Ethanol Efficiency - A great post by Advanced Biofuels USA

A great blog post (see the original post HERE) by Advanced Biofuels USA by Robert Kozak (NOTE: This is a nonprofit organization I am unfamiliar with other than this post). The article discusses a graph produced by the NRDC showing the CO2 intensification of various energy sources..

The big things I really wanted to pull out of this post.  I haven't seen this said better:

This trendline also got me thinking about how long it took the petroleum industry to reach its current efficiency that allows it to produce a gallon of gasoline for about 26 lbs CO₂. As it turns out, the answer is at least sixty years -1910-1970.

Production and quality improvements have been slow in the petroleum industry. While the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859, demand for gasoline did not really exist until 1900 when cars with internal combustion engines began to be produced. It really took off after 1908 when the Ford Model T began production.  However, neither performance (octane rating) nor conversion efficiency were quick to follow.

For instance, the catalytic cracking of crude oil into gasoline, which doubled existing yields of gasoline, was not developed until the 1930s. Octane ratings, a measure of gasoline’s ability to withstand pressure to produce more power (current regular gasoline has a rating of 87 and ethanol 105+), were about 40 until Allied aircraft needed high octane fuels to fight German and Japanese planes in WWII. This octane development work was largely financed by the US government. The current hydrocracking technology which again increased gasoline yields, did not come on-line until the 1960s, while the current rate of oil to gasoline conversion was reached after the 1973-4 oil shock.

UofI Biodiesel Education Blog - Gotta Love Jon Van Gerpen

Univ. of Idaho has a great new biodiesel blog.  Gotta love it.

Check it out HERE!

In Search of the Factory Equipped Hyper Miler

Wired Magazine online has a great article about where fuel efficiency will come from. The Federal government is seeking a 34.1 mpg fleetwide CAFE standard for vehicles sold in the US market.  Wired reports that the National Academy of Science asked 12 engineers, scientists and industry certified smart people to examine commercially available technologies and their impact on fuel economy.

This report is titled "Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy"  and is for sale via the link shown.  The website will allow you to skim the document though.  Of course that's not assuming Wikipedia or some other site won't have it posted for free sometime soon (I can't wait to see).

What did they come up with? Fuel efficiency has a high capital cost.

But of course doesn't all new technology?

What else did they conclude? That VW TDI's kick the crap out of hybrids (okay I exaggerate their findings).  They comment that Hybrids cost around $9000 more per vehicle for a 50% fuel savings and Diesel cost around half that for a savings for 35% so therefore more miles and a longer engine life for less money.

Something I can't see mentioned is the energy impact of these technologies before their life on the road.  I would like to start seeing the energy cost of construction of these various technologies.  No luck there yet though.  Guess only the new fuels are held to this standard while the technologies that harness or precede new fuels aren't judged under this category.

Other note.  The Wikipedia post on CAFE standards is worth checking out.

California Low Carbon Fuels

So I'm doing simple research on RINs and a potential financial business model. I am looking the world over for a CO2 off-set value for biodiesel and can't find a thing.

Look up the California Low Carbon Fuels Standard though I found some really interesting charts. Though worthless to my project today I felt they were worth posting for posterity.

Below is a chart showing weight and btus. A handy one stop chart.

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

Purdue's Library of Sustainable Energy

Purdue University Extension has put together and launched a website on "Renewable Energy" which showcases a great collection of information.

I really liked was the collection of simple and easy to read information. Purdue seems to even give Wikipedia a run for its money on some subjects. I really like the platform of PDF's and whoever put this together did an awesome job.

If you are doing research on the subject it provides a great resource in one place. I would rank this collection of information up there with the Oregon Environmental Council and Northwest Biofuels Association similar efforts. One difference though. Purdue covers new ground.

I don't agree 100% with what I've read so far. Regardless, Purdue's website is worth the bookmark!

The Babe Ruth of Soy Beans and a Story of Competitve Corn Growing

I've been meaning to put this Wired Magazine article up for over a month.

