CELLULOSIC ETHANOL: Poet has begun harvesting cellulose--the stem, leaves and cob of corn plants--for use in a new facility the biofuel brewer is building in Emmetsburg, Ia.
Image: © Poet
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A new plant is rising from the fields around Emmetsburg, Iowa—one that will ferment into ethanol the cobs, stems and husks of corn from nearly 50,000 hectares of farmland. Such cellulosic ethanol offers a way to get the energy and environmental security benefits of biofuels without disrupting the food supply when the edible corn itself is used.
"The facility will be operational in 2014," says Jeff Lautt, chief executive of Poet, LLC, one of the largest brewers of ethanol in the U.S. "We are on the doorstep of cellulosic ethanol, but don't pull the rug out from under us after we invest billions."
That rug, Lautt and others in the biofuel business worry, is the U.S. government removal of price support for cellulosic ethanol, among other alternative fuels. Already, this year many of the subsidies and supports enjoyed by the biofuel industry will expire—and critics have argued that all such supports under the 2005 Renewable Fuel Standard (amended in 2007) should be ended, especially for the bulk of ethanol produced today, which is brewed from the noncellulosic starch in corn kernels.
In the past few years the increasing use of corn for fuel, along with drought, has helped triple the price of corn globally. (The U.S. supplies 60 percent of the world’s exported corn.) Poet’s own corn ethanol brewing facility in Macon, Mo., has had to shut down because of tight supplies. "It's not that we can't get corn," Lautt explains. "It's that we can't get corn priced in a way that it is economically viable to continue."
The corn shortage exists despite the fact that between 2006 and 2011 U.S. farmers converted more than 530,000 hectares of land to growing the grain, according to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on February 18. Those lands were not fertile soils but instead the kind of marginal lands that are prone to erosion—and the kind of runoff from cornfields that causes environmental problems like the oxygen-depleted waters, or "dead zone," in the Gulf of Mexico. Overall the U.S. now transforms roughly 40 percent of its national corn crop into the alcohol fuel.
In the last decade ethanol brewed from corn has come to supply 10 percent of the U.S. automotive fuel supply, some 50 billion liters per year. Critics argue that corn ethanol is now an established fuel and should no longer receive government support, which comes to roughly $7 billion annually, once tax credits, tariffs and other incentives are totaled. But Lautt points to ethanol forestalling the use of foreign oil as well as providing new revenues for North American farmers that make it possible to grow corn at a profit without direct subsidies. "We have an option [for fuel] for the first time in 100 years," he adds.
Although Lautt argues that ethanol from corn should continue indefinitely as part of the U.S. fuel mix, the U.S. Congress hoped to gradually replace it with the kind of cellulosic ethanol to be brewed at Poet’s Liberty facility in Emmetsburg over the course of the next decade. But quantities of cellulosic ethanol have consistently failed to meet expectations, perhaps because those expectations were set based on amounts of cellulosic material available on fields rather than the ability of technology at the time to turn biomass into fuel. "It's hard to predict technology development," Lautt admits.
There have been some pleasant surprises, such as Poet's ability to use more than just corn cobs. That, in turn, enables farmers to collect the stalks and other detritus from the fields with a simple baler for delivery to the Liberty facility. "You can take more trash off the field and get more density [in the bale of biomass] as well," Lautt says. At the same time, enough of the carbon-rich material is left behind to ensure continued soil fertility—the farmers produce nine metric tons of biomass per hectare but only harvest a ton for the cellulosic facility, according to Poet.
Although efforts to develop cellulosic ethanol in a big way continue to struggle, Lautt and his allies in the biofuel business would like to see more effort put into reconfiguring automobile engines to run on ethanol. If that happens, he argues: "I think we'll blow away the concept of electric vehicles."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentSo we should stop concerning ourselves with climate change primarily incurred by the incineration of carbon and narrow our focus on producing renewable sources of carbon for incineration?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We are on the doorstep of cellulosic ethanol, but don't pull the rug out from under us after we invest billions."
I for one did not encourage anyone to invest $billions on ethanol production - I think that was the investors' own decision, based on hopes of making many more $billions. They did so at the risk of losing their investments, of course, just like those who invest in oil exploration.
