OPIS Newsflash on Land Use Impacts of Biofuels

Well its a better argument than the one's we faced with Food vs. Fuel. Its logical and seems to be more results oriented. Hopefully this is a fair debate that moves us beyond the bullet-statement and bumper sticker arguments around ethanol.


From OPISnet.com

BIOFUEL GROUPS CONTINUE TO OPPOSE INDIRECT LAND USE INCLUSION IN RFS

Industry sources continued this afternoon to sift through the voluminous 1,004-page notice of proposed rulemaking for the expanded renewable fuels standard (RFS) that U.S. EPA issued this morning, but it appears as though while biofuel advocates appreciate the establishment of the Biofuels Interagency Working Group, they still oppose EPA's inclusion of indirect land use (ILUC) in the agency's establishment of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.

As passed under the 2007 energy bill, the 36-billion gal/yr RFS is broken into four segments: a capped corn-based ethanol requirement of 15 billion gallons by 2015; 21 billion gallons of the overall mandate contains "advanced biofuels" by 2022, with 16 billion gallons of that amount, under the same timeframe, from cellulosic biofuel. For the fourth carve-out, up to 1 billion gallons by 2012 is required to be from biomass-based diesel.

Meanwhile, conventional biofuels would be required to emit 20% fewer lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) compared to gasoline, while "advanced biofuels" would be required to emit 50% fewer lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and cellulosic biofuel would be required to emit 60% fewer emissions.

In this morning's notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA included emissions from ILUC in its lifecycle requirements, much to the chagrin of the biofuels industry. Biofuel groups, agricultural academics and some lawmakers had asked EPA to delay the ILUC requirements until there was a generally accepted method for determining the regulation.

"If you look at the direct impact of ethanol, from the production of the grain to transportation to the facility to the process of making the ethanol to transporting that to market, there are significant benefits to ethanol over petroleum," about 61% lower than petroleum fuels on average, said Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen, speaking on a conference call with reporters earlier today. However, "there is so much uncertainty" when trying to factor indirect effects, he said.

Additionally, the proposed ILUC requirements are not being uniformly applied, since there is no similar provision for petroleum production, Dinneen noted. "You'll see no international indirect effect of petroleum applied. EPA should've looked at this when they were creating the baseline. They are willing to count the number of angels on the head of pin for biofuels, [and] they ought to give more than just a cursory look at petroleum production," he said.

But Dinneen said he was pleased EPA would specifically be soliciting scientific feedback and peer review on the ILUC proposal.

Similar comment came from other biofuel groups, including Growth Energy, POET, the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), Biotechnology Industry Association and Brazilian sugarcane trade association UNICA.

"As evidenced by the recent debate over the low carbon fuel standard in California, biofuels are greatly penalized by these preliminary calculations,"
said UNICA Chief Representative in North America Joel Velasco. "We know sugarcane ethanol has the lowest carbon emissions of any liquid biofuel produced today. California recognized as much in its low carbon fuel standard.

We are certain that when the EPA considers the best available data and research, these indirect land use effects from sugarcane cultivation in Brazil will be marginal at best," he added.

Meanwhile, the National Biodiesel Board said that a final EPA rule on indirect land use changes "that is based on questionable science and is structured in a manner that restricts the role of sustainable vegetable oils in the program will make it nearly impossible to meet the Advanced Biofuels goals established by statute," according to NBB Vice President of Federal Affairs Manning Feraci. "Hopefully, common sense will prevail in this process and the EPA will issue a workable final rule that is based on sound science and allows the U.S. biodiesel industry to make a positive contribution to the RFS2 program," he added.

Brian Jennings, executive vice president of ACE, said he was pleased that USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack will be co-chairing the Biofuels Interagency Working Group along with the heads of DOE and EPA. "I think this means ethanol remains at the table for the president's energy policies moving forward, despite the political desire of some to box ethanol out. I think the working group will ensure that fossil fuels are finally examined along with biofuels in these LCA [land use change] assessments," he added.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), meanwhile, is pleased with the inclusion of the indirect land use provision. "We must develop biofuels the smart way, and we are encouraged that EPA Administrator Jackson has offered a science-based proposal to get this done," said NRDC's Nathanael Greene. "The opportunity to review EPA's proposal will help ensure that developing biofuels won't mean using our most fragile forests for fuel and that biofuels provide real benefits. We plan to submit comments on what EPA has gotten right and what must be improved to make sure the outcome serves our environmental and energy needs," he added.