Here is a great story talking about real industrialized commercial agriculture. Its rare that you get a lay person's article about mono-culture agriculture and what they are wrestling with. The perspective touched on here is one worth reading.

Especially looking at the every expanding productivity of US soil, seeds, chemicals, manpower and on the ground intellect that is our mainstream agriculture.

One excerpt that really gets to the heart of the new development of GMO crops that caught my eye is below.

Cullers never went to college, but he rises at 3:30 each morning to study plant genetics online. Right now, he's urging Pioneer to genetically weave a bit of stiffening fiber into soybean stalks. Cullers plants 300,000 soybeans per acre, double the national average. In these super-dense fields, he explains, soy plants grow taller, fighting for sunlight. "They fall down a lot," he says, "and you lose photosynthesis. The trifoliates don't pump nutrients to the beans. And you get disease, too. It's crowded and humid out there, down low."

Something about it reminds me more about the development of a race car with experience in the Pit rather than the further development of an agricultural crop. This is obviously engineering with a specificity reserved up till now for mechanical systems not organisms.


NOTE: To those who are adamant and hostile to GMO. I understand, I've seen and read both sides of this debate in depth for years. Being on the sidelines and outside of the issue I am an agricultural agnostic. I do buy certified organic and local food as a rule as well. Please don't flame me just because I gave ink to what I view as a relevant article.

Oil Execs on the Future of Energy Costs

Reported at the Environmental Leader

See the graphic below. The study was based on in-depth phone interviews with more than 50 oil and gas professionals, most holding C-Suite positions at petroleum companies with annual revenues of $100 million or more.



Of note to me. The low number of petroleum executives that believe petroleum is a sustainable energy source. I would really like to know what the motivation for this answer would be. The environmental sense of "sustainable" in reference to CO2 and impact on the environment or the actual long term production (meaning that they can sustainable keep pumping oil out of the ground keeping up with the actual demand for the product).

Usually when oil and gas people talk about sustainability they talk about actual production. Sustainable production is keeping up with demand. So they usually refer to petroleum as a sustainable fuel. Contrast this with environmentalists who refer to "sustainable" as meaning little or no impact on the environment.

I also see this as an interesting contrast with the feelings about US energy independence. If Oil is not sustainable what would be there belief for energy independence? I would assume biofuels development or maybe just something else (those in energy tend to look at technology as an open ended box of hope).

Are these execs saying 'it'll all work out some how' or do they have a consensus inside the industry about an expected future for US energy.

Fuel Milleage Throw Down

VW Jetta TDI vs. Smart Car vs. Toyota Prius vs. Ford Focus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46nMnCt75qI

This was a cool piece to watch. Being a big VW TDI snob I was excited to watch the Jetta beat the Prius in all real driving conditions (grandma getting milk once a week is not real driving in my opinion). I also was dissatisfied with the maintenance concern of the vehicle cost. The Ford Focus would likely beat all vehicles concerned in the first 100,000 miles. The Jetta if you extend the period beyond 200,000 miles.

Regardless. It was worth watching.

McCain Proposes Federal "X-Prize" for Electric Battery Powertrain Vehicles

John McCain goes all Portland, Oregon on the campaign trail. (See BizJournal for more info or JohnMcCain.com for the actual press release).

This seriously sounds like a left-coast proposal right along with the X-Prize for cars. The real question is why $300 million, why not other prizes, and what business does the Federal government have in offering a prize?

John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Full Electric Automobiles.
A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. That battery should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs. At $300 million, the prize is one dollar for every man, woman and child in this country -- and a small price to pay for breaking our dependence on oil.

I guess as long as it doesn't benefit a sitting special interest group John McCain can throw out pork with a straight face like the rest of them.

Having participated in a few government Request for Proposal (RFP) processes in the past I really don't see this making real sense in practice. Though on the stump it obviously has some real positive ring to it.

What I do like about it is the trust that if given incentive the free market will provide the solutions. Of course, when the Feds offer the prize instead of the free market it sorta destroys the logic of this effect though.

Solar Power Compared to Standard Utility Cost

The Environmental Leader provides this easy to read chart on solar cost and expected utility rates.

