Interesting timing, especially when some biomass companies are switching from wood chips to corn, because they couldn’t turn a profit on wood chips. Looks like all the wheels are coming off the bus now.
To Survive, Some Biofuels Companies Give Up on Biofuels – Technology Review
Gevo, a prominent advanced-biofuels company that has received millions in U.S. government funding to develop fuels made from cellulosic sources such as grass and wood chips, is finding that it can’t use these materials if it hopes to survive. Instead, it’s going to use corn, a common source for conventional biofuels. What’s more, most of the product from its first facility will be used for chemicals rather than fuel.
As the difficulty of producing cellulosic biofuels cheaply becomes apparent, a growing number of advanced-biofuels companies are finding it necessary to take creative approaches to their business, even though that means abandoning some of their green credentials, at least temporarily, and focusing on markets that won’t have a major impact on oil imports. This is hardly the outcome the government hoped for when it announced cellulosic-biofuels mandates, R&D funding, and other incentives in recent years.
Here’s the story on the subsidy ending from the Detroit News:
Congress adjourned for the year on Friday, failing to extend the tax break that’s drawn a wide variety of critics on Capitol Hill, including Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Critics also have included environmentalists, frozen food producers, ranchers and others.
The policies have helped shift millions of tons of corn from feedlots, dinner tables and other products into gas tanks.
Environmental group Friends of the Earth praised the move.
“The end of this giant subsidy for dirty corn ethanol is a win for taxpayers, the environment and people struggling to put food on their tables,” biofuels policy campaigner Michal Rosenoer said Friday.
Dirty Corn Ethanol? I’m all for ending taxpayer siphoning, but dirty corn ethanol?
Full story h/t to Lawrence Depenbush
Really!!??
Got any references you can cite on that? This isn’t like the Jatropha plant that hasn’t really panned out for vegetable oil production, is it?
BTW, the name is “_Jim” on account of all the Jims on the board …
.
“The extraordinary collapse of Jatropha as a biofuel”
Posted on August 7, 2011 by Anthony Watts
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/07/the-extraordinary-collapse-of-jatropha-as-a-biofuel/
(Story submitted by Ronald C. Henry)
The current American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science & Technology has a most amazing story demonstrating the foolish, indeed outright dangerous, application of the “precautionary principle” to AGW mitigation.
The story is at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es201943v, but all you really need to know is summarized in the last paragraph.
[ Note from Anthony: IPCC co-author, Dr. Rex Victor O. Cruz paper entitled “Yield and Oil Content Ideotypes Specification in Jatropha curcas L.” won Best Scientific Poster Award for Agricultural Sciences by the National Academy of Science and Technology on July 15, 2010.
It looks like Al Gore via his Goldman Sachs train-wreck had a hand in this nonsense too. See the Wikipedia description for Jatropha:
In 2007 Goldman Sachs cited Jatropha curcas as one of the best candidates for future biodiesel production. It is resistant to drought and pests, and produces seeds containing 27-40% oil, averaging 34.4%. The remaining press cake of jatropha seeds after oil extraction could also be considered for energy production. However, despite their abundance and use as oil and reclamation plants, none of the Jatropha species have been properly domesticated and, as a result, their productivity is variable, and the long-term impact of their large-scale use on soil quality and the environment is unknown. ]
The Extraordinary Collapse of Jatropha as a Global Biofuel
Promode Kant , Institute of Green Economy, C-312, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024, India
Shuirong Wu Chinese Academy of Forestry, Wanshoushan, Haidian District, Beijing 100091, China
Blending of fossil diesel with biodiesel is an important climate change mitigation strategy across the world. In 2003 the Planning Commission of India decided to introduce mandatory blending over increasingly larger parts of the country and reach countrywide 30% blending status by the year 2020 and opted for nonedible oilseed species of Jatropha curcus raised over lands unsuited to agriculture as it was considered to be high in oil content, early yielding, nonbrowsable and requiring little irrigation and even less management.
