An Open Letter to President Obama on Biofuels

Ben Thorp, Butch Johnson and Masood Akhtar
April 30, 2009 | 30 Comments

Many individuals, universities and companies have been working diligently to help create renewable biofuels to meet the strategic needs of our country. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced the selection of numerous research projects and provided technology investment agreements or cooperative agreements to help develop at least 15 commercial or demonstration facilities since start of 2007. Despite this, recent forecasts indicate that, unless we do something different, we will fail to meet the renewable fuel standards (RFS) set forth in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.

Numerous studies have been released on this topic. One such study reported that, "Even at high oil prices, 2nd generation biofuels will probably not become fully commercial nor enter the market for several years without significant additional government support." What is needed is an immediate, comprehensive study to determine requirements for the full commercialization cycle. Once these requirements are known, we can apply them to those projects whose completion is necessary to meet our needs. The need is urgent, as 3 of the 15 funded projects that received DOE awards have already stopped plans to go forward. Unless something radically different is done, more projects are likely to drop out.

The Advancement of Cellulosic Biofuels

Progress has been made in the area of advanced biofuels (cellulosic biofuels). The progress ranges from research resulting in improved processes and product yields to favorable language in the last two energy and farm bills and the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Numerous conferences, committees and publications have emerged. Technology suppliers have constructed several pilot plants and more are planned.

DOE has issued five R&D and three pilot/demonstration/commercial facility funding opportunities. Currently, 15 projects covering biochemical, thermochemical and integrated biorefinery platforms have been selected and announced as award recipients by DOE. Limited quantities of cellulosic biofuels are being produced. A RFS was included in the 2007 EISA, calling for 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol and 21 billion gallons of "advanced biofuels" to be produced annually by the end of 2022.

DOE Funded Projects

Table 1 (below) shows the 15 projects that were selected for awards from DOE. The selections were made on a competitive basis. Those who have gone thorough the process, be they winners or losers, say that it is very through and objective. The awards for the 2006 DOE funding opportunity for commercial scale facilities were announced on February 28, 2007.

In the ensuing two years there have been two groundbreaking announcements but very little physical construction. It appears that there will be very little biofuel production from these facilities until at least 2011. Currently, two of the six commercial-scale awards have withdrawn from their negotiations with DOE for business reasons and this occurred before the recent financial downturn and credit crisis.

There was also a 2007 DOE funding opportunity for demonstration projects. Nine projects were selected for awards and were announced in January, April and July of 2008. However, one of the nine projects was withdrawn due to the financial downturn.

With world financial markets remaining in a lending crisis, more projects are likely not to proceed into construction since they may not be able to cover their cost sharing requirements.

Table 1: March 2009 Status of DOE Funded Projects

Project Owner	Project Cost (Millions $US)	DOE (Millions in $US)	Date of Award	Status (March '09)	Volume (Millions gpy) & Type
Commercial Funding Opportunity
Abengoa	~190* +	76	Feb 07	Stage 3**	11.4 Ethanol
ALICO	~82.5* +	33	Feb 07	Halted negotiations June 08	20.9 Ethanol
Blue Fire	~100* +	40	Feb 07	Stage 3	19.0 Ethanol
Broin--Poet	~200* +	80	Feb 07	Stage 4	30.0 Ethanol
Iogen	~200* +	80	Feb 07	Halted negotiations June 08	18.0 Ethanol
Range	355	76	Feb 07	Stage 4 USDA Loan Guarantee 2009	P1-8 E+2 Methanol P2-40 E + 9 M
Demonstration Funding Opportunity
ICM Inc.	86	30	Jan 08	Halted negotiations Jan 09	1.5-Ethanol
Lignol	88	30	Jan 08	Changing partners and location	2.5 Ethanol
Pacific Ethanol	73	24	Jan 08	Stage 3	2.7 Ethanol
NewPage	84	30	Jan 08	Stage 3	5.5 F-T liquid
Old Town Fuel and Fiber	90	30	Apr 08	Stage 2	2.2-Ethanol +Acidic Acid
Mascoma (see below)	136	25	Apr 08	Changed location	2.0 Ethanol
Ecofin	77	30	Apr 08	Stage unknown	1.3 Ethanol
Flambeau River Biofuel	84 now 250	30	Jul 08	Stage 3, doing NEPA	6.0 now 17 F-T Liquid
Verenium	91	10	Jul 08	Started Feb 09	1.5 Ethanol
Mascoma	~300	26 DOE + 23 Michigan	Oct 08	Stage 3	40 Ethanol

* These are estimates based on a DOE 40% cost share. Most are larger.
** DOE stage gate process include: stage 2 = detailed investigation, stage 3 = development, stage 4 = validation and stage 5 = commercial launch

Identifying All Major Issues

What are the issues that are substantially delaying the progress of these plants that are needed by our nation? A peer review of this paper with most DOE award winners and selected members of the Biorefinery Deployment Collaborative revealed that the commercial gaps are more significant than the technical gaps. Closing technical gaps is important, but closing commercial gaps is urgent. Significant commercial gaps identified to date are included in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Seven MAJOR Commercial Gap

