Demo plant: Several cellulosic biofuel demonstration plants have been built, including one in Madison, PA (shown here). But no commercial plants are up and running.
Coskata
Startups say reduced mandates for oil companies make it difficult to finance biorefineries.
The already dismal outlook for cellulosic biofuels--a type of fuel made from sources such as grass and wood chips--just got worse. For the second year in a row, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will drastically cut the amount of cellulosic biofuels that oil companies are required to blend into their fuel stocks under its Renewable Fuels Standard. This year's mandate was supposed to be 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels, but that was reduced to 6.5 million. Last month, the EPA announced that it would lower the requirement in 2011, from 250 million to somewhere between five million and 17.1 million gallons.
The EPA is doing this because not enough cellulosic biofuel is being produced to meet the targets. So far, no commercial plants have been built--just some small pilot and demonstration-scale plants.
The market for cellulosic biofuels seemed assured after Congress passed the Renewable Fuels Standard in 2007, which by 2022 would require 16 billion gallons of these fuels every year. It required gasoline and diesel companies to blend biofuels made from cellulosic materials into their supplies. Now the companies hoping to provide cellulosic biofuels to the oil industry are struggling, and they are years behind schedule, having failed to collect the financing needed to build large commercial biorefineries.
Several leaders in the cellulosic biofuels industry argue that the technology is ready--it's just that the recession has severely limited the amount of financing available, and the funds that are available for clean energy are largely going to solar and wind projects, which are getting more direct government support. The mandates could provide vital help, they argue, by encouraging oil companies to give their backing to cellulosic biofuel.
"There are production facilities that are queued up to be built, but they're getting hung up by the capital markets and the bankers," says John McCarthy, CEO of the cellulosic ethanol startup Qteros, based in Marlborough, MA. Maintaining the original levels of the mandates would help open up financing, and lowering them "has taken the legs out from under that required demand," he says. "Unless the EPA and the White House hold firm on the level of mandated demand, then you might as well not have a Renewable Fuels Standard."
According to the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO), at least a dozen commercial cellulosic biofuel projects are ready to be built, pending financing, that together could supply a couple hundred million gallons of fuel. Commercial plants are expected to cost between $100 million, for a plant added to an existing corn ethanol facility, to as much as $600 million, including financing costs, for a completely new facility.
Several cellulosic biofuel industry leaders are calling on Congress to change a law that directed EPA to lower the mandates to match cellulosic ethanol supplies. Under their scenario, if the mandate were to exceed the amount of cellulosic fuel produced, so that oil companies could not buy enough to satisfy the requirement, they would be penalized. "If the EPA chose not to waive those gallons, the oil companies would have to pay a per-gallon penalty" for the amount that they could not blend, says Matthew Carr, a policy director at BIO.
Agradis wants to use genomics to develop plants that could yield more material for biofuels.
New legislation might slow green technology investment, but other laws could help pick up the slack.
What's happened to this country? Is this really the same country that put a man on the moon? I'm honestly beginning to believe the conspiracy theorists that say it never happened.
Here we are, global warming confirmed, living through the worst man made environmental catastrophe this county has ever seen, and we can't seem to get an industry up an running that could help solve both these issues?
I am sick to death of hearing people say biofuels are dumb and we should be doing this instead or we should be doing that instead. Wake up call people! If we can't get biofuels off the ground, never in a million years will we do any of these other "better alternatives".
I own a flex fuel vehicle...you know, the kind car companies can build for little or no extra cost and whose engines DO NOT CORODE from using ethanol. And frankly I'm astounded at the number of flex fuel vehicles the big three car companies are producing. So there is a market. Right now I can get E-85 ethanol for $2.22/gallon. Regular unleaded gas is selling here for $2.85/gallon. Even with the lower MPG of ethanol (I know…another show stopper) the price difference still favors ethanol. Even though, as was recently reported, fossil fuels receive 12 times more subsidies than renewables, it is still cheaper RIGHT NOW to buy E-85 for your car than gasoline. Imagine what the price spread would be if the cellulosic ethanol industry took off!
But no. Let's look a gift horse in the mouth. Let’s continue to subsidize big oil...an industry that can apparently afford to keep trashing our planet without so much as batting an eye. Let’s continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere until our children and grandchildren think snow and ice is merely a myth. Let's continue to do nothing on the alternative fuels front until we can come up with some sort of biofuel nirvana that we can all miraculously agree on. Let's continue to flush this country down the toilet.
What infuriating is that we had the chance to flush a lot of politicians out of the system that are so entrenched with Big Oil Money that there will never be enough momentum to shift to alternatives. Mind you - both parties are caught up in the act of supporting petroleum.
November is coming....time to flush ALL the turds once and for all ...otherwise we'll have to wait till 2016.
