Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

What's Stopping Us? The Hurdles To Commercializing Cellulosic Ethanol

By Todd Alexander & Lee Gordon, Chadbourne & Parke
March 5, 2009   |   39 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

39 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 39
March 6, 2009
Very useful summary, Messrs. Alexander & Gordon. But with regard to government support for cellulosic ethanol, you neglected to mention two important policies: the $1.01 per gallon federal producer tax credit (which, unlike the VEETC, is not available to imports), and the $0.54 per gallon import tariff on fuel ethanol. In addition, there are numerous producer payments, tax credits, fuel-tax exemptions and sales-tax exemptions provided by individual states that will also benefit cellulosic ethanol. Indeed, the capital grants and loan guarantees are likely to constitute a relatively minor part of overall support compared with what will be provided by these production-supporting policies.
Comment
2 of 39
March 6, 2009
What's Stopping Us? The Hurdles To Commercializing Cellulosic Ethanol

Simple; the 'ICE' (internal combustion engine)

Consider this:
The Tesla Roadster BEV (battery electric vehicle); 0-60mph in 3.9 secs, range 220+ miles on 53KWh charge ( = 240Wh/mile).
Using CPV solar panels (35%+ collecting efficiency) in areas with a climate similar to the Sahara Desert then 10,000 miles per year travel with a BEV would require about 3sq-m of solar panel to supply this energy. An ICE car of similar performance would require in the order of 1000 times this area to produce the equivalent bio-fuel, although bio-fuel from algae might reduce this to a few 100 times.

(Note: I have no connection with Tesla)
Comment
3 of 39
March 6, 2009
I guess TODD never invested in XETHANOL or explored the reasons for their collapse in August, Georgia.

Nor has he checked the long history of turning 'black liquor' into some kind of fuel or saleable product profitably, tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent chasing this dream.

When Brazil shines a 'green beacon' on this waste, with a sugar based ethanol industry---am I the only one who noted that the cellulosic refineries are 'dosing' their refineries with corn starch and subsidized white sugar?; and a massive conversion of their vehicle fleet to ethanol; one has to ask who is really lobbying to retain the 54 cent tariff on ethanol?

The rapid growth of the CGV(compressed bio-gas vehicle) 'industry' in Europe has mated municipal waste to energy plants that merge solid organic and liquid waste into large anaerobic digesters; then clean the gas to pipeline grade quality and use it to run public vehicle fleets. Honda's CGV won the 'greenist' car award this past summer.

TODD needs to get out in the New England woods with a logger---OH, WAIT; there are no loggers left in N.H and VERMONT, and disappearing fast in Maine because of the closing of paper mills...No loggers, no logs, no chips, no FEEDSTOCK! Cost per truck of chips has skyrocketed! No loggers/chippers; no cellulosic fuel industry!

You'd have to be rich idiot to grown potatoes for ethanol that sells for 50 cents a liter, when with about the same bio-refinery investment you can make vodka that sells for $31/liter.

Where's OBAMA on this?

**I'm an advocate for utilizing urban green waste in municipal bio-refineries that generate bio-gas. The logging industry is being disassembled; once you sell your skidder, chances are you're NOT going back into logging! So for all you 'TODDS' out there, you better figure out where you're going to get the chips for your ethanol refinery, because the people who cut and haul it out of the wood are disappearing fast!
Comment
4 of 39
March 6, 2009
The real money is in localized wood pellet factories operated as a farm business...quality pellets sell(last time I checked) to European buyers for considerably more than to a paper mill or an ethanol refinery...$60/bushel in Netherlands.

And don't say you can't run a vehicle on wood pellets until you visit PRECER's web site(Sweden), or check out the 'escape from Berkeley race' where the entries are powered by road side litter.
Comment
5 of 39
March 6, 2009
Common cents, those are interesting comments. Could you please provide a link or two relating to your claim that "cellulosic refineries are 'dosing' their refineries with corn starch and subsidized white sugar?" Thanks, Ron.
Comment
6 of 39
March 6, 2009
Ron....I type fast that should have read "corn-based ethanol refineries are dosing them with 'subsidized' white sugar", and I probably got it from a sugar industry blog,i.e. www.importers.com/Sugar-Ethanol/trade-directory-174974-0-0-kl.html or www.sugaronline.com/content.asp?contentid=1110195