The source for this information is a Utility Solar Assessment Study released recently by Clean Edge. (NOTE: I have not read the study yet)

MIT's Energy Initiative (MITEI)

Described simply:

Doubling energy use, tripling electricity demand, political instability surrounding oil sources in the Middle East, and detrimental effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: For MIT, these are the next problems to solve.

I saw a presentation last week on their efforts and its really exciting. Its worth looking at. Hopefully I'll have time to do a better post on it.

Mark

Speculating on Oil Prices

There is an interesting story about the pricing expectations of a barrel of oil up on the Biobased news. Its a news wire piece on a recent KPMG poll of petroleum executives. The poll will be discussed at an upcoming KPMG Global Energy Institute conference.

Long story short. Over half of oil execs believe a barrel of oil will close below $100. See below:

In this year's KPMG survey, which polled 372 financial executives from oil and gas companies in April 2008, 55 percent of the respondents think that the price-per-barrel of crude oil will drop below $100 by the end of the year. Twenty-one percent think that the price will close between $101 and $110; 15 percent think between $111 and $120; and nine percent believe it will close at above $120. And, while 44 percent felt that prices would peak by the end of the year, a further 39 percent thought that they would not peak until after 2010.

Fair enough. Past as pretext for any speculation you would assume that the historical high would flatten out and trend lower. I would understand why that would be the majority consensus. What I don't follow is why 39% (not exactly a small contingent) thought oil wasn't going to peak until after 2010. I think this is evidence that there is some other factor effecting price currently and that this dynamic has yet to run its course.

Other interesting findings of the poll. The underlying cause for the increasing prices.

Indeed, a significant majority, or 63 percent, of oil and gas executives believe that growing demand due to accelerated demand in emerging markets is the major contributor to the high price of oil. The second highest contributor, according to 15 percent of the respondents, was the lack of access to new oil resources, and rising exploration and development costs. Ten percent attributed current pricing to growing demand in developed markets.

That supply was not readily available even with highs never before expected or seen. These same execs also mentioned a much bigger role for natural gas, see wind being a growth sector, and biofuels being a credible mass producible energy source within ten years.

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.”

How Much Oil? 1 Cubic Mile of Petroleum a Year

The world uses a little over 1 cubic mile of petroleum a year.

I love the visual of how big of an ocean we consume. The source is Ripudaman Malhotra from SRI Internation.

The article I spotted the fact at was over at CNet News.

Other interesting facts:

It would take 4.2 Billion rooftop's covered with a 2.1 megawatt panels each to equal the energy consumed by world oil.

It would take 2,500 900 megawatt nuclear plants to replace the energy consumed currently by the world in liquid petroleum.

It would take 3 million wind turbines to replace a cubic mile of oil as well.

The article also came complete with an interesting chart below.

Oregon Petroleum Stats

2005 Resident Population 3,641,056

Number with Driver's Licenses in 2005: 2,692,948

Miles of Road in Oregon: 64,544 miles

Oregon Petroleum Use: 2,111,000,000
(Gasoline private highway usage 1,481,000,000)

Petroleum Per Mile of Road: 32,706 gallons

Average Cost of Petroleum: Assume $3.00

Petroleum Use Per Capita: 580 gallons
Petroleum Use per Licensed Driver: 784 gallons

2006 Oregon State GDP: 144,278,000,000
Oregon Per Capita GDP: $39,626
2005 Per Capita Personal Income: $32,103

Oregon Taxes: $6,522,665,000
Tax Burden Per Capita: $1,791.45

Per Capita Petroleum Cost: $1740.00
Per Capita Driver's Petroleum Cost: $2352.00

Oregon State Motto: Alis volat Propriis (She flies with her own wings)

An aptly phrased motto from an energy policy wonk's perspective.

Ron Pernick: "The Future Ain't What it Used to Be"

Check out "The Future Ain't What it Used to Be" a great article by Ron Pernick. I found it at Renewable Energy World which itself is a good information site for energy geeks and commercially motivated types alike.

