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.

Oregon's BETC Reform

In energy circles Oregon has been well known in the last ten years for it's generous Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) which offers up to 50% off the capital cost of a project back as an income tax deduction.  Better yet if you are a low cash flow start up you can "Pass-Through" this BETC for 35% of face value cash up front.  So if you build a $1,000,000 project in theory Oregon will give you a $500,000 income tax break over five years and you can sell this tax break to an investor for $350,000 cash.

Its no doubt one of the greatest deals for project development out there.  Throw into that mix a huge clean energy consumer base and utility connection to wheel power to the California market and you've got a strong comparative advantage in Oregon.  I know I've done several project that would not have happened without the BETC which have directly created jobs at my family's business.  I've also used the BETC as a down payment with a bank as part of financing.  Its a great economic development tool but the lack of boundaries on the program has blown up its use.  Solar panel manufacturers, wind farm developers, and a few large projects have exploded the dollar figure this tax credit brings.

So in Oregon the Department of Energy (ODOE) has been under fire for the Business Energy Tax Credit  taking a large cash draw in the economic downturn.  The fact that the alternative energy tax break is primarily being taken by the Wal-Mart, large banks, and other huge corporations hasn't polished its image any either.  Corporate welfare is never a great selling point.  This causing Oregon's Legislature to push a "reform" to bring down the total dollar figure of the BETC.

First a law capping total dollars came down.  Then rules were written to figure out how to stay within the budget.  So the rules are set and now is the time to pay attention as any potential new project I may come across will be playing in this new league.  Through the recession I haven't had much in the way of project opportunity.  Just trying to keep momentum moving forward for what we built pre-2008.  Taking a look there are things I agree with and those I don't.

First I don't see any reference to property tax impact of a capital project (and I didn't in the debate during the reform). The local positive impact of these projects isn't considered at all.  If the state is losing on the income tax side but funneling more in a much more permanent base of property tax revenues I would call that great policy.  Unfortunately the only focus isn't on long term revenues but instead on a single ticket price

I've always thought the controversy of corporations taking BETC's to avoid income tax is over stated.  In fact its safe to say if it wasn't for the BETC many of these companies wouldn't have realized the same amount of income tax (then avoided by a BETC) by creative and legal accounting gimmicks to minimize profits in Oregon.  I am very confident that the BETC funnels what otherwise would have been money leaving Oregon into capital investments that raise local property taxes far in excess of their real cost to Oregon's general fund.

Now back to the actual reform.  One good thing is they moved the one year BETC opportunity up to a $20,000 one year project (meaning I can take a tax credit in one year instead of taking it over five years). Short payback of tax credits is very good for small businesses seeing great years and investing in improving their operation.  In the small business community you never know what the next year holds so five year paybacks are a tough sell for a BETC.   Better yet, one year is very positive for the type of projects I do with refueling infrastructure which can be kept under $20,000 if we work at it.  It's also very good for retrofit projects as well so local smaller scale contractors will benefit from this.

As of right now there is a cap of $300 million  in BETC money established through 2011's state budget.  Of this $300 million $218 million potential projects has already been pre-certified.  So in theory its already spent.  But of course it probably won't be close to spent.  It begs the question, how does this work that projects take years and are unpredictable and therefore when the BETC vests to being taken might effect other budget years?

There is a Q&A page but it hasn't posted any questions and answers.  I definitely have small talk to make next time I run into an ODOE staffer.  Just that much more reason to get to local conferences I guess.

To help they have created a "tiered" approach.  ODOE shows an under $500,000 project costs, $500,000 to $6,000,000 project cost, and of course an upward of $6,000,000 project.  This will be interesting.  It does not mention how they will break out the remaining sum of cash between these projects.  I also am curious what happens if you apply pre-project, don't get a pre-certification, then start building and finish in a specific time frame.  If other's in that tier didn't finish can you take their budget allotment?

Oh well. As with all changes questions and ideas pop up.

Business Model Conept and Thoughts

Recently with the new Renewable Fuel Standard being promulgated by the EPA and Obama administration (commonly referred to as the "RFS2") a change has taken place. Specifically the creation of carve outs for certain biofuel technologies. Next generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, gas to liquids, and other type technologies are being given set aside market share.

The RFS2 proposes to that the existing Renewable Industry Numbers ("RINs") system and set aside requirements for petroleum refiners and importers to buy a specific amount of cellulosic ethanol and waste to ethanol in their biofuel requirements. With this there is new value attached to cellulosic ethanol. This is coupled with a renewed funding effort by the US DOE, USDA and others to get cellulosic ethanol plants off the ground.

Close to home Trillium Fiber Fuels just pulled a $750,000 grant to build a cellulosic ethanol plant (this after a sizable grant to experiment with various feedstocks about a year ago). But as I look at it I'm seeing some serious bring to market issues with smaller cellulosic plants. Namely that it doesn't make sense to build a host of small commercial scale ethanol plants in regions where there are already idle corn ethanol plants.