"I am sick to death of hearing people say biofuels are dumb and we should be doing this instead or we should be doing that instead."
That's deep. So, you're saying we should be doing this instead of that blah blah blah?
"...it is still cheaper RIGHT NOW to buy E-85 for your car than gasoline."
No it isn't. And you forgot the $0.45 per gallon blenders credit. And the price fluctuates. Sometimes it can be cheaper than gas and sometimes it can be mores expensive. Ethanol will not provide us with cheaper liquid fuel on average because oil (and its equivalent, ethanol) is fungible and ethanol will always tend toward price parity with it. The price rises and falls with the price of gas, and the price of corn.
"Even though, as was recently reported, fossil fuels receive 12 times more subsidies than renewables"
That report was just debunked in the New York Times, and several other places.
"Imagine what the price spread would be if the cellulosic ethanol industry took off!"
Cane ethanol already produces far more net energy per acre than even the most optimistic cellulosic ethanol estimates. Note that it has not "taken off."
There were cellulosic ethanol refineries back in the forties. These guys are just trying to get rich off government handouts. Cellulosic is not just around the corner. You can't fund into existence a cure for cancer either.
"Let’s continue to subsidize big oil."
Lets not continue to subsidize either. Three independent enviro groups found that the subsidies to oil add about 10 to 15 cents to a gallon of gas, compared to corn ethanol's 45 cents.
Biofuels trash the planet even worse than oil on a gallon per gallon basis.
Biofuels also spew carbon into atmosphere.
In a nutshell, you are wanting to replace oil with something worse. What we need to do is replace it with something better.
My apologies for being too deep for you.
Yes, the amount of money I pay out of my pocket for ethanol is less than what I would pay for gasoline. This when gasoline is at $2.85 a gallon. When gas creeps back up to $4.00 a gallon the economics will be even more favorable. You can say it's because of this incentive or that subsidy but you know what...I don't really care! Prove to me that big oil is any less subsidized than ethanol.
Your idea of removing all subsidies is childish and simplistic. On the one hand you have an industry enjoying government subsidies while at the same time raking in tens of billions of dollars in profits. On the other you have a fledgling industry that's at the disadvantage of not having it's hand in the cookie jar for the past 50 years. That seems fair.
"That's deep. So, you're saying we should be doing this instead of that blah blah blah?"
What do you even mean by that? Read what I said, slowly this time. We have a several biofuel technologies ready to go commercial right now. And if you think biofuels aren't a better option when compared to oil then you need to lay off the crack pipe.
"Cane ethanol already produces far more net energy per acre than even the most optimistic cellulosic ethanol estimates. Note that it has not "taken off."
Could it be because we could never grow enough sugar cane here in our temperate US climate? And the fact that we slap a tariff on imported sugar cane ethanol? Check out Brazil...it's kinda a big deal there. Never mind the fact that there are companies ready to produce ethanol from input material other than cellulosic feed stock (see Coskata).
And do I really need to go over the CO2 cycle with you and the advantages biofuels have over oil in this regard? Really?
"Yes, the amount of money I pay out of my pocket for ethanol is less than what I would pay for gasoline."
No it isn't. And the price fluctuates. Sometimes it can be cheaper than gas and sometimes it can be more expensive. And the article is about cellulosic ethanol, not corn ethanol. From the NRDC:
"A Congressional Budget Office study found that the blending subsidy is costing taxpayers $1.78 at the pump to replace each gallon of gasoline with corn ethanol."
You say:
"When gas creeps back up to $4.00 a gallon the economics will be even more favorable."
No it won't. Ethanol will not provide us with cheaper liquid fuel on average because oil (and its equivalent, ethanol) is fungible and ethanol will always tend toward price parity with it. The price rises and falls with the price of gas, and the price of corn. The price of corn ethanol peaked along with the price of gas in 2008.
"Prove to me that big oil is any less subsidized than ethanol."
OK. Follow this link to the three environmental group studies:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/desiremore/biofuelmyths1.htm#bookmark14
and this one to the recent NYT article:
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/alls-not-fair-when-it-comes-to-energy-subsidies/?sort=highlights
"Your idea of removing all subsidies is childish and simplistic."
Your idea that the government can create an affordable new technology (cellulosic ethanol) by mandate is naive and uninformed. If that's all it takes, why haven't we cured cancer?
"On the other you have a fledgling industry that's at the disadvantage of not having it's hand in the cookie jar for the past 50 years. That seems fair."
The computer you are typing on didn't need government mandates and subsidies to displace its competitor, the mechanical typewriter. Corn ethanol has been heavily subsidized for over three decades now. We were making cellulosic ethanol in the forties.
"We have a several biofuel technologies ready to go commercial right now."
