The EPA’s goal of encouraging production of 100m gallons per year (gpy) of cellulosic (i.e. non-corn-based) took a bit of a hit recently, when it was found that the firm responsible for producing 70m gpy was actually showing investors petroleum-based fuels and lying about its production capacity. Whoops! But instead of drawing the conclusion that ethanol is the modern equivalent of snake oil, attracting hucksters and scams like mainstream car blogs to a special-edition Mustang, the government is keeping the sector well-stocked with taxpayer cash. Green Car Congress reports that the Department of Energy has awarded ethanol firm POET a $6.85m increase over its already-delivered $76m grant, with another $13.15m on the way. The funds were awarded through Project LIBERTY (Launch of an Integrated Bio-refinery with Eco-sustainable and Renewable Technologies in Y2009), which seeks to move ethanol past the tortilla riot-era bad press while keeping it chained to big agribusiness. The method? Ethanol from corn cobs!
POET’s Project LIBERTY plants are attached to existing corn-ethanol plants, and none of them have actually entered standard production, probably because ethanol futures are in the toilet. Meanwhile, the only study on the impact of removing cobs from fields (where they are usually left as a nutrient source) was undertaken by the University of Iowa “for POET.” Shockingly it showed “no substantial impact on soil nutrient levels.” Ethanol boosters will doubtless try to point out that cob-based ethanol is “better” than straight corn juice, and obviously the impact on food prices is diminished. Still, there are numerous potential feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol, and the fact that POET chose corn cobs is indicative of the importance of ethanol subsidies to agribusiness. By integrating cellulosic plants into the corn-based ethanol infrastructure, Project LIBERTY provides a “just around the corner” cover for the corn ethanol industry, while sucking down taxpayer money for the privilege. Meanwhile, even if corn cobs become a viable source of ethanol, demand for the biofuel has been tanking, as its many downsides have sunk into the consumer consciousness.
Ethanol works in Brazil b/c sugarcane grows like a weed, requires no irrigation, fertalizer or pesticides and produces 7 energy units for everyone input, while corn, requires all three of the above and produces 1.5/1. If we really wanted to do that in this country we would use hemp/marijauna, it grows like a weed (it is), it also can be grown w/o irrigation, fertalizer, etc. w/o offsetting crops and produces 4/1 ethanol, as well as the seeds produce 3x as much biodiesel as soy and the stalks produce 5x as much paper as woodpulp per pound respectively. I’m not one of those thomas jefferson grew it/rainbow gathering sideshows either, but there is a reason that it’s illegal (other than you might have a good time), and there is a reason that the corn, oil and paper lobbies are three of the biggest groups trying to keep it that way.
The point is if we really wanted to do this it’s possible, as currently set up it’s just another means of transferring money to the already rich (trickle down economics) w/o accomplishing anything that might change the status quo (oil industry)
The government continues to invest in failed business and technology. I find it hard to believe that we can’t find more promising alternatives to support. If my broker recommended that I invest one penny in GM or in ethanol futures I’d be looking for a new broker. The real tragedy is that more and more of our tax dollars are diverted to perpetuate these failures.
My recollection from writing about related issues is that to maintain fertility, around 70% of the plant waste needs to be left in the fields. I don’t think taking the corn cobs would hurt soil fertility. Nonetheless, this scheme sounds like its throwing good money after bad. There are much better feedstocks for cellulosic, both from energetics, and an environmental standpoint.
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/116-6/focus-abs.html
Hemp sounds like a very interesting idea.
Until there is a “reliable” non-maize feedstock for cellulosic ethanol (switchgrass, timber byproducts, etc), the bulk of production will stay in the upper midwest. The infrastructure is all there, so the path of least resistance is to add a cellulosic capability to the existing/new construction plants in Iowa/Illinois.
If switchgrass or timber ever reach scalability, it should take about 5 years to get a decent ethanol region going in Kansas/Texas/Arkansas/etc.
It will be the mother of all boondoggles when ADM et al figure out how to get USDA/DOE subsidies for mowing prairie grass…
The brain behind the Wii computer game Tom Quint has backed a viable waste-sugar alternative to generation 1 (corn) and generation 2 (sugarcane etc). Just like everyone has their own BBQ grill, trash can, home computer, Tom’s thought process led to bringing to market a microfueler, producing E100 from waste high sugar feedstocks. It’s a great idea on many levels: save tax $, save land, don’t compete with food production, divert pollution from waterways into the flex fuel gas tank.
Ed,
I work for POET and wanted to respond to a few things in your post. I’ll leave it to your readers to decide whether or not the operations of the other company you mentioned should taint an entire industry.
1. There have been lots of studies on removing agricultural waste from the field. I have yet to see one concluding that the removal of a small amount (like the cob) has a negative impact on soil quality. If you can’t find any of these studies, I’d be happy to point you in the right direction.
