2, all mercury, SO2, all NOx, etc.)

I know that won't happen because we don't live in a real democracy. It a corrupt system of buyouts and lobbyists, where the voting is a placebo to placate the masses.

Ian

Comment
40 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 12, 2008

--------"Were that only true. Up to now, biofuel policies have not worked that way. When you mandate something, economics goes out the window."------

THAT is quite true! Notice I never said anything about mandateing anything. I believe quite the opposite. Get rid of all the hidden subsidies and special favors, bonuses, and everything else that are currently going to the Big Energy Fossil Fuel and Nuclear fraternity right now. Let oil and biofuels compete on a level playing ground economically. Oil will be a mouse in a room full of cats.
No one has any statistics because it has been going on so long no one even knows any more what all the subsidies entail. However, I have seen estimates that run as high as $350-400 Billion per year to the fossil fuel/nuclear energy industry. The indirect measurement, just look at the number of lobbyists they maintain. in Washington, they outnumber the politicians they are lobbying.

-------"I know that won't happen because we don't live in a real democracy. It a corrupt system of buyouts and lobbyists, where the voting is a placebo to placate the masses."----------------

Luckily we live in a free market system. We don't have to wait on corrupt politicians. We are free to invest in new technology that is superior, or even OLD technology that is superior---all that matters is, is it efficient enough to be profitable? It is like a car race, will it win? That is all that matters in the Indianapolis 500, will it win. Alcohol beat out petroleum over 35 years ago.
Someone mentioned "stock promotion"---yup!!!! That is why you do research. To be able to see the difference between hype and real substance. Nothing wrong with that at all. If you are going to invest in something, you should definitely research well before you do. But that means keeping an open mind. Keeping an open mind means looking for possiblities.

Comment
41 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 12, 2008

Invest in what looks like the best and easiest technology to do what needs to be done at the least cost and disruption of what you have now. It is like voting, but it is even better. You don't have to wait for an election. If what you chose doesn't perform the way you want it to---sell out and invest in something else that looks to you like it will. If you want to influence the direction that industry is taking---as a stockholder you can whisper and get more attention than 1,000 protestors shouting in the street.

Don't look for politicians to make a difference---look for people to make a difference. It doesn't even need to be a lot of people. When people see a few pioneering leaders making big profits, they fall all over themselves to chase after the leaders.

Comment
42 of 56

arturo-velez-136267

August 12, 2008

Jerry, by "annualized" I mean on an annual basis. The annualized figures are used for comparative purposes with annual crops, since agave takes 6 years in the field to harvest. I simply divided the final production numbers by 6.

"2) Whatever the answer to #1, I suspect you are not growing these under desert conditions. How much water, fertilizer, etc do you use and how do you intend to supply same under desert conditions?"

Agave tequilana weber does nor grow in deserts, but in semi-arid lands. There are over 200 agave species in Mexico and some of them thrive in deserts: Hesperaloe funifera can stand climates from minus 14 degrees up to 50 degrees Celsius, and produce from 30 to 40 annual tonnes of Abaca cellulose per hectare without watering.
We have obtained agave tequilana heads weighing 210+ kilos (that's 6X the average) with NO irrigation (plants were only watered after transplanting), WITHOUT AN OUNCE of agrochemicals and WITHOUT field labor. They were just left alone; after 6 years we harvested giant agave.

"3) It sounds like your net primary productivity is almost 16 kg/sq meter. While I do not have data to dispute this, it seems extremely high. The "3.5 cultivar" would yield about 50 kg/sq meter and is about 17 times higher than the most productive natural systems (marshes at 3 kg/sq meter) and about 55 times higher than natural desert systems. That stretches credibility."

The 3.5X cultivar: we planted a small parcel with this cultivar with a density of 3,250 plants per hectare (1,300 plants per acre). We obtained heads weighing 700 kilos, with 25 degrees Brix. Each one of these giant agaves weighted 1.2 metric tonnes (excluding root weight). These ones were fertilized (regular amount), got the normal field labour and some watering. There's a rule for agave: the more water the more biomass; the less water the more sugars.

