AT&T Tech Support 360
August 14, 2007 4:00 AM PDT
Cellulosic ethanol: A fuel for the future?
- Related Stories
-
Cellulosic ethanol plant to open next year
July 2, 2007 -
Tech vets making leap to green tech
May 29, 2007 -
Fuels industry seeks its 'ethanol 2.0'
January 25, 2007 - Related Blogs
-
Financiers question corn's day in sun for ethanol
June 20, 2007
As the biomass program manager for the Georgia Forestry Commission, Dartnell is impatiently waiting for construction to begin next month of a plant that will convert forestry wastes into ethanol, a car fuel.
The facility is an important test to see whether lumber and agricultural by-products, rather than corn or sugar cane, are an economically viable "feedstock" for ethanol production. Behind the plant is Range Fuels, a start-up headed by a former Apple executive and financed by famed Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.
Dartnell hopes this project, eligible for up to $76 million in U.S. Department of Energy grants, will lead to many more plants--and a new industry--in the state.
"This gives us energy security and it keeps all the money in-state," said Dartnell. "Today, if we buy a tank of gasoline, a lot of money ends up with the oil reserve owners and refiners, and it's spread all around the world."
Georgia's enthusiasm for the Range Fuels plant--one of a handful now being planned in the U.S.--underscores the high hopes attached to cellulosic ethanol, an advanced biofuel that backers anticipate will play a large role in meeting federal targets for domestic fuel production that can one day offset reliance on foreign oil.
But like many energy-related technologies now being actively pursued, there are potential pitfalls for advanced biofuels, including long-standing technology hurdles and environmental questions. And getting clear-cut answers on the benefits and trade-offs of biofuels is tricky.
"Just because the technology can be done right doesn't mean we will use it right or develop it in a smart way; that's the real challenge," said Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "Biofuels, in particular, can be anywhere from very good for the environment to very bad."
Grain versus cellulose
Cellulosic ethanol promises several advantages over corn-based ethanol which, fueled by government policies and investor capital, is now undergoing a massive build-out.
Making ethanol from forestry or agricultural waste does not involve the same intensive farming as corn, which requires more water and labor, cellulosic ethanol proponents say. Also, in the ongoing food-versus-fuel debate, cellulosic ethanol advocates say that forests don't compete for land with food crops.
The Soperton, Ga., plant will be using wood cast away by loggers. Trees are hauled to a central point where their tops and branches are cut off, providing the material for Range Fuels' multi-step thermochemical process.
Tree branches will go into a large tank where enough heat and pressure are applied to the mix to turn it into a gas. That synthetic gas is treated and then passed through a chemical catalyst which converts the gas to alcohol. Finally, the alcohol gas is converted to fuels and then turned into liquid.
Companies are pursuing different routes to cellulosic ethanol. Iogen, one of several companies using enzymatic processes, has built a demonstration plant in Ottawa that uses specially designed enzymes to convert agricultural wastes, such as corn stalks and straw, to ethanol.
Other wood wastes, even wood from natural disasters and fires, could be used, Dartnell said. Researchers are also busy devising processes to convert grasses, such as switchgrass and Micanthus, into fuels.
"Everybody is looking for feedstocks which they have to then plant and grow," Dartnell said. But because current logging practices usually leave branches behind, the waste is already there. It's just not being put to good use.
Indeed, companies have promised working cellulosic ethanol processes for years, but at this point, most work remains in the research or trial stage.
Part of what has held back making advanced biofuels from wood or straw is the significantly higher capital costs it takes to build a plant. But even with the bigger up-front investment required, rising corn prices have made the cost of biofuel from cellulosic sources only slightly higher than corn-based ethanol, according to a recently published report in the journal Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining.
Range claims its first plant will be completed next year and will be capable of making 20 million gallons of ethanol a year. It intends to later expand to 100 million gallons per year.
Dartnell estimates that the state has enough wood residue from tree farming and milling to create 2 billion gallons per year.
See more CNET content tagged:
fuel,
Georgia,
branch,
waste,
gas
this article, instead of the indiscriminate cheerleading that one
often sees in articles about it.
I think the better energy fuel of the future is in the hydrogen fuel cell technology, where the hydrogen is infinitely recyclable.
While I'm here, Chrysler's ill fated romance with the mini-turbine needs a new look.
solar, coal, wind...just words to replace "oil" in conversations that start "we all must".
business efficiences can drive conservation, as soon as business efficiencies are made necessary,
instead of "the way we have always done things" being the answer to every change.
hydrogen has a place. as an example, coastal wind turbines could be aimed at electrolysis off peak, with fuel cell power being added back in on-peak.
wood based ethanol, and methanol, take nothing from lumber. and the net is reducing th aste factor in pulp wppd prodiction.
coal is a subsidy from the planet itself..as is oil. used intelligently, the supply can last quite a while.
no single answer. no monloiths. all that sngls answer solutions have ever done for an economy is empower the few, and leave the rest complaining.
http://www.butanol.com/
Why
Well all this bio fuel requires more messing with nature for the worse whereas coal is just well there and theres plenty of it.
If you really want to help for your children you'll need to rethink what trully important rather than a fear driven new technologies market.
1) Oxidents in the air.
2) The cutting of trees
3) Bio-diversity
The odd thing is with all that C02 outthrere we look set to get more of all 3.
It's a good thing i can see into the future.
I imagine a tub of popcorn at the mivie theatre will follow suit.
Seriously, we need to concentrate on crop residues, and alternative crops such as palm trees (which can grow in salty water) to use as fuel feedstocks.
In many applications, especially cooling, it would be more efficient to use Sunlight directly instead of collecting it with chlorophyll.
To all those that blame the cost on food solely with the price of feed stock are over simplifying the commodity market.
True their is a correlation between supply and demand, etc.
But so to is there a correlation between inflation and pricing as well.
But take some time to research the cost of your food stuffs with the cost of commodities over the last 30 to 35 years. You should find that in the last decade or so that the market for corn has been "soft" on a price stand point and supply has been more than ample for need.
Many factors will influence the price on your food dollar, some of which will not be seen at the raw commodity market.
It is good that we are looking at viable energy options.
I expect that what will be provided for as ethanol fuels will be comprised of blended ethanols. Mixing the cellose with the grain and sugar forms as the technology and the chemistry of production improves.
Key factor though when looking at our options is how many products each commodity can provide.
Bent grass as a market right now doesn't exist.
Growing a crop for one purpose isn't sustainable. Where as corn has been developed for many uses (from corn starch package peanuts (dissolve with water or slight heat and are edible) to various forms of foods and fuels.
Producing hydrogen is more than an order of magnitude better when it comes to conversion efficiency. For example, the direct splitting of water using a catalyst, solar concentrators to produce extremely high pressure and temperature can achieve a direct efficiency of 56%.
But let us say we use PV cells in a conservative estimate with today's technology, which are about 20% efficiency, and the splitting of water via electrolysis at high pressure at 70%, the overall capture of energy is 14% net in the form of hydrogen energy value which are in turn 300% times more better than the best plants of the world. Plants are never nowhere this mark. There is hope in single cell algae that are selected for their near direct production of plant oils though.
But the real value of converting cellulose into fuel is that it could help cut down incidence of large devastating and very polluting forest fires. We just have to divert the energy from these forest fires by proper management of forest litter. We have plenty of forest litter and understorey growth that have plagued many big fires in the US. Forest litter, urban wood waste, farm waste from hay or straws are all good sources of fuel. Rather than let them be and burn whenever nature or arsonists allows, these biomass with uncontrolled burns produce many air pollutants and other noxious emissions. Why not utilize these to produce fuel or electricity. As an example, several biomass powered electricity generating plants have significant emission reductions from the same amount of cellulosic materials, often by more than 90% on the average compared to those emitted during natural burns like forest fires. And the cost of controlling such wayward fires are often massive and there are tremendous loss of properties as well.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/185735/038
Last week I read an article analysing the entire 'life cycle' of ethanol and coming to the conclusion it was a net-energy LOSS. From fuel use in farming to trucking feedstock to processing, and energy costs there, to trucking ethanol to point of delivery, and then the 3/5 (?) power ratio wrt gasoline.
Can't find link, my bad. Anyone know if this is a likely scenario?
But to make it really economical, you need to use the waste left after making the alcohol for energy production or other purposes.
However, public transport is the first of many ways of reducing oil-dependency.
- Biodiesel is here, NOW, and it works very well.
-
by haazah
August 15, 2007 7:47 PM PDT
- Why wait for a future wonder product when we have a really good fuel right now?
-
Reply to this comment
View
reply
-
-
See all 75 Comments >>To be sure, there's no such thing as a "perfect" fuel. Everything's got its drawbacks. Given the excellent emissions and the wide variety of things you can make biodiesel from (grease, soy oil, canola oil, etc.), and the fact that you can make it at home, it holds great advantages over ethanol. Fact is, you can't make ethanol at home. Okay, you could, but you run a good risk of blowing yourself/your equipment/your garage sky high by doing it. Brewing biodiesel does involve the use of some nasty chemicals, but if you educate yourself or take a class on it, it will come out all right.