No we don't. Commercial viability can only be proven in a commercial market. If your biofuel is not currently making a profit right now, it has not been proven commercially viable.
"And if you think biofuels aren't a better option when compared to oil then you need to lay off the crack pipe."
Google Dunning-Kruger effect. What you don't know on this subject is stunning. Biofuel can be made out of just about any biomass. The impacts of a given biofuel depends on what you make it out of, like orangutan habitat or waste veggie oil. A blanket statement that all biofuels are better than oil is disingenuous.
"Could it be because we could never grow enough sugar cane here in our temperate US climate?"
Where it is grown is irrelevant. Your computer wasn't made here. The tariff is only to nullify the blending subsidy.
"Check out Brazil...it's kinda a big deal there."
Not as big as you have been led to believe:
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/06/01/lessons-from-brazil/
"And do I really need to go over the CO2 cycle with you and the advantages biofuels have over oil in this regard? Really?"
Because you are talking about e85 I assume you are talking about corn ethanol. Here, go educate yourself:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/slyutse/as_i_discussed_here_last.html
"At its worst, lifecycle GHG emissions from corn ethanol exceed those from gasoline in all three scenarios"
Greenies get a bit upset when you point out that their unicorns and talking ponies are not real, don't they?
Subsidies are suicidal economic insanity. They distort the world to make good choices look bad and bad choices look good... all with money STOLEN from productive uses.
You hit the nail on the head.
I'm not sure you figured out what nail you were hitting.
We've spent close to 3 trillion on mideast largely about oil wars:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/05/the_ministry_of_oil_defense
and hundreds of billions to defend shipping lanes to protect oil tankers around the world.
Re: Subsidies distort the economy
You are so right. Not to mention the thousands of lives lost.
Re: Subsidies distort the economy
Prove to us that the massive ramp up in corn ethanol production has decreased military spending.
In fact, evidence suggests that the ethanol blending subsidy, by artificially holding down prices at the pump, has increased gas use:
"...even though ethanol production soared in the Midwest by some 700%, demand for conventional gasoline in the Midwest remains within 5% of the all time high set in 2004. (True gasoline demand is somewhat higher, because I am not considering the gasoline contained in approximately 400,000 bbl/day of reformulated gasoline)."
Source: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/07/30/thoughts-on-an-ethanol-pipeline/
My family has reduced gasoline use 80% just by swapping out low gas mileage vehicles for high gas mileage ones. Swapping one liquid fuel for one grown on our precious cropland and wildlife habitat is not the answer.
What is a greenie?
Every major enviro organization is fighting corn ethanol subsidies.
President Bush was a huge corn and cellulosic ethanol fan.
Is he a greenie?
Reality, it be slippery.
Care to point to links refuting that fossil fuels are subsidized? The 1st link is to someone's homepage, and the 2nd is to a COMMENT on a BLOG at NYT (as in not NYT discrediting that they're subsidized). Interestingly, when I follow the links from the comment, it points to http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/research/kinds-subsidies-who-uses-them-and-how-big-they-are-0 - which again does not dispute the subsidy.
"Care to point to links refuting that fossil fuels are subsidized?"
That is what we call a strawman argument--claim your debate opponent said something you can easily refute. It's an obsolete debate technique in a comment field.
The technique works great on a stage when the audience can not remember what was said but it really backfires in an internet debate where readers can just wriggle their index finger over a mouse wheel to see if your debate opponent really said that or if you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
Go back and read my posts again. I never said fossil fuels are not subsidized.
"The 1st link is to someone's homepage"
It is not a homepage. It's a webpage that contains links to three studies by three different environmental organizations:
A Friends of the Earth study says oil is subsidized to the tune of $32.9 billion/262 = 13 cents per gallon.
A Greenpeace study says oil is subsidized to the tune of $35 billion/262 = 13 cents per gallon
An Earth Track study says oil is subsidized to the tune of $39 billion /262 =15 cents per gallon
"..and the 2nd is to a COMMENT on a BLOG at NYT (as in not NYT discrediting that they're subsidized)."
It was a link to "all of the highlighted comments" on Andrew Revkin's Dot Earth blog at the Times, and as I pointed out above, nobody said oil companies are not subsidized. The debate is how much and would the elimination of those subsidies impact biofuel development.
For the sake of argument lets assume that we pay for our military with a gasoline tax that puts the cost of a gallon of gas at $7, like they pay in Europe.
Note that Europe has been no more successful at creating affordable cellulosic than we have, even at those pump prices.
Links to credible sources backing up one's argument are much preferred over straw men, and hearsay.
I'm all for a biofuel that is not worse in the aggregate than oil. Cellulosic ethanol is shaping up to be another government sponsored dead end idea like corn ethanol.