Little factoids from his article worth sharing:

According to the 2008 annual Clean Energy Trends report the "clean-energy markets" grew by 40 percent from $55 billion in 2006 to $77.3 billion in 2007.

Ron predicts these same technologies will reach $254.5 billion by 2017.

The EU has added 47,000 megawatts of new wind energy since 2000.

The EU has also added 9,600 MW of coal and 1,200 MW of Nuke.

The US has more than 50 new coal plants on hold because of CO2 worries and the anticipation of a federal carbon emissions cap under the next presidential administration.

The upfront cost comparison of Nuke versus Other:

1-gigawatt brand new Nuclear plant is between $2 billion and $6 billion.

1 - gigawatt of geothermal or wind is less than $2 billion.

1 - gigawatt of solar is between $5 billion and $10 billion.

And best of all - Ron quotes Oil Luminary T.Boone Pickens who has announced he will build the world's largest wind farm at 4,000 MW.

"I have the same feelings about wind as I had about the best oil field I ever found."
- T. Boone Pickens

NOTE: Ron Pernick is author of the Clean Tech Revolution, which I consider the best book available on the emerging new market for outside the box energy concepts. He also maintains a website and currently teaches at Portland State University. Go Stumptown!

University of Maryland and Cellulosic Ethanol

The Energy Blog has a great post up about a cellulosic ethanol breakthrough.



The University of Maryland claims to have hit the perpetually five year out solution to braking cellulose into a working food for yeast. In short they claim they've sourced a bacteria plucked out of Chesapeke Bay have tooled it to break cellulose into sugar.



Lets see how far this goes. If its real it will be everywhere soon enough.

New Oilseed Crop - Cuphea

I saw the story first at Biobased News. This is the first I've heard of this oil seed type.

A good amount about Cuphea Oil is available on Wikipedia.

As described by the Biobased News this is a break through development. Being the only tropical oil crop type that will grow in North America. Or in the exact words of the Biobased News:

Part of the research focus at the USDA-Agricultural Research Service Lab in Morris is to develop new and alternative crops to diversify cropping systems in the northern Corn Belt region and offer new/improved economic and environmental benefits. Over the past seven years the Morris “Soils Lab” has been successful in developing a new oilseed crop called “cuphea” that has now become the only domestic crop-derived source of medium-chain fatty acid (MCFA) seed oil (i.e., seed oil similar to that of tropical plants) in the U.S. Until recently, the only plant-derived sources of MCFAs were coconut and palm oil.

The signifigance of this crop is that it produces medium-chain fatty acids (or MCFA's). This oil type being normally found in tropical oils which are relied on for soaps and other chemicals not to mention biodiesel.

Its always interesting to see new names pop up. Now I'm curious to see if this will be one of those blockbuster interest crops or a quiet but interesting additional crop.

A Discussion on New Feedstocks for Biodiesel

The NBB has has some podcasts up from the National Biodiesel Conference earlier this month.
The best session worth looking at is the one on new feedstock development. Its definitely worth a listen.

There is a great deal of positive agricultural technology making its way down the pipe. Soybeans that produce more oil, algae that is ready for commercial demonstration, higher oil yielding corns, and the list goes on and on.

In the past, process food products was the goal. Now it is a value added chain that starts with biofuel, moves on to food, and ends with a host of other products.

It looks to me like any industry that really focuses on R and D and diverse product development can follow the petroleum production example. A diverse feedstock set of inputs moving through a consistent refining process. Ending with a host and diverse number of value added products and underlieing commodities.


The Podcast panelist include:


Alan Weber, economic consultant to National Biodiesel Board,

Dr. Jack Brown from the University of Idaho (who is Scottish so he brings a European perspective to the biodiesel feedstock business),

Keith Bruinsma, Vice President of Corporate Development for ethanol producer VersaSun (which is not far from biodiesel as you’ll hear in the clip),

John Sheehan, Vice President of Strategy and Sustainability for Live Fuels (which is developing algae-based biodiesel),

John Soper, Senior Research Director for Soybean Product Development for Pioneer International (bringing the seed developer’s perspective to the conversation).

If you are interested in feedstock development this is the Podcast for you.