Make no mistake about it, ethanol is not a fuel, it is a dilutant. Ethanol contains much less energy than an equivalent amount of gasoline. Gasolines diluted with ethanol produce less power and provide poorer gas milage than pure gasoline, even in the so-called "flex fuel" vehicles. A 10% blend of gasahol will degrade gas mileage by about 12% -15% (depending on the vehicle). This results in using MORE gasoline over a given distance (do the math). Ethanol was sold to the American public as a way to stretch the oil supply and be environmentally friendly. Nothing can be further from the truth. If we are using more gasoline to go the same distance with ethanol, then we are polluting more and wasting our oil supplies. Ethanol was and is a bad idea, spawn from political correctness and good ol' boy politics. It has driven up the cost of fuel and the cost of food. I just hope that someday we will be able to elect smart and honest people to Congress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCellulosic ethanol has been feasible for at least a decade; it's just been easier so far to use the corn. As prices were driven up, the alternative is being considered. Lack of vision, poor planning and going for the easier money is their decision, not ours. Gimme my rug! >=)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Gatnos is correct, then we should not produce any ethanol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEthanol makes sense as a replacement for MTBE which itself kinda made sense as a replacement for lead in gasoline back in the day. If flex-fueled vehicles could make use of the super-high octane ratings of higher ethanol blends, then the energy density disparity between gasoline and ethanol becomes less and less of an issue. Since compression ratios are difficult to impossible to change on the fly, flex-fuel vehicles let this property of ethanol go to waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if anybody has ever tried to run a compression ignition engine with ethanol. It's autoignition temp is 363C while diesel usually ignites at 210C:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperature
It would have to endure much higher pressures than a diesel engine, but the thermodynamic efficiency would be higher as well due to the higher operating temperature. If this engine also ran on the Atkinson cycle (late intake valve closing), the efficiency would be even higher.
The reason I bring up all these extreme efficiency measures is that ethanol is already making up more than 10% of our gasoline needs. If we start getting Nissan LEAFs and other economy EVs with 150 miles of range soon, we might want to look into the possibility of using small trailers that either generate electricity and / or push the EV forward for use during long distance travel. If most in-town travel can be done on battery power and people can rent these ethanol-powered trailers for roadtrips, then current ethanol production might be able to satisfy most or all of this demand. All you would need is a 20 kW generator / pusher trailer and a healthy sprinkling of ethanol stations to make it happen.
Not saying it's the best idea, but it might work.
Corn-ethanol subsidies and supports were begun because it is a renewable fuel. It was thought to be carbon neutral. It is not. Burning corn has nothing to do with limiting GHG emissions. It increases CO2 emissions. Refining corn to ethanol takes an enormous amount of freshwater away from agriculture and industry and human use. 40% of our production is burned to offset 10% of our crude imports. I don’t think it is worth it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn’t gasoline and diesel an established fuel that should no longer receive government support? But if we can subsidize the oil companies why not subsidize the corn-ethanol companies?
Ethanol, whether corn or cellulosic might become 'sustainable' when the ground is prepared and the corn crop is harvested and processed using ethanol rather than fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOther than the trailer part that is exactly what I'm doing to my lightweight EV's.
As light and very aero they need small, thus less expensive battery packs. But they also need fairly small generators to get unlimited range. For instance I'm building a 4.5kw generator out of a Honda 6.5hp and building a lightweight alternator from scratch only weighs 40lbs so just put it on the trailer hitch in the rear.
Though all my EV's also tow a trailer, that's mainly for hualling lumber, furniture, etc around town. Though as a convertible I can switch the bed from hualing to camping with the generator on it's rear to cut noise when traveling.
Though I just looked up going to Daytona in my EV 2wh streamliner and there are 100+ EV charge stations on the way so I'll just fast charge and not have to run any fuel!!!
But my prefered fuel is 95% ethanol/5% water saving much energy as most is used to get the last water out when mixed with gasoline.
But you can run a 14-15/1 compression ratio at very high eff with such a fuel. And not mentioned in the against ethanol crowd is how are refineries going to replace the octane rating ethanol gives gasoline?
As for ethanol doing less mileage that depends but no where near the losses by the other poster, a low information type believing what Fox/Koch/Big oil tells him. Sad.
Facts are ethanol only uses the starch in corn and 80% is left of protein, corn oil, yeast , etc dried distillers grains/mash, which actually makes it far better food than corn it was made from is. As used as animal feed it really takes little from the food chain.
And as for subsidizing stop protectin international oil companies for free and put it, pollution in it's cost and ethanol and many other fuels will be a bargain. Not to mention the massive jobs, economic benefits of keeping oil money here as wages, materials, etc making more jobs.
Personally I get 250 to 600mpg equivalent in my EV's so laugh at you all paying the oil gods ever fill up all the way to the bank.
The following analysis simply demolishes the argument for Biofuels. Just another Greenie Energy SCAM, designed to delude people into thinking something is actually being done to avoid the Energy Cliff, Peak Oil and rising Emissions, while being sure that VIABLE & ECONOMIC alternatives are kept hidden from public view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwenty-First Century Snake Oil: Why the United States Should Reject Biofuels as Part of a Rational National Security Energy Strategy:
phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Kiefer%20-%20Snake%20Oil.pdf
Hard reality – biofuels are a loser, despite all the hope and hype:
atomicinsights.com/2013/02/hard-reality-biofuels-are-a-loser-despite-all-the-hope-and-hype.html
"..burned to offset 10% of our crude imports.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are forgetting EROEI. The NG & Oil inputs to Ethanol production are equal to the Ethanol output, so at best you can say Ethanol replaces a few % of crude imports with domestic NG production, at a very high cost. A whole lot simpler and cheaper and easier to just directly convert the NG to Methanol or burn the NG directly in Trucking, and skip the inefficient, wasteful and horrendously destructive Agro-Ethanol production.
jarryd said: "ethanol only uses the starch in corn and 80% is left of protein, corn oil, yeast , etc dried distillers grains/mash, which actually makes it far better food than corn it was made from is. As used as animal feed it really takes little from the food chain."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't just pooh-pooh away the fact that corn prices and corn dependent food prices have skyrocketed since the introduction of ethanol.
The numbers I quoted in my previous post are based upon my personal experience as well as documented experiences from many others. Here's the math if you care to be informed: My Ford F-150 gets 19 mpg on the highway using pure unleaded gasoline. Using 10% ethanol the same vehicle gets 16.1 mpg on the highway. Given a 1000 mile trip, my truck will use 52.6 gallons of pure gasoline or 62.11 gallons of ethanol for the same distance. Since ethanol is 90% gasoline, the trip on ethanol will use .9 x 62.11 = 55.9 gallons of gasoline or 3.3 gallons of gasoline more than using the pure stuff.
Bottom line is that in today's internal combustion engines, ethanol is a poor fuel that is driving up the price of gasoline and is causing to more green house gases than pure gasoline would.
Not so fast, there's alot to be said for the drinkable kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFood prices are far more dependent on oil prices, economy and more recently commodity traders buying, selling 10x's more corn, etc than there is are the things driving up food prices.
As for corn it's by far biggest use is using 10 lbs of corn to make 1 lb of beef FAT! Just the leftover corn oil in 10 lbs of corn after ethanol is made equals that!!
So try to learn a little and stop being fooled by the oil company proaganda machine trying to kill ethanol.
Even smarter buy an EV before the prices go back up with the oil prices. Facts are a Leaf EV driven 30 miles/day saves enough gas over 5-7 yrs to pay for itself and you still own it! Now that is good investing.
Jerry, the article claims: "I think we'll blow away the concept of electric vehicles". And why do you keep bringing up that coproducts Bull that I keep destroying and you just keep repeating it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCellulosic or Corn Ethanol is Unsustainable and a NET ENERGY DRAIN:
chicofoodnetwork.org/why-cellulosic-ethanol-biofuels-are-unsustainable-and-a-threat-to-america/
Jerry's Corn Ethanol coproduct DOES NOT compensate for the TERRIBLE and all encompassing detriments of Corn Ethanol production:
"..one pooping rabbit. The excrement is known as byproduct or coproduct in the ethanol industry..Studies that show a positive energy gain for ethanol would have a negative return if the byproduct were left out (Farrell 2006).."
"..the byproduct should be treated as a "serious waste disposal problem and … an energy cost", because if we supplied 10% of our energy from biomass, we’d generate 37 times more livestock feed than is used (Giampetro 1997).."
"..most of this "livestock feed" can't be fed to livestock because it's too energy and monetarily expensive to deliver – especially heavy wet distillers byproduct, which is short-lived, succumbing to mold and fungi after 4 to 10 days. Also, byproduct is a subset of what animals eat. Cattle are fed byproduct in 20% of their diet at most. Iowa's a big hog state, but commercial swine operations feed pigs a maximum of 5 to 10% byproduct (Trenkle 2006; Shurson 2003).