(Cont...)

Comment
43 of 56

arturo-velez-136267

August 12, 2008

Thus 1,300 plants weighing 1.2 tonnes each gives 1,560 tonnes of biomass or 312 tonnes of dry biomass divided by 6 years = 52 tonnes of dry biomass per acre each year.

"4) In order to even consider obtaining such yields, there needs to be considerable energy input. What is the energy balance?"
We are working on it now, but it seems it will surpass by far all the other energy crops. The land cost is the lowest, no watering is needed, very few agrochemicals are needed, no machinery is used during management (yet), only for transportation of the agave heads to the ethanol factory, scarce field labour…

"5) As far as I know, there are currently no viable cellulosic processes for ethanol although I know there is speculation about the yield, but yours seems much higher than other numbers I have seen."

I am using figures provided by author David Blume, Permaculturist and ethanol expert interested in agave: up to 180 gallons of ethanol per tonne of biomass. Let's set that aside, our cultivar of Agave tequilana weber produces 20 tonnes of annual dry biomass per hectare (this could be heightened a lot by clipping the bottom leaves every year, forcing the plant to grow higher, producing larger/heavier heads = more biomass and more distilled ethanol. This clipping procedure is done with another Mexican agave species used for fibres, with amazing results).

Comment
44 of 56

arturo-velez-136267

August 12, 2008

According to the US Government, Poplar tree produces 5.1 tonnes of dry biomass per acre and Willow tree 6.4 tonnes; switchgrass produces 6.9 tonnes (http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/bioam95/graham3.html) That means agave produces 3X more dry biomass than THE BEST AMERICAN ENERGY CROPS (even GMO poplar tree), independently of what the process for cellulosic ethanol is used. Now, agave fibre (dry biomass) has 64.9% of cellulose content, while coniferous go up to 45% and deciduous trees up to 49%. I don't know about switchgrass, but Esparto Grass goes up to 38% and sugar cane up to 48% (http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1998/han98a.pdf)
Kilo per kilo, Agave produces 30% more cellulose than transgenic poplar tree.

"6) Three times sugar cane yield for ethanol would be about 2,000 gallons. It is not clear what numbers you are comparing when you say Agave yields are 3 times higher than sugar cane. Do you mean the 2,000 gallon numbers or the 18,000 gallon numbers?"

I mean the 2,000 gallons. According to National Geographic Magazine (October 2007), cited at http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/conference/HCE8/Presentations/Eaton.pdf sugar cane produces 600 – 800 gallons of ethanol per acre, our enhanced variety of Agave tequilana produces 2,000+ gallons of distilled ethanol per acre every year. Sugar cane has a sugar content of 10 to 14 degrees Brix. Agave tequilana goes from 27 to 38 degrees Brix.

Fred: "I just have two questions about agave. Can it be adapted to drip irrigation culture?"
Sure! And it works much faster. You can reduce harvesting time one year or so.
"Can it be adapted to permaculture?"
Of course! We look forward to work with Dave Blume on producing our agave this way.

Comment
45 of 56

arturo-velez-136267

August 12, 2008

"Can we for instance raise a field of agave----and when it comes time for them to flower---remove the flowers so that they don't die off."
Unfortunately no. But we have found some plants that don't flower at all, allowing to harvesting all year long (for around a one year period). We are developing some research on this.
"Can we harvest some, and leave the main plant so that we can keep harvesting it year after year. More like an orchard, than a field crop that we take out and have to start all over again each time.
Take some, leave the main plant, and have a continueing crop year after year."
You can harvest the bottom leaves every year (up to 50%), but their sugar content is not suitable for ethanol production, but it's good for cellulose and biomass production
"Also, what other plants can we adapt to produce complex hydrocarbons? What ever happened with Jojoba beans? Jojoba produces a very light oil that is highly resistant to high temperatures and oxidation, and makes a superior lubricant, cosmetic base and other things that petroleum is used for. Jojoba thrives in the harshest desert conditions. How about gum weed? It produces a lot of complex latex sap."
Jojoba sounds great! We could also produce biodiesel by mixing agave and jojoba. I recommend David Blume's book "ETHANOL CAN BE A GASS!". Ch. VIII describes around 40 energy crops. It's very interesting and full of info.
Regards,
Arturo
agaveproject2@gmail.com

