Corn Ethanol Now

The U.S. produces more ethanol than any other country in the world, and will soon have the capacity to produce 10 billion gallons per year. Many people believe that ethanol needs to be made from non-food crops (cellulose), and imply new cellulosic ethanol plants will be built. How about upgrading existing ethanol plants to improve energy efficiency?

There are numerous upgrades that can be made. The first step would be to install a gasifier that would turn cellulose into biogas. Cellulose could be used to replace natural gas inputs used during ethanol production. Corn oil extraction equipment can also be installed so biodiesel can be made simultaneously. These two upgrades will greatly increase the amount of positive energy return.

Current corn ethanol facilities can be upgraded to produce three fuels: Ethanol, Biodiesel, and natural gas.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by PickensPlans on July 14, 2008 at 5:21pm: I agree with your ideas. Right now corn is the best option for ethanol prodction. We need to continue on this path and expand the amount of ethanol we use in place of gasoline produced with oil (70% of which we import).
We've have to continue to invest in science and technology to produce ethanol for material other than corn so we can increase the overall amount of ethanol we use in America. The strides we make in blending and transportation using corn based ethanol will be the groundwork for all other biofuels to come.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan Campbell on July 15, 2008 at 6:17pm: PickensPlans said:

That is correct, and as such we should make an effort to embrace corn ethanol. I believe that most of these breakthroughs will be installed into existing(or under construction) corn ethanol plants. The zoning and permits are already in place and ethanol plants were designed with space to expand. Stand alone cellulosic ethanol plants may not be the best option. I believe that a combined cellulose/corn ethanol facility would be best because it could reach greater efficiencies.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jim Lane on July 15, 2008 at 6:38pm: Good comments Nathan,

Corn oil extraction is available through two companies, GS Clean Tech and Primafuel. Most plants are looking at it; finance is difficult at this time due to the credit squeeze, but look for many more corn oil extractions to be put in place shortly.

Gasifiers are a little more difficult, because they use generally use corn stover (in a corn scenario) which is left in the field, not harvested. So the cost of transport has to be figured in, because natural gas is coming via pipeline but stover comes via a diesel-burning truck. Recapturing steam from processing does supplant some natural gas. Also, shipping wet distiller's grains can reduce gas needs.

As you point out, increasing yields and energy efficiency is always an important job, and we can expect to hit three gallons per bushel sooner rather than later.

Hope this helps!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan Campbell on July 17, 2008 at 5:08pm: Jim-

Theres another company in the corn oil extraction business that I know of called Greenshift. According to their website, they offer 100% financing. Perhaps as profit margins fall more cash strapped refiners will seek partnerships such as these. Corn oil extraction yield can be up to 10% of ethanol yield, so that would be three gallons of fuel per bushel. Energy content in oil is also higher, so it is worth more than ethanol per volume by almost double.

Gasification from corn stover will only be economic for very short distances because of fuel costs. Have you thought about other matter that can be gasified? I've heard there is a a surplus of glycerin because of biodiesel production. Also out here in Colorado we have a National Forest that is completely dead because of a pine beetle infestation. All these trees are coming down within ten years because they are a fire hazard. Local wood pellet factories have been opened as a result. Wood pellets can be transported by train, and can be gasified in the same equipment as corn stover.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Duane Combs on July 16, 2008 at 3:18pm: Actually there is even more companies extracting corn oil. Utica Energy is now extracting fuel grade corn oil.

They also have a newer plant called Renew E85 and they are extracting food grade corn oil. This is a definite win/win situation.

I look for corn oil extraction to become the norm in a very competitive industry.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kevin Adams on July 17, 2008 at 2:14pm: The ideas in this posting and responses are all excellent and progressive.

It appears to me that too many people are obsessed with the input for the ethanol, but it really doesnt matter as long as it makes sense. For example, there is an ethanol plant outside of Boise, ID, which is utilizing potato skins supplied by a french fry processing plant a few hundred yards away.

This year has been difficult with the weather and corn crops in some areas only producing 20% of their normal yield. Some of these areas, which were subject to early floods, could plant sugar beets and still get a yield this year.

One of the largest problems with ethanol fuels is the contradictory messages from our Federal government. The government has some very positive plans for ethanol, but has other regulations which hinder its use. Most gasoline vehicles produced after 1990 can be converted to FlexFuel for less than $500, but the EPA considers this to be "tampering with the pollution conrol system", for which, the penalty is up to $25,000 per incident.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan Campbell on July 17, 2008 at 4:58pm: Its not tampering with the pollution control system if emissions are actually reduced. You can pass an emission test with an flex-fuel kit, and this has been verified in an certified test, so its not illegal. I actually have one of those kits on my car and it works pretty good.

Outside Denver, Colorado the Coor's beer plant pipes all of its waste beer to an ethanol refinery a few hundred feet away. They make 3 million gallons of fuel a year from a waste stream.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kevin Adams on July 18, 2008 at 5:26pm: Nathan,

You may want to contact the EPA regarding these conversion kits. They have not approved any kits (as of about 2 weeks ago) and were not in the process of testing any).

One of the kit manufacturers states that their kit is "compliant". The EPA does not recognize "compliance", only certification. While FFI and Xpertech (the 2 major players in the US market) may be currently running their own tests, Abcesso (a brazilian company who has been producing kits for about 20 years) infomed me that they are not even interested in pursuing US business due to the EPA testing costs. While the EPA will review the private test results, they require each kit manufacturer to supply test vehicles to them prepared to run the emmisions tests at the EPA test facility in Ann Arbor, MI. This is not some mickey mouse deal. They require special fuel tanks for each fuel mixture tested. Each of these tanks has to be of a specific capacity, meet safety regulations, and be equpped with monitors and drain valves.

This gets much more complex with the different kits and interfaces. The EPA may require tests on every vehicle/ engine combination. The costs become prohibitive for all but the major auto companies.

Check out this web site for more information:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/technology_bulletin_0807.html

I am curious, however, what make of kit are you running and who told you it was legal?

Regarding Coors, great, another example of converting waste to ethanol.

Kevin Adams; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan Campbell on July 18, 2008 at 9:43pm: Is this the same EPA that feels they don't have any authority to regulate CO2? I frankly don't care if its illegal. Thats one of those things that is technically against the law, but impossible to enforce or prosecute. I might have some stickers on my car saying my car uses E85, but even if a police officer knew that it was against the law they wouldn't do anything. There is no trail of black smoke, therefore no evidence that pollution laws are being broken. Many people with big trucks get new exhaust systems, and some take out their catalytic converters. The EPA doesn't enforce that law, why would they enforce this ridiculous one.

I am running the FFI unit. Their website says that " Our company was the first one in 2007 to express our concern for the EPA rules and work on a test plan for compliance in 2007 on any converter and continue to do extensive testing as requested in 2008." I assumed it was legal because of emission test results posted on their reseller from Colorado site ( http://www.change2e85.com ). He had his older Suburban tested by the EPA lab at Colorado State University. Not only did the vehicle emit almost zero of the regulated "pollutants", CO2 emissions were reduced from the tailpipe by 66%. Its unfair for the EPA to try to force testing on every vehicle, even though its common sense that a cleaner burning fuel creates less pollution. Its also unfair for the EPA to handpick companies to certify and to handpick a very narrow range of very recent vehicles from a single manufacture. It seems strange that "environmental regulations" should cause the burning of more oil, but thats the EPA you get under an oilman.

There is no reason to wait to convert your car. Those regulations, along with any other policy that favors the oil companies, are going to be removed once Obama is president. He has the support of the ethanol makers, and installing ethanol converter units would be considered one of those "green" jobs he talks about. Thanks for the link to the EPA site regarding the current regulation process. It gives me a sense of pride to know that not only am I choosing to not use petroleum, I am in a way also practicing civil disobedience.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kevin Adams on July 20, 2008 at 12:14am: As far as I know, there is only 1 EPA.

As I stated from the beginning, I am all for ethanol fuels. My 03 Suburban passed its 4 year emmissions test expelling only 4% of the allowable CO and HydroCarbon levels.

FFI has not started the EPA certification testing process yet. Their own testing is simply a prelude to the EPA tests. Due to the high costs of the EPA tests, kit manufacturers need to do their own testing well in advance to make sure their systems are working properly. None of this pretesting is actually used in the EPA certifications. The certifications are only done at the Ann Arbor, MI EPA facility. This is a much different and more advanced facility than the EPA facility in Ft. Collins.

When you insist the kits are legal without knowing your facts, that is a problem. Good for you, if you have made the decision to use the kit even though it is illegal, but most uf us can not afford to take the risk no matter how small the chances of getting caught are.

Discussions on this web site need to be accurate enough so we dont mislead someone into unknowingly violate Federal law.

Actually. it seems to me that Obama has been quite negative on ethanol fuels. As late as May 5, he was suggesting tapering production of corn based ethanol because of possible food shortages. Quite typical of Obama, he still doesnt realize the corn used for ethanol is not the same as corn used in food. When Bush talked about using switchgrass a year or so ago, Obama scoffed at the idea and tried to make a joke out of it. I suspect ethanol research will slow down if Obama is elected.

There seems to be this perception that Republicans are pro oil and Democrats are against oil. If you really look at their records, you may be surprised to find most of our congress, Rep or Dem, have been equally supportive of oil and oil bills. Most energy issues do not follow party lines. In fact, Bill Clinton signed into law, some of the incentives oil companies are receiving.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan Campbell on July 20, 2008 at 1:43pm: "Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries." - barackobama.com

nytimes - obama closely liked with ethanol

The law is what it is, and state laws vs. federal laws issues have gone all the way back to the civil war. Here in Colorado, "flex-fuel" conversions do not qualify for a state alternative vehicle tax-rebate because the vehicle can run on either gasoline or ethanol. If the vehicle was converted to only run on ethanol, it would qualify for a 100% cost of conversion credit if it can pass the highest emission tests. So according to federal law, if I removed my catalytic converters, it would be illegal to operate my vehicle using gasoline. Colorado would then be forced to reimburse me for driving an alternative fuel vehicle!

Flexfuel kits aren't technically illegal under state law, which ironically has higher standards than the EPA.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan Campbell on July 20, 2008 at 2:08pm: Based on the same EPA logic, natural gas conversions are also illegal unless they submit to emissions testing. Does this make any sense?

FFI has started the certification process, and based on your link they have completed at least "3. The conversion company initiates the appropriate emissions testing on gasoline as well as ethanol test fuels at an emissions laboratory that can perform standard EPA tests." It goes on to say that they could if they choose "EPA may require confirmatory emissions testing at its laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan." The testing does not have to be done there.; ▶ Reply to This