Voting people helping people Or

Cellulosic Ethanol

Billion Ton Vision DOE and USDA find we can produce 1.3 billion tons of biomass per year, enough for 30% of our transportation cost.

Environmental Aspects of Biofuels, Chris Somerville

Cellulosic Ethanol: Benefits and Challenges

Global Energy Perspective

Development of Cellulosic Biofuels, Chris Somerville, Energy Biosciences Institute

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: Mike Simpson and Bill Sali voted No. Mike Crapo and Larry Craig voted Yes.

-Requires an increase in the production of renewable fuels from 4.0 billion gallons to 36.0 billion gallons by 2022 (Sec. 202).

Section 202 -

Amends the Clean Air Act to direct the EPA Administrator to revise regulations to ensure that domestic transportation fuel sold or introduced into commerce, on an annual average basis, contains a specified volume of renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel, and, in the case of renewable fuel produced from new facilities that commence construction after enactment of this Act, achieves at least a 20% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to certain baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.

Revises the applicable volumes of renewable fuel required for calendar years 2008 through 2012 gasoline sold or introduced into commerce in the United States (except in noncontiguous states or territories), on an annual average basis. Specifies such volumes for calendar years 2013 through 2022. Applies such applicable volumes to advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel for certain of these years.

Repeals the specification for the renewable fuel program that one gallon of cellulosic biomass ethanol or waste derived ethanol shall be considered to be the equivalent of 2.5 gallons of renewable fuel.

Authorizes the EPA Administrator to adjust to a lower percentage the 20%, 50%, and 60% reductions in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions with respect to renewable fuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel.

Authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue regulations providing for the generation of an appropriate amount of credits by any person that refines, blends, or imports additional renewable fuels

Coskata

Video of Coskata

Operating cost of $1.00 per gallon for an ethanol cost of $2.00 to $2.50. Operating cost does not consider investment for infrastructure. The company’s process heats raw materials to 17800 degrees Fahrenheit, then releases the material into a bioreactor where microbes convert the gas (carbon monoxide CO and hydrogen H2) into ethanol, with a yield of 100 gallons per ton of feedstock at a cost of less than $1 per gallon they say. The Madison, PA plant costs $50 million and can make 50,000 gallons ethanol per year.

Ethanol Production by Thermophilic Bacteria: Fermentation of ...
The coculture actively fermented MN300 cellulose, Avicel, Solka Floc, SO2- treated wood, and steam-exploded wood. The highest ethanol yield obtained was 1.8 ...

New Zealand biofuel company LanzaTech says it has developed a microbe that can convert waste gases from steel mills into high-octane ethanol.

Chevron

Chevron Inks Feedstock Deal With Cellulosic Ethanol Startup Mascoma

Comet Biorefining

Global Cleantech lists includes three biofuels companies in the Top 10 (algae-based biofuel companies Solazyme and Sapphire Energy, and cellulosic ethanol company ZeaChem, all from the United States).

Niches

Biofuel Niches, Part 3 is last of 3-parts.

Companies Using Cellulosic Ethanol

None are producing ethanol at a competitive price.

Here is some research on cellulosic ethanol.

Syntec Biofuel

LanzaTech develops waste gas-to-ethanol technology

How Verenium Makes Cellulosic Ethanol

Gulf Alternative Energy

TMO

News About Cellulosic Ethanol

Could Beets Be Fueling Your Car Someday?

Interview with Paul Wheaton from PA, who is using energy beets.

Brazil has led the world in ethanol development.

The Biofuel Future

Scientists seek ways to make green energy pay off

By Rachel Ehrenberg

August 1st, 2009; Vol.176 #3 (p. 24)

Cal Tries to Write an Abstract

Gentlemen,

As I searched and read abstracts from http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/

I wrote this:

-------------------------------------------

Title:

Small town research and development of a modular, low-cost, and scalable biofuel facility.

Abstract:

This SBIR Phase I project will research and develop a low-cost biofuel facility that any small town can operate. The feedstock preparation, the fermentation, and the distillation are modular and scalable. As research and technology find better feedstock, we adapt the feedstock preparation module; as more ethanol is needed, we adapt the distiller. No small scale, modular, biofuel facility has been developed. Allard builds distillers for turn-key operation. Vincent Corporation builds feedstock preparation equipment, mostly for juice companies. Nobody develops the fermentation section. Easy-Automation wants $1.7 million for their facility. We will develop a facility that can sell for about $50,000 and make the whole process carbon neutral. If pyrolysis or microbe technology breaks through, we can adapt this facility to that new process.