Given the difficulty of converting cellulose into sugars; one can see the temptation to introduce white sugar into the second stage of cellulosic refining.
Comment
7 of 39
March 6, 2009
Fermentation is not the best way to get fuel out of cellulosic biomass. Pyrolysis is more efficient and can be carbon negative if the resulting biochar is returned to the soil. Enerkem is developing this process. See www.clrlight.org/biochar.htm for more details.
Comment
8 of 39
March 6, 2009
Attention please:

Lignin has the combustion heat of 26.6 KJ/g, and holds highest energy among all natural polymeric compounds that contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. In energy, lignin is equivalent to ethanol, which also contains carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and has the combustion heat of 30 KJ/g. However, for a given volume, lignin's combustion heat is approximately 1.5 times as much as that of ethanol, because of lignin's higher density. Since no appropriate dispersant or emulsifier had been found until now, fine granular lignin as a flammable high-energy fuel had been unable to serve as engine's fuel. With its characteristics of high dispersion and fluidity, the fine particulate of lignin, through adoption of an innovative dispersion medium and emulsion technology (details in a submitted patent application), can be evenly mixed with diesel oil to form a kind of quasi-liquid fuel of a state in between liquid and solid, and thus become a partial substitute for diesel oil. The technology has been proven in an experiment of pumping water using the fuel for a diesel engine. The quasi-liquid fuel can be directly used in the existing diesel engines with no need for any structural alteration of the diesel internal combustion engines if the volume of lignin contained in the fuel is less than 15%. Moreover, the volume of lignin contained in the fuel can be increased to 30% if one additional plug-in unit is added to the existing diesel engines without altering the existing structure of the engines.
Comment
9 of 39
March 6, 2009
Thanks, Frank. Nothing new in that: unscrupulous wine producers do it, too!
Comment
10 of 39
March 6, 2009
It seems to me that the gas to ethanol system as demonstrated by Novus Energy is more economically viable than the grain or starch to ethanol system which requries a huge amount of subsidies to stay afloat.
Comment
11 of 39
March 6, 2009
Thank you Nick Cook for pointing out that the efforts to 'improve' the eco-efficiency of the ICE is only slowing, not stopping, the degredation of the atmosphere/biosphere. It is admirable to bring environmental awareness to energy production, but what we really need is a game changer not a change of game pieces. I am not a scientist so I don't really know the answer to my own questions but it doesn't take a science background to see that a slow death of the biosphere is still death. Any ideas?
Comment
12 of 39
March 6, 2009
The bottom line is that we have to eat!
The world is over-populated and people in
Africa are starving; and you want to use the
productive soil (marginal land can grow
feed for cattle, by the way) to make Ethanol !
You try to disguise your true agenda
by refering to Lingin, natural polymeric compounds,
cellulosic biomass, etc. You can't fool me, I farmed
for 25 years; the 'biomass and 'urban green waste
need to be returned to the land as natural fertilizers,
soil stabilizers and future crop growth support matter.
Have you tried drinking Ethanol or Lingin?
You can't have both; either eat the food produced
on the land or drink the 'alcohol produced from the food.
Good luck.
Doesn't anybody give a hoot about
our lives and the need for a healthy environment?
Comment
13 of 39
March 6, 2009
Seems to me that homeowners all over the country currently pay to have an enormous feedstock delivered to their local landfill. We need to harvest the material we currently waste.

Part of the lean principles of management call for elimination of waste in all forms. One of the keys to keeping the oil and chemical industries alive is their ability to find a use for their waste products.
Comment
14 of 39
March 6, 2009
There are No hurtles with this off the shelf technology
Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 2X Fertility Too.
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration, Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw, "Feed the Soil Not the Plants" becomes "Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !". Free Carbon Condominiums, build it and they will come.
As one microbologist said on the TP list; "Microbes like to sit down when they eat". By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders of life.

