World’s first commercial scale production of cellulose-based ethanol

[JohnWxy]

facility in Ottawa, Ontario.

http://email.gmcanada.com/corpdb/cachq/pressrel.nsf/0/5bd8af72d860a22e85256e7d006e1b75?OpenDocument

General Motors of Canada commends Iogen Corporation on their launch of the world’s first commercial scale production of cellulose-based ethanol at their demonstration facility in Ottawa, Ontario. Iogen’s cellulose ethanol is made from the non-food portion of renewable feedstock, such as wheat straw, by utilizing their innovative production process.

David Paterson, Vice President of Corporate Affairs at General Motors of Canada said, “Iogen’s cellulose ethanol is a very significant product development that could make a considerable contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. GM’s entire portfolio of vehicles is already capable of running on a blend of 10 per cent ethanol. We are pleased to see a leading-edge Canadian company like Iogen develop the next generation of ethanol and we encourage its adoption in the marketplace.”

While conventional ethanol typically reduces net carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 40 per cent, Iogen’s cellulose ethanol reduces net CO2 emissions by greater than 90 per cent compared to gasoline.

--

According to Natural Resources Canada’s Energuide, GM’s E-85 capable full-size trucks and SUV’s operating on conventional ethanol already emit fewer net CO2 emissions per year than certain hybrid vehicles. On a “Well-to-Wheels” basis, which is a measure of CO2 over the entire energy life-cycle including manufacture and consumption, Iogen’s cellulose ethanol in GM’s E-85 capable full-size trucks and SUV’s emit fewer net CO2 emissions than any hybrid available today.

[midnight armadillo]

1. Cool.

Ford and GM are trying their damndest to get some enviro street cred with E85 (witness the Saab AeroX concept, running E100!). This is not a bad thing, although it would be nice to hear them talk up how future products will get higher mileage. It would be easy for, say, Honda to do E85 in their new Civics which do 41 mpg on gas, and once again eat Detroit's lunch.

Waste straw is typically burned, which is too bad since it's so useful for building homes.

[phantom power]

2. Commercial scale from a "demo plant?"

I wish they'd provided the ethanol production rate.

[Sorwen]

3. That's really just a demo plant.

That article is from two years ago. The Iogen plant in Canada is the first plant to produce cellulosic ethanol, but it really is just a demonstration facility that produces less than 1 million gallons per year. It also isn't profitable, relying on subsidies.

However, there is a commerical-scale plant being constructed in Spain, which should begin operations later this year. This plant is being called the world's first commercial cellulosic ethanol plant, with a capacity of 54 million gallons. Iogen is also planning on building a larger, commercial-scale plant.

[Strelnikov_]

4. Life In A Grass House

Article over at the Oil Drum regarding Cellulosic ethanol from Switchgrass. The big issue with any sustainable biomass system seems to be loss of soil nutrients.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/7/03949/82426

What's the moral in all of this? If corn ethanol is marginal on an energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) basis, it is very difficult to argue that biomass grown to make ethanol will be any better. To be blunt, if there are concentrated stocks of waste biomass in place, such as at lumber mills, then biomass ethanol probably makes sense. Otherwise, it appears to be more or less equivalent to corn based ethanol - in other words, a wash.

[rfkrfk]

5. ethanol contains zero nutrients

ethanol contains hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, thats it.
the nutrients are left behind.

corn stalks and sugarcane stalks could be collected for
negligible additional input, the inputs for
switchgrass are low.

some of the process heat could be solar,
very good match there

if this works on a large scale, and the enzymes can
be made for reasonable cost, this could be
a big economic plus for poor countries

[NickB79]

6. The hydrogen, oxygen and carbon was in the form of carbohydrates

Converting those to ethanol does remove some of the nutritional value of the stalks as they are processed, because in nature those cellulosic carbohydrates would be digested by soil organisms and microbes, enriching the soil with their wastes and dead bodies. You are speaking in terms of mineral values, not nutritional values. So, the phosporous, nitrogen, magnesium, etc, will all still be there, but the processed stalks will have less nutrition for the soil than unprocessed stalks.

A comparison could be made to human feces. What comes out of our bodies has far less nutritional value to us than when it went in, because our bodies have processed the food to generate ATP for cellular metabolism and extracted energy from it.

[Massacure]

8. But the nutritional value comes from the sun.

Plants absorb phosphorous and magnesium plus sunlight to form energy. You collect that energy, phosphorous and magnesium. The minerals go back provided us humans put them back, and the plants absorb more sunlight. Or am I missing something?