2. We have a pilot plant producing ethanol from corn cobs that has been operating since Last November.
3. Ethanol use this year in the U.S. will increase by about 20 percent. That doesn’t seem like “tanking” demand to me.
BTW, I’m glad you liked our picture!
Plenty of people have, over the years, run their own microfuelers. In the hollows of Appalachia, for one. toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060425/COLUMNIST02/604250364/-1/NEWS33 It will be interesting to see if that takes off again.
The local microbrewery (though they have possibly expanded beyond that designation) that uses the spent wort from the fermintation process to produce ethanol for their vehicles.
Maybe the subsidized Chevy Volt will run on subsidized ethanol, but that would further reduce its [carbon-based] fuel economy. What is one to do?
Nathan: Thanks for joining the conversation.
The plant you link to shows production levels of 20,000 gpy, and as you say, it’s a pilot plant. This is what I meant by “none have them actually entered standard production,”although I grant my wording could have been better.
As for ethanol demand, it seems the futures markets are bearish on the corn juice. As one of the reports linked above notes:
“Ethanol still enjoys a 45-cent excise tax break, which means that ethanol is still about 39 cents cheaper than gasoline after the tax break. Nevertheless, blending economics for ethanol are now much less favorable than they were as recently as August when ethanol was trading 50.1 cents below gasoline and ethanol enjoyed a 95-cent discount to gasoline including the excise tax.”
My problem is that the only reason the price of ethanol even comes close to gasoline is the blender’s credit which eclipses (and crowds out) all other renewable energy investments. Meanwhile, increased flex-fuel capabilites are going to cost taxpayers even more as automakers are hesitant to simply pass the increased cost onto consumers.
Still, if POETs plants can eliminate corn ethanol production, I’ll be all for it. I simply see no reason for optimism at this point. Mostly because POET produces a hell of a lot more than 20k gpy of corn-based ethanol.
In any case, news searches reveal we’ve been slacking a bit in our ethanol coverage. Look for more ethanol debate in these pages going forward.
As rnc pointed out, there are many far more efficient “crops” – in the form of weeds.
Haven’t seen any studies on utilizing Kudzu yet, but it sems we have no problems growing that in excess either.
Corn based ethanol exists simply because there are entrenched interests, who don’t want the bra zipped up on their tax-money nipple.
Corn, corn byproducts, irrelevant. The science is rock-solid that turning it into ethanol produces lousy energy ROI. Even worse when contrasted against other readily available/producible biomass.
3. Ethanol use this year in the U.S. will increase by about 20 percent. That doesn’t seem like “tanking” demand to me.
Then why was Wesley Clark and his group clamoring for the 10% blend to be increased to 15%? He insisted in his paperwork that if it wasn’t 15%, the world would cave in on ethanol.
Ed,
I’m always happy to join the conversation, I’ve just been mystified that your coverage of ethanol seems to be solely focused on one topic: government support. Of course ethanol (and every other renewable energy source) needs government support. This country has spent a century and trillions of private and public dollars establishing petroleum as the only source of transportation fuel. Despite all of that, oil STILL receives support from the government.
I would also love an explanation as to how the ethanol tax credit prevents investment in other renewable energies. The tax credit for blending ethanol will be around $5 billion this year and we have a $1.6 trillion deficit. The government hasn’t shown that a lack of funds will stop them from spending money on a good idea. Can you point to a single instance where an elected official said: “I was going to vote for your solar tax credits, but we can’t afford it because of the money that is supporting ethanol”?
If you like ethanol from sources other than corn starch, you should welcome this DOE grant because it will speed up the process. We still have some work to do, but things are looking good for us to commercialize our process in 2011. Corn cobs are the best first feedstock for a number of reasons. But once we get them figured out, we’ll move on to other sources of cellulose. I’ll do my best to keep you updated on our progress and look forward to some in depth ethanol coverage on TTAC.
your coverage of ethanol seems to be solely focused on one topic: government support.
TTAC’s coverage of ethanol has not focused on government support. Most of the focus has been on dislike of being forced to buy 10% ethanol gasoline. Another focus has been criticism of ethanol as an energy source.
@ rnc
Thanks for introducing hemp into the discussion. People often aren’t aware that there are sans-THC versions of the hemp plant. Much to the disappointment of pot-heads and ultra-conservatives who need some reason for a reaction.
Hemp paper and fibres are much more environmentally friendly, especially when compared to cotton. Cotton crops consume something like fully 1/3 of all pesticides used in the world, plus huge amounts of water.
Here in Australia we have a strong commercial hemp industry going, which of course is hoping to get the jump into ethanol.
You can’t beat plants for energy storage, but the real breakthrough needs to be heavy use of cellulosic processes commercially. Algae, waste conversion, plus plenty of research going into cellulosic methanol.
Anything that accelerates these achievements should be welcomed. Corn use (as feedstock) will drop away soon enough.
I’ll be completely satisfied to use ethanol when the primary feedstock is the dandelions from my yard.