Senator / Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar has done the most to nurse this biofuels system in his Biochar provisions in the 07 & 08 farm bill,

http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html

Charles Mann ("1491") in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text

Biochar data base;

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node

NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central technology for carbon negative energy systems.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf


UNCCD Submission to Climate Change/UNFCCC AWG-LCA 5
"Account carbon contained in soils and the importance of biochar (charcoal) in replenishing soil carbon pools, restoring soil fertility and enhancing the sequestration of CO2."
http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/AWGLCA5/menu.php

This new Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40186_20090203.pdf .
Comment
15 of 39
March 6, 2009
Here it comes. Citizens may soon be paying a couple hundred extra dollars for a new car so more of the ethanol they have been supporting with taxes can be shoved down their throats regardless of what it costs. How much longer will voters let this continue?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm

Cellulosic is unlikely to compete with cane ethanol in the long run. If the gargantuan government support ever gets pulled and the tariff ends, we Americans will begin the wholesale destruction of the Cerrado and Amazon to fuel our cars. The only way out is through massive efficiency gains that can greatly reduce oil use, giving humanity time to find good solutions. The rush to biofuels is and will continue to be a huge waste of resources. If entreprenuers want to pursue it, great but we have to get the government out of the business of picking losers for us.
Comment
16 of 39
March 7, 2009
Why isn't the sugar industry converting to the ethanol from sugarcane industry, if Brazil can do it, why not the US? Recently wsj explained it would take the area of two New Jersey's but Texas alone has room for a least one New Jersey of new sugarcane production and the story about children eating mud cookies in Haiti, or hungry children in Africa has played out. Africans don't make and use fertilizer enough and the US could end hunger in Haiti anytime it chooses and let's not forget the Gov't pays to keep ever increasing amounts of farmland idol.
So maybe it really is the blend wall but the government owns, or soon will own at least GM, so Gov't will soon be enabled to fix the auto warranty claim. Or maybe the blend wall is really Oil Company market manipulation to maintain market share? There is only one E85 station in our State and it looks to be publicly owned.
I suggest we nationalize the privately held sugar industry. It would not exist without Gov't subsidies so there would be no cost to tax payers. Then the Gov't should contract out the construction of production facilities, pipelines, and expansion of the sugarcane production in an all out effort to meet the national production goals and then get Goldman Salk's to sell off the industry at a profit to the Gov't.
Comment
17 of 39
March 7, 2009
The question is WHY?
We know that ethanol is a viable fuel and it has been proven in many countries and by many automobile manufactures so why can a country that can place men on the moon not find a reasonable means to produce a high quality ethanol for use to reduce our dependency on foreign oil? I believe the answer can be found with those that are for free enterprise and not with the Government!

How many refineries are there in the US that are used for this process? What is their feed stock?
What feed stock or raw sources are there?
How much can they produce?
How much production would it take to make it economically feasible?

Stop looking at what has happen with all the trials and errors of the past and let's find a solution that makes it work here in the US
Comment
18 of 39
March 7, 2009
LTTF-------"The question is WHY?"-------

Good question.

Look through the answers on this list.

As Mark Twain said, "The problem isn't the things we don't know---the problem is all the things we know that just ain't so."

-------"The real money is in localized wood pellet factories operated as a farm business...quality pellets sell(last time I checked) to European buyers for considerably more than to a paper mill or an ethanol refinery...$60/bushel in Netherlands."------
Wood pellets selling at $60 a bushel? Why not buy corn at less than 1/10 of the price per bushel(at market peak) and burn that? Someone needs to question their figures but no one even notices.

Moe and Larry keep yammering about subsidies to the exclusion of all other considerations. It seems strange to me that they make such a big deal about such a minor expenditure yet are completely silent about major expenditures to support a war to secure oil reserves in the middle east.
In 2008 when the grain crisis was at its height, what brought it on was a rice shortage in Asia. Nobody makes ethanol out of rice. The price of ALL foods went up overnight. But production of ethanol remained the same. Where is the connection to ethanol? When pressed to FINALLY do something about starvation----President Bush asked Congress for $770 million ---- the same Congress he was asking for $900 billion in military spending for 2009. That makes feeding starving people .85% as shooting people to get their oil.(that is DECIMEL POINT85%) I'd say this is a pretty good indicator of the Bush commitment to getting us off of foreign oil dependence---it is exactly the same tactics used by con men everywhere. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do, and where the money goes.
(cont.)
Comment
19 of 39
March 7, 2009
----"Here it comes. Citizens may soon be paying a couple hundred extra dollars for a new car so more of the ethanol they have been supporting with taxes can be shoved down their throats regardless of what it costs. How much longer will voters let this continue?"------