The issue I see is the cost of capital, the need to return an investment to this capital, and the fact that if the cellulosic technology is proven it will likely be licensed and integrated right back into the already existing corn ethanol plant. These corn ethanol plants also already have two really important things for a cellulosic ethanol plant. Namely expertise making ethanol to ASTM specification and the ability to place this product in the stream of commerce (no small feat for a sub-5 million gallon plant with no experience).

So here is my thought (and a regulatory question as well). Being on the west coast we need to import our corn and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Why not focus on making cellulosic carbohydrate instead of ethanol, Then run the carbohydrate through the already existing corn based ethanol process. Qualify this product as a next generation fuel by carbohydrate volume placed in the process with the corn.

It makes logical sense. This being the method preferred for counting electron when generating green power from solar or wind projects. The real issue is does the EPA trust ethanol producers enough to do so given that there might be a full $1 a gallon additional value in a cellulosic gallon of ethanol.

This raises two questions to be feasible. One is the cost of freight and creation of the cellulosic sugar something that I believe can be managed. Second, will the RFS2 allow a measurement of this product placed in a batch with corn ethanol. Essentially we would create the same debate that exists with ConocoPhillips and their Renewable Diesel process where they add fats into the crude oil pre-distillation at the refinery.

Just some thoughts.

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!

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.

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.

The Ethanol Debate Done Well by NPR

NPR had a great balanced piece on ethanol.

They cover both sides of the corn commodity price increase as well as the value added jobs created by ethanol's boom in rural America. This is probably the best reporting on Ethanol I've ever seen in the last year.

Its worth listening to. Its worth passing on.

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.

Oregon Alfalfa Growers, Cellulosic Ethanol, and OSU in the News

From the Capital Press
Oregon: Alfalfa Growers Consider Biofuel Options
Feb 18, 2008 - By Patricia R. McCoy, Capital Press (I saw this first at the Biobased News)

RENO, Nev. - Biofuels have a place in filling U.S. energy needs, but they can't solve the entire problem.Cellulosic ethanol can be part of it, but the necessary technology development probably won't come as fast as is hoped, some 160 members of the Northwest Alfalfa Seed Growers Association heard here Jan. 21.There are currently no U.S. ethanol plants using cellulose as their seed stock, said Don Wysocki, Oregon State University extension soil scientist stationed at Pendleton, Ore. The first one is likely five to 10 years away from construction.

Just to mention it. Cellulosic ethanol is here now. The issue is that it's not considered cost competive unless corn and petroleum prices stay at their now record levels. So it all hinges not on the technology but the commodity prices of petroleum and corn.

There are several real players pursuing cellulosic ethanol right now in Oregon. The most prominent being Pacific Ethanol which will be running a demonstration of cellulosic ethanol at it's Port of Morrow, Oregon plant this summer. Also worth mentioning is Trillium Fiber Fuels out of Corvallis, Oregon which promises the ability to build a commercial scale plant given the right market conditions (they've demonstrated now that they need the right conditions to own their technology while going commericial scale).

Also worth mentioning is the fact that the paper industry and cellulosic ethanol have many of the same technologies in common. The technology to strip the lignen from the cellulosic fiber is used currently by the paper industry. In fact they manufacture methanol in biodigesters and burn it as a cheap energy product called black liquor. Cellulosic ethanol just requires more efficient yields than current paper pulping which isn't making ethanol but instead the cellulosic fiber itself.

We have industrial infrastructure to handle the technical process, experienced engineers, the distributors of enzymes and bugs, not to mention a world class amount of woody material and agricultural producers to contribute to this industry. Oh yeah - did I mention the highest retail gasoline prices in the US combined with a 10% ethanol mandate year round. Oregon is prime for cellulose sooner rather than later. I would say 10 years only if oil drops back below $60 a barrel.

Le Mans Will Have Cellulosic Ethanol Corvette

Sorry I've been busy this week. With Harvesting Clean Energy earlier this week and the National Biodiesel Board's conference starting this weekend I've had time getting posts up.

But a short one worth mentioning. The Le Mans series will showcase not only ethanol but cellulosic ethanol. Raising the profile of ethanol and the potential of cellulosic technologies further into view of the mainstream's awareness.

GM Responds to USA Today on E85

I was really surprised to see this. GM officially defending ethanol as an extension of their product line.

It looks like the engineers over at GM are looking differently at fuel. In fact on the GM website there is a blog post where a GM official representative points to Brazil as a model for potential ethanol availability.

GM came out in response to a USA Today report that E85 was inferior to all other motor fuels including gasoline. As reported in USA Today:

Graham's team calculated the individual and societal costs and benefits of conventional gasoline vehicles, gasoline-electric hybrids, high-tech diesels and flex-fuel vehicles burning E85 full time. Conclusion: Unless gasoline prices, averaging $3.10 a gallon now, rise above $4 and average $3.50 or more the next few years, or ethanol prices drop a lot, diesel's the best overall solution; E85's the worst.

On Firday, GM stood by the premise of ethanol as a viable substitute/blend-stock to petroleum gasoline. What excites me is the fact that GM is siding behind ethanol as a long term fuel. This is the first I have ever seen a major manufacturer actual come to defense of a biofuel beyond making PR laps whenever oil prices rise.

