Domestic Fuel

Business Week Online tries to take a somewhat balanced look at ethanol here that falls a bit short. The article has a decidedly cynical tone about ethanol but does present some positive information regarding the energy issue, presenting the findings of Michael Wang with the Argonne National Laboratory for Transportation Research – some very good research. Whenever anyone starts talking about how much fossil fuel is used in the production of ethanol, here is the information to use.
According to “The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update” –

Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34-percent energy gain. Furthermore, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy, which helps the United States to reduce its dependence on imported oil. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy feedstocks, such as coal and natural gas, to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 Btu gain.

Here’s a link to a listing of studies about ethanol on the Argonne website. Most, like the one above, are in pdf format.

Lowering the cost of ethanol production is the goal of Syngas International, a Canadian alternative energy technology corporation. The company hopes to do that by by replacing corn with less-expensive cellulose-based feed stocks and using its "M2 gasifier and PyStR system," with is catalytic conversion as opposed to fermentation. According to a news release, "cellulosic feed stocks include agricultural wastes, grasses and woods, and other low value biomass such as municipal waste."

Now here’s an a-peeling idea for a cellulosic fuel source. Researchers at the Agricultural Research Service Citrus and Subtropical Products Laboratory in Winter Haven have been looking at the possibility of using citrus peels to make ethanol. According to this ARS story, citrus waste materials are rich in pectin, cellulose and hemicellusic polysaccharides, which can be hydrolyzed into sugars and fermented into alcohol. Most of this dried peel residue — a total of 1.2 million tons annually in Florida alone — is currently marketed as low-value cattle feed, despite its relatively high processing cost. They estimate that Florida’s citrus peel waste could yield up to 80 million gallons of ethanol per year.

This story is appropriate this week in honor of the Florida Gators basketball championship – especially since my husband and I are both UF alumni.

Research at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is on the cutting edge of converting biomass to ethanol. IFAS sent out this release last May, prior to the existence of Domestic Fuel, but I recently found it and sent it along to my good friend and ace reporter Mike Rogers. You may have heard his voice on reports for major national radio networks. Anyway, after a week of trying he managed to track down Dr. Lonnie Ingram, IFAS professor of microbiology, who who has developed a biotechnology “bug” that converts biomass and other farm wastes into fuel. His breakthrough technology is basically a genetically engineered E. coli bacteria. The bioconversion technology is being commercialized with assistance from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). BC International Corp., based in Dedham, Mass., holds exclusive rights to use and license the UF-engineered bacteria.

The picture shows Professor Ingram holding a Petri dish containing the new bacterium, while Greg Luli, vice president of research for BC International Corp.’s laboratory at the Sid Martin Biotechnology Center in Alachua, Fla. watches.

Listen to Mike’s interview with Dr. Ingram here: Ingram Interview

Go Gators!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (3.4MB)

Add cheese to the list of commodities that could be used to make ethanol. This AP story is about research into “using a cheese-making byproduct to make ethanol.” That would be whey – as in what Little Miss Muffet ate on her tuffet with curds. According to the article, whey can be made into lactose sugar, which can then be made into ethanol. Whey recycling has been used as a protein supplement in low-carb foods for decades, said Mark Bade, operator of the whey recycling process and waste management facility at Wisconsin Dairy State Cheese in Rudolph. The state’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection is hawking the potential for whey sugar to be refined and used in ethanol. “Ethanol is hot,” the department’s Robin Engel said. Engel says they are thinking Wisconsin could have three refineries that would produce between 4 million and 7 million gallons of ethanol a year. The state is investing some $5 million in alternative energy research.

Doesn’t look like much to me, but according to USDA’s Agricultural Research Service this is a picture of a prototype membrane that could be used to conduct ions in a hydrogen fuel cell. In an effort to reduce “American dependence on petroleum-based fuels,” researchers at ARS’ Environmental Management and Byproduct Utilization Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., have conducted preliminary studies which suggest the possibility of replacing the conventional petroleum-based main membrane in hydrogen fuel cells with biological products. Not saying exactly what the membrane is being made from except that it’s bio-based and non-petroleum made from “naturally occuring products.”