Commercial Gaps	Brief Discussion
1. Procuring the volume of biomass at the quality and price needed to satisfy owners and lenders.	This gap seems to be the easiest to close for woody biomass. This could become an issue, especially if an RPS is adopted (See my paper on this topic).
2. The selling price of the products. Partners and lenders will not typically rely on commodity pricing. Further, not all biofuels in the 2007 EISA have been certified by EPA as transportation fuels.	Biofuel incentives are not bankable because they are renewed for 3-year periods and do not reduce market risk. A coordinated approach between DOE and EPA is needed. For example, butanol has superior qualities but is not certified by EPA even for niche fuel markets.
3. Pilot trials are required by DOE, lenders and investors. Typically they are not eligible for funding in a DOE for production facilities grant.	Long pilot trials of months are necessary, but they are costly and add a financial hurdle, typically in the millions.
4. Establishing a guarantee for schedule, cost and performance. The processes are not fully commercial and the suppliers are currently not financially strong.	Satisfying the partners and lenders can be done with other financial instruments, which significantly add to high capital cost.
5. Obtaining Financing. This was difficult before the financial meltdown. Smaller projects can be self- financed if the owner has adequate financial reserves	Most owners are seeking DOE or USDA loan guarantees. The USDA approved an $80 million loan guarantee for Range Fuels.
6. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.	This requirement is duplicated when owners file for a permit to build and operate facilities.
7.The ethanol blend limit of 10%.	The blend limit restricts biofuel usag

If our nation is to achieve its goal of an advanced biofuels industry, it appears that making awards to "buy down" some of the risk and letting the market do the rest is an inadequate strategy. We must examine the entire commercialization pathway to see what is needed to successfully complete projects in a free market system. This is a different strategy than has been used recently but these are different times. Cash flow to petroleum exporting countries is crippling the U.S. balance of payments and often funnels billions of dollars into nations and areas of the world that are hostile to our interests.

Urgent Recommendation

There are a sufficient number of DOE award winners with varying backgrounds, varying geographic locations and varying financial strengths to allow common needs to be established. To create the needed level of credibility and due diligence, a special commission of national experts should be set up by Congress but under DOE to examine the entire commercialization pathway for advanced biofuels. This must be done expeditiously because owners of stalled projects are anxious to move them forward. Congress is anxious to move them forward and so are the American people. A special commission is needed because the recommendations are likely to require regulation modification. Further, they must streamline the process -- not add complexity, expense and bureaucracy.

Possible Outcomes

The following straw-man outcomes are presented to illustrate the types of expected solutions. These straw-man outcomes show that the solutions expected are likely to be few in number, straightforward and not costly.

1. For U.S. produced advanced biofuels ONLY, offer an option of a fifteen year "floor price" (a guaranteed minimum per gallon) or the per gallon incentives. Experience has proven that lenders and investors will not allow incentives authorized for 3 years' use in any economic projections. Per gallon incentives do not eliminate market risk. Even in times of high oil prices, investors and lenders frequently refuse to accept market risk with new technologies. Based on most long-term price forecasts for oil, floor prices will be far less costly to taxpayers than per gallon incentives. This is consistent with needs found in a recent Sandia Study.

Some industries have a sound position that the best solution is "a level playing field," which means no preferential incentives. It will be critical to develop incentives that are limited, have no unintended consequences and sunset to create that "level playing field." An alternative, more costly but simpler, strategy is to increase the percentage of the governments' cost share as defined by the Federal Acquisition Regulations from a maximum of 50% to a maximum of 60 to 70%, enough to mitigate market risk. This would also require eliminating grant "caps.

2. Improve the DOE award process so that a higher percentage of awards give society what it needs from the process. The improvements are relatively straightforward and include 3 or 4 parts.

1. Establish independent and unbiased multi-technology pilot/demonstration plants that can utilize multiple feed stocks. Investors, lenders, DOE and USDA loan guarantees and DOE require LONG pilot line runs. There is one proposal for such a pilot plant at the U.S. Forest Service Forest Product Laboratory. It needs to be funded and constructed as quickly as possible. Other independent pilot lines such as the one at Auburn University may need additional support.

2. Get lender involvement in setting the selection criteria for DOE awards. It is of no value to our nation to have one set of DOE criteria then much later an additional set of lender criteria. This slows the process, wastes time and money and kills projects.

3. Recruit more industrial experts for the technical and policy reviews that are used in each DOE funding opportunity. Increased industrial expertise will help ensure that award winners are both technically and commercially ready.

4. Create an alternate competitive funding opportunity process in which there is an open evaluation process for the "best" solution package. Have industry-led consortia formed that will implement these packages. Fully fund the consortia to implement the top 3 to 5 proposals.

