Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

Whatever happened to cellulosic ethanol?
AP: cellulosic 'not even close' to being ready to satisfy government mandates
Tom Philpott at 1:52 PM on 17 Oct 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/10/17/94536/558

For a while, I've been wishing I had time to write a feature on cellulosic 
ethanol, the allegedly "green" biofuel that's been "five years away" from 
commercial viability for about, oh, two decades.

Government mandates -- backed by a plethora of tax breaks, grants, and other 
goodies -- require production of 16 billions of the stuff by 2022. Today's 
production, rounding off, amounts to about zero.

Every once in a while, I catch hints of official skepticism poking through a 
veneer of mindless optimism regarding cellulosic ethanol. In January, Colin 
Peterson -- chair of the House Ag Committee and a nearly tireless champion of 
Big Ag interests -- averred that cellulosic could well never "get off the 
ground." Earlier, analysts from the USDA -- which has been plowing cash into 
cellulosic for decades -- expressed similar concerns.

Since then, save for occasional news of some techno breakthrough that never 
seems to bring commercial viability any closer than five years away, things 
have been pretty quiet on the cellulosic front.

Until this week, that is. Associated Press has come out with an article on 
why the government's mandates look increasingly unattainable.

The article opens by pointing to a few obvious problems with the cellulosic 
mandates:

    No commercial-scale refineries exist, researchers have yet to agree on 
the best technology for fuel conversion and there is no distribution network 
to handle fuel once it is made.

The article claims that an "estimated 200-plus large-scale facilities are 
needed" to crank out enough volume to meet the mandates. No mention of 
converting existing conventional ethanol plants -- a prospect that the 
industry has held out for years.

It points out another obvious problem with cellulosic ethanol: cellulose 
tends to be bulky and not very dense. Shipping it from field to refinery will 
require much more truck or train capacity than, say, moving corn from silo to 
ethanol plant.

Moreover, unlike corn, "Some of the material, such as switchgrass, 
deteriorates more quickly."

The most hopeful bit in the article focuses on a new facility owned by 
ethanol giant Poet, specially designed to churn out both conventional and 
cellulosic ethanol. The company says the facility will initially make 
conventional corn ethanol, but hopes one day it can also utilize cellulose 
from corn plants: stalks, cobs, etc. Poet official told AP that:

    We can use the same farmers, the same fields, the same infrastructure to 
get cellulose to the plants ... We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

That's awesome, except for one thing -- by turning so-called "crop waste" 
into car fuel, you're robbing soil of vital organic matter. I fear for the 
soils of the Midwest if cellulosic ethanol ends up sucking up all the corn 
stover, which currently rots in fields and slows erosion.

I see two immediate fundamental problems with cellulose as an ethanol source: 
1) There just isn't a whole lot of energy in stuff like grass and corn 
stalks, and concentrating what energy is there requires lots of energy; and 
2) most cellulose is extremely bulky and not very dense; transporting it from 
field to refinery will be an inefficient, energy-intensive process.

Researchers, many on them funded with government cash, have been working 
diligently for years to solve the first problem. No one seems to be thinking 
much about the second one -- beyond the dodgy idea of using existing corn 
infrastructure to grab corn husks and whatnot.

Then there's another, more fundamental problem. Even cellulosic ethanol 
requires feedstocks that have been grown in soil. Growing one thing means not 
growing another. Cellulosic ethanol could well end up leading to expanded 
monocultures and less agro-biodiversity -- and more deforestation and 
clearing of carbon sinks and wildlife habitat.

Or, if they never sort out the first problem I mentioned above, it could 
never happen at commercial scale at all. That, along with a concerted effort 
to rebuild local food systems, re-solarize agriculture, and reinvest in dense 
cities and public transportation, might just be the best-case scenario.

Shame that the government is dumping billions of dollars per year into 
ethanol when so much else needs to be done.