While both the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association were still reviewing the proposal, they are concerned with the availability of biofuels that will be needed under the RFS. "While NPRA looks forward to commenting more specifically on the proposed guidelines, the questions of commercial viability, product liability and the lack of adequate scientific review with regard to mandated increased quantities of ethanol remain unresolved," said NPRA President Charles Drevna. The association said it trusts "that EPA will seriously and transparently consider the concerns raised by fuel, public health, environmental, and engine manufacturing interests as it proceeds toward finalizing guidelines for RFS implementation."

Similarly, API spokesman Karen Matusic said it is "surprised and disappointed" that EPA, in relying on industry information, believes there are sufficient plans underway to build plants capable of producing 100 million gal of cellulosic ethanol in 2010 and are therefore not proposing to waive the requirement for next year. "The waiver criteria is not 'plans to build,' but is 'projected volumes of cellulosic biofuels production," she noted. "Information readily available to the government clearly shows that very little cellulosic biofuels will be produced in 2010," she added.

Meanwhile, anticipating that ILUC would, in fact, be included in EPA's proposed rule, U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced legislation last week that would direct EPA to only focus on the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in its regulation. Speaking on the conference call this morning, Dinneen said these and other congressional efforts are separate from EPA's peer review efforts and aren't likely to be withdrawn.

Once EPA's proposal is published in the Federal Register, the agency will begin to accept public comments for 60 days. Meanwhile, EPA plans to hold a workshop on June 10-11 at the Dupont Hotel in Washington, D.C., to present details of the lifecycle GHG analysis included in the proposal.

For more information on the proposal, visit:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/index.htm#regulations.
--Robert Gough, OPISnet
--Rachel Gantz, OPISnet

Good News for Oregon's Trillium Fiber Fuels

From: Chris Beatty
To: biofuels4oregon@lists.onenw.org
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 6:10 PM
Subject: [biofuels4oregon] Trillium FiberFuels receives DOE grant

May 1, 2008

Trillium FiberFuels receives $100,000 grant for cellulosic ethanol research

Trillium FiberFuels of Corvallis, Oregon has been selected by the US Dept. of Energy to receive a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Grant to develop a key process for cellulosic ethanol. The Trillium technology will substantially improve ethanol yield from feedstocks such as straw and forest residues. Trillium president Chris Beatty commented: “We are very pleased with this support and validation of our approach. We are excited about taking this technology to the next level.”

Range Fuels: Biogass to Ethanol

I came across an article I thought worth sharing. Two points of interest. The initial article was found at BusinessGreen.com and is worth reading.

One - Range Fuels, a biofuel startup, got a significant amount of direct investment. This to support its efforts in turning woody biomass into liquid fuel which are about to be commercially scaled in their first plant in Georgia under construction now. This round of funding came on the heels of another $76 million awarded by the US DOE to also support their technology.

Two - The process explained of how they will make their cellulosic ethanol. The article called it a "thermo-chemical" technique of turning wood into liquid fuel.

From my guessing this is a fancy way of saying they burn the wood, pull off the exhaust gas (now technically referred to as "biogas) and introduce the biogas to an environment that includes a catalyst. The catalyst in turn would create certain or pull out molecule chains that would then be further refined into liquid fuel (i.e. cleaned up).

Interesting stuff. I hope to have time to put up more on this technology process. I've read a little about it and seen presentations at conferences. Either way I need to learn more about it. Something in my gut says this is going to be the next big focus. Primarily because the combined heat and power potential probably fits extremely well with existing corn based ethanol and therefore could be readily adopted as a plant expansion for existing ethanol producers.

My thoughts are that we will be hearing increasingly more about Range Fuels going forward if for no other reason than they have the money to push for earned media coverage and must justify the cash they've recently pulled down.

NOTE: This blog first mentioned Range Fuels after they recieved a large investment from Vinod Kholsla. See the previous DieselGeek Post on the subject.

CO2 + Sunlight = Liquid Fuels

Saw this bit of news over at Wired.com.

Described as "Sunlight to Petrol" or S2P, this project essentially reverses the combustion process, recovering the building blocks of hydrocarbons. This technology has been demonstrated to create methanol and gasoline. On the drawing board this technology can make a host of other liquid fuels as well.