What happened to $160 Billion in Iraq rebuilding funds taken from US taxpayers? Iraq ought to look like "Big Rock Candy Mountain" by now.
What happened to all of the money pumped out of the ground from Iraqi oil wells during the occupation so far? US taxpayers had to pay $10 Billion to rearm Iraq----with AK-47s?---bought from China and East Europe? Why? The people who are such clever terrorists they can simultaneously hijack 4 domestic air flights and crash them into key government buildings in spite of years of government efforts to stop hijackings with sky marshals and security checks are too dumb to learn to use M16s made in the US? Isn't it strange that a former president and the first to engage in war in the middle east with Saddam is a prominent figure in the Carlyle group, a major defense contractor, and also coincidentally the father of the president who engaged us in the current war. Isn't it coincidental that he made his fortune in oil business? Isn't it coincidental that GWB also made his first fortune in oil? Isn't it coincidental that Dick Chenney, the VP was a former CEO of a Haliburton company----and that Haliburton was awarded more government contracts than any other corporation, many of them, no bid.
Isn't it strange that Halliburton would chose to close corporate hq in Houston TX, and move to Abu Dhabi UAE? Isn't it strange that UAE has no extradition treaty with the US.

Well, the voters DID NOT let this continue.
Comment
20 of 39
March 7, 2009
Fred Linn is right, Frank Heller. Wood pellets selling at $60 a bushel? Got a reference for that? If one assumes 23 kg per bushel, this price quote for nearby Belgium is more like $6 per bushel:

http://www.spotter.be/nl/HOUTPELLETS-DROOG-BRANDHOUT-HOUTBRIKETTEN/Spot_501723.htm

Sure you weren't "typing fast" again and let slip in an extra "0"?

That said, the current price of 200 euros per metric tonne ($230 per short ton) retail is a pretty good sales price for a pellet provider. That would be equivalent to around $6 per bushel corn (if one could buy corn for heating in The Netherlands).
Comment
21 of 39
March 7, 2009
Well, isn't that odd? Midwest farmers who are starving the world and making ethanol from corn to get rich off of everyone else, get about the same price for their corn as wood chips. Why bother to raise corn?

Anyone have any favorite woodchip recipes?
Comment
22 of 39
March 7, 2009
From the article.

------"Unless the percentage of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline is increased, through a change in either the types of vehicles sold in the U.S. or the automaker's warranty position, additional production of commercial cellulosic ethanol will be difficult to absorb into the motor vehicle fuels pool. "---

Flex Fuel vehicles which can use either petroleum gasoline or E85(85% ethanol blend) or any mix of either, are in production now and have been for about 20 years.

Ford, GM and Chrysler have pledged to be producing 1/2 of their vehicles models as Flex Fuel capable by 2011. Chrysler already does.

There are about 7 to 8 million Flex Fuel vehicles on the road now.

[article]---"In addition to market certainty for feedstocks, the production and transportation costs for feedstocks (residual non-food parts of agricultural crops, residual parts of forestry and waste products and biomass crops) on a commercial scale are largely unknown. Feedstocks that contain significant amounts of lignocellulose tend to be bulky, which may present difficulties and additional costs in terms of harvesting, collecting, transporting and storing these feedstocks."----

We've been cutting, transporting and milling trees since before history. Ancient civilizations without written languages or metals did it. I think we can figure it out.
Ethanol was being produced from wood waste by thermochemical processes on commercial scales 120 years ago in both the US and Germany. Germany did it in WW2. And powered Panzer tanks and the first operational jets on synthetic and biofuels. Even the newest technologies involving enzyme biochemistry and genetic modification have failed to significantly improve output or lower cost.
Comment
23 of 39
March 8, 2009
"Well, isn't that odd? Midwest farmers who are starving the world and making ethanol from corn to get rich off of everyone else, get about the same price for their corn as wood chips. Why bother to raise corn?"

What an asinine comment. First, I know almost nobody who has criticized individual farmers for selling corn for ethanol. They are price takers: they sell at whatever is the prevailing price. What people criticize are the policies that artificially drive up those prices -- and that make one of the major category of users (taking one-third of the domestic crop this year), ethanol, less sensitive to price movements than others because a government policy guarantees a growing volume of their sales.

In any case, what I said above was NOT that the price of wood pellets in the Netherlands is the same as what Midwest farmers get for their corn. I said that the retail price of woodchips in the Netherlands is equivalent to what would be a retail price of $6 per bushel for corn in The Netherlands -- that is far, both geographically and in terms of producer margins from the current wholesale (futures) price for corn in the U.S. Midwest ($3.60 for May delivery).
Comment
24 of 39
March 8, 2009
"Ethanol was being produced from wood waste by thermochemical processes on commercial scales 120 years ago in both the US and Germany. Germany did it in WW2. And powered Panzer tanks and the first operational jets on synthetic and biofuels."