Worst of all, the EROEI of ethanol is 1.2:1 or 1.2 units of energy out for every unit of energy in, a gain of ".2". The "1" in "1.2" represents the liquid ethanol. What is the ".2" then? It's the rabbit feces – the byproduct.."
"..Patzek and Pimentel believe you shouldn't include the energy contained in the byproduct, because you need to return it to the soil to improve nutrition and soil structure (Patzek June 2006).."
The EROEI of ethanol in the USA, the most detailed and extensive study ever undertaken:
netenergy.theoildrum.com/pdf/theoildrum_6760.pdf
"..Analysis showed EROEI, including coproducts is avg 1.07 with a low of .36. Best case scenario of 1.18, it would take 7.5 liters of ethanol produced to get ONE LITER OF NET ENERGY. And anything less than a 3.0 EROEI is a NET DRAIN on the transportation sector requiring energy inputs from other sources.."
The Net Energy Cliff, how vital EROEI is to evaluating the viability of an Energy Source:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Net_energy_cliff.gif
The Dirty Truth on Biofuels:
oilcrash.com/articles/pf_bio.htm
So continuing, it is far more efficient and cost effective to use soybeans than corn ethanol byproduct as cattle feed:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...Wang and others maintain that ethanol byproducts (such as dried distillers grain, gluten meal, gluten feed, and whey) are themselves useful products whose market or energy value should be brought into the analysis to help offset the energy costs of ethanol production...The various byproducts listed above are used as cattle feed. Of these byproducts, dry distillers grain is by far the most abundant, providing the corn is dry milled. As such it replaces soy beans in the cattle diet. Around 3.3 kilograms of dry distillers grain can be derived from 10 kg of corn ethanol feedstock. Dry distillers grain contains 27% protein, in comparison to soybean feed that holds 49% protein. [2] Soybean production is much more energy efficient than corn production. Because soybeans fix nitrogen, there is no need for the energy expensive nitrogen fertilizers in soybean farming. When this comparison is taken into account, the allowable energy credit for corn byproducts shrinks considerably..."
And keep in mind that dry distillers grain requires a high energy input in order to reduce moisture content from 70% to 10%.
By your logic gasoline would have only a 20% EROI as you can't count the other byproducts, No?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can do big oil's propaganda all you want but this yrs ethanol is far more eff than you say as energy inputs/outputs have greatly decreased both on the farm growing corn and making ethanol from it.
And no one is going to blow away EV's in many areas like eff and low cost/mile.
And just why don't you rant about how wasteful making cow fat, not protein, is if you really care about food costs, supplies as it uses most of the corn crop, thus acreage, and much of the ethanol byproducts? No?
Just switching to grass fed cattle would free 2/3's of the corn crop. Wouldn't that have a far bigger effect while making better, far more healthy meat?
You do know corn make cattle sick so have to be pumped up with antibiotics don't you to live long enough to get fat, slaughtered in the feed lots? I can't think of a worse way to get meat/food.
The ethanol industry would like to believe that "we'll blow away the concept of electric vehicles" but I'm not in agreement. As the owner of a Nissan Leaf, which I charge up with solar panels on my roof, the joy of an electric car can't be understood until you've owned one. It's quiet. It accelerates like mad. It's much more pleasant in traffic. I don't have to touch filling station handles that some guy with the flu just touched. And, my solar panels have already paid for themselves so I'm driving around for free. FOR FREE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am against Ethanol since it competes with food. However, I am also a scientist who is curious about your point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is your proof of this? I am not disputing you, just that it seems counterintutive. Ethanol is a fuel. Perhaps it just degrades the efficiency of gasoline more than it adds?
Anyway, what is your souce or calculations?