Originally conceived as a way to generate hydrogen the research took another turn recently. Moving from steam as a feedstock (the source for hydrogen) to CO2. The research and development work is being done at the Sandia National Laboratory. Their press release on this technology is available here.

According to the Wired article this is not a new concept. In fact moving CO2 to CO and then forcing hydrogen into the mix to make a hydrocarbon has been around for some time. The technology and process is described below:

The prototype will be about the size and shape of a beer keg. It will contain 14 cobalt ferrite rings, each about one foot in diameter and turning at one revolution per minute. An 88-square meter solar furnace will blast sunlight into the unit, heating the rings to about 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature, cobalt ferrite releases oxygen. When the rings cool to about 2,000 degrees, they're exposed to CO2.

Since the cobalt ferrite is now missing oxygen, it snatches some from the CO2, leaving behind just carbon monoxide -- a building block for making hydrocarbons -- that can then be used to make methanol or gasoline. And with the cobalt ferrite restored to its original state, the device is ready for another cycle.

Fuels like methanol and gasoline are combinations of hydrogen and carbon that are relatively easy to synthesize, Stechel said. Methanol is the easiest, and that's where they will start, but gasoline could also be made.

The team researching this project are looking to field it in connection with coal fired electricity. This is the market these researchers forsee for the technology. The target market being a CO2 scrubbing application that creates a usable off-take of liquid fuels.

Yet another technology that requires CO2 be regulated to be viable in the US. Seems a great deal of smart people are betting on this assumption. I seem to be seeing alot of those these days. Makes you wonder if all these big DOE dependent mucky-mucks know something I don't.

US Energy Outlook's Natural Gas Usage

I'm working on a presentation that I will be giving later this month. I just came across an interesting diagram from the DOE/EIA's 2006 Energy Outlook that does a great job of simplifying a complex subject. Where natural gas comes from and goes in the US economy.

It's on page 181 of the 2006 Energy Outlook which is available both on the EIA's site as well as a PDF.

Another great chart as well is a comparison graph of US natural gas usage (see below). This being found on page 190 of the same report. Notice the spike in the 1990's which was a period of relative cheap diesel. Same to be said with the spike of electricity which is the move to cleaner power by utilities moving away from diesel powered generation and to natural gas.

I figured these would be a small piece of google gold for anyone doing a search for just such a simple picture. Whoever designed it did a great job.

US Natural Gas Pipelines

Just something interesting to look at.

Please note the west coast. In particular the lack of infrastructure in California. Makes you wonder where electrical power will come from if coal and oil are off the table as our energy needs expand. Throw on top of that regulatory environment a low carbon standard and we look a little light way out west.

Another speculation on my part. How much you want to bet there is a similarly situated amount of available natural gas in the Rockies? This resource just not being developed due to the tighter development framework for the newer West Coast over the last fifty years.

Getting started with BioDiesel, The Book.

I'm dialing it in after turkey day. Just throwing up something simple but relevant.

Below is a the link to the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels and Vehicle Data Center. Probably the single best source of information about biofuels found anywhere on the planet Earth.

The BioDiesel page is where you want to go. This link will take you to an introduction to biodiesel page. Notice the PDF listed (available for download at this site) "Biodiesel Use and Handling Guidelines." This is the introductory users manual for any fleet, individual or policy influencer as it relates to biodiesel.

Consider this book the users guide for biodiesel. Or better yet, the introductory field manual for a fleet user to move towards biodiesel as informed as possible.

This website is also a great starting off point for all things knowable about biodiesel. From power point presentations to research its all there. A cornucopia of dat for those who like to drink information from a firehose.

My rant about Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars

USA Today covered hydrogen fuel cell cars and speculates why are they not available. Then they settle on price as the reason. This in turn spurs the rant you see below.

To put it bluntly. Fuel cell technology bores me. It bores me on so many levels. Primarily though its because at my fundamental core I feel like I'm being manipulated every time someone rattles a new fuel cell development in front of me. Like a shiny set of keys dangled in front of a drooling new born the expect me to ooooh. I've yet to be shown a reason to fall in love with hydrogen. Let alone a hydrogen car.

In short; I don't believe in the fuel cell car. I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster. I don't believe in the existence of Sasquatch. And again - I don't believe the hydrogen automobile making it into Ford or GM showrooms. I'm not in argument that any of the above could exist. I just don't believe they do.

Here is why. Hydrogen has a business model in existence today. It would work exactly the same with the an identical distribution system, the same real estate (only larger tanks) and probably the same regulatory/safety concerns. This business model is propane.

Propane is readily available, reasonably priced, and readily usable by cars on the road. Why hasn't it taken off? It's clean right.

All the problems with propane supplanting gasoline as a motor fuel exist for hydrogen. In fact, any gasoline vehicle can easily be converted back and forth from gasoline, to propane, to gasoline so there are fewer barriers to entry. Though not a true flexible fuel, propane and natural gas will run in any gasoline engine with slight modification. So for hydrogen to be a true fuel paradigm shift it takes something other than emissions to be the motivator. It takes superior technology.

I ask all readers to think critically about what a fuel cell is and does. Think about what it would lend itself best to. It surely isn't a 500 mile round trip on one fill up. Its power generation.

The true value of fuel cell technology isn't in four wheel vehicles. Its in buildings.

For a sedan or pick-up truck to work the big breakthrough for hydrogen isn't actually getting the fuel cell to work well. Hydrogen fuel cells aren't the break through technology that we are waiting for. Its mass produced battery technology, improvements in information technology married to a vehicle, and improvements in what boils down to is essentially a hybrid power train.

I'll say it again. When you look at the hydrogen car the break through technologies have nothing to do with hydrogen. They have to do with a hybrid electric power train.

Contrast vehicle technology with commercial real estate (which doesn't need even close to as much to field this technology). Over 50% of the energy used in the US is in buildings and facilities. Large commercial structures are immense energy users with complex systems, budgets to invest for longterm payback, onsite trained facility personnel, and a complex group of systems all benefiting from combined heat, power, steam, and water.

Fuel cells, as an emerging technology, make sense for buildings and not for mobile vehicles. If for anything the cost of compressing hydrogen into a vehicles tank for a short trip doesn't make sense. The concept of putting gasoline, ethanol, diesel, or biodiesel into a vehicles tank as a source for hydrogen also doesn't make any technical sense . Especially when thousands of commercial facilities already have systems and talented people familiar with reclaiming waste streams for energy and handling emission reduction technology.

To me the only reason hydrogen car research exists is that the US DOE and EPA fund research for hydrogen cars. You also have some extensive large R and D divisions in the auto manufacturers who can throw off a whole host of valuable technologies under the same research framework though without actually delivering a sub $30K hydrogen car. If anything what hydrogen really offers is a black-ops cover for next generation hybrid vehicle technologies.

To me the hydrogen car is a monument to misdirected policy choices. Every time I read about a hydrogen car I get the same feeling I do when seeing Britney Spears motherhood status discussed. I feel like its inconsequential information put forward just for the hope it draws the right number of eye-balls to a television screen or newspaper. Its advertising disguised as news.

Range Fuels Moves Forward with Commercial Scale Cellulosic Ethanol

Saw it at Forbes.com.

Range Fuels is moving forward with the world's first commercial scale cellulosic ethanol plant. Range is being backed by Khosla Ventures with an undisclosed sum of funding.

How does their process work you ask?

Add $76 million from the US Department of Energy, millions of tons of wood waste from a nearby Georgia timber farming industry, mix wood chips with heat, pressure and steam for 15 minutes, and then turn a syngas into ethanol with a proprietary catalyst which throws off ethanol. Poof, American made cellulosic ethanol (see a nifty interactive diagram of their process here).

The only catch at that point in the process. How much ethanol does the process throw off by volume?

The big issue, as with all energy technologies, isn't if we can do it. It's what cost can we do "it" at. "It" being any technology from hydrogen, to nuke, to cellulosic ethanol.

From what I've been told by more than one company with a "proprietary" cellulosic ethanol concept is that they can make ethanol. Its easy. The issue isn't cellulosic ethanol. Its the volume of alcohol in the beer product produced. "Beer" being the first round of alcohol production which turns fructose into alcohol via yeast.

The production of alcohol prior to distillation into road grade ethanol from cellulose is roughly half of what corn ethanol gets per batch. Additionally there are more steps involved in the process of making cellulosic ethanol over corn/sugar based product. And then there is the productivity of the yeast in a cellulosic plant. Cellulosic ethanol processes get around 3% - 8% alcohol by volume as opposed to the low teens for corn based ethanol.