3. Achieve better utilization of existing federal resources especially those of DOE, EPA and USDA. Biorefineries are largely dependent on feedstock, technology, markets and financing. The floor price is needed for markets. Have USDA more involved in setting feedstock criteria and making the loan guarantees, which they have done for years in rural America. Have DOE lead the process and evaluate the technology. Have EPA certify fuels covered by DOE funding opportunities and expedite permits that comply with all regulations. Allow each department/agency to participate according to its ability to influence the future. Give departments/agencies the requirement, the authority and the tools necessary to get the selected projects commercialized. This must be a central focus of the special commission. This idea is not new, just overlooked. Revisit the successful process that established a very successful TVA energy project.

4. Accelerate the deployment of the 10% demonstration grants (Section 932) by funding the plants to the 50% level with no cap or making them eligible for additional grant funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) as long as they meet the start and completion dates. Additionally, make them eligible for the DOE and USDA loan guarantee programs (up to 90% guaranteed) without going through additional reviews if they have passed the independent project review conducted by IPA as a subcontractor to DOE.

Concluding Thought

The authors conclude by quoting W. Edwards Deming who typically closed his week-long, very intense, quality seminars with a comment most will remember for their entire lives. With all the proper voice inflections he said, "There is no need to do any of this ----------- (very long pause), failure is always an option."

Ben Thorp is a strategic energy consultant and expert who can be reached at bathorp@comcast.net.

Butch Johnson is CEO of Flambeau River Papers in Park Falls, WI and can be reached at wbjohnson@johnsontimber.com.

Masood Akhtar is President of CleanTech Partners Inc in Middleton, WI. You can reach him at makhtar@cleantechpartners.org.

30 Comments

Coenraad Pretorius
June 10, 2009

Nope, Fred and Geoffrey, not quite.

The colorless flame issue means that ethanol fires are invisble and hence VERY dangerous. That's we only get E85. We need to see those fires.

While it is true that an ethanol fire can be doused using water, you better have a lot of it. See the link for a full discussion on the topic: "Since [b]oceanic quantities of water[/b] would be required to extinguish a large ethanol fire..."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-burn-baby-burn/

-"you simply add enough alcohol to absorb the water and restart the engine. The alcohol will allow the engine to start and burn off the alcohol and water."-
That only works when you have low levels of both water and alcohol. When you have large quanties, the ethanol-water mix has a tendency to separate out and cause all sorts of problems. Why did you think they don't allow E85 the easy route of shipping in gasoline pipelines?

The vapor pressure of fuel is an important parameter in minimizing smog formation. So much so, that we switch between winter and summer blends twice a year. The Reid Vapor Pressure of gasoline is regulated for a reason. Even when you do vapor capture.

-"Corrosion? So just substitute stainless steel or Al alloys for mild steel. Tank can be plastic lined. How do you think ethanol is pumped, stored and delivered?"-
As is standard practise. It's just that all these things cost money, and play no small part in the resistance of gas station owners (not Big Oil for the most part) to convert to E85.

We'll see if the higher octane rating of ethanol leads to more widespread use. So far most users report a serious drop in mileage when using E85. You might develop an "E85 only" engine to take advantage of the higher octane. Just don't expect to sell a lot of those engines...

Ethanol remains a terrible fuel for the average user, in spite of its niche applications, like Indy Car.

Geoffrey Gunning
May 14, 2009

To Fred Linn:

The compression ratio is the ratio of volume of cylinder at BDC to volume at TDC and is unaffected by adding a supercharger or turbocharger. The TOTAL PRESSURE will be raised by these methods of forced induction, but the compression ratio remains the same.

Fred Linn
May 14, 2009

-------"The very high octane rating of ethanol (~120) allows much higher compression ratios to be used, hence higher efficiency engines are possible."----------

About 2 to 2.5 times the thermal efficiency of gasoline engines.

It is not difficult to increase the compression ratio of an internal combustion engine. You add either a supercharger or a turbocharger. A compressor that increases the ambient pressure of the air feeding into the intake manifold. A supercharger runs off of the crankshaft---the same as the water pump, or power steering and brakes. A turbocharger runs off of power coming from the hot exhuast gases spinning a turbine.

The trick is finding a fuel that does not preignite too soon in the cylinders due to the added compression. That is why ethanol is a better fuel, that is what the octane number measures.

Geoffrey Gunning
May 9, 2009

coenraad-pretorius-176946:

"Ethanol ...... It is a terrible fuel: dangerous (burns with a colorless fleame), corrosion accelerator (absorbs water, which would be deposited under certain conditions) and in mixtures with gasoline it increases the vapor pressure (causing more emissions and evaporative loss)."

1) Colorless flame? So what? Are we using it as a light source? Who cares what color it burns inside your engine?

2) Corrosion? So just substitute stainless steel or Al alloys for mild steel. Tank can be plastic lined. How do you think ethanol is pumped, stored and delivered? You really want it anhydrous before entering your engine? - just pass it through a zeolyte, silica gel, CaCl2 or any number of water absorbing materials, followed by a fine filter.

3) Higher vapor pressure in hydrocarbon admixture? Sorry, don't see that as a problem. Besides, the ultimate idea is to use ~100% ethanol.