They should pull the rug out from oil!. Make users pay the Defense costs. No more tax breaks. But, as I said earlier, I am against ethanol because of food competition
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd lastly, what about mass transportation instead of Automobiles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorn lobby, hungry people in Mexico, ignore and drive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, engines designed to take advantage of this can be more powerful and efficient than gas engines. However, as others have noted, the total system efficiency depends on how efficient the production steps are. Unfortunately, the CEO of the company making the stuff is hardly an unbiased source of information on this. It is difficult to get through all the hype and find out what the real facts are. One thing seems clear, though. I think the government spending should only be on the basic research, not funding for these companies. There is over a trillion dollars out there looking for a better place to invest than the stock market. If these companies cannot get a share of that, then they do not have a real product.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an old (ancient?) chemist, my concept of sustainability implies that the entire process is net energy-positive. That is, if all the ethanol produced in year 1 is used to plant, harvest and transport next (year 2) corn crop and to process the corn into more ethanol, can that be done? Would you have ethnol left over,or would you have to supplement the quantity available to 'do it again next year'? I have considered the efficienty questions of ethanol replacing gasoline, and strongly believe I would consume less fuel if it were not 90/10 but 100% Don't know where to start on the overall GHG question. For sure, we get oil at some GHG cost, but to go through the GSG emission considerations for ethanolproduction and distribution is beyond me, partly for lack of data and models. Would appreciate any info available. Thanks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You do know corn make cattle sick so have to be pumped up with antibiotics don't you to live long enough to get fat, slaughtered in the feed lots? I can't think of a worse way to get..." As an old farm boy and ancient chemist I don' follow this comment. Corn may give indigestion, but that is cured by antibiotics. The illnesses requiring antibiotics come from crowding and poor sanitation, not corn per se.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, "....that is NOT...; left out the 'not cured'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree and was just being brief null. But my cost/food points still stand as you'd have 2/3's of the corn crop for food, even though it's a rather bad one food quality wise, to feed people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVS only a 15% potential food reduction after byproducts cutting out ethanol. Please tell me which would be the wiser choice?
As for food/corn pricing today the Fed hinted at slowing their stimulation of the economy and speculators ran for cover dropping corn, etc prices. It's this gambling on 10x's the amount of actual corn crop, etc, prices in the futures markets that are the biggest cause for food prices rising, not ethanol.
It was also proven when corn prices badly dropped in 2008 even though demand was up showing just how much speculation moves prices.
Same really with oil.
Ethanol is not good biofuel. It takes 29% more energy to produce ethanol from corn than its energy content. It's a waste of energy and really just a subsidy to the farm sector. Better to just drink ethanol in your vodka. For biofuel, go for used cooking oil and fat from fried meat. This biodiesel can power jet engines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably the best use of corn alcohol is corn whisky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorn grain is food, and diverting it to fuel usage has resulted in world wide food shortages, and unrest in the less developed parts of the world such as the middle east. The Arab Spring had it's origin in food prices which were too high, and people were going hungry. It's not a very powerful fuel and takes a lot of energy to produce, probably net loss when fertilizer, cultivation, planting, irrigation and diesel/gasoline consumption are considered, thus the need for subsidies.
Subsidies really shouldn't be the object of industry, rather productivity.
Subsidies compete with less expensive fuels in the global economy.
There is extensive industrial production of methanol from coal and natural gas, and the US now has an abundance of cheap natural gas from shale fracking. Should the subsidies be continued so one part of the economy competes with another. It can't be sustained indefinitely, and the people developing the ethanol production facilities know it.
Methanol can be converted to high quality gasoline at reasonable cost, and Exxon/Mobil developed the methanol to gasoline process in the 1970's utilizing zeolite catalysts.
The process was utilized in New Zealand (Synfuel) with high quality gasoline produced from natural gas.
The fuel from corn has been primarily a program of the agricultural industry, and has resulted in widespread corn production on marginal land, and is dependent on subsidies since it is not energy efficient, being actually energy dependent.
It really can't stand on it's own and probably is one of the reasons the American economy is in a fix that it can't get out of. Running an industry an economy on subsidies is never going to compete on the world or global economy and improve employment and the well being of the American people, and in fact is another way of getting money out of the tax payers pockets and into the pockets of Ag Industry industrialists, with the willing complicity of Washington.
Why not just use less fuel-here in England we pay £1.40 per litre for petrol,and have to think about fuel economy.The Euro directives on emissions and economy result in cars which produce upwards of 60mpg from petrol engined family cars.Get rid of the "gas guzzlers" for a start!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest you drink ethanol in your gin and use fat from your fried bacon and used cooking oil to fuel your jet engine. Cooking oil has three times more energy than the explosive nitromethane fuel used in drag racing. Bacon fat has been used to replace acetylene in acetylene torch. Bacon has twice more energy than acetylene and can easily vaporize solid steel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you don't believe this, don't delete, do some research. This is a science blog. Editors are expected to know a little science.
Better than converting to ethanol, biomass pyrolysis converts agricultural waste directly into biofuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee www.eprida.com.