In a massive planting program of unprecedented scale millions of marginal farmers and landless people were encouraged to plant Jatropha across India through attractive schemes.
…
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
More – see link above
jabre says:
December 28, 2011 at 7:22 am
There are no subsidies for oil. The tax break that most complain about, is nothing more than the same depreciation allowances that all other manufacturers use.
Downdraft – excellent post!. The problem with unreliable energy sources such as wind and solar is the fickle nature of energy demand. If the energy from these sources were buffered then they would become reliable. One method might be to power pumps to raise the potential energy of water or some other substance however, using that energy to produce ETOH makes a great deal of sense. It could well be the best energy buffering methodology available allowing us to make use of the tens or hundreds of billions invested thus far in wind and solar boondoggles.
If you are concerned about the price of oil, then support opening up all energy sources here in the US. Don’t know if we can become completely self sufficient, but we can get pretty close.
“Gasoline only produces .85 BTU of fuel energy delivered to the consumer for every 1.00 BTU invested in the refining and delivery chain, ”
This is not a correct comparison. That only looks at the BTU’s going into the refinery, and the energy required to refine and deliver the end product. It does not look at the total energy balance of oil, only of the refining process. Total EROI of oil is something like 1 in to 10 out.
Downdraft: ‘I looked at the report Jabre referenced’
– no you did not. The $480B (annual) was a specific reference from within that page not the summary conclusion. To go into his details:
The true cost of importing oil to the US includes the following aspects:
The cost of the oil ($2.50)
Oil-related defense expenditures ($3.79)
The loss of domestic employment and related economic activity due to cash outflow for oil ($3.23)
The reduction in investment capital ($10.85)
The loss of local, state and federal tax revenues ($1.18)
The economic toll periodic oil supply disruptions impose on the domestic economy ($3.65)
Federal subsidies for oil & gas industry ($0.69)
The market cost of carbon ($0.18)
Pricing shown per US tax payer; assumes $60 per barrel of oil and $20 per ton of CO2
Source: Testimony of Milton R. Copulos, President, National Defense Council Foundation, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, March 30, 2006; IMF, 2008; EIA; CleanTech Group, 2007; US Census Bureau; Experian Automotive; Paper presented to Congressional staff members by NDCF President Milt Copulos, January 8, 2007
You may argue as you will with the details. But, I challenge you to redefine your perspective of this to less than the $1/gal that cellulosic ethanol is receiving.
‘ethanol from corn’ – overlooking the fact that the corn-based ethanol subsidies are phasing out. It’s algal/cellulosic – no corn unless you’re just using the stalk. (http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueItems.Detail&IssueItem_ID=f10ca3dd-fabd-4900-aa9d-c19de47df2da&Month=12&Year=2007). Read sec 201 for more details on the definition of advanced.
Since most folks just want to argue and aren’t willing to spend the time to review links in detail:
HR: 6-31
(2) APPLICABLE VOLUMES OF RENEWABLE FUEL.—Subparagraph (B) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(B) APPLICABLE VOLUMES.—
‘‘(i) CALENDAR YEARS AFTER 2005.—
‘‘(I) RENEWABLE FUEL.—For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicable volume of renew-able fuel for the calendar years 2006 through 2022 shall be determined in accordance with the following table:
Applicable volume of renewable fuel ‘‘Calendar year: (in billions of gallons):
2006 …………………………………………………………………… 4.0
2007 …………………………………………………………………… 4.7
2008 …………………………………………………………………… 9.0
2009 …………………………………………………………………… 11.1
2010 …………………………………………………………………… 12.95
2011 …………………………………………………………………… 13.95
2012 …………………………………………………………………… 15.2
2013 …………………………………………………………………… 16.55
2014 …………………………………………………………………… 18.15
2015 …………………………………………………………………… 20.5
2016 …………………………………………………………………… 22.25
2017 …………………………………………………………………… 24.0
2018 …………………………………………………………………… 26.0
2019 …………………………………………………………………… 28.0
2020 …………………………………………………………………… 30.0
2021 …………………………………………………………………… 33.0
2022 …………………………………………………………………… 36.0
‘‘(II) ADVANCED BIOFUEL.—For the purpose of subparagraph (A), of the volume of renewable fuel required under subclause (I), the applicable volume of advanced biofuel for the calendar years 2009 through 2022 shall be determined in accordance with the following table:
Applicable volume of advanced biofuel ‘‘Calendar year: (in billions of gallons):
2009 …………………………………………………………………… 0.6
2010 …………………………………………………………………… 0.95
2011 …………………………………………………………………… 1.35
2012 …………………………………………………………………… 2.0
2013 …………………………………………………………………… 2.75
2014 …………………………………………………………………… 3.75
2015 …………………………………………………………………… 5.5
2016 …………………………………………………………………… 7.25
2017 …………………………………………………………………… 9.0
2018 …………………………………………………………………… 11.0
2019 …………………………………………………………………… 13.0
2020 …………………………………………………………………… 15.0
2021 …………………………………………………………………… 18.0
2022 …………………………………………………………………… 21.0
‘‘(III) CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL.—For the purpose of subparagraph (A), of the volume of advanced biofuel required under subclause (II), the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel for the calendar years 2010 through 2022 shall be determined in accordance with the following table:
Applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel ‘‘Calendar year: (in billions of gallons):
2010 …………………………………………………………………… 0.1
2011 …………………………………………………………………… 0.25
2012 …………………………………………………………………… 0.5
2013 …………………………………………………………………… 1.0
2014 …………………………………………………………………… 1.75
2015 …………………………………………………………………… 3.0
2016 …………………………………………………………………… 4.25
2017 …………………………………………………………………… 5.5
2018 …………………………………………………………………… 7.0
2019 …………………………………………………………………… 8.5
2020 …………………………………………………………………… 10.5
2021 …………………………………………………………………… 13.5
2022 …………………………………………………………………… 16.0
‘‘(IV) BIOMASS-BASED DIESEL.—For the purpose of subparagraph (A), of the volume of advanced biofuel required under subclause (II), the applicable volume of biomass-based diesel for the calendar years 2009 through 2012 shall be deter-
mined in accordance with the following table: Applicable volume of biomass based diesel
‘‘Calendar year: (in billions of gallons):
2009 …………………………………………………………………… 0.5
2010 …………………………………………………………………… 0.65
2011 …………………………………………………………………… 0.80
2012 …………………………………………………………………… 1.0
Blade says:
December 28, 2011 at 9:56 am
=================
Bingo!
C’mon Sal Minella!
No perpetual motion here!
The only question here, is if the 1 BTU represents all the costs associated from the moment the corn is planted until it arrives as ethonal at the pump, or as some are questioning here, does it only represent the energy needed at the factory to convert the sugar to ethonal.
Perhaps A. Scott could clarify that, and while doing so, perhaps he could phrase it so that the “perpetual motion” comments are avoided.
jabre says:
December 28, 2011 at 9:32 am
I can’t believe that any person with a functioning brain actually believes that the only reason we have a military is to protect oil.
ChE says:
December 28, 2011 at 9:56 am
The difference is that as long as the subsidy was hidden, there was little demand for getting rid of the mandate. Now that the mandate is impacting the price that people pay, it might be easier to get the mandate repealed as well.
Apropos for this thread too (Onion parody):
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:02 am
The difficulty of breaking the covalent carbon bonds of the cellulose chain was painfully apparent to us at the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1980, when we first studied this process. Enzymes from termite gut bacteria yadda yadda yadda….
