Last year when the Renewable Fuel Standard was established, the ethanol mandate was increased to 36 billion gallons per year. A big portion of that was to be cellulosic ethanol, but there had to be a demonstrated greenhouse gas reduction in order for cellulosic ethanol to qualify for the subsidy. The EPA was tasked with putting together rules to quantify the greenhouse gas reduction.
If you are like me, you see an immediate problem. The EPA is a governmental agency, and the executive branch of the government is pushing the mandate. There are a lot of people with a vested interest in seeing the EPA adopt generous accounting rules. In fact, in February of 2008 I wrote:
Who is going to evalaute the greenhouse gas reduction? You can’t even get scientists to agree on the parameters [boundaries of the analyses], how is anyone going to stack hands on this? It will become a hot political issue. When you can’t even get agreement on the energy balance, how on earth will you get agreement on the GHG reduction?
As I have argued before, current wet cellulosic ethanol technology requires copious amounts of fossil fuel. Thus, it is almost certain that there are presently no greenhouse gas savings that can legitimately be claimed on the basis of cellulosic ethanol production. Therefore, those who are wedded to the (wet) cellulosic model stand to see their dreams of generous subsdies dashed. So, it may not surprise you to hear that the jockeying has started. Gristmill has the story:
On Oct. 21, several academics and representatives from the biofuel industry sent a letter [PDF] to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson asking the agency to exclude accounting for these emissions from their rulemaking, calling the requirement “premature.”
The authors said that it is “of particular concern” to them that “the EPA appears to be relying heavily” on the February 2008 report that found that both corn- and switch-grass ethanol actually have higher net greenhouse gas emissions that conventional fuel sources. “It would be very unfortunate if a rush to judgment by the EPA would cast unwarranted doubt on the value of these low-carbon, 2nd generation biofuels,” they wrote.
Who were the people who sent the letter? A bunch of professors like Michigan State’s Bruce Dale – whose research (and government funding) are based on cellulosic ethanol – and a couple of companies with financial interests in cellulosic ethanol. In other words, people with a vested financial interest. Here Professor Dale is in 2007, testifying before the Senate Finance Committe that 1). We will be able to make cellulosic ethanol for $1.20 within 5 years; 2). We need more government funding; 3). I said the same thing in 2001; and 4). Oh, by the way I have been working on this for 30 years.
But another letter was sent from several environmental groups, and they seemed to have a different take on the matter:
“There is nothing ‘premature’ about Congress’s insistence that federally mandated, taxpayer-subsidized biofuels are environmentally beneficial,” they wrote. “The RFS has propped up the biofuel industry for three decades, on the untested assumption that biofuels are good for consumers and the environment. During that time, its proponents — including the authors of the October 21 letter — have failed to demonstrate that biofuels provide any such benefits.”
You know where I stand on this. If there are no greenhouse gas savings, subsidizing cellulosic ethanol is just subsidizing the fossil fuels that it took to make the cellulosic ethanol. As I have argued before, I think (true) cellulosic ethanol is dead in the long run. The only question for me is how much money we are willing to throw away before conceding that fact.
RR-Several months back, maybe even a year ago, you hinted you were involved in a cellulosic process that was promising. You went so far as to ask your loyal following to identify sources of biomass that could be obtained in great bulk. Did that process fizzle out?
Benny,
It is still progressing, just very slowly. I have several projects like that in the works. That one goes back the farthest in time, but is still quite promising. I have been asked not to write about it, which has been frustrating.
I could probably form a company to deal with some of the requests I get. I get an inquiry every week or so regarding some venture or another, and if I had the time (and the resources) I could do a lot more for alternative energy. But I am not really a business guy, or probably would have already formed a broad-based alternative energy company.
RR
“As I have argued before, current wet cellulosic ethanol technology requires copious amounts of fossil fuel.”
Ofcourse cellulosic ethanol doesn’t need fossil fuels, and the subsidies merely keep such legacy technology afloat.
Unfair analysis based on worst-case Subsidy Bubble Fascism technology models.
Cellulosic ethanol integrates nicely into an agricultural context; outside of this context is gasification and co-firing.
Cellulosic processing for it’s various fractions (fiber for paper, fuel, food) as a middle cycle for co-generation topping cycles (we need to build more power plants anyhoo to avoid End Game) and low-temperature bottoming cycles (district heating, greenhouse agriculture etc) can easily be designed to be strongly profitable on all measures of value.
Mr. Rapier, why insist that the corrupt status quo is an honest example of where Green Technology is at? Any discussion which treats seriously the idea of a Manhattan Project scale reordering of our economy (Replacement of Oil) surely could entertain the idea of many other modifications other than just subsidized Big Business-As-Usual-With-A-Twist.
ps Feed the cellulose to cows. They can ferment it much easier than our yeast bioreactors can. Then gasify the manure.
Btw Robert,
Have you every done a mass + energy flow analysis of an ethanol plant which actually recycles it’s energy and exports it’s waste to a system which would have used it anyways?
For example, a small scale corn biofuel distillery:
1) Uses waste heat from generator to cook and distill. Most energy from cooking is used for distilling.
2) Heat not recycled goes to bottoming cycle like domestic hot water, space heating and localization of aquaculture. Ethanol helps saves the oceans as well.
3) Carbon dioxide is photosynthesized daily into algae so zero loss of food value from 1/3rd of corn biomass.
RE: Net energy debates vs GHG debates. You are spot on with that ‘historic’ remark and I’d hope you’d spend some time early in the Age of Obama helping to debunk some of the Urban Myths his Illinois corn growing / ethanol distilling crew have created. Sadly, the politics of the Dept of Energy and Dept of Ag have not served the citizens well, and those groups similarly distort the facts. I am not quite as skeptical as you regarding possible future benefits of cellulosic, but it’s clear that it is still way overhyped and is years away from being commercially viable and making any meaningful contribution to energy security.
In my mind too many university researchers like Dr. Dale use their academic credentials to hide their own financial interests. Besides the DoE / USDA funding that Dr. Dale receives, he also holds a number of patents on cellulosic technologies which presumably might also benefit him substantially.
An equally scary note is Vinod Khosla’s recent letter to Science that tackles this same issue (i.e., uncertainties of indirect land use change etc.) http://tinyurl.com/5bbvrx Setting aside why Science would publish a letter from a venture capitalist with no scientific credentials, his (immense) financial investment in the topic is only noted in a footnote – the last one of 9!
Finally, if you want to get steamed about silly claims Dr. Dale makes, see his March 2008 ‘myths’ article http://tinyurl.com/5nf2z4 where he shows how using ethanol gets us 810 miles driven per gallon of oil used!! I can’t believe his colleagues in ChemEng at MSU let this kind of distortion stand. Hopefully he won’t be in the White House advising Obama like he did with Bush.
oxymaven, you’re an incompetent fraud. Go peddle your doomerism somewhere else. Oh wait, sorry, you’re welcome here.
Mr. Rapier, why insist that the corrupt status quo is an honest example of where Green Technology is at?
Isn’t that the definition of status quo? That is where things are at. Could they be somewhere else? Yes, but they aren’t going to get there unless we make some policy changes. If we give the wet cellulosic guys a free pass on the GHG rules, we simply reinforce the status quo.
You may know that I favor higher carbon taxes. Processes that rely on fossil fuels to produce alternative energy would then be penalized.
RR
Have you every done a mass + energy flow analysis of an ethanol plant which actually recycles it’s energy and exports it’s waste to a system which would have used it anyways?
Google my posts on E3 Biofuels. They were trying to adopt a more sustainable model, but it ultimately bankrupted them.
I have also written a lot on sugarcane ethanol, which is the sort of model you mention above.
RR
Mr. Mcfee, if you wish to try again and cut out the personal attacks and profanity, I would be happy to engage. There aren’t too many rules here, but personal attacks, excessive profanity, advertising, and blatant misrepresentations are deleted.
RR
“Google my posts on E3 Biofuels. They were trying to adopt a more sustainable model, but it ultimately bankrupted them.”
That’s not true. Not at all.
The combined cycle with manure and stillage to methane had not a damn thing to do with their economics. I remember you claiming some goofy idea that ethanol plants don’t change their ways of doing things in 20 years. Not only where you wrong on the very idea of biofuel plants changing their SOURCE OF ENERGY (it’s just a damn pipe) and where they send their WASTE but you were wrong on how SIGNIFICANT this market is.
There is only a mere 10% by energy, if that, now produced in ethanol auto fuel plants. You claim the next “potential” 90% MUST use the model used NOW. WOW.
“I have also written a lot on sugarcane ethanol, which is the sort of model you mention above.”
Give me a break. More plantation niggerism.
ps Next time you plug sugarcane into your spreadsheets make sure you factor in the multi-year growing season when computing per acre yield. Kinda messes up the numbers.
Oh yeah, and all the slave-wages paid to physical labor to make a fuel for machinery.
Don’t bother Robbie.
I’ll post it to 4chan. Anon likes to learn.
anon codeword: sickpuppyvomit
The combined cycle with manure and stillage to methane had not a damn thing to do with their economics.
Are you daft? Their capital costs were much higher than a conventional ethanol plant. That has quite a bit to do with their economics (and I have their economic model, by the way). Their technology was also unproven, and they had technical problems trying to prove it. But I was completely in favor of their approach, and my articles on them reflect that I was supportive.
I remember you claiming some goofy idea that ethanol plants don’t change their ways of doing things in 20 years.
I claimed no such thing. I am going to have to ask you to provide quotes and links. You are saying quite a bit that doesn’t reflect my positions.
Next time you plug sugarcane into your spreadsheets make sure you factor in the multi-year growing season when computing per acre yield. Kinda messes up the numbers.
Again, no idea what you are talking about. How about some actual quotes/references?
RR
Greetings Robert
First thank you for the web site and blogging, nice to have people applying science and logic to solve problems.
How does one email you information directly?
Best Wishes
Shaun
Hi Shaun,
My e-mail address is linked to in my CV. I keep it there as it keeps the spam bots more at bay than if I had it on the first page (which was the case previously).
RR
If you can parse that gibberish from mudkips, please translate. I can’t understand 60% of what is being said.
ROBERT–
wow! did something occur of which i’m unaware? from whence did all this venom come?
i too am anxious for response to question raise by mr. B. Cole. thanks to him for reminder.
fran
Fran, I have had a few people show up recently with only a very vague understanding of a problem and then start to curse and berate me over their misunderstandings. You should have seen some of the stuff I deleted.
I have also had a mentally unstable individual show back up after he has been banned from every board he ever posted on. I have deleted several posts from him today that were nothing more than bitter rants. I think it gives his life meaning to be able to post his rants (he is striking a blow for ‘Mother Earth’ as he posts his rants from his coal-powered computer), but I can delete them far faster than he can write them.
RR
GreenieMcMeanie wrote:
ps Feed the cellulose to cows. They can ferment it much easier than our yeast bioreactors can. Then gasify the manure.
We did a study of this at UVM (not published, but one could do it on back of envelope using common sense). To create energy feeding biomass to cows/cattle and then gasifying their manure is capital intensive and requires ALOT of manure within close proximity, due to transport costs. But even were these feasible at a small profit, if energy is what we are after, better to just make the cows themselves into biofuel. And the grass as well. MUCH higher energy return, but we lose milk as a coproduct.