It was awkward, to say the least, that in the midst of President Bush promoting the need for more research into alternative domestic fuels, funding was cut for the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO. So, before the president made his appearance at the NREL today, some 32 workers who were just laid off two weeks ago were given their jobs back. Needless to say, it was going to look bad for the president to show up there and talk about the important work they are doing and how he wanted to put more money into this research when they had just had their budget cut by $28 million dollars. Kind of hard to explain, but the president did attempt to do so by blaming it on a budget mix-up.
I recognize that there has been some interesting — let me say — mixed signals when it comes to funding. The issue, of course, is whether or not good intentions are met with actual dollars spent. Part of the issue we face, unfortunately, is that there are sometimes decisions made, but as a result of the appropriations process, the money may not end up where it was supposed to have gone. I was talking to Dan (NREL director Dr. Dan Arvizu) about our mutual desire to clear up any discrepancies in funding, and I think we’ve cleaned up those discrepancies. My message to those who work here is we want you to know how important your work is; we appreciate what you’re doing; and we expect you to keep going it and we want to help you keep doing it.
(Read all of the president’s remarks here)
I just thought the whole thing was kind of amusingly ironic. I had been sent a link to this December 20 article in the Rocky Mountain News about the layoffs at NREL, right after the president’s State of the Union speech, but I forgot about it until now. Thanks to my friend Erick in Nebraska for sending me that article.
The AP wire article on the President’s NREL visit today also headlines the budget story. It notes that only $5 millon of the $28 million shortfall was restored to the lab to rehire the workers, leaving $23 million still short. That, according to the article has “forced delays in research subcontracted to universities and companies.”

The model used in the ethanol study out this week from UC Berkeley has a nice catchy anacronym (of course) EBAMM – which stands for Energy and Resources Group Biofuels Meta Model which is available to the public on the UC Berkeley website, which is the same link provided in our previous post about the study. I like the Science Daily release on the study and some of the quotes from the researchers Dan Kammen and Alex Farrell of the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley. “It is better to use various inputs to grow corn and make ethanol and use that in your cars than it is to use the gasoline and fossil fuels directly,” Kamman said in the release. “The people who are saying ethanol is bad are just plain wrong,” he said. “But it isn’t a huge victory – you wouldn’t go out and rebuild our economy around corn-based ethanol.”
The transition would be worth it, the authors point out, if the ethanol is produced not from corn but from woody, fibrous plants: cellulose.
“Ethanol can be, if it’s made the right way with cellulosic technology, a really good fuel for the United States,” said Farrell, an assistant professor of energy and resources. “At the moment, cellulosic technology is just too expensive. If that changes – and the technology is developing rapidly – then we might see cellulosic technology enter the commercial market within five years.”
Yep – that’s what we’ve been saying here on this blog. Corn is just a start. God bless the farmers for getting this ball rolling, but in the future the fuel will more than likely come from other sources.
The picture, from the release, was taken at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which became the first ethanol dispensing station in Northern California in July 2004.

A new study finds that producing ethanol is energy efficient after all. The study, by professors at University of California-Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and the Goldman School of Public Policy, will be published in the January 27 edition of Science, according to a news release. This journal is a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, so one would hope it will help put some of the arguments about ethanol to rest. The study examined six previous studies and concluded that corn ethanol reduces petroleum use by about 95 percent per gallon of fuel, but only reduces greenhouse gases by about 13 percent. Improved agricultural practices and ethanol made from plants other than corn could boost ethanol’s environmental performance. Of course, that is exactly what the ethanol industry has been saying all along, so it is not real likely that it will appease the detractors. However, like it or not, all indications are that ethanol and other domestic, alternative, renewable, biofuels … whatever you want to call them … are definitely here to stay and are getting the recognition and support they need to grow and help make this country less and less dependent on foreign sources of energy. More information on the report is available here. The Renewable Fuels Association also sent out a press release about the report with comments from President Bob Dinneen who, needless to say, is absolutely thrilled with it.