Comment
46 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 12, 2008

Thanks Arturo. I take it these were all small test plots? Any plans for a larger production test run? How would that compare with the typical productions already being seen with tequila production?

Are you saving some back in reserve for Dan and I and the Grand Opening party when it goes commercial?

Comment
47 of 56

arturo-velez-136267

August 13, 2008

Fre: yes, these were small plot tests. We have now about 800,000 plants to start a plantation. Land is not a problem, but financial support is always needed, but a couple of investors are interested. It seems that the Mexican government will provide some support too.

Our cultivar produces 6X more ethanol than large tequila industries common agave plantations, and compared to the small industries the number goes up to 12X

Sure! You and all will be most wellcome to the opening party. There will be plenty ethanol for all of us.

Arturo

Comment
48 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 13, 2008

Sounds great Aruro---even if the scale up loses some of the efficiency, you've still got a LOT of ethanol! Good luck to all of you. I hope it works out as well as it sounds right now. You're doing a wonderful job.

Comment
49 of 56

arturo-velez-136267

August 17, 2008

Hi!
I want to say that the photo of the giant agaves was taken by Cornelio Perez. My mistake for not providing this info to REW.
Like I said before, by cutting the bottom leaves every year we could get even taller agave heads...
Regards,

Arturo Velez

Comment
50 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 20, 2008

Ronald----"Fred, from where are you getting your yield figures? Two to four gallons of con-oil from a bushel of corn would be quite a yield. The figures I have seen suggest oil yields of only around 18 gallons per acre:"--------

A bushel of corn weights 56 lbs. a gallon of oil weights 7.4 lbs.

Yield from field corn is ~2 gallons a bushel = 26% by weight

Yields of bred for oil corn of ~ 4 gallon a bushel = slightly over 50% by weight, about the same as most other oil producing crops.

An average crop yield runs about 110 to 140 bushels per acre = (low figure) 220 to 280 gallons per acre; 440 to 560 using a bred for oil corn. This is roughly the same oil content as oil producing algaes per weight. Except that with algae, we are talking about the entire biomass weight---with corn just the grain. Algae is more efficient for fuel production. Corn however, also has many other economic uses, so we'll have some from both sources I think.

We'll still use corn for biodiesel, we'll just fry stuff in it first and get double mileage out of it. Cooking with it first does not affect its use later as a fuel.(unless you have a VERY bad cook who sets the kitchen on fire).

Comment
51 of 56

fred-linn-151968

August 20, 2008

Ronald----"Were that only true. Up to now, biofuel policies have not worked that way. When you mandate something, economics goes out the window."----------

The BEST part about biofuels. Nothing has to be mandated or subsidized. Just get them produced and available to people to buy. Take the subsidies OFF of petroleum. Then left normal market pressure take over. Side by side, considering the economics of production biofuels will be prefered because they are cheaper to produce. People will vote for what they want everytime they fill up. Biofuels will be cheaper, therefore, people will fill up with what does the same thing but costs them less.

Nothing wrong with having a choice I think.

Comment
52 of 56

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 1, 2008

Fred--"A bushel of corn weights 56 lbs. a gallon of oil weights 7.4 lbs. Yield from field corn is ~2 gallons a bushel = 26% by weight."