Back when gas was $4.00 we shipped $250 Billion
out of the country to pay for gas and shut down wells and exploration. Exon made $4Billion profit and paid twenty nine billion dallars in tax!
@biodiversity
In a nut shell your ending hypothesis is wrong.
Methane is already an underused renewable fuel.
Methane is mass produced by our culture, is readily available and about as cheap as owning your own cow. (see later humourous ref).
Eg it can be almost free.
Sewage plants and refuse tips give off so much methane youd be surprised.
Ever wondered why lighting a match at a tip is a bad idea...well go try it...seriously DO NOT go try it ever.
Methane is by far a fantastic renewable fuel. Will it be able to cover the worlds supply, probably not but we produce such a vast amount that its conceivable methane propulsion could account for a large% of all transport fuels. Thats a big chunk and remember it is directly proportional to population. More people is more gas.
Q. Is it difficult to collect methane...
A. No, however the cows may complain about dragging a bag around with them. Eventually you would see flying cows if the farmer forgot to change the bag. However realistically sewage plants and refuse tips could easily be converted as happens in some places.
i can only see the reason these start-ups are complaining is because they saw money in the venture...Oops did big oil take it away (cry).
just do what big oil did and put people in all the right places...its not difficult and may take a few years. Key politicians are bought by big oil.
Its what all the big companies do, so grow some balls and beat them at there game. Get your people into the chain.
Problem is by the time that happens it wont need to happen anyway, because the world will be in a constant recession with subsidies going out to oil.
The debate on subsidies is moot. Is oil subsidised..yes, are renewables subsidised..yes. Will oil run-out..yes, will renewables run-out..no.
Trust me when i say as soon as the money grabbers REALISE this they will move from big-oil to renewables. Just watch closely youll see big figure heads changing camps soon.
Who will be the first...the second...as soon as it starts people will realise and follow suit.
Fortunately im quite smart and can predict this, so don;t worry Big-Oil will actually kill itself....
Its quite funny really. Its called greed. More money will be in renewables...Remember the money in renewables is growing exponentially every year, it will eclipse big-oil very very soon.
This is what happens when you allow politics and agendas and not economics and the consumers to pick winners and losers.
Biofuel is just in its infancy.
I saw an article that a guy could turn CO into methane. I think the answer will be in the Alkane family and that curde oil and wood will be the fuel making it. I expect many off the wall discoveries that will totaly amaze us.
Should these companies collectively solicit funding and subsidies through organizations like the NREL? It's worked for some who want to scale up.
Holding biofuels back? tens of thousands of know it all money managers, consultants, financial planners, speculators, enjoying the freedom to foul any gulf they please, any environment that suits their purpose, their self interest....
and it's not your fault or mine
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
DJTal
154 Comments
Good question.
What is holding back biofuels is the type of biofuel we choose to produce. If we choose to produce ethanol which is not ideal, corrosive to many engines etc. we are going to fail. If we were to choose to convert biomass to methane it can be much more easily integrated into our existing energy system. Methane gives the lowest CO2 emissions per mile and the highest mileage per acre. It can be produced easily on farms and other locations in a low tech process, and then piped around the country in the existing gas network. It is the most hydrogen rich hydrocarbon (remember people are trying hard to use more hydrogen to power vehicles), and any road vehicle can be converted to run on methane.
Plus, in one of the greatest developments in gas storage, it is now possible to store the same amount of methane at one seventh of the pressure using ANG (Adsorbed Natural Gas) fuel tanks, which store the gas in activated carbon made from corn waste, locking up carbon. It just gets better and better. What are we waiting for?
Reply
Shootist
39 Comments
Re: Good question.
And still, with all the wonderful advantage CH4 has, it still costs more energy to produce than it releases during combustion.
Silly fuel for silly people.
Reply
DJTal
154 Comments
Re: Good question.
"........it still costs more energy to produce than it releases during combustion."
No it doesn't. And with processes like 'electromethanogenesis' it is possible to use any source of renewable electricity to stimulate bacteria to convert CO2 and water into methane at 80%+ efficiency. Which means no biomass has to be used create renewable bio-methane. But bio-methane made from waste food and human and animal waste is still good because it reduces natural methane emissions from the break down of those substances. And methane captured from landfill has a low energy input.
Reply
coal2oil.com
7 Comments
Re: Good question.
Excellent points!
When time permits, please read MIT Technology Review, 3/2/06, "The Methanol Economy" by Kevin Bullis. George A. Olah said "Methanol in its own right is an excellent fuel. You can mix it into gasoline -- it's a much better fuel than ethanol. And we have developed a methanol fuel cell. Methanol is a very simple chemical that can be made in a very efficient way. It is just one oxygen atom inserted into methane, the basal component of natural gas; but methanol is a liquid material which is easily stored, transported, and used."
John M. Kocol
Reply