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.

Fisker Auto's $88,000 Plug-In Hybrid and my own random thoughts.

NOTE: The following post goes all over the place without a specific logic to it other than my coffee induced curiosity and the ability of Google to serve up info.

I noticed in the SIJ website this morning an update about the massive fund raising success of Fisker Auto in its pathway to market for a plug-in electric hybrid vehicle.  The price tag hit me though at $88,000.  Then I thought back to a few books I read about the invention of the auto industry and the early cost of utility vehicles such as the Curved Dash Olds and Model T.    

So I ran it through an inflation calculator (don't ask why I just did).  In 1908 the year the Model T came out that would have been $3,584.  Not comparably cheap even by early adopter status.

The Curved Dash Olds first sold for $650 in 1901.  According to Tom's Inflation Calculator a 1913 Olds selling for $650 would adjust to a $18,895 price tag.  Being the low end no frills electric vehicles with no options or safety go for way below this the industry ain't doing to bad.

The Model T first sold for $825 in 1908 and ultimately after decades of engineering excellence by the Ford Motor Company sold at it's lowest as $260 by 1924.  To adjust that get's fun for one reason.  In 1908 the 2010 value of a Model T was $20,253 which is what a reasonably equipped sedan goes for today.  By 1924 you could buy a more reliable and improved Model T for $3,257!  

Anyone else see a trend similar to computing power and gasoline power train?  That drop in true cost of a vehicle really blew me away.  Now lets hope that EV's take a similar pathway in innovation on a far accelerated timeline.

Side note.

The 1901 Curved Dash Olds was the first mass produced cheaper automobile.  The pioneering horseless carriage. Its original success beyond hobbyists was its ability to speed up the day for a travelling professional who would not have to worry about a horse.  For doctors and lawyers traveling within 30 miles of their home this hugely improved their productivity more than paying for itself as an investment.

I don't have proof of it handy.  But while reading one of the better histories of the auto industry they related the cost of a vehicle to the median income in the US at the time.  That would place a curved dash at the time it was introduced to being the equivalent of $70,000 today.

It wasn't till 1908 that Henry Ford introduced the Model T and began to focus on ever improved and lower cost vehicles (and of course we saw how cheap he got).  

The history of the early auto industry was of visionary engineers and entrepreneur wanting to mass produce cheap vehicles and the bankers, investors, and managers around the industry who demand high end high margin pleasure vehicles (because why would anyone want a vehicle for utility purposes?). In fact the amazing early history of Chevrolet and the founder of GM Billy Durant is one of lower mass markets versus higher end markets.  Billy Durant literally swindled his company back from a group of bankers by setting up Chevrolet and trading its stock on the open market for GM stock till he had 51% of the shares back.  

 Special note of personal perspective.  The Oldsmobile ushered in the modern auto industry of the world at the dawn of the 20th century.  It also exited business as an auto brand at the dawn of the 21st century.  There is a bookend story to be had here if I ever put it together.

Zip-Car for Bicycles

Here is a cool concept that even the 'nu-uh' scrooge in me loves.

I saw it at Fastcompany.com and think its a great pay it's own way service.

B-Cycle is a large scale bicycle sharing program that just took off in Colorado.  This would work really good in the Metro area around Portland.  Especially if they had the check out stations at trail heads.  For over ten years I've been meaning to buy a better bicycle and never get around to investing the real money it takes.  I would jump on this and I know I'm not alone.

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.

The best simple description of Oil Sands Development I've seen.

Today I got a call from Energy Today Magazine about our business. In checking into their online addition I came across a few good articles. One in particular goes in depth to the process of capturing and developing oil sands in Alberta, Canada.

An excerpt from Cooperation Needed by Brent Sangster:

The mining and extraction process made a dramatic technological leap in the 1980s when it converted from dragline and bucket wheels to hydraulic and electric shovels that load the raw material (e.g., sand, clay, bitumen) on to massive trucks that today have a capacity of 400 tons.

These trucks transport the material to a crusher, where it is slurried with water before being transported via pipeline to an extraction plant. New technology is being tested here to move the crushing and slurrying operations right to the mine face, eliminating trucks or at least significantly reducing hauling distances.At the extraction plant, the bitumen is isolated from the water, sand, and clay (known as tailings), which are pumped into large containment ponds for settling and eventual reuse. Some unrecovered bitumen and naptha finds its way into these ponds as well.

Tailings ponds are designed to reclaim both the water and the area itself as a natural habitat. But the silts in the mixture can take many years to settle, during which time nearby water sources must be safeguarded from contamination and the ponds must be monitored to ensure wildlife is not exposed.