Fred, you need to take deep breaths and double-check your numbers more often. According to this article, the oil yield from corn is 2 POUNDs (0.27 gallons) per bushel, not 2 gallons. That is 3.6% by weight, not 26% by weight.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/one_kernel_two_.html

Fred--"Nothing has to be mandated or subsidized. Just get them produced and available to people to buy. Take the subsidies OFF of petroleum. Then left normal market pressure take over. Side by side, considering the economics of production biofuels will be prefered because they are cheaper to produce."

Maybe biofuels don't have to be mandated or subsidized. But the reality is that they ARE. I agree that petroleum should not be subsidized (its use, unlike biofuel's, is not mandated) either, but you are deluding yourself if you think it will make much of a difference to the retail price. The subsidies (much smaller per gallon than for biofuels) are on the production side, and mainly boost domestic supply. Withdraw them and imports would increase more quickly. But since petroleum prices in the United States are already linked to world prices, any resulting increase at the price at the pump would be small -- not enough to on its own to make biofuels economically viable. In any case, the resource base for biofuels in North America, espcially crop-based biofuels, is limited. As production levels increase, so does the price of feedstock.

That does not apply to algae, obviously. But its production costs are still higher than the production costs of developing most petroleum sources.

Comment
53 of 56

fred-linn-151968

September 1, 2008

----"That does not apply to algae, obviously. But its production costs are still higher than the production costs of developing most petroleum sources."-----

It is easier to grow pond scum and squeeze the oil out in your own back yard than it is to travel have way around the world in the most extreme climates on earth, drill through 3-5 miles of solid rock, pump out oil, lug it back half way around the world, THEN you have to refine it and lug it to where it is used. The cost of petroleum production is astronomical---and totally inefficient and unneeded.

Comment
54 of 56

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 3, 2008

"It is easier to grow pond scum and squeeze the oil out in your own back yard"

Are you doing that, Fred? Do you use a big ol' apple press, or an electric pneumatic press? How much oil are you getting per week? Do you just use it as SVO, or are you converting it to biodiesel?

And what advice do you have for city people, who don't have back yards large enough to keep a pond, much less an area for the equipment to squeeze out and store the oil. Should they purchase themselves some big fish tanks and place them in their windows?

While waiting for your answer, I think I'll jump on my bicycle and run a few errands.

Comment
55 of 56

fred-linn-151968

September 4, 2008

--------"Should they purchase themselves some big fish tanks and place them in their windows?"---------

Endless Energy from Algae Biofuel: Closed-Loop Photo Bioreactor from Valcent (video)

http://www.naturalnews.com/023378.html

It is just an aquarium system, just set up backwards to optimize algae growth rather than inhibit algae growth so you can see the fish.

Comment
56 of 56

brian-donovan-162575

November 15, 2008

Louisiana Enacts the Most Comprehensive Advanced Biofuel Legislation in the Nation
__________________

Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative Benefits Consumers, Farmers and Gas Station Owners with Localized "Field-to-Pump" Strategy

Baton Rouge, LA (November 15, 2008) â Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law the Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative, the most comprehensive and far-reaching state legislation in the nation enacted to develop a statewide advanced biofuel industry. Louisiana is the first state to enact alternative transportation fuel legislation that includes a variable blending pump pilot program and a hydrous ethanol pilot program.

Field-to-Pump Strategy
The legislature found that the proper development of an advanced biofuel industry in Louisiana requires implementation of the following comprehensive "field-to-pump" strategy developed by Renergie, Inc.:

(1) Feedstock Other Than Corn
(a) derived solely from Louisiana harvested crops;
(b) capable of an annual yield of at least 600 gallons of ethanol per acre;
(c) requiring no more than one-half of the water required to grow corn;
(d) tolerant to high temperature and waterlogging;
(e) resistant to drought and saline-alkaline soils;
(f) capable of being grown in marginal soils, ranging from heavy clay to light sand;
(g) requiring no more than one-third of the nitrogen required to grow corn, thereby reducing the risk of contamination of the waters of the state; and
(h) requiring no more than one-half of the energy necessary to convert corn into ethanol.

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!