Fred: links to sources would help, especially your claim that "ethanol was being produced from wood waste by thermochemical processes on commercial scales 120 years ago." And as for Germany powering Panzer tanks and jets on synthetic "and biofuels" in WW2, Peter Becker's definitive study of "The Role of Synthetic Fuel in World War II Germany" makes no mention of woody biomass as a feedstock for synthetic fuels, only coal, lignite and anthracite:

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

There was some use of biomass, but directly:

"In the spring of 1942, the Agency for Generators was established to effectuate the conversion of vehicles from liquid to solid fuels. A conversion to such fuels as wood chips, anthracite coal, lignite coal, coke, gas, and peat moss was expected to yield substantial savings in gasoline. ... Thousands of cars and trucks were converted and equipped with devices shaped like water heaters, which graced trunks and truck beds."

There are currently plants in Sweden and Switzerland (probably elsewhere) producing cellulose and chemical products from wood that have for several years been making ethanol as a by-product, at a rate of around 50 kg per metric tonne -- about 16 gallons per short ton -- of wood.

As one company describes the process: "During cellulose production, sugar compounds are released from the wood. By means of a fermentation process, Borregaard converts these sugar compounds into ethanol."

www.chemcell.com/eway/default.aspx?pid=240&trg=LeftPage_8139&LeftPage_8139=3004:22876

But the total output of ethanol from these plants is in the single-digit millions of gallons, not billions of gallons, per year. Good stuff, but hardly game-changing.
Comment
25 of 39
March 8, 2009
----"Pulp and Paper Industry Poised to Take Center Stage in Global Bioenergy Arena
International bioenergy conference explores new and emerging pathways, technologies, financial, legal, and operation issues.
by Ken Patrick
Georgia, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]
The pulp and paper industry is uniquely positioned to immediately produce significant amounts of biofuels, bioenergy and bioproducts. With a mature, operating infrastructure capable of delivering double-digit billions of gallons of biofuels annually, generally without adding any new fiber processing capacity, many pulp and paper mills around the world are only a one-step investment away from becoming major renewable energy producers. Especially important, paper industry capacity that can be re-aligned and re-purposed toward bioenergy co-production would be 100% cellulosic feedstock based, with no agricultural attachments at all."------

------"Considering that there are 200 or more similar chemical pulp mills in the U.S., and at least an additional 100 in Canada, basic arithmetic shows this barrelage capacity for Fischer-Tropsch synthetic crude oil could total somewhere upwards of 420 million barrels per year, or between 15 and 20 billion gallons per year for the entire North American pulp and paper industry."--------

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/08/pulp-and-paper-industry-poised-to-take-center-stage-in-global-bioenergy-arena-53239

That sounds "game-changing" to me. That equals around 1/2 of the 36 Billion gallon cellulosic ethanol goal for 2030.

Use wind, solar, hydro, and/or geothermal power to replace the liquor burned to produce electricity-----and you have a liquid fuels produced by 100% solar power.
Comment
26 of 39
March 8, 2009
Regarding your article by Peter Becker. Generally it is a good article and reflects the actions and motivations of the times. Thank you, I've placed it in my favorites for reference.

History has to be looked at in reference to prevailing conditions and how the events that transpired before apply or differ from those which the historian wishes to apply analogies to. Notice the author's date and reason for the study, "Air University Review, July-August 1981". He has a totally different set of values to weight the emphasis he places on the various processes.

He is not wrong---I simply place a higher value in applying lessons learned to problems we face today. At the time, Germans, especially the military placed different values on various solutions than either the author did, or I do today. The German High Command favored securing oil supplies by military conquest. We are already engaged in wars that attempt to replicate that solution, and are suffering disasterous results.

Also, remember that these changes were being made under wartime conditions, and both day bombing by the 8th Air Force and night bombing by the RAF. Conditions we are not operating under.
[article]---"The hydrogenation plants are our most vulnerable spots; with them stands and falls our entire ability to wage war. Not only will planes no longer fly, but tanks and submarines also will stop running if the hydrogenation plants should actually be attacked.36"---
[art.]---
Comment
27 of 39
March 8, 2009
[article]-------"A third formula, the Fischer-Tropsch process, was, at that time, still in the research and testing stage. Under this system, coal is compressed into gas which is mixed with hydrogen. By placing this mixture in contact ovens and adding certain catalysts, oil molecules are formed. Further treatment of this primary substance generates fuel, chiefly diesel oil."--------

65 years later, and with plants using F-T in operation in both Germany and South Africa since about 1980, F-T can no longer be considered new, novel, experimental or untried.