[4dsc]

7. Good article with alot of FACTS!!

Currently, in the US ethanol is made from corn, which any number of studies have shown is quite marginal with regard to energy return. Paraphrasing Bob Hirsch in his most recent talk, making ethanol from corn is a process by which a certain amount of energy in the forms of natural gas and diesel fuel are used to create an equivalent amount of energy in the form of ethanol, with the primary output being money from government subsidies.

[poopfuel]

11. for ethanol to work

By products and coproducts must be part of the equation and it should be done sustainably. Not with giant plants. Smaller scale.
Switchgrass is not the best source for cellulose but there are plenty that are better.
People are still using the wrong sources for biodiesel too. Clearly castor bean is the best. Word will spread.

Again, many plants have been built where methane powers the ethanol plants, methane produced from the manufacture of ethanol. These are the best kind.
Remember coproducts, cogeneration are key.

[JohnWxy]

13. Cogeneration, definitely and dont' throw away valuable bi-products!

ONe of the biproducts of starch based ethanol is the protein fraction of the corn which can be used as animal feed supplement. With cellulosic ethanol plants lignans can be used to provide much of the power to provide the heating needed in the process to make ethanol!

As they work on this they keep getting smarter about how to produce ethanol more and more efficiently!

There is absolutely no doubts about the developement of ethanol both for use in internal combustion engines and for a hydrogen source for Fuel Cell power. I just hate to see it be delayed by disinformation. It will just be that much worse the more this and other technologies (e.g. bio-diesel) are deleyed.

[JohnWxy]

9. EROEI for gasoline: .813

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

for corn ethanol 1.38 -- Argonne Nationanl Laboratory. Dr. Michael Wang

1.56 Michigan State University study

1.65 USDA study

cellulosic ethanol is several times as productive as corn based ethanol. But while we wait 5 to 6 years till cellulosic ehtanol becmes commercially viable - should we do nothing or should we develop a practical fuel source which will replace some oil demand and provide some protection against the very likely oil supply disruption we will probably face in the next 1 to 5 yrs.

When the oil supply disruption comes, the price of gasoliine (if we don't have ethanol replacing 5 - 10% of the demand) will blow by $3.00 in a heart-beat. Then we may see a recession and that means some people will be laid off. That's what will happen if we do not expand ethanol we produce right now to replace 5 - 10% (at least) of the gasoline supply.

[4dsc]

10. EROEI of oil is 30++

The arguement you need to be making is with oil, not gasoline..

And while we should be looking at all alternatives, we should fool ourselves into thinking that ethanol is the viable alternative to oil!! Its not!! Ethanol is not going to lessen our dependence upon foreign oil either.. Ethanol is not going to lead us into the next energy source we are looking to transition too..

You say let double the output of ethanol in the next 5 years. Great. The total ethanol produced would be equal to about 2% of our total petroleum needs..

If you want a solution, I firmly believe we need to POWERDOWN!!

[JohnWxy]

12. Oak Ridge National Laboratory - ethanol could meet 1/3 of gasoline demand

I'll say this real slow for you: I never said ethanol could replace ALL of the gasoline demand. REsearcheers estimate a potential of one third of the gasoline demand. We will need to use everything we can think to meet this challenge. Now, should we ignore a practical, available source of energy which is cleaner than gasoline and doesn't require sending troops around into danger around the world? To do this would be, well, not very bright. Does taking advantage of an already working technology mean neglecting efforts to conserve - of course not. The two efforts are not mutually exclusive, you can do both. Maybe I should repeat that. Developing ethanol fully and efforts at conservation are not mutually exclusive. That means you can do both. See???

NOte that cellulosic ethanol and bio-diesel (another renewable that is worth developing) can be made from plant and animal waste(this includes, by the way, the waste generated by billions of humans over the Earth). WE now spend millions of dollars burying and burning or treating millions of pounds of agricultural waste and animal waste each year. All this material could be used to produce ethanol which could run cars and trucks (and in Fuel Cell applications) instead treating it as waste. To not do this is like refusing to duck when walking under a low beam. Why bang your head when you don't need to?