Workers who research and develop the feedstock preparation will be able to scale it up or to change it. Workers who research and develop the distiller will be able to scale it up or to change it. These workers are the engineers and scientists who live in rural small towns. Development of this project will help any small town to become energy independent. In phase II, these workers will be able to help this small town and other small towns to make their own fuel, with the knowledge, experience, and biofuel facility that they develop here. Sister industries to this biofuel facility will be developed. Heat, feedstock, and water of this facility are inputs to this facility and to sister industries.

-----------------------------------------------------------

NSF wants to pay for research, not development. The research here is (1) finding how to make and to make the modules scalable and cheap (2) helping the workers to build the facility and to show other towns how to do it in phase II.

We can change or add a grinder or squeezer. We can add more fermentation tanks. We can connect another column to the distiller: this is the scalable that I am trying to explain in the abstract.

I dream of a distiller with an external, changeable heat source. The boiler has a place to connect one, two, or three towers, maybe, before a longer boiler or bigger heat source is needed . The $50,000 is a guess.

A writer told me that if I write something that looks really good to me, then ask somebody else to read it.

What do you think?

Cal

Cal tells Willie about KL Energy:

Willie,

Maybe we can get these guys (KL) to put one here. They say this is a small town idea. The newspaper article says:

The business plan of KL Energy, which has been funded mostly through private investment, is to build plants based on its Upton model near forests around the country. The plants would produce up to 5 million gallons a year.

http://casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/07/07/news/wyoming/07566368098ea142872575ea00809012.txt

Willie: the USA burns 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year and 60 billion gallons of diesel. Just to keep this in perspective.

KL is a small town operation...or is it.

KL says:

The wood is converted to ethanol through a proprietary pretreatment technology developed by KL using virtually no acids.

Upton Wyoming is a small town like Salmon. These guys are dumping base or ionic liquids on the wood, rather than acid, I suppose. Acid, base, and ionic treatment of cellulose can unravel the ligno-cellulose structure so Saccharomyces can convert the sugars to ethanol. Imagine a fire hose filled with spaghetti noodles; all of the noodles are cross linked. Lignin is the fire hose and the spaghetti is the cellulose and xylose.

These processes have to hydrolyze (break long chains of xylose and glucose into individual sugars). The acid process hydrolyzes the polymers of glucose, but the side products also inhibit the Saccharomyces in the next step. That may be why KL is not using acid. Using base does not have this problm. Notice that their process is proprietary. They are looking for profit, not for the solution of the problem.

The ionic liquid investigation is on-going (for 10 years I think) in England, according to Chris Somerville.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1LnST3w4WQ

England is also burning Miscanthus, like we burn coal, to make electricity.

None of these processes (acid, base, ionic liquid) can make ethanol for $2.00 a gallon. When they can, we can do it too.

The solution to cellulosic ethanol will come from bacteria, yeast, or enzymes, not from acid, base, or ionic liquids. The big business solution is to keep the process in big business. They won't succeed this time.

Part of USDA is paying for research on Clostridium phytofermentans, which is under most trees and rots the wood in this old house, where the wood is wet--has greater than 15% or so water in the wood, as I recall. Clostridium makes ethanol. No Saccharomyces needed. The researchers were trying to speed up Clostridium but instead inhibited it. When better scientists work on Clostridium (or processes like this), they may find the solution to cellulosic ethanol or cellulosic gasoline. That solution is $2.00/gallon ethanol or cheaper. Right now our idea can beat the oil companies. Unleaded is $2.79 in Salmon.

Say it costs $2.35 a gallon, as the USDA and other studies say, to make ethanol from sugar beets. Add twenty-five cents for the State of Idaho and we have cheaper fuel ($2.50) right now. And we don't send any of the $2.50 out of town. And we are not using the fifty cents a gallon subsidy that the corn-ethanol industry is using. Use the subsidy and we have fuel for $2.00.

Cal

PS Here are the article about KL:

http://www.klprocess.com/