Most older plants in operation today use coal as a feedstock, which is actually more difficult because coal is almost pure carbon requiring more energy and manipulation to convert to hydrocarbons than biological sources such as cellulose which are already hydrocarbons. It's a matter of reducing and rearranging the hydrocarbon chains with zeolite catalysts rather than trying to create new carbon chains from hydrogen and carbon atoms which require very high energy inputs to release the hydrogen atoms from steam.

At the time the article was written, coal was abundant and cheap, and there was very little concern for environmental issues. Today, we can use the same process to create ethanol or other biofuels from cellulosic sources with less energy input needed, use renewable and sustainable resources that are for the most part currently waste, and by using wind, solar or other renewable power inputs produce liquid fuels cleanly because it is a closed loop system. The synthgases produced are condensed within the system to liquids---they do no get released into the atmosphere.
Comment
28 of 39
March 8, 2009
Fred, you obviously did not read my comment closely. The process I was referring to as "not game changing" was the simple fermentation of sugars released from the wood during cellulose production. That is the main source of ethanol being produced from wood at the moment.

I am glad you found the Becker article useful, Fred, but you still have not provided any sources to back up your claim that "ethanol was being produced from wood waste by thermochemical processes on commercial scales 120 years ago in both the US and Germany" (are you perhaps thinking of methanol?) and that Germany powered Panzer tanks on synthetic fuels (using the F-T process) using biomass as a feedstock (as opposed to coal and lignite).

I share your opinion that thermochemical approaches are probably the most feasible for biofuels made from wood. And that there is a large technical potential for fuel production from the already existing 200+ chemical pulp mills in the U.S. and 100+ in Canada (if the cost can be brought down).

But people were talking about this for a long time -- even after the 1973-74 oil crisis. Yes, technology has moved on, but the Fischer-Tropsch process remains expensive.

The world's first demonstration-scale biomass-to-liquids (BtL) plant using a thermochemical processes, Choren's plant in Freiberg, Saxony (Germany), was only completed less than a year ago.

www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/18/choren-industries-opens-btl-plant-in-freiberg/

Range Fuel's plant in Georgia is expected to come on line next year.

www.rangefuels.com/news-highlights.html

Both plants have benefited from significant government assistance (as is common for demonstration plants), and can count on selling their products at a subsidized price. What is less clear is to what extent porduction costs (including capital recovery) can be brought down to the prices of competing fuels (1st-generation biofuels, as well as petroleum fuels). Something to watch closely.
Comment
29 of 39
March 8, 2009
Ron---I remember facts, not books and pages. This is not an academic paper I'm writing here. Much of the information that I acquired about F-T and other things done in Germany during the war were given to me by conversations with a friend of my grandfather's. He came to the US after the war in 1946. He was a chemist, and he helped me with a lot of things when I was young. He worked at an F-T plant during the war. Science and building things was a hobby of mine as a kid, and Jurgen was a walking encyclopedia to my friends and I. Much of what I know about F-T comes from having built a functioning unit with him---he was tinkering with organic chemistry himself---and an F-T synthesizer was the easiest and cheapest way he had of producing custom chain length hydrocarbons to provide his chemical stock needs. LOL, I think the only reason he put up with us kids was because my Dad let him use his machine shop and scrounge any junk equipment he wanted. I helped assemble, feed and run his pyrolysis chamber and helped with the condenser/catalyst chamber monitoring. I was about 12-14 at the time. If a 12 year old kid can do it, I see no reason why 21st Century industrial technology can't find a way to do it.
Our feedstock at the time was coal---but the sulphur in coal degrades the catalysts rapidly. It is actually easier to use organic matter. Some catalysts were cheap, like iron filings---so it didn't really matter if were consumed in the process. Other catalysts were expensive, so we used sawdust with those, readily available and free---and no sulphur.
In Germany, the basic feedstock was coal tar(creosote)---the cooked off volatiles from coke production, the coke was needed for steel making. When coal tar was not being used, they used wood, primarily from demolished buildings. Due to allied bombing, wood from demolished buildings was usually in plentiful supply.
Comment
30 of 39
March 8, 2009
History
The first attempt at commercializing a process for ethanol from wood was done in Germany in 1898. It involved the use of dilute acid to hydrolyze the cellulose to glucose, and was able to produce 7.6 liters of ethanol per 100 kg of wood waste (18 gal per ton). The Germans soon developed an industrial process optimized for yields of around 50 gallons per ton of biomass. This process soon found its way to the United States, culminating in two commercial plants operating in the southeast during World War I. These plants used what was called "the American Process" — a one-stage dilute sulfuric acid hydrolysis. Though the yields were half that of the original German process (25 gallons of ethanol per ton versus 50), the throughput of the American process was much higher. A drop in lumber production forced the plants to close shortly after the end of World War I. In the meantime, a small, but steady amount of research on dilute acid hydrolysis continued at the USDA's Forest Products Laboratory.[4][5][6] During World War II, the US again turned to cellulosic ethanol, this time for conversion to butanediol to produce synthetic rubber. The Vulcan Copper and Supply Company was contracted to construct and operate a plant to convert sawdust into ethanol. The plant was based on modifications to the original German Scholler process as developed by the Forest Products Laboratory. This plant achieved an ethanol yield of 50 gal/dry ton but was still not profitable and was closed after the war.[7]