Technological issues here focus on ways to increase the speed of silt settling, such as using chemical thickeners or centrifuges to separate the silt from the water. Other needed advancements include technologies to remove the residual bitumen, recover valuable minerals such as zircon, and polish the water for re-use.

Just something I thought might be worth finding again.

What is Fischer-Tropsch?

I had time to browse around for white papers on Google. I came across one with a really succinct description of Fischer-Tropsch. I thought it might be worth capturing for future reference.

Thanks to a group focusing on "Improved Fischer-Tropsch Economics Enabled
by Microchannel Technology"


Fischer-Tropsch Process and Products

The FT process was first developed by Franz Fischer and Hanz Tropsch in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. The chemistry is based on making longer chain hydrocarbons from a mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), referred to as “synthesis gas”, at an elevated pressure and temperature and in the presence of a catalyst.

The excess heat generated from the reaction has typically been removed by inserting boiler tubes that carry water. In theory, any source of carbon can be used to generate the synthesis gas. The majority of the products from FT synthesis are paraffinic waxes based on the following chemical equation.


nCO + (2n+1)H2 → CnH2n+2 + H2O (1)

Typical byproducts are liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and naphtha. After the FT process, heavier hydrocarbons can be hydrocracked to produce distillate products, notably diesel and jet fuels.[

FT derived transportation fuels are typically referred to as synthetic fuels. During the 20th
century, these fuels were derived from coal in situations where petroleum was not readily available, such as Germany in WWII and South Africa during Apartheid.


The white paper of course goes on to describe why its relevant now. Regardless I love how simply this captured the subject. It is also worth note that the paper's focus on micro-channels ain't half bad neither. Oregon State University has some reasonable research going on around micro-channels and its supposed to have a huge potential. Though the promises of a micro-channel biodiesel technology never really materialized as promised five years ago (being it was five years out five years ago).

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.

Oregon Startup makes Biobased News

Diesel Brewing hits the biz wire.

I've never heard of this start up before but I'm intrigued. In particular butanol has a real promise to be used in biodiesel production as well as a gasoline blend stock. As it relates to biodiesel the butanol can be used as the alcohol in the transesterfication process.

Primarily methanol is the alcohol used. When butanol is used supposedly the gel point of the biodiesel drops significantly below 0 degrees.

Their formal website is http://www.dieselbrewing.com/

I neither endorse or am familiar with anyone associated with Diesel Brewing. I just saw the news and thought it interesting.

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!

Tesla Motors is on Track

It looks like it might really happen for Tesla Motors.

Wired Magazine's blog shows a teaser photo (shown above) and quotes the CEO Elon Musk as claiming that they are on track to be delivering vehicles shortly as well as providing electric power-trains for other auto manufacturers. This delivery of real, live, operating electric powered cars in turn making them profitable before the end of the year.

Looks like its either time for doubters to double down their negativity bets or start getting as excited as the rest of us.

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.

Oregon a Geothermal Power Wild West

Yeah I know. The title is a little bigger than the real article linked below. Either way I like using "Wild West" any time I can.

I am not as familiar with Geothermal power as I would like. Regardless its kind of outside the main buzz and gossip circles for biofuels, wind and solar power here in Oregon. I've never met a single person developing or involved in any way with a geothermal project. Though again and again I here from other sources (such as the Oregonian the most blunt of industry reporters) that Oregon is poised to be a player in geothermal projects.

Over the weekend I cam across an interesting Oregonian article from back in April. It just kind of popped up while I was looking from an article I had just read in the print edition. Thought I would share it. The best portion is a simple description of what geothermal power really is:

Modern geothermal power plants are more efficient than past versions. They draw hot water from the ground, using it to heat another fluid -- often isopentane -- that turns to vapor at a lower temperature than water. The isopentane vapor drives a turbine, which spins a generator to produce power. Afterward, the isopentane cools and condenses back into liquid form so it can go through the heating cycle again. The water, meanwhile, is reinjected into the ground to be reheated again.

Unfortunately the article does not talk about the specifics of what makes geothermal profitable. What the scale required would be. And of course other types of harnessed uses. My old trusty Wikipedia on the other hand has a little bit more and a few promising links. But no real discussion of cost of production and the capital cost of building a plant.

The Future of Algea - Off-Take Production

The future of algae is finding someone willing to pay you to play with it.

I've talked to dozens of start-up entrepreneurs with dreams of phytoplankton business. All these business models with the hopes of developing a new crude oil for the next century. The "crude dreams" of oil production from an endless uber-productive super-algae that would feed the humanity protein as well as feed our insatiable vehicles carbohydrates distilled into ethanol and fats reacted into biodiesel.

The big issue though. How do you pay for the capital cost of a algae bio-reactor? The device that will take water, light, CO2 and make the bugs into an industrial input. Will angels and VC pay for the magical devices that will make algal goo. This goo in turn being cut, distilled, processed, reacted and made into the endless variety of products that we currently source from petroleum.

Deep pockets in this market though are tough to come by. What is now looking apparent is the need for someone already paying to deal with algea. A current cost stream begging for a better solution.

One such industry is commercial fish farms. To that end I came across a recent article that caught my eye. Though this is not a unique idea its still one to watch. What makes it innovative is the fact that the technology might actually work. In the word of biofuels technical talk is cheap and demonstration is worth millions in Federal funding.

From an article from Greenbang.com:

Under PetroSun’s BioFuels Aquaculture Lease Programme, participating farm operators would receive a rent incentive and monthly royalties in return for access to their pond algae. In future, farmers could also gain additional benefits from a carbon credit program, the company said.

PetroSun (a leader in algae technology in the US) has announced what I would call an interesting and very viable business model. To co-locate with fish farms that have an algae maintenance concern. Instead of these farms paying the internal cost to deal with algal growth they will get a return for partnering with PetroSun to create value from the biological reality association with commercial aquaculture.

The Pickens Plan on 60 Minutes

"We are at war with no guns with energy."
- T. Boones Pickens

Share/Embed

I saw the 60 Minute piece online. It is interesting and bold. The big new idea I'm hearing is a Federal push to build an energy infrastructure much like the major Freeway projects of the 50's. A modern new backbone for wind and solar power to plug these resources into.

By pushing for wind power and new grid infrastructure to plug into this would free up the necessary natural gas for on-road vehicles and freight mobility. I'm hopeful and like the conversation this is spurring.

Gizmodo Solar Posts Worth Reading

I bounced over to Gizmodo and saw some interesting mentions.

The above is an apparatus that stores solar power into a fuel cell system. It would allow a more efficient storage sink for power than your standard inefficient battery. This idea is not a new one but being it looks like a marketable product moving to production. That being actually being worth mention as a new twist (an elegant idea making it to market).

Tranluscent solar panel windows. The above isn't the most cost effective technology today but the concept has been talked about for as long as I've been aware of solar panels. So prior to my ability to type this ideas been floated around as the future of solar. Cool to see in reality. I'm sure their are installs off the grid where this makes perfect sense though.

Biogas - The Biggest Biofuel You've Never Heard About

I came across yet another story about gasification of garbage for electricity. It seems like these stories are multiplying in direct proportion with the falling US dollar and rising commodity prices.

It's funny. These days as diesel is predicted to move to over $6 and $200 a barrel crude is considered in many circles to be a safe bet not a speculation there is some real change in the market place. Here is the perfect storm that green-policy wonks have dreamed of and techno-futurist investors have bet on and the market is bouncing a little off the mark predicted.

What is fascinating is that in this world of higher prices we aren't seeing the biofuel media darlings (both loved and hated dependent on the story) ethanol and biodiesel. These two fuel plugging along with state leve RFS's, a Federal RFS, and a few voluntary adopters in the marketplace. But their roles seem defined by the mandatory blend policies.

The real technology move I'm seeing more and more of is biogas and syngas. At conferences, in press releases, and in passing conversation the new-new-thing seems to be bending compost heaps and exhaust gases to the wills of breakthrough technologies.

Taking several forms of technology I see this being the real paradigm shifting technology coming along. As agricultural operations of all sizes, utilities, and carbon off-set projects set their sights on these projects the technological applications, efficiency and proven return on these projects should put these in the mainstream of industry.

Of course mainstream in commercial applications puts this technology just outside the sexy-factor needed to get mentioned in political stump speeches. Either way, its exciting to see technologies like this come on strong.

For more on the subject check out Wikipedia's listings which are a good initial primer on the subject of what pops up under the energy slang word "Bio Gas":

Gasification
Syn Gas
Anaerobic Digestion

Major Automaker Listens to its Customers Wants. Toyota Rolls Out the Plug-In Hybrid

Hippies with six-figure incomes rejoice..... Your Christmas list has been written for you.

Shocking as it may be. Toyota is rolling out a plug-in hybrid. The retro-fits have long been popping around the Internet (Google having paid for retro-fits to show its viability). Well now its officially on its way.

Whats even better. Toyota is talking about the future with this vehicle. That future being a need to radically reduce the cost and ability of current lithium-ion batteries (see quote below).

"Reaching those goals will require bringing down the cost of lithium-ion batteries, which currently cost $1,000 per kilowatt hour, according to Tom Turrentine of the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research Center at UC-Davis."

Battery technology now entering the big-leagues when it comes to power-train Research and Development. This meaning that its official - the automobile's internal combustion engine is going through a totally new evolution.

See the full article at Wired.com

Renault announces Electric Vehicle destined for US Market

Saw it over at Wired.com. Renault, like many other auto manufacturers is rolling out an EV. According to the article destined for US markets within a few years. Renault jockeying for a global leadership position on the EV side of the auto manufacturing universe.

This is interesting to say the least. That auto manufacturers are developing innovative technologies as fuel prices rise. More so the fact that when you read about many of these technologies their is one over riding motivation. More market share in large consumer markets such as China or the US.

My Thoughts on Sustainability

Today on the Biofuels4Oregon listserve their has been a vigorous debate brewing about what constitutes sustainable biofuels. A good email on the subject came from Brent Searle from the Oregon Department of Agriculture which actually inspired me to contribute to the exchage. Below is Brent's thoughts and then my response.

BioFuels Network

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:54 PM
Subject: [biofuels4oregon] Sustainability>

Here is my list of Sustainability Objectives for any fuel, keeping in
mind the question of "Can We Have it All?" There is no perfect fuel; they all have trade-offs.

Does the fuel (biofuel or any other) contribute in a positive way to:

1. The development of systems to deliver feedstock at “economically sustainable” prices to all players in the value chain over time?
2. Developing the infrastructure and capacity to consistently deliver quality fuel products in a market over time?
3. Economic development of rural communities, job creation, and local ownership models -- in the US?
4. Helping meet local, national, and world food needs?
5. Keeping ag lands in ag use?
6. Reducing carbon output, increasing sequestration, etc.?
7. Improving returns on energy and other inputs?
8. Stabilizing fuel costs?
9. National security: minimize military role/cost?
10. Energy security: diversified & resilient fuel supply?
11. Generating and enhancing environmental benefits (air, water, soil quality, wildlife, etc.).

There is no silver bullet. It will take lots of different strategies, fuels and biofuels, efficiencies and conservation, transportation shipping mode changes (more barge/rail, less truck), etc., etc.

Brent Searle
OR Dept. of Agriculture

My Additional thoughts and response to Brent's email:

I would also add to that the concept of "Does the technology/fuel/energy in question have longer term development opportunity?" I.e. - does it offer an upside potential of a long stream of value added products from initial investments.

Biofuels have a huge future for other value added products out of the same biofuel manufacturing facility. As for petroleum, the future of petroleum will likely be hydrocracking (i.e. converting) cheaper non petroleum products to the same spec as petroleum.

Developing new agricultural products or feedstocks for both ethanol and biodiesel have a huge potential for this. The leaders in these newer industries will be outside traditional energy and therefore will provide a good deal of value outside of our traditional marketplace. This is exciting stuff and rarely covered if ever.

The real story behind petroleum isn't the versatility of the input (the crude oil). Its the focus the petroleum industry has put into developing value added products from the crude. The real story of biofuels is similar - not developing the mainstream product (ethanol or biodiesel) but instead other value added products with unique niche markets.

Being that to dump any part of petroleum is noticeable and polluting. Its been the case since the very beginning of the petroleum refining industry there has been good deal of money invested to develop something from every last drip of crude oil. The major oil companies grew up niching certain products from their refining process. Everyone knows the stories of refineries in the rust-belt dumping lighter end products in rivers, flaring off natural gas, and others. We hear these stories because people in these communities were upset even in 1925 long before the Clean Air and Water acts. The early success found a way to get paid for their "waste" as a product instead of a pollution.

There is no reason why Agriculture won't follow that same development pattern as petroleum refining technology. Up until recently the main focus of US agriculture has been food grade products. The upside of biofuels is the research money is on a much wider focus of product development.If we have a floor for production to move to that can handle a diverse number of crops. This is a whole new paradigm for the US. Sustainability to me is more products from more acres with less water, fertilizer, and energy input. Sustainability to me is this trend for the next 100 years.

Anything that moves towards this trend of newer, better, cleaner technology is progress. Those green washing the same old practices are not.

Today unsustainable agriculture is a ten cylinder 57 Chevy. Something you can be sentimental about but not a breakthrough in technology for the time it was produced. Compare this 57 Chevy to the gamble represented by the 2002 Prius scale up. The Toyota Prius was cutting edge experimental technology outside the box of any market expectation. Over the next decades hybrids will become as standard as anti-lock brakes and electric windows and therefore so will our fuel economy expectations.

That's sustainable progress and therefore Sustainability.

Mark Fitz

www.dieselgeek.blogspot.com/

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.”