=====================================
Yes, unfortunately the latest developments in molecular biology and enzyme evolution are beyond paywalled. They’re not even published for proprietary reasons. You can, however, find a lot on the chemical methodologies in the patent literature. There’s a lot of new, good stuff in this field. My prediction is that it will indeed find an infrastructure, for higher value specialty chemicals first though.
With the production of artificial fertilizers, we have been converting “fuel to food” for some time. Just sayin’…
cwj says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:10 am
To look at the historic price of corn, I found a site from the University of Illinois on the price of corn received by farmers in Illinois, in dollars per bushel…….
=======================================================
Have a look at this. While much of the increase return would be because of higher yields, it is also because of higher pricing. Further, like most other commodities, looking at present day pricing, one needs to factor in the recession.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Corn/Gallery/gallery2010/NetReturn.gif
(other examples of recession lowering prices….. http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image_thumb30.png?w=630&h=348 http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image_thumb18.png?w=560&h=385 )
Correct, — but it is the same bogus energy accounting used by the anti-ethanol group to discredit fuel ethanol with intentionally misleading energy accounting.
Larry
Hotrod says:
So you are saying a hydro electric dam can never generate more power than the amount of energy used to build the dam? An oil refinery can never produce more gasoline, fuel oil, JP4 or diesel fuel energy than the amount of fuel burned to build the refinery?
Hotrod, Hotrod, Hotrod. The hydro dam does not convert the energy used to build it into electricity. The same is true with the refinery.
Since you seem earnest in making that statement, I will explain both the hydro plant and the refinery.
In the case of the hydro plant, as water flows from a greater altitude to a lesser altitude some of it’s potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and that is the energy that we exploit. The pouring of concrete to create the dam and the casting and drawing of metal to create the dynamos is not where the energy comes from it is simply the means of converting the waters kinetic energy into electricity ( it is less than 100% efficient by the way).
You might get the picture but, then again you might not so, I’ll explain the refinery to you as well. The bricks, mortar, metals, ceramics, glass, etc. used to build the refinery are not converted to gasoline. The gasoline comes from a feedstock that is known as oil. Oil is material that stores energy from some other source such as the sun or geothermal. The conversion of oil to gasoline is less than 100% efficient as well. Being less than 100% efficient means that some energy is lost in the conversion process.
In both cases it is quite likely that the wind and the sun were the source of potential energy that is stored in these materials. The dam cycle is probably shorter than the oil or coal cycle but in all cases more than one BTU had to be put into the system in order to get one BTU out. Only magic can make one BTU in into greater thanone BTU out
So, when you say that you get 1.6 BTU of energy out for each 1.0 BTU in you vioalte some very basic scientific principles that we all learned in grade-school.
Every BTU of energy produced from any source takes more than a BTU to produce it otherwise there would be no impending future energy crisis, Instead of “using up” our energy sources we would be constantly adding to them, creating an infinite amount of energy from, essentially, nothing.
Sal Minella says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:44 am
“… If the energy from these sources were buffered then they would become reliable. One method might be to power pumps to raise the potential energy of water or some other substance however, using that energy to produce ETOH makes a great deal of sense. It could well be the best energy buffering methodology available allowing us to make use of the tens or hundreds of billions invested thus far in wind and solar boondoggles.”
Until the dam breaks.
Taum Sauk pumped storage plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Hydroelectric_Power_Station
The only troll here is you.
You magically pop up every time there is a substantive discussion of fuel ethanol or any pro-oil discussion. I have been posting here for years on lots of other topics, but you are a one man band of ad-homonym attacks and misinformation directed at anyone that tries to present the other side of the story that is conveniently ignored by the folks who are against ethanol.
Your tactics are exactly the same small minded sort of character assassination attacks with no substance as we see from the global warming crowd and simply will not fly here.
If you have facts or personal observations you wish to contribute to the discussion, please carry on an adult discussion, otherwise please go back into your hole.
Larry
MarkW: “There are no subsidies for oil. The tax break that most complain about, is nothing more than the same depreciation allowances that all other manufacturers use.”