New ethanol plant technology will be tested in Iowa. Renessen, LLC - the biotechnology company offspring produced from a mating between Cargill and Monsanto – has announced plans for a pilot plant in Eddyville that “has the potential to increase the profitability of corn growers, ethanol producers, and swine and poultry producers.” According to a company release, the plant will test a unique technology system in which new biotech corn hybrids with increased energy and nutrient levels will be combined with a novel dry corn separation technique designed for ethanol facilities.
By applying a novel processing technology with a high-nutrient corn specially adapted for the process, the system would allow a standard dry-grind ethanol plant to produce several products on site, including: corn oil for food and biodiesel; a nutrient-rich feed ingredient for use in swine and poultry production; a more easily fermentable ethanol medium; an enhanced form of distiller dried grains with solubles (DDGS), the standard cattle feed co-product of today’s ethanol dry milling process.
The new production process is expected to be more profitable because the nutrient-rich feed ingredient, the corn oil, and the enhanced DDGS produced in this new process all have potentially greater value than today’s traditional dry-grind ethanol co-products.
Link to the full release.

Here's some good news out of Detroit on consumer awareness and acceptance of ethanol and flex-fuel vehicles. An on-line survey by research firm Phoenix Marketing International found that 60 percent are extremely or very familiar with the grain-based fuel. When presented with ethanol's strengths and weaknesses, more than 90 percent of drivers said they would prefer a flex-fuel vehicle (running on both bio- and fossil-fuels) over a strictly gasoline or diesel version.
Consumers also seem to be getting the message about the benefits of ethanol, according to the survey. Consumers perceive renewable resource (42 percent), clean fuel (24 percent) and produced in America (19 percent) as the most important benefits of ethanol-powered vehicles.
Bill Saunders, president of Phoenix Automotive, says that ethanol could ultimately help increase sales for American auto manufacturers.
“Last year’s fuel price run-up and Middle East crises may have not only hurt American drivers’ pocketbooks but also caused them to feel guilty about operating large, gas-only vehicles,” said Saunders. “Ethanol power not only allows owners to enjoy large vehicles, but it can also let them feel good about the domestic agricultural economy, American energy independence and the environment."
The survey also questioned which auto manaufacturers were seen as extremely or very environmentally sensitive. Sixty percent or more put Honda and Toyota in that category, but 18 percent or less felt the same way about Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler.
The study of more than 2,000 vehicle owners was conducted just last week on-line. Here is the link to the full release.

We are probably going to be hearing a lot more about producing ethanol from cellulose – that is, the non-food portion of agriculture residue such as cereal straws and corn stover. A major oil company, car manufacturer and biotech firm are going in together on a joint study to assess the economic feasibility of producing cellulose ethanol in Germany. According to a press release, the study is being done by Volkswagen, Shell and Iogen. You probably know who Shell and Volkswagen are – Iogen is a biotechnology firm located in Ottawa, Canada that specializes in cellulose ethanol, and also develops, manufactures and markets enzymes used to modify and improve the processing of natural fibres within the textile, animal feed, and pulp and paper industries.

A joint ethanol-related demonstration project between General Motors, the state of California, Chevron Technology Ventures, and Pacific Ethanol was made public this week at the Los Angeles Auto Show. According to a GM press release, the project is designed “to learn more about consumer awareness and acceptance of E85 as a motor vehicle fuel by demonstrating its use in GM’s flexible-fuel vehicles.”
Here’s some of the details from the release:
GM intends to offer between 50 to 100 of its E85-capable Chevrolet Impala passenger cars and Silverado pickup trucks for consideration in the state’s annual competitive bid process. Flexible-fuel vehicles will be used by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) at various operations in Northern California and the state’s Central Valley. Chevron Technology Ventures intends to work with CalTrans to provide E85 fuel and install the necessary refueling pumps in these locations. Pacific Ethanol, a California-based ethanol production and marketing company, intends to provide the ethanol to Chevron Technology Ventures for the project.