The very high octane rating of ethanol (~120) allows much higher compression ratios to be used, hence higher efficiency engines are possible.

You stick to gasoline if you like, but I would go for ethanol any time.

Fred Linn
May 9, 2009

Coenraad-------"Ethanol is indeed the same regardless of source. It is a terrible fuel:....."

That will come as news to the Indy Racing League. The fastest most advanced race cars in the world all run on 100% ethanol. Watch them in the Indianapolis 500 the last Sunday of this month.

-------"dangerous (burns with a colorless fleame),....."--------

Which is why it was chosen to replace petroleum, it does not produce clouds of thick black smoke that obscures vision, and causes more deaths than burns(you are far more likely to die of smoke inhalation in a fire than you are from being burned)----and an alcohol fire can be put out with water, a gasoline fire can not.

-------"corrosion accelerator (absorbs water, which would be deposited under certain conditions) ......"--------

Which is why it is used to remove water from contaminated petroleum fuel tanks and systems----you simply add enough alcohol to absorb the water and restart the engine. The alcohol will allow the engine to start and burn off the alcohol and water.

------" and in mixtures with gasoline it increases the vapor pressure (causing more emissions and evaporative loss)............"---------

You are supposed to be keeping your gasoline in a closed system to prevent vapor loss. Ethanol is used in gasoline in 10% in high pollution market areas to reduce pollution. In many areas it is required by law, and has been for more than 30 years. It has made significant differences in smog pollution, and will make even more difference if used in higher concentrations and year round(the law currently only requires summer use, during the height of the pollution season).

Ethanol is non toxic---unlike methanol. Methanol is absorbed through the skin, ethanol is not. Even a small amount of methanol can blind or kill if it is ingested. People drink ethanol everyday. Ethanol is the standard sanitizing hand wash in hospitals.

Mary Saunders
May 8, 2009

Oops, I need to edit myself. Raw grain fed to animals causes more in-gut gas than mash predigested. Yeasts do breathe oxygen and emit CO2, but the carbon is easily harvested for plants if one chooses to do that with a greenhouse or algae farm. What's more, as a mammal myself, I can say from personal experience that bread made from mash tastes 60 times better than regular bread. The McMenamin (sp?, but likely close enough to e-search) pub empire in Portland makes this kind of bread at one of their facilities from time to time, at the historic facility that used to be a poor farm. I have heard there are on-line recipes for beer-mash breads. In Portland, I am observing thriving pub and gym business, given our infamous depression and unemployment rates and conversion of former manufacturing venues to party venues. At least it draws some who can still afford to fly, and vegans, who know how to bike and hitch-hike, alas for unborn cows, who will not come into being without at least some animal-protein-eaters.

Mary Saunders
May 8, 2009

Fungi and yeasts break cellulosic bonds at varying temperatures, in the dark. The biomass remaining has interesting proteins and is suitable as a feedstock for many kinds of animal. This feed is far more healthful for the animals. When it breaks down in the gut, it produces gases, including the infamous cow farts that are supposed to be increasing global warming. The flatulence is not good for cattle and may contribute to downer problems, added on to the documented issues with GM corn. We grow too many annual monoculture grain crops. Nonetheless, if grain is to be fed to animals, it should be done in a humane way, harvesting gaseous fuel before it goes in the animal. David Blume says all this better than I do, and he is far more funny, if you can book him in person. Throw your objections at him. He's used to them. I threw every media myth I had been fed at him. He hit 'em all out of the park.

Coenraad Pretorius
May 8, 2009

Fred,
Ethanol is indeed the same regardless of source. It is a terrible fuel: dangerous (burns with a colorless fleame), corrosion accelerator (absorbs water, which would be deposited under certain conditions) and in mixtures with gasoline it increases the vapor pressure (causing more emissions and evaporative loss).

Producing "cellulosic" ethanol can work, but not the way that is mostly being considered. Fermentation needs sugars to work. That means that you can only use the sugars in your feedstock and the part of the cellulose that you can convert into sugars. Since cellulose is so hard to break down, you are always on a knife edge between breaking down enough of it, and starting to destroy the sugars that you've already produced.

A better way would be to gasify the wood (potentially recovering ALL the carbon in the feedstock) and producing your liquid fuel from the syngas. You may even produce ethanol, as Range Fuels propose to do.

A simpler process would be to produce methanol (aka wood alcohol) by distillation of wood, as was first done by the ancient Egyptians, as far as we know. Of course, in some ways methanol is even a worse fuel than ethanol.

The other problem with ethanol is thermodynamics: producing ANY substance essentially pure means that you have to spend a lot of energy on purification - reducing overall efficiency. Notice that gasoline and diesel each contain thousands of different compounds. Make a pure substance to burn it as a fuel is unlikely to make sense under any circumstances: there will always be a more efficient, and cheaper, mixture alternative.

Fred Linn
May 6, 2009

The technology to convert cellulose into ethanol and other biofuels, including methanol, butanol and other hydrocarbons is not new or mysterious. It has been around for over 80 years and is in use now, and has been for many years. Fischer-Tropsch process can produce hydrocarbons of widely varying chain lengths and is already used with variations in a number of industrial applications.