I saw it first at DomesticFuel.com and followed it over to GM's own page.

“We believe ethanol as a renewable fuel is the best near-term alternative to oil as a transportation fuel and replacing gasoline with ethanol positively contributes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions,” said GM Chief Economist Mustafa Mohatarem in the statement. “You cannot take a snapshot in time and define a mature market.”

This snapshot being a reference to where ethanol can go as a fuel technology. Where the "next generation" ethanol technologies will drive future energy prices (downward) and the performance of vehicle engines able to use the higher octane cleaner fuel (upward).

And again another excerpt from Reuters on the same subject:

"By 2012, it will be easier to say which GM vehicles are not E85-capable than to list which ones are FlexFuel," said Beth Lowery, GM vice president of Environment, Energy and Safety Policy. "And we are just as committed to helping build the infrastructure for E85."

For more on GM's E85 Flex Fuel Vehcile support check out their official E85 website: Live Green Go Yellow.

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.

Biomass to Hydrogen

Is it me or has this been the week of hydrogen crossing over into biofuels? The USDA must be doing a good job of finding well developed science and unleashing it on new biofuel and biomass efforts..

Here is another one: Microbes plus sugar equals hydrogen...

Using the collection's database information, the team is searching for microbes that "eat" biomass sugars (e.g., glucose and xylose from corn stover) and are electrochemically active. That means they can transfer electrons from fuel cell sugars without help from costly chemicals called mediators. The electrons, after traveling a circuit, combine with protons in a cathode chamber, forming hydrogen, which can be burned or converted into electricity.

One thing not mentioned that would make this really sexy to the 'out-side-the-box' set. Cellulosic hydrogen. For energy geeks that would be the ten year old boy equivalent of ninjas fighting robots over stolen magic pirate treasure.

Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States

From the OEC's Biofuels Listserve (forwarded Message)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hagerbaumer" Oregon Environmental Council
To: <biofuels4oregon@lists.onenw.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: [biofuels4oregon] Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the
United States

I'm passing along a link to a report recently released by the Earth & Life Studies at the National Academies: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12039

Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States

National interests in greater energy independence, concurrent with favorable market forces, have driven increased production of corn-based ethanol in the United States and research into the next generation of biofuels.

The trend is changing the national agricultural landscape and has raised concerns about potential impacts on the nation's water resources. To help illuminate these issues, the National Research Council held a colloquium on July 12, 2007 in Washington, DC. This report, based in part on discussions at the colloquium, concludes that if projected future increases in use of corn for ethanol production do occur, the increase in harm to water quality could be considerable from the increases in fertilizer use, pesticide use, and soil erosion associated with growing crops such as corn. Water supply problems could also develop, both from the water needed to grow biofuels crops and water used at ethanol processing plants, especially in regions where water supplies are already overdrawn.

The production of "cellulosic ethanol," derived from fibrous material such as wheat straw, native
grasses, and forest trimmings is expected to have less water quality impact but cannot yet be produced on a commerical scale. To move toward a goal of reducing water impacts of biofuels, a policy bridge will likely be needed to encourage growth of new technologies, best agricultural practies, and the development of traditional and cellulosic crops that require less water and fertilizer and are optimized for fuel production.

Switch Grass News Done Right

Wired Magazine does Switchgrass this month. They explain the whole potential and pitfall of cellulosic ethanol in three paragraphs shown below:

On a blackboard, it looks so simple: Take a plant and extract the cellulose. Add some enzymes and convert the cellulose molecules into sugars. Ferment the sugar into alcohol. Then distill the alcohol into fuel. One, two, three, four — and we're powering our cars with lawn cuttings, wood chips, and prairie grasses instead of Middle East oil.

Unfortunately, passing chemistry class doesn't mean acing economics. Scientists have long known how to turn trees into ethanol, but doing it profitably is another matter. We can run our cars on lawn cuttings today; we just can't do it at a price people are willing to pay.

The problem is cellulose. Found in plant cell walls, it's the most abundant naturally occurring organic molecule on the planet, a potentially limitless source of energy. But it's a tough molecule to break down.

As always with Wired. Its worth the read. As far as a primer on cellulosic ethanol goes you'll be hard pressed to find a source that does it as well.

Behold! The Concept of Cellulosic Tofu

I had a conversation a week ago that popped into memory today.

ICM is a company doing some pretty interesting reasearch around cellulosic and next generation ethanol processes. As their website says, they are "dedicated to sustaining agriculture on innovation."

To this end one of their business development guys, Alan Goodnight, mentioned something profound in passing (I don't know Alan he just gave me his card after the conversation). ICM's research on cellulosic ethanol is focusing on extracting protein as well as ethanol from biomass crops like switchgrass.

He mentioned that agriculture world wide is carbohydrate rich and protein poor. Finding an inexpensive and plentiful protein source is as valuable, if not more valuable, than cellulosic ethanol.

Just a unique mention I hadn't heard before. Something to look for as other emerging cellulosic ethanol companies make their commercial scale push to exist in the post $80 crude barrel world we might be entering.