And, - as I think I said before, I certainly applaud anyone's efforts to convince people to give up their SUVs and other wasteful practices and lifestyles. I don't think however, that ignoring energy resources and technologies that make sense and will help reduce gasoline consumption makes a whole lot of sense (however much Exxon-Mobil may hate me for it!).
Here is the link to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory report:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20050421-01


Growth in biomass could put U.S. on road to energy independence

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., April 21, 2005 — Relief from soaring prices at the gas pump could come in the form of corncobs, cornstalks, switchgrass and other types of biomass, according to a joint feasibility study for the departments of Agriculture and Energy.

The recently completed Oak Ridge National Laboratory report outlines a national strategy in which 1 billion dry tons of biomass - any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis - would displace 30 percent of the nation's petroleum consumption for transportation. Supplying more than 3 percent of the nation's energy, biomass already has surpassed hydropower as the largest domestic source of renewable energy, and researchers believe much potential remains.

"Our report answers several key questions," said Bob Perlack, a member of ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division and a co-author of the report. "We wanted to know how large a role biomass could play, whether the United States has the land resources and whether such a plan would be economically viable."

Looking at just forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential biomass sources, the study found potential exceeding 1.3 billion dry tons per year. That amount is enough to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels, according to the report.

Such an amount, which would represent a six-fold increase in production from the amount of biomass produced today, could be achieved with only relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices.

now regarding your statement "ethanol willnot lead us in transition to the next energy source" I;m afraid a number os scientists will disagree with you (sorry about that ;( ):

Fuel cells turn to alcohol

12 February 2004

Researchers in the US and Greece have invented a reactor that can produce hydrogen from ethanol. Lanny Schmidt of the University of Minnesota, Xenephon Verykios of the University of Patras and co-workers say their reactor is both efficient and cost-effective, and that it represents a major step towards a realistic “hydrogen economy”.

I'll happily post some more links on this in the future, if not to your delight, to the delight of those who are interested in exporing all the possibilities presented to us (as discovered by the imagination of the hopeful, human mind).

[4dsc]

16. cellulosic ethanol is year away

The key words in your article are "may" and estimates".. Although wishful thinking wasn't included, that's what I draw from your article.. And inasmuch as more "research" into cellulosic ethanol is being done, I feel its to late and as pointed out before, it will cost too much as oil prices rise..

Perhaps you missed this great article called Net Energy at http://www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/740.. Best quote is By all means, renewable energies of all sorts will be desperately needed and deserve every support, but it would be a mistake to imagine that they are substitutes for the cheap and abundant energy from the oil and gas that drives the modern world.

[JohnWxy]

19. I think you are confusing celulosic ethanol with the use of ethanol to

supply hydrogen for fuel cell applications. I don't know what articles you refer to . I checked the two I mentioned in the post your are responding to and couldn't find the words you say you found.

{ I want to make sure any casual reader (other than yourself) doesn't get confused by your tendentious rhetoric here. There is no 'estimate' regarding corn based ethanol. We are currently making it and probably millions of cars are using it (not only E85 but ethanol 15 and Gasahol (10%ethanol)). This works right now, and it only needs for the production to be expanded. ANY ENGINE THAT RUNS ON GASOLINE CAN USE ETHANOL 10% or 15% ETHANOL - NO MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED. NO EXPENSIVE NEW CAR TO BUY (HYBRID VEHICLE).}

NOte when reading about research (in this case the application of ethanol to Fuel Cell technology) the word 'estimates' is very likely to be encountered. Also, scientists working on developing new technologies are hopeful people (otherwise they wouldn't be working on new solutions) but this of course doesn't mean they are engaging in 'wishful thinking'.
I think to judge their expectations as 'wishful thinking' you would have to be qualified to evaluate in detail the technology they are working on and be capable of offering some intelligent and informed criticism as to its feasiblilty. Do you think you have the qualifications to do that? IF so you should contact the various research facilities I've referenced. Maybe you could help them out with your expertise! :rofl: . WTF it's worth a shot Huh?

I have my doubts that you have those qualifications, why? Because even people who are so equipped, e.g. Engineers, Chemists, Physicists know enough, to know they can't criticize somebody's work in a specific area of application because you cannot know the specifics of their specialty without taking no small amount of time to familiarize yourself with the details of that which they are investigating. - still with me? ..... That is to say knowledgable and trained people are usually reluctant to offer sweeping criticisms of complex research efforts based upon reading a couple articles (or talking to a couple friends of similar opinions). So often it's the most highly opinionated and adamant on a given subject who are the least informed on that subject. That's why there postions tend to be simplistic and absolute. Does that not describe you?