Ethanol is ethanol, it is chemically the same no matter where it comes from. If it weren't, it would be something else. What does it matter where it comes from? So what if some ethanol comes from corn, and some comes from other sources, such as sugar cane, beets, cactus, sorghum, wood or even trash. All that would mean is that our sources are diverse, readily adaptable to changing conditions and much more secure, and easily producible in a wide range of localities. Very good for us.
-----"I agree with don-pellinen163173 that corn ethanol is not the way to go. I would go a step further and say that it is unethical to use food grade corn for making fuel. "------ Ethanol is made from dent corn, not suitable to human consumption, and the final product is DDG---high protein animal feed, for which the corn was raised in the first place, and is a better feed than the corn by itself.

Ethanol was being produced in both Germany and the US from wood logging waste, in commercial quantities, using the Scholler process over 100 years ago. It is still used today to break down cellulose to produce paper pulp.

----"An ideal location for an algae bioreactor would be next to a coal fired power plant in the desert ........"---------
You are still adding new CO2 to the atmosphere by burning coal. Produce the algae without burning coal and and you are removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Algae have been growing just fine for billions of years without burning coal, there is no need to burn coal to grow algae.

William Bradley
May 4, 2009

I agree with don-pellinen163173 that corn ethanol is not the way to go. I would go a step further and say that it is unethical to use food grade corn for making fuel. There are better sources of alternative fuels. As he suggests, locating algae bioreactors next to fossil fuel lpower plants may be the best way to produce biofuels. Carbon dioxide and some of the waste heat from the power plant can be used by the bioreactor.

As another alternative, wind and solar can be used to produce hydrogen fuel and/or electricity.

Coenraad Pretorius
May 4, 2009

Bruce,
On Friday I visited an operating pyrolysis reactor, operated by International Environmental Solutions (IES,http://www.wastetopower.com/advanced_pyrolysis_systems.htm). They generate syngas, which they then burn to generate electricity. They say the syngas -> liquid fuels step is not their forté. That's OK, you have that specialty in Africa, as good as anywhere.

IES is US based, but their technology works, as far as I can tell.

Question to my fellow supporters of green fuels: How are we ever going to convince our leaders to make meaningful changes if we still have people in our midst that think cellulosic ethanol is "shovel-ready" or that hydrogen is the final answer? Seems like we (or at least some of us) are our own worst enemy...

Don Pellinen
May 3, 2009

The world is rapidly approaching crises caused by removing fossil fuels from the ground and burning them and releasing them to the air. We are depleting the fuels and causing global warming. A major government program to solve these problems, the use of ethanol for fuel uses more fossil fuel energy to produce the ethanol as the ethanol gives. Producing a gallon of ethanol requires 131,000 BTUs and has energy content of 77,000 BTUs. The other effect has been that because of the demand for grains for ethanol production, prices have risen so many poor people can not afford to eat.

There are far more efficient ways of producing biofuels. Coconut and palm plants produce about 3 times the energy per acre as corn for ethanol and algae can produce about 30 times the yield of corn. Most of the petroleum we have now came from algae that lived millions of years ago.
.
An ideal location for an algae bioreactor would be next to a coal fired power plant in the desert where the waste CO2 and heat would be the raw materials for the solar energy conversion to biodiesel. The average coal fired power plant injects about 20,000,000,000 (20 billion) pounds of CO2 into the air yearly. A bioreactor could convert this CO2 and water into somewhere around 500 million gallons of biodiesel, 22 billion pounds of pure oxygen and about 5 billion pounds of other material per year that could be used as animal or fish food or as fuel in place of the coal at the power plant.

The 500 millions of biodiesel from a single plant could supply the USA with fuel for a day. If a quarter of the 1500 coal fired plants in the USA were using the bioreactors this would fill the petroleum needs of the country. The jobs and the money would stay in the USA.

References:
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm energy balance for ethanol
http://www.oilgae.com/ good overall reference

Dominic Jermano
May 2, 2009

I would advocate that we need to change the airline industry dramatically within the USA. Flights should be banned into major cities, where airlines land outside city areas, to later have fast speed rail trains take people into the city. Trains can be powered by geothermal energy. We should ban flights into New York City...just as they go in Washington DC...because of the terrorist threats. The ban would reduce air pollution caused by these big jet airliners. It would make cities safer, and less congested.. It does not mean that flights outside the US would change that much...and perhaps other countries could implement similar ideas....to promote fast train rail service.

Doing this will take local considerations, into who the economic shift will benefit. Those who control airlines will not agree, yet we need to recognize that if they invest in fast train speed rails, their economic future will gain greater rewards and benefits.

djermano@yahoo.com

Dominic Jermano
May 2, 2009

WARNING TO ALL ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SEEKERS:

Obama is not listening, but pursung the same policies of the past. He supports expanded military operations in Pakistan, and he is not leaving Iraq. Now please think about this. Iraq has the 2nd largest Oil reserves in the World. How is Iraq to reach stability unless they begin drilling and selling more oil globally? Obama is in Afghanistan and now entering Pakistan to assure the developed pipeline of Oil coming from the Caspian Sea...for yes US market use...And their BS of bringing democracy to the world.