Oil producers get a depletion allowance of 15 percent of the gross income from all the oil they pump, regardless of the depreciation. If the depreciation of the capital investment to develop the field is greater than the depletion allowance they can claim depreciation instead. I don’t think other manufacturers get that sweet a deal. Other manufacturers may get accelerated depreciation, but they do not get to claim more than their capital investment. This is a subsidy to the oil business in the US.
_Jim says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:34 am
JFB says on December 28, 2011 at 10:03 am
…
… Brazil is adapting a new variety of sugar cane suitable for the south where the climate is subtropical (State of Rio Grande do Sul).
Really!!??
Got any references you can cite on that? This isn’t like the Jatropha plant that hasn’t really panned out for vegetable oil production, is it?
BTW, the name is “_Jim” on account of all the Jims on the board …
====================================================
This thread’s great. I’m learning so much new stuff. Thanks Anthony.
_Jim, here’s a start:
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pab/v45n10/01.pdf
We’ll probably see an acceleration of this as Monsanto appears to be entering with its powerhouse breeding systems.
http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=656
Also a tip: Don’t compare sugarcane with Jatropha
Jim – LOL – you like poking a stick and getting people going 😉
Blade – take a valium. I am hardly a greenee. I used a Heritage Foundation reference and that’s what you call me? LOL You quoted me ‘shockingly good legislation with respect to renewable fuels’ then go on a tirade about light bulbs? Really, I agree with most of the comments. End the subsidies. But, make it a level playing field if you’re going to do it. Cut our defense spending in the middle east to zero and let the free market truly define our fuel choices. We’ll start to see Thorium get the attention it deserves. Coal will thrive. Once an alternative infrastructure is in place (regardless of what it is) the price of oil will be back to where it belongs at less than $28/barrel.
Mark W. – ‘I can’t believe that any person with a functioning brain actually believes that the only reason we have a military is to protect oil.’
Feel free to explain our military spending in the middle east and how it is disassociated with oil. It will obviously be concise and trivial from someone with a functioning brain.
Well, I’ve got a bright idea. Let’s go back to growing hemp: for fuel, for clothing, for food (human an animal consumption), for paper..
..for medicine.
You obviously are either not paying attention or are being intentionally obtuse.
The direct energy input used in fuel ethanol production includes:
Fuel and pesticides, and other production energy etc to grow the corn
Transportation of the corn to the fuel ethanol plant
direct process energy to run the plant.
Transportation energy used to deliver the fuel ethanol to the buyer.
That is the energy input in that equation.
Energy output is the lower heating value of the fuel ethanol produced by the plant plus the energy content/value credited to the co-products such as cattle feed and commercial CO2 captured during the fermenting process.
This is the real energy successfully harvested and includeds solar energy captured by the plants during their growth which we do not pay for, just like we do not pay for the potential energy stored in a snow pack as atmospheric convection (driven by solar energy) moves water to high altitude. Nor do we pay for the solar energy stored by some fern in the Jurassic which many years later is returned to us in the form of a gallon of gasoline.
There is no violation of conservation of energy laws or themodynamic principles just a plain and simple accounting of the energy we pay for to produce a fuel product we can burn to produce energy.
It is no different that accounting for the energy used to chop down a tree, transport it to a firewood yard and split it compared to the total thermal energy contained in the fire wood when it is sold. The fire wood operator only pays for and need account for the direct energy inputs to harvest the wood. He does not pay for the 30 years of solar energy that the tree converted to cellulose and lignin.
You are beating on a logical fallacy because you refuse to use straight forward accounting for the actual energy cost of production that humans have to invest to get fuel ethanol as a salable product.
Don’t believe me — go debate it with Argonne National Laboratories and Hosein Shapouri
James A. Duffield and Michael Wang
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2005/NCGA_Ethanol_Meeting_050823.ppt
Larry