CELLOSIC ETHANOL - time to commercial viability for internal combustion applications - 5 to 6 yrs.

Cellulosic ethanol, most experts estimate, will be commercialy viable in 5 to 6 yrs (even the Bushter knows this!). That's why in the mean time it makes sense to expand starch based ethanol as quickly as posssible. Any car that runs on gasoline can use ethanol 15% or Gasahol (10% ethanol) without modification. This way everybody can be reducing use of fossil fuels WITHOUT BUYING AN EXPENSIVE NEW CAR (i.e. HYBRID VEHICLE). This seems like a rather obvious and eminently practical thing to do. Once we get starch based ethanol up to 5% to 10% of the gasoline demand this will provide insurance against a recession caused by the coming oil supply disruption (IRAN, terorist attacks, Venezuelan political uncertainties, Cat, 3, 4 & 5% hurricanes).

Oak Ridge National Laboratory article

Looking at just forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential biomass sources, the study found potential exceeding 1.3 billion dry tons per year. That amount is enough to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels, according to the report.

Such an amount, which would represent a six-fold increase in production from the amount of biomass produced today, could be achieved with only relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices.

"One of the main points of the report is that the United States can produce nearly 1 billion dry tons of biomass annually from agricultural lands and still continue to meet food, feed and export demands," said Robin Graham, leader for Ecosystem and Plant Sciences in ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division.

Now, as to ethanol used as a source of hydrogen for Fuel Cell applications. Yes, this is more in the earlier stages of development and feasibility studies. BUT, it does represent a change in approach to Fuel Cell technology in the only approach heretofore was to provide the hydrogen as a free gas. This has considerable safety, technical and logistical challenges to overcome. REsearch is being pursued using metal hydrides to store the hydrogen in a safer way and which, hopefully (uh-oh there's that word again :D), will enable storage of a greater amount of hydrogen in the vehicle and make more desirabel range between fuel-ups possible.

NOW, what I referred to in the original post to this thread was research into using hydro-carbons to supply the hydrogen to the fuel cells. This is very interesting in that many feel (uh-oh - lack of absolute certainty again - shall we give up and stop?? :cry:) this will make fuel cell cars feasible considerable sooner than the approach using free hydrogen. The reason for this i already listed in previous posts. NOw one estimate (oh -no another eastimate!) I saw projected that this approach could make fuel cell cars commercially feasible in a decade (as opppossed to estimates for free hydrogen fuelcell cars of two to three decades). Now this may prove to be optimistic, but I believe this approach will considerably shorten the time to make fuel cells practical. And this is a pretty big deal.

_ JW

[JohnWxy]

14. Unfortunately, gas doesn't come out of the ground already refined

and delivered to the country of consumption. NOt considering these enrgy expenditures in rating gaasoline EROEI doesn't make any sense at all. We have to look at what it really costs to get the gasoline to your gas tank.

Oh and lets not forget the lives sacrificed to get that oil. Although, I don't know how you put a price-tag on that.

IF you want to use the military budget devoted to defending oil fields and pipelines what does a gallon of gas cost? In 1997 the New YOrk Times estimated gas would cost $5.00 a gallon if you took into account the military budget devoted to securing oil fields (and the countries that contaiin them). Of course, that was before we invaded IRAQ!

[NickB79]

18. You can't compare just one step in the process

The EROEI when you pump oil out of the ground is quite high. When you distill it into gasoline, you must use some energy to do so, so that step has a low EROEI, but the extremely high EROEI of oil makes the overall energy return highly positive. It's not 30 because you're right that gas doesn't come out already defined, and it's not 0.85 because that is just one step in the entire complex process, but somewhere in between, probably around 10 or so as a guestimate on my part.

For example, when I'm driving the tractor through the field harvesting corn to be turned into ethanol, I'm burning diesel with no immediate ethanol return, so that means the harvesting step of the ethanol production process has a negative EROEI. The overall process for ethanol has a 1.6 EROEI though.

[JohnWxy]

20. Exactly, look at the whole process. That's what Dr. Michael Wang of

the Argonne National Laboratory did. Here is a link to a report on his analysis:

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf


It's very informative. A good antidote to misinformation. I think you'll find it very interesting.

[rfkrfk]

15. only if you ignore the crude oil energy content

when I fill up at a gas station

my EROEI is infinite.

so what?

the US is not the whole world, btw

[JohnWxy]

17. Not worthy of comment.

:rofl: :wtf: