Cellulosic Ethanol

There are two kinds of cellulosic ethanol, and only one is economically and environmentally possible.

Cellulosic ethanol that is viable is from corn cobs. Kernels are typically removed from the cob during harvesting, which is then left in the field. Corn cobs then take years to decompose and cause problems getting stuck in equipment. There is now a new trailer that can be pulled behind the harvester that will catch the corn cobs which can then be turned into ethanol.

Moral of the story? Stop hating on corn ethanol! Growing dedicated cellulose crops would be a bad idea because it would remove too much organic matter from the soil over time. Corn is actually the better option; Trust me, my major is environmental soil science.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matt Merritt on December 5, 2008 at 7:12am: I work at POET, and we just started our pilot plant in Scotland, S.D. that does just that. We'll be doing it commercially by 2011 at our plant in Emmetsburg, Iowa. It's a pretty cool deal. The crop's already being grown, the farmers are already going through the fields, and there are already ethanol plants located nearby, so it's just a matter of farmers getting the equipment. Plus, we're handling storage and transport. If you want to see more, check out www.projectliberty.com.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan Campbell on December 9, 2008 at 8:01am: So now we just need Poet to take over more of the industry and install this technology everywhere!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hugh Hemington on December 5, 2008 at 1:27pm: Cellulosic ethanol from cobs isn't strictly "corn ethanol", it's corn-byproduct ethanol. It's ethanol from waste, and that waste just happens to come from corn. "Corn Ethanol" is ethanol made from corn kernels, with the corn grown specifically for fuel, or drawn from surpluses.

Cellulosic ethanol produced from any waste product is a good idea. The trick is identifying a feed stock that isn't being used for something else or is under-utilized. The "bonus" of cellulosic ethanol is rendered by combining recycling with fuel production. If the value of the waste is increased by the demand as a feed stock for ethanol, or subsidized to such a degree that it is produced overtly, the recycling benefit is lost.

I read the material provided by Matt on POET's cellulosic ethanol project using corn cobs. The DOE is funding a plant with up to 80 million in grants. I think that's great. I liken that to the proverb about teaching someone to fish rather than giving them fish. The DOE is helping to fund the "boats and nets" and POET is going to produce a marketable product from what is otherwise waste.

I'm just against paying them $1.01 for every "fish" they bring in! If the product isn't competitive, there's no sense in making it. Hell, I think if cellulosic ethanol can be viable, the government would do well to fund the research and plants completely. Launching this industry is an investment, but subsidizing the output is self-delusion.

The government is now considering a bail-out of the auto industry, but they want to make sure they have a plan to be viable. The government isn't going to pay them $5,000 for every car they make, because that's not a solution! One is a hand-up; the other is a handout.

The continued subsidy will retard efficiency improvements at the plants, and skew the value of the cobs, encouraging farmers to produce more corn to sell cobs. The government will have to buy up the surplus corn and dump it overseas, further under-cutting local producers. So while we "teach fishing" here, we'll be putting "fishermen" out of business elsewhere.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan Campbell on December 9, 2008 at 8:14am: I can sympathize with your faith in the free market Hugh, but I think it is misplaced. Ethanol is trying to enter the very established market of energy, where it is competing with oil. It deserves a subsidy because it is still a young industry.

For the free market to work, it truly has to be free. The agriculture industry is definitely not a free market. Europe pays their farmers a subsidy of over $300 per acre. They have banned our corn products, poultry, and beef from import. South Korea has a ban on beef. Africa followed Europe's lead and banned GMO corn; We can't even give corn away to them for free as food aid.

The ethanol subsidy, and especially the cellulosic one, makes the industry expand faster than it normally would by making refinery upgrades more profitable. Don't worry too much about surplus corn, because corn processing capacity is still expanding. Cellulosic ethanol will be integrated at existing corn ethanol refineries, not built as a separate facility.

Ethanol subsidies are a small expenditure compared to what we spend just to keep the oil flowing. The military budget for this year was over $500 billion, and at least 10% of this was devoted just to protecting oil supply and transport routes. Even though ethanol subsidies will likely grow in the near future, this can easily be offset by a small decrease in the pentagon budget, if there is enough political will to do so.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matt Merritt on December 9, 2008 at 10:57am: Of course, you know my vested interest in this, but I think this recent statement from the Sec. of Ag shows the value just in the reduced crop payments of the $3.3 billion blenders credit. Most would aknowledge that ethanol has created that better market for agriculture. That's without even considering the real value, which is that it enables the current process to get even more efficient and cellulosic ethanol to develop.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer made the following statement regarding the fourth quarter farm financial forecast published by USDA's Economic Research Service on November 24th:
"America's agriculture continues a positive growth - a fifth straight year of record crop receipts, historically sound farm asset balance, and the third-highest net cash income over the last 33 years. Farmers remain prudent in their borrowing amid increased costs for seed, fuel and fertilizer. Livestock receipts of the past two years are up although producers are managing the increased costs to their operations. Producers' total expenses are expected to increase nearly 16 percent this year. The marketplace, not the government, has provided the source of income, with crop supports falling from $11 billion to $810 million in three years."; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nathan Campbell on December 10, 2008 at 11:14am: So we save $10 billion by spending $5 billion; That is the best argument for ethanol that I have heard. I didn't realize that the savings on crop supports were that large.

Corn ethanol is not going away! Corn yields per acre have increased by 25% since six years ago, and there was a 500 year flood in Iowa. Ethanol is going to use 25%-30% of the harvest this year, so think about how much crop supports would cost if it wasn't for ethanol. We need to continue to expand corn ethanol capacity; What will happen if four years when corn yields are 25% higher than this year if we don't increase capacity?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matt Merritt on February 5, 2009 at 12:44pm: POET news:

Following a successful start-up in the fourth quarter of 2008, POET Research Center in Scotland, S.D. is now producing cellulosic ethanol at a pilot scale, completing a crucial step toward development of commercially viable cellulosic ethanol.

The Scotland plant is producing ethanol at a rate of 20,000 gallons per year using corn cobs as feedstock. The $8 million endeavor is a precursor to the $200 million Project LIBERTY, a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant that will begin production in 2011. ...

http://www.poet.com/news/showRelease.asp?id=147; ▶ Reply to This