Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Whatever happened to cellulosic ethanol?

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Whatever happened to cellulosic ethanol?
  • Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:09:01 -0600


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.





  • [Livingontheland] Whatever happened to cellulosic ethanol?, Tradingpost, 10/25/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page