Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Breaking Ground on Cellulosic Ethanol

Commercial-scale plants are being built, but the fuel could still be too expensive to compete with corn ethanol.

By Kevin Bullis

Thursday, November 15, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Range Fuels, a startup based in Broomfield, CO, has broken ground on what could be the first plant to make commercial-scale quantities of ethanol from cellulosic biomass. But the news isn't necessarily a signal that ethanol from wood chips and grass is ready to compete with ethanol from corn grain. Commercially viable cellulosic ethanol may still be many years away.

Fuel chips: Range Fuels, based in Broomfield, CO, has developed a method for converting wood chips into ethanol.
Credit: Technology Review

The Range Fuels plant, to be located in southeast Georgia, could be producing ethanol as soon as next year. It's being funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the agency's effort to increase the use of biofuels. The DOE is providing a total of $76 million to the company for the construction of its new plant. At first, it will produce 20 million gallons, eventually increasing that amount to 100 million.

Almost all of the more than five billion gallons of ethanol produced in the United States has been made from cornstarch. But ethanol from cellulosic sources is an attractive alternative because it could potentially require less fossil-fuel energy to produce, and its supplies of biomass are vast. Indeed, if biofuels are ever to displace more than about 10 percent of gasoline in the United States, cellulosic ethanol will be essential. But making ethanol from cellulosic biomass is much more difficult than making it from cornstarch. And the process for converting biomass into biofuels has not been economically viable.

However, Range Fuels CEO Mitch Mandich says that the company can produce ethanol at prices competitive with corn-based ethanol--even factoring in the high capital costs associated with building a cellulosic-biofuel plant. Range Fuels has developed a two-step thermochemical process for converting wood chips and other types of biomass into a combination of alcohols that include ethanol, methanol, propanol, and butanol. In the first step, called gasification, heat, pressure, and steam convert biomass into a mixture of primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This gas mixture, called syngas, is then exposed to catalysts that convert it into alcohols. The process is similar to the Fischer-Tropsch process that has been used for decades to convert coal into liquid fuels.

Story continues below

Mandich says that a combination of a new, proprietary catalyst and improvements in the design and engineering of the plant can make the process economical. Also, the company is locating the plant close to supplies of wood chips, minimizing the transportation costs associated with bulky biomass. In addition, the company plans to blend the ethanol with gasoline and sell it locally to drivers, reducing the costs of shipping the biofuel.

But since the company is depending heavily on funding from the federal government to build the first plant, it is difficult to gauge whether its process is actually commercially viable. Earlier this year, the DOE announced funding for six cellulosic-ethanol plants. The first installment of Range Fuels' award will be $50 million to build a 20-million-gallon-a-year plant. Mandich declines to give estimates on the total cost of the plant. But the typical cost of corn-ethanol plants is about $2 per gallon of capacity, or $40 million for a 20-million-gallon plant. Even if the cost of Range Fuels' plant is twice as much as that of a conventional plant, or $80 million, the DOE is providing the lion's share of the investment--money that Mandich says is "very important" to the success of Range Fuels. Such a heavy dependence on government financing, rather than on private investors, could suggest that commercially viable cellulosic ethanol remains a good way off.

Comments

  • Substrates
    We have large acres along the Gulf that can grow sugarcane.  This plant requires less nutrition, pesticides, water, etc. and has high levels of sugar that should be easy to ferment and distill.
    Why chase corn, switch grass, wood without trying out sugarcane?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    orsos
    11/15/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: Substrates
      Grow sugarcane?  If we started doing that, then we would have to further justify the high tariffs on Brazil's ethanol, which is derived from sugarcane.

      Another question is: Why produce ethanol at all?  Why not butanol?

      Answer: It's all about the money.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      bkshilo
      11/15/2007
      Posts:18
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Ethanol Problems
    $92 BILLION is the IIED estimate that we taxpayers will subsidize ethanol production from 2006-2012.  Ethanol is CORROSIVE to metals, rubber, plastics, and fiberglass because it is a solvent and absorbs water. New studies show ethanol is increasing some health problems.  Ethanol additives are destroying many of the older gas powered equipment running on it, and even some new equipment isn't being built to withstand ethanol.  Motor manufacturers have severe biofuel additive limits on their warranties.
    Scientists at Cornell University say making the fuel uses more energy than it creates, while the National Research Council warns ethanol production threatens scarce water supplies.
    Stanford University researchers say ethanol, originally added to gasoline in the 1970s to reduce tailpipe emissions, does nothing to improve the environment. "It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it actually gives off," says David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor who has studied production of the fuel for two decades."  Take out the 51-cents-a-gallon federal subsidy, and the true cost of U.S.-produced ethanol is equivalent to paying $6 a gallon for the same energy as gasoline, calculates Michael B. McElroy, Harvard professor of environmental studies.
    Propanol is superior to ethanol but still cost prohibitive, and though I have several logging slash piles I would love to see turned into fuel, I doubt logistically it will ever happen.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    RD
    11/21/2007
    Posts:112
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Ethanol Problems
      The study by David Pimental has been debunked by other studies by researchers at USDA and Argonne National Labs. Please refer to: The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update_July 2002 (http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf). The study by Pimental relies on old data and lot of assumptions which haven't been backed up such as energy required to manufacture farm machinery, where  no data is provided how energy embodied in farm machinery is calculated. Also, study by Pimental assumes low productivity and high fertilizer use as compared to the current widely accepted data available. I suggest you refer to other studies when discussing Net Energy value of Ethanol. Even in the worst case, which is Ethanol from Corn, the Net Energy value is positive and use of fossil fuels in Ethanol (corn) is less than Gasoline.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      salil
      12/14/2007
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • Do not forget C.E. subsidies
    In addition to the DOE building the plants, the U.S. also subsidizes cellulosic ethanol at 2.5 times the rate of corn ethanol. That amounts to $1.28/gallon. When you have everything already paid for, of course it pays to put up a plant. To those who say that the EROEI of cellulosic ethanol is substantial, you need to look into the wording and assumptions of those estimates. Often they base their numbers only on "nonrenewable" energy. That makes no sense, portraying renewable energy as something that can be wasted all we like. Pimental was wrong in some areas, but the government estimates are also wrong. The EROEI is bad, and it gets worse as time goes by and biomass must be collected further from the plant.

    BTW, there's a very good way to use wood chips for energy that doesn't require a lot of money or excessive energy: burn it for electricity. It's been the largest source of renewable energy for several years now. But the government skews the economics so badly by being so determined to push an agenda, the handouts cloud better judgement.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    MakeSense
    04/17/2008
    Posts:93
    Avg Rating:
    3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Laser-Triggered Chemical Reactions
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.