They are not changing, unless we find the leadership and party in the US who will promote alternative energy not only in the USA, but in the regions and countries who have the big reserves of Oil supplies. This means not using those oil supplies, because Oil means havoc to the environment.

The military needs to have significant budget cuts.. I would say at least 23 Billion cut, and removing troops out of regions. This debate is hard fought because of the loss of lives that occurred...and people feeling slighted as if abandoning the costs they perceive as being accomplished.

But the war on ending war and oil...so the alternative fuel comes on line will be a necessity toward winning, and knowing that it is so.

People don't care about the environment more than the power of re-election, and staying the course of the military. This is the battle really. We can not achieve the real success until we move faster and without delay the reduction and plans into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan....for the promise of more Big Oil. Everything else is irrelevant until we recognize this.

I support methane gas production, for local communties... this is realistic, and an answer to the sewer, and farm waste problem.. But it is a local community effort. Ethanol production is a waste of money. It is more expensive than making hydrogen gas, so why pursue it? Electric cars, can also work, with their own recharging ability.

Tom Caracciolo
May 2, 2009

I sent the following to our Secretary of DOE and leaders of the ACE and NEVC on May 2, 2009:

Dear Dr. Steven Chu, Brian Jennings @ ACE, and Phil Lampert @ NEVC

Note that this article (attached in Adobe PDF) does a great job of distracting people away from cellulosic ethanol. This distraction is orchestrated by our powerful oil and coal companies in the U.S. and has been going on ever since alternative fuels started to threaten their monopolies.

They have been so successful with their long time on-going propaganda programs that more than several ethanol producers have shut down their business.

We currently have stimulus money needed to start up cellulosic ethanol plants that are "shovel ready". Why then cannot BlueFire Ethanol get their loan guarantees so they can immediately break ground to install their cellulosic ethanol plants next to two land fills in California? The material they use is what is stored in land fills and the water they use is recaptured and reused in their process. Their process is proven to be commercially viable. They have a plant in Japan that has been in operation since 2002. They want to install a plant next to every land fill in the United States. There is a great need as shown by King County in Washington State; their land fill will reach maximum capacity in 5 to 6 years from now. How many land fills are in the same condition or worse in how many cities and counties in our country?

People need to understand that corn is only a temporary source of ethanol that will be replace by cellulosic ethanol. Further, that ethanol is needed in the U.S. for the next 40 or so years during which time Hydrogen Cell and Electric Vehicles will be developed to the point that they replace in their entirety vehicles dependent upon combustion engines.

For cellulosic, Design is complete and proven. The land has been obtained. Permits are in place. Supplier(s) are ready to proceed with delivery of all hardware needed. All that

ANONYMOUS
May 1, 2009

Welcome the beautiful analysis of the state-of-the-art of the biomass-derived biofuel technology. The analysis revealed that the weakness of the technology is that the woody biomass is not in use to its potential because of the difficulty of complete separation of woody components, i.e. cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, as well as the decomposition of cellulose. Thus, most of the present technology is to mill the woody biomass, a process that consumes more energy than that it is supposed to produce.
To develop a technology into a commercial reality needs money, a lot of money. All of developer, inventor, investor may be not enough to bring a new technology to a commercial scale. Look at the Toyota's hybrid car. If the Japanese goverment did not support financially this project from the beginning, it is doubtful that the Prius car would be on the road today. Thus, if the biofuel program is indeed in the stagtegic needs of the United States of America, the U.S. goverment must support the development of the technology despite the fact that the U.S. is a free market. Unfortunately, the present form of support of the DOE is inclined to meet the needs of the have. Those of the have-not that can not match any percentage of the funding as required by the DOE would not have any opportunity to develop their newly developed technology. Period. Furthermore, any e-mail question addressed to the people at DOE responsible for the biofuel program would not be answered. This is the state-of-the-bureaucracy at the DOE. And that is the reality.

David Walker
May 1, 2009

By itself, ethanol is a wonderful product with many applications; but the subsidies received in its production chain, and the government mandate for its use, that make ethanol an impractical, unreasonable, if not unethical, incredibly expensive institution that puts American consumers at a substantial involuntary risk. Your open letter pretty much admits an ambitious, mandated ethanol production program is a doomed failure.

Then again, maybe that's what it's all about; forcing consumers to enrich those interests that traditionally function as compulsory takers, compromising average consumers' abilities to become wealthy and financially independent by honest, toil -- free from the financial or political abrogation of government and mercantile interests.

Frankly, I'm tired of all the fraud and conflict swirling around the green tornado that uses law to wreak havoc on our free society and competitive marketplace. By now I'm sure you know the ethanol mandate is what provoked the rush to energy market speculation, culminating the energy price crash over the past year.