This lower volume or lower productivity of alcohol raises the energy needs of any plant and slow down the productivity. Even if the feedstock is free the cost of several other steps to get the wood product into a usable form, the lower productivity of the yeast making alcohol, and the additional distillation rounds to get cellulosic ethanol to a 200 proof break the bank.

Good luck to Range Fuels and Vinod Khosla. It's exciting to see this project go forward.

I don't believe the hype a.k.a. Reasoning for record setting petro

Something I came across at NPR (looking for more info on the last post).

Over the last year I've become tone deaf to the arguments for why oil has hit a new record high. There are plenty of great reasons to explain it convincingly without having to dust off a new theory. Regardless I still couldn't help but read a recent story about why.

According to the AP via NPR the explanation for record oil prices is traders reacting to low stocks of petroleum crude. What I wonder (and I am uneducated in this) is what is the effect of crude lacking in the U.S. overall?

My Opinion:

As the world keeps expanding its refinery capacity the west coast in particular should be seeing wider supplies of refined finished products shipped to market. Our energy needs will grow with GDP, our refinery capacity is not keeping pace - doesn't take a genius to see where the arbitrage opportunity is. In fact I've been told by multiple industry insiders that Asian firms and brokers moving product from Asia are fighting to find tankage to enter markets throughout the U.S..

In the mid-90's the major oil players consolidated with sub $10 a barrel oil. This leaves huge amounts of room for many new players today in the world of $90+ oil. With crack spreads (the value for refining product) fattening out with oil prices the economics of supplying the U.S. change a bit. Specifically it removes a great deal of pressure off of the U.S. refiners (and therefore crude inventories) as the world steps up and takes advantage of the larger crack spreads to be had in U.S. markets.

We are in a world market for energy. China's refineries, Korea's refineries, Canada's refineries, Russia's refineries, India's refineries etc.... might as well be considered our refineries as well. No different than t-shirt and gym sock factories just larger dollars and volumes. I don't have an immediate number but I've read plenty of stories of large investments in foreign refinery capacity. World wide refinery capacity is up not down.

I've read and seen alot about the pinch in refining in the U.S. Being here in Portland, Oregon (without refineries only storage terminals) I see the real influence on markets in a world economy not being refining but storage. We could double refining within the U.S. but without tanks to keep the product in it means nothing. I have yet to see a technology that fits more gallons into the same volumetric space (other than higher Btu content of a fuel and with cleaner diesel fuel Btu's drop not increase - so even less energy is stored in the same tanks).

Over the last decade the world has seen a housing boom. Newer, larger, ever growing cities are popping up all over the U.S. Being as I've never heard a word about new terminals being built to serve these newer cities I would expect refineries and U.S. crude inventories to have less of an impact.

In short, I think the argument that traders are influencing high prices is hard to believe. Traders are reacting to market prices. Their influence may be on day of a trend. Traders are not the trend setters though. Markets are.

There is a great many other factors influencing price all of which influence traders and distill down to an assumption about inventories, costs, supplies, and ultimately prices.

As a non-expert applying just common sense I would expect U.S. crude inventories to continue to decline. This will happen as increasing foreign refinery capacity becomes available. It will happen as lower cost markets produce finished products in newer facilities and ship it to wealthier high value energy markets. Just like gym socks, t-shirts, and baseball caps.

Just my thoughts.

Algae:. First biodiesel, then ethanol, now its the silver bullet hope for CO2 sequestration.

The US Department of Energy just put out a release about algae research showing amazing promise. Exciting stuff it turns out as they have mapped a sequence of genes responsible for the conversion of CO2 into sequestered carbon (as well as a host of other potential applications).

"The genome analysis of a tiny green alga has uncovered hundreds of genes that are uniquely associated with carbon dioxide capture and generation of biomass. Among the 15,000-plus genes revealed in the study are those that encode the structure and function of the specialized organelle that houses the photosynthetic apparatus, the chloroplast, which is responsible for converting light to chemical energy. The genome also provides a glimpse back through time to the last common ancestor of plants and animals."

This research is also well discussed in the most recent copy of Science magazine. I took a look at the abstract. To much science for my limited attention span but still enough to spark your imagination.
Shown is an MIT Algae Bioreactor. If you've ever wondered what one looked like, here it is. Pretty much they all look like variations of the same thing. Similar to older solar systems only green. For more about MIT's bioreactor shown and a YouTube interview go to this Sustainable Design Update post.