“Governor Schwarzenegger strongly supports the development of alternative fuels to improve California ‘s air quality, reduce CO2 emissions, and achieve energy independence,” said Cal/EPA Secretary Alan C. Lloyd. “This demonstration program involving E85 fuel technology insures that California will continue to play a leading role in protecting the environment and public health.”

As a show of how much the current administration is putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to encouraging the development of renewable fuel sources, USDA just announced grants to 11 projects totalling over $12 million dollars.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns announced that 11 biomass research, development and demonstration projects were selected to receive $12.6 million for the Biomass Research and Development Initiative, a joint effort of USDA and the Department of Energy (DOE). The total value of the projects is nearly $19 million, including cost sharing of the private-sector partners.

The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 and the 2002 Farm Bill set the framework for interagency cooperation and joint solicitations.

Here’ s a list of the 2005 projects:

University of Idaho (Moscow, Idaho) – Increasing the Potential for the Utilization of Cellulose from Straw for Biofuel and Bioproduct Production – $693,285

The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. (Ardmore, Okla.) – Development of Low-Lignin Switchgrass for Improved Ethanol Production – $670,166

The Tampa Bay Area Ethanol Consortium (Florida) – Implementation of a Scale-Up Pilot Plant Demonstration Facility toward the Commercialization of Florida Biomass Feedstocks for Ethanol Production – $1,920,000

University of Montana, College of Technology (Missoula, Mont.) – Biopower Demonstration and Educational Outreach – $990,500

North Carolina State University, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering (Raleigh, N.C.) – Conversion of BioDiesel Derived Glycerol to Glycidol, Glycerol Carbonate and C-3 Oxygenates by Catalytic and Biocatalytic Pathways – $1,606, 265

Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa) – Environmental Enhancement through Corn Stover Utilization – $1,853,996

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tenn.) – Carbon Fiber from Biomass Lignins – $1,083,770

Clarkson University – (Potsdam, N.Y.) – Environmental and Economic Performance of an Integrated, Digester-Cogeneration-Value-Added Process – $805,938

University of Minnesota, Morris (Morris, Minn.) – Biomass Gasification: A Comprehensive Demonstration of a Community-Scale Biomass Energy System – $1,896,493

University of Florida (Gainesville, Fla.) – Bioenergy: Optimum Incentives and Sustainability of Non-Industrial Private Forests in the U.S. South – $656,525

Environmental Resources Trust (Washington, D.C.) – Incentives for Biomass Commercialization: Pioneering Markets for Biomass Using Renewable Energy Certificates, Emission Reduction Credits and Incentive Programs for Ammonia, PM10 and PM2.5 Reductions – $449,993

The American Coalition For Ethanol just released a study on the how well vehicles operate on an ethanol fuel blend.

The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) released the results of its recent Fuel Economy Study, a pilot study that researched the fuel economy, cost per mile, and driveability of various blends of fuel, including unleaded gasoline, E10, E20, and E30.

The research tested unleaded gasoline, a 10% ethanol blend (E10), a 20% ethanol blend (E20), and a 30% ethanol blend (E30) in three late-model vehicles. The Chevrolet Impala, Ford Taurus, and Toyota Camry were not flexible fuel vehicles, and no modifications were made to them for this research. Care was taken to eliminate any human inputs that might render the tests unscientific, including the use of a computerized data logger and strict controls on the vehicles, fuel, and terrain.

Summary results:

Miles per gallon
The three vehicles averaged only 1.5% lower mileage with E10, 2.2% lower mileage with E20, 5.1% lower mileage with E30, and increased mileage of 1.7% when using the specially denatured E10 blend.

Driveability
Contrary to statements commonly made by vehicle manufacturers and technicians, no warning lights were displayed at any time while operating on any of the fuel blends. The data logger used for the research monitored all systems and detected no malfunction indicator lights (MIL), diagnostic trouble code lights (DTC), or emissions DTCs.

Full Study