Take heed: Our day is coming soon and the frauds, charlatans, racketeers and real climate criminals (jet-setters and net takers telling us "common" folks to sacrifice) just might see their day in court.

Stop forcing the American people to use your product by law, and start operating honestly again.

Mary Saunders
May 1, 2009

Get your carbon-nitrogen mix right, and you can start cucurbits in your compost before the recommended date on the seed package. I have a science experiment in my back yard. When I showed the arborist who was working on my neighbor's complicated damage-control project, he gave me a great deal on taking down a faux dwarf linden that was threatening my house. I got my science project idea from a famous Oregon physician, Ole Ersson, who did a show for our local radio station KBOO. You can search their website for Ole's show, if conservation and entertainment appeal to you. Ole sets a standard in a city proud of its advanced adoptions. He and his wife have set up a low-income, rental ecovillage named Kailash. Needless to say, there is a waiting list.

erich knight
May 1, 2009

Bruce,
There are about a dozen Biochar / Biofuel companies;

Companies; http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/company

Organizations; http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/organizations

Country; http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/country

Products; http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/materials

Another good forum;
Terra Preta - Science Forums
http://hypography.com/forums/terra-preta/

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 with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
As one microbiologist said on the Biochar list; "Microbes like to sit down when they eat".
By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders of life.

This is what I try to get across to Farmers, as to how I feel about the act of returning carbon to the soil. An act of pertinence and thankfulness for the civilization we have created. Farmers are the Soil Sink Bankers, once carbon has a price, they will be laughing all the way to it.

One aspect of Biochar systems are Cheap, clean biomass stoves that produce biochar and no respiratory disease. At scale, the health benefits are greater than ending Malaria.
A great example;
http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/poznanclimatetalks/docs/Natural%20Draft%20Stove.pdf

Also , I would like Rebut the BioFuelWatch folk's recent criticism' of Biochars with the petition of 1500 Cameroon Farmers;
The Biochar Fund
http://biocharfund.org/
and to explain their program;
http://biocharfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=46

Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?

Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.

Mary Saunders
May 1, 2009

Coops, PUC's, PUD's, and maybe the rare enlightened investor-owned utility could turn their operations into entertainment destinations to show off their RE pilots. I pay more for clean energy, but the tours they coordinate are of remote windmills. I'm happy for the remote people, but I'm not going there. I want to see good stuff in town. There are tours in town, but not as much in the past and present as I suspect there will be in the future. The town tours are not put on by the utilities themselves of their own plans and projects. If every utility competed to get something in Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) competitions, we'd get some traction. Utility offices are in accessible, high-visibility districts. They could put displays of new meters and gadgets in their lobbies by the coffee shops, couldn't they? Who goes into these buildings, poor people? I don't think so. I do, but I'm the exception. The other folks don't look like me, by my eye-ball market research.

Joanne Ivancic
May 1, 2009

To the extent that the federal government can help reduce investment risk they should do it, but only for projects with real promise.

Remember, ALL the technologies to get to truly sustainable renewable advanced biofuels are new and untested/unproven on a commercial scale and cannot promise a significant ROI in 2-3 years. That is why they need government funding. Venture capitalists have not/will not invest given this situation. AND, if the government only invested in projects with"real promise" would we have gotten to the moon? Would the atomic bomb have been developed? The government has to take some risk investing in research that may yield first knowledge about what not to do before it develops into "real promise." There are some brilliant people working on shoestring financing in out-of-the-main-stream labs and "basements and garages" on promising edge-of-the-envelope technologies with the Wright Brothers or Cyrus McCormack as their inspiration. If they had adequate funding, we could probably meet our goals in 5 years.

The folks at DOE and USDA have a pretty good idea (as Ben and Company above do) of what is needed. Money has a lot to do with it. We don't need another commission. We have road maps and advisory board aplenty. We need a STRONG statement from the Obama administration in favor of Advanced Biofuels to give Congress, investors and markets confidence. The time is now for implementation.

bruce tremearne
May 1, 2009

Coenraad Pretorius hit the nail on the head....landfill trash and agi-waste, not expensive corn because of some powerful lobbyists!!
I am looking for a reference to a simple , reliable manufacturer of equipment that converts agri-waste to snygas for the production of electricity, with bio-char as a by-product.
This is for a project in Africa, so locally based is preferrable.
my contact details are: bruce@btrgreen.com

Mike Holly
May 1, 2009

The study should determine if cellulose ethanol is worth pursuing. BP is calling for an end to the US import tax on Brazilian sugar cane ethanol. The US should look at sugar crops if it wants to compete by removing – (1) crop subsidies favoring corn, (2) recent mandates that will require that ethanol must be made from cellulose, and (3) monopolies granted to electric utilities that are blocking the use of cellulose for cogeneration of electricity and heat. The US should also consider liquid biofuels from biomass, instead of cellulosic ethanol, especially after the EIA study last December claiming liquid biofuels not ethanol is the future.