Wikipedia-----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

I am pretty sure the date in the opening line is in error, it should be 1888 rather than 1898.

Here is how the Scholler process works.

http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/waste-water-microbiologyII/percolation-processes.html
Comment
31 of 39
March 8, 2009
Here is a paper supporting the construction of a 1,000,000 gal/yr ethanol plant titled "Development of Scholler Process In The United States" written in 1942 by W. L. Faith for the Office of Production Research and Development, War Production Board, Washington, D.C. 1942

Since there was obviously no contact with Germany concerning any type of industrial technology the information in it was draw from a paper by a person named Collins written sometime before the Nazis took power in 1932 and closed all industrial facilities to outside scrutiny.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50421a004

So there you are. If my memory is bad and I am wrong on the date, the Scholler process has been in use 111 years instead of 120. Either way, it is still long enough that I think I can safely say that wood saccharification is not a technology that is still in its infancy and is unproven.

Incidentally--the plant was approved and built in Wisconsin. The paper also noted that at least 20 plants were operating in Germany, 3 in Italy, 1 in Manchuria, and 1 in Korea. In addition to ethanol, they also produced glycerol, a base ingredient in explosives(nitroglycerin) and yeast based feedstock.
Comment
32 of 39
March 9, 2009
Wow, Fred! Your three most-recent posts (Comments 30-32) are above and beyond the call of duty, and much more constructive, more clearly explained and better documented than any I have seen before. Thanks for undertaking all of this work. You've succeeded in making me curious to learn more about the history of this technology!
Comment
33 of 39
March 9, 2009
--------" You've succeeded in making me curious to learn more about the history of this technology!"------------

Then, in the words of the Jamaican bus driver in the Harry Potter movie, "Hold on to your hats! It's going to be a very bumpy ride!"
Comment
34 of 39
March 10, 2009
Besides specific crops grown for their cellulose content an possible alternate feedstock is the large amount of paper and other cellulose products that are not recylable for whatever reason - at least until the technology is shown to be commercially feasible enough for farmers to be willing to commit to a crop that takes several years to reach sufficient maturity for intitial harvesting. Of course there is also those fast growing nuisance plantsn such as kudzo which every year must be cut back from our roads, power lines and such. The key in my opinion is not to necessarily look at how we can grow high cellulose containing crops for ethanol production but rather look at what we are already throwing away or landfilling that already contains high levels of cellulose throughout much of the year (e.g., grass cuttings, collected leaves, etc.). This also gets the issue of the very seasonal availability of cellulose crops and thus the need to somehow store much of the bulk throughout the year until the next harvest season.
Comment
35 of 39
March 10, 2009
Thomas, there is certainly a large volume of paper, cardboard and other cellulose products generated in the country that are not recylable. But of those that are separated (or could be separated) from other waste streams, how much is actually landfilled? I would of thought that a fair amount ends up being combusted in incinerators, often to produce heat, power or both. Got any figures on that?

As for kudzu, I know the plant well, but I don't know what is done with it after it is cut down. Does it get chipped, composted, something else?
Comment
36 of 39
March 11, 2009
----------"This also gets the issue of the very seasonal availability of cellulose crops and thus the need to somehow store much of the bulk throughout the year until the next harvest season."---------

Hay is an example of a biofuel that is stored and used on a seasonal basis. Hay is harvested,dried and stored in the summer, and used in the winter when green grass is not available. Animals fed the hay can perform work by using the energy stored in the hay.

Ron----why seperate things? It may not be necessary. If you were to compost cellulosic content, that is the only portion of a mix that woud be subject to bacterial action---plastics and metals would not be affected. It is possible to derive heat directly from composting materials. It has been done for centuries. When composting is complete-----washing the compost products out and trapping the refuse in a sieve would be easy enough.

[Thomas]----"The key in my opinion is not to necessarily look at how we can grow high cellulose containing crops for ethanol production but rather look at what we are already throwing away or landfilling that already contains high levels of cellulose throughout much of the year (e.g., grass cuttings, collected leaves, etc.)."--------

Exactly! Besides kudzu---Florida has millions of tons of fast growing aquatic plants that must be dredged from canals to keep them open---there is no use for them, so they are piled by the canals to rot---which attracts insect and vermin infestations---which then have to be treated with toxic chemicals.

If it is too expensive to transport the cellulose to processing plants---then how about making mobile processing plants that can be moved close to the cellulose? Smaller sized, but mobile on trucks or railroad cars---able to move in, process cellulosic stock that is available, then move on when that stock supply is exhausted.
Comment
37 of 39
March 11, 2009
Fred, why separate the waste? I imagine because, if the compost is to then be used as a soil amendment, farmers and gardeners would want some assurance that the compost has not been contaminated by, for example, oozing bottles of kitchen cleaning fluids, old batteries, leached metals ...

Do you know of any actual examples of where municipalities are composting organic matter and then sifting out the plastics and metals afterwards? The recycling centre to which I take the organic stuff that I cannot compost myself is pretty strict about keeping out anything that is not plant matter.

Anybody who composts knows that the process generates heat. But one does not want to draw all that heat away. I can imagine being able to heat some individual houses with that heat, but mainly in rural areas.

But, to return to the subject at hand, are you proposing composting and then producing fuels from the resulting material?
Comment
38 of 39
March 12, 2009
Ron---I suppose that's right, just a thinking out loud suggestion.

There are a number of places where buried landfills are being used to generate biomethane, but there is no use of the materials after the methane runs out.

The only people I know of actively using compost for heat are Mennonite and Amish farms in north Missouri and southern Iowa. Amish and Mennonite farmers do not post things on the web(LOL).

However---a few similar projects are described here:
http://downloads.cas.psu.edu/RenewableEnergy/presentations/JeroseCompostingHeatEnergy0808.pdf

Mother Earth News has had ongoing composting projects for many years.
Here's one from 1981---
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/1981-07-01/Compost-Heated-Water.aspx

A couple of things to mention. Many a barn fire has been caused by spontaneous heat generated from dry hay composting when it got wet from a roof leak or ground seep. Composting organic matter get HOT! Hot enough to cause a fire.

Heating water to 150-160F would be hot enough to cause serious scalds if you weren't careful. Most water heaters are set to cut off at 120F or less.

------"But, to return to the subject at hand, are you proposing composting and then producing fuels from the resulting material?"--------

Actually, it would be the other way around in this case Ron. The composted material WAS the fuel. The heat produced by bacterial action would be the energy release.

Maybe we have differing definitions of what we consider biofuels. For me, a biofuel is anything that comes from an organic origin, and produces heat, or other release of energy. About the only thing I can think of in nature that does not produce heat with a release of energy would be the light producing energy release of the enzyme luciferase. Lightning bugs.
Comment
39 of 39
March 12, 2009
Fred, thanks for the response. Just to avoid confusion, may I suggest that you use the term bio-energy when speaking of direct heat from biomass, and biofuels when you are speaking about liquid fuels made from biomass, or through biological processes. That seems to have become the standard convention.

Yes, my compost pile can get VERY hot. The trick is how to capture the heat without reducing the temperature so much that it substantially slows down the bacterial action.

Yeah compost!
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

Advertise With Us

The Stella Group, Ltd. Schiller Schneider Electric Prudent Living, Inc. Conergy Inc. RussTech Inc. DHL Global Forwarding - Renewable Energy Sector
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