Sally Adams
May 1, 2009

There's a wonderful article by ethanol expert/farmer, David Blume:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-blume/bailout-gm-but-heres-what_b_145844.html
It describes what Brazil has done to quickly become oil independent, run 85% of their cars on clean alcohol fuel that is sustainably grown on less than 2% of their agricultural land AND revitalized their auto industry! We can do this too!
Sally

Mary Saunders
May 1, 2009

I recommend shadow stats by John Williams, formerly known as Walter Williams, and Paul Hawken's book on starting your own business. Paul Hawken asserts that the biggest problem for start-ups can be too much capital, rather than the old saw that it's not enough capital.

Too much capital, and people get off on designing their business cards and other distractions.

He started a health food business because he needed food that didn't make him sick, and he figured there might be a few other folks out there in the same state of need.

We need energy solutions that make fewer of us sick. Maybe it's the sick ones that have the highest motivation.

The key useful phrase in this article is pilot project. Garage and basement pilot projects are somewhat distinctive of U.S. beginnings for things. Sadly these great beginnings too often turn into, well, choose your own favorite monopoly where you've sat on perma-hold or complained to the government agency overwhelmed with calls to regulate poor service.

ANONYMOUS
May 1, 2009

To create the needed level of credibility and due diligence, a special commission of national experts should be set up by Congress

Sigh, just what we need more hand waving commissions. That is not a recommendation it is an 'I really don't haven't a clue how to move forward' response. Didn't DOE use due diligence and a passel of national experts to set up the program originally? If they didn't, it is called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' of our taxpayer dollars.

The key question is 'Should government be in the business of developing flavor-of-the-administration-in-power commercial businesses with taxpayer dollars?'

Where are the economists when you need them?

Evgeny Yantovsky
May 1, 2009

The boom of electrical vehicles is within sight (already exist with Li-ion akku, 215 km/h speed, 300 km range) before commertialization of liquid biomass fuel. The right way of solar energy use is macroalgae pond-photosynthesis-biomass drying-oxy-fuel combustion-electrical power-CO2 return to feed algae.
See USPat 6,6,477,841 B1, Nov.12.2002 or the book ZERO EMISSIONS POWER CYCLES, by CRC 2009, Chapter 8.
Here difficult production of liquid hydrocarbons from algae biomass is not needed. E.Yantovsky

ANONYMOUS
May 1, 2009

The simple solution is a steady increasing tax on CO2, the alternatives which emit the least CO2 will then become competitve. The right moment to do this is when fossile fuels prices after a peak start to drop again, then start taxing to keep the fossile prices high, people will complain less because they had already gotten used to it and have already started to use energy more consciously (in that sense last year an opportunity was missed).

After steadying the fossil fuel prices high by taxing you have hit the verbal two birds with one stone: saving energy and making alternatives competitive.

Reynier Funke
from Germany
where a lot of biofuels are used, but all are in trouble due to unsteady tax policies and opposition (Food or Fuel discussion, which will never go away)

Coenraad Pretorius
April 28, 2009

There is an obvious solution to the first issue you list, Procuring the volume of biomass at the quality and price needed to satisfy owners and lenders: waste.

According to the EPA, America produced about 170 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) in 2007, after subtracting recycling. You want a feedstock for a cellulosic fuel? Their was about 38 million tons of that (counting only paper and paperboard). Of the 170 million tons, roughly 55% was renewable (adding categories such as food waste, wood and yard trimmings). Almost 82% was organic (adding plastics, textiles and "rubber and leather" - the last two would also include some renewables).

Feeding the organic fraction of MSW into a gasification/Fischer-Tropsch plant (such as promoted by Choren Industries) could produce about 580,000 bbl/d of renewable diesel. Sure, it would only sate 2.9% of America's oil consumption, but it solves problems all round: the life of landfills in the country get extended, the release of methane (strong GHG) from landfills is prevented, and the process would be carbon neutral.

Once we have experience in waste->fuel, it would be time to consider energy crops. At that point we would know a lot more about what a desirable energy crop looks like.

One other thought: if biofuels are ever to take off, Big Oil needs to be on board. In spite of the popular sentiments, Big Oils knows more than anybody about producing and distributing fuels. It would be unthinkable to have a Treasury Secretary who is foreign to Wall Street. Yet an Energy Secretary who knows squat about oil is par for the course...

In summary: what is needed is not just a big pile of tax payer money, but a strategic rethink of biofuels. To work, the process needs to involve adding value to the feedstock, unlike food-based schemes, where value is destroyed.

C. Scott Miller
April 27, 2009

These are sensible recommendations for achieving a low carbon fuels paradigm in an investment constrained world. To the extent that the federal government can help reduce investment risk they should do it, but only for projects with real promise. It may be that an oversight committee like the one proposed in the article is the only way to determine what is or what is not promising and it should be indepartmental - part EPA, part DOE, part USDA.

From a feedstock standpoint we need to be as inclusive as possible with sustainability determined on a regional basis. The restrictive, broad brush RFS like the one in EISA 2007 has created many problems for biomass suppliers and that, in turn, frustrates development and investment. We really can't move forward until that definition is fixed to allow local jurisdictions to determine what feedstock qualifies and what doesn't.