LIME: Since production of ethanol from corn - rather than from cellulosic biomass - has been feasible for quite some time, what are its limitations, and why hasn't it hit the mainstream?
Aden: Last year we produced over 4 billion gallons of ethanol with the renewable fuel standard that's in place now. That's expected to reach over 7.5 billion gallons by the year 2012. So there's going to be very much a market and a demand for ethanol from corn. But the limitations are several-fold: If you really want to make a dent in petroleum reduction and look at the big picture, corn ethanol is not going to get you very far. Projections vary but most say that the upper limit is in the 15-20 billion gallon range before you really start impacting food markets. But considering we consume over 140 billion gallons of gasoline every year, that's not really where we want to be. So that's why we look to cellulosic ethanol—because the resources available in terms of cellulosic biomass are much more plentiful than corn grain. And they don't have the food versus fuel competitive issues that exist with using a food crop like corn.
LIME: Can you walk us through the process of turning corn stalks and husks into ethanol?
Aden: The first step is what we call pretreatment, and that's really breaking apart the biomass and freeing up the matrix of components. After pretreatment, the heart of the process is the use of these cellulase enzymes to break down the cellulose into their individual sugars. These cellulase enzymes are just natural proteins that are very efficient at breaking down cellulose into glucose.
Once you have this mixture of sugars (a mixture of glucose and zylose and other sugars), you can ferment that into ethanol. Once you've fermented those sugars to ethanol, you've basically got a beer product and that beer can then run through standard distillation technology to separate and purify off the ethanol for fuel purposes. The ethanol that you get out of a cellulosic plant will virtually be no different than the ethanol that you get out of corn grain. It's just the process steps that it takes to get there.
LIME: Where are the main costs in the process? What are the key obstacles to making it competitive with standard gasoline?
Aden: Backing up five years, the main cost of the process was with the enzymes themselves. They're very expensive - they were used to stonewash jeans and for detergents and other fairly high-end applications. Within the past five years, NREL has worked with two of the largest enzyme producers in the world, Genencor and Novozymes, and the focus of this research was really to reduce the cost of those cellulase enzymes significantly for a process like this. Over the past 5 years, they've significantly reduced the cost by a factor of 20.
The second area that's really high-cost is the pre-treatment area. You have to use fairly exotic metals for the reactors. There are alternate pre-treatments that may not cost as much, but the real trade-off then is getting the yields of sugar out of those kinds of steps versus the cost that you put in.
Another significant fraction of costs is the capital cost used to process the leftover residue, or the byproduct of this entire process, which is the lignin fraction. In corn ethanol, there is an animal feed byproduct called DDG (distillers' dried grains), and that can be fed to animals and everything else. The byproduct that we get from cellulosic biomass is a lignin residue, and you can't really feed that to animals. The main use we see for this byproduct is as a combustion fuel. So you could burn this lignin residue in a boiler system and create your own steam and electricity needs, not only to power the facility, but also to have an excess that you could sell as green power to the local grids as a co-product. So it makes this whole entire process much more self-efficient and self-sustainable. You don't have to buy natural gas or coal or anything else to power your facility. It really eliminates the entire energy balance controversy that you hear about for corn ethanol.
LIME: So on what scale, here in the U.S., are we currently producing ethanol from biomass?
Aden: We can go out into our pilot plant at NREL and produce ethanol from biomass on a regular basis. What we're doing right now is really focusing on trying to make it cost-effective. These processes do have an economy of scale, meaning that the larger you can build them, the more cost-effective they will be. Our pilot plant is sized to handle one dry ton of biomass per day. On the other hand the commercial designs that we're looking at are on the order of 1,000 or 2,000 dry tons of biomass per day.
LIME: Are there other environmental trade-offs that come into play for cellulosic ethanol?
Aden: The main issues that you really have to look at with regards to biomass, and we'll use corn stover as an example, is how much of that corn stover you have to leave on the field. It actually does serve a purpose, which is for erosion control and soil nutrient levels, soil carbon levels and soil health. So every year farmers plow a good chunk of that corn stover back into the field for these very reasons. The question is: how much do they have to leave on the field and consequently how much does that leave for you to take off? That's going to vary from soil type to soil type, from one field to another, and from region to region. So it's a very important thing to look at.
The real benefit will be if we can start to grow crops that have increased yields of biomass per acre. Let's use switch grass as an example: Switch grass is nice because there's a wide geographic area that you can grow it in, from North Dakota all the way down to the Southeast. I've seen estimates anywhere from 5-10 tons of switch grass off of a field per acre. And that's a lot more than corn stover, where you can get maybe two to three tons per acre off of the field. Switch grass also uses a lot less water than corn does, and you can harvest it once and maybe even twice a year. So there's a lot of potential benefits with going toward a crop like switch grass. And it's something that we refer to as an energy crop, in that it might be grown specifically for energy purposes.
Paul
and so the government forced the production of ethanol. We're not
talking encouraging, we're talking strong arm mob style tactics, such as 'you, sugar mill, make ethanol instead or we'll kill you'. Not pretty.
It's not that way now of course, and they are really reaping benefits
from it but at the time, that's the way it worked." - Andy Aden
article on the Tahoe, I have read that and I did get a sneak preview of
it because I contributed some advice to the author. That is one of
ethanol's downfalls as a fuel is less miles per gallon than gasoline in
the same engine. However, if given the proper motivation, engines could be retimed to be more efficient because ethanol has a much higher octane rating than gasoline. But more importantly, there are also newer biofuels on the horizon that wouldn't have the mileage losses that ethanol does. Butanol is one example." - Andy Aden
Yes Ethanol, does have a 20% less efficiency in BTU energy then petroleum. But what gets me is that the automakers making E85 vehicles are converting existing low milege vehicles to use E85 for even less mileage. This is why ford and GM are in such trouble. They have the technology to make high mileage, renewable fuel cars, they chose not to do so. They continue to fight and lobby congress to not raise the fuel efficiency standards that are now less MPG then the 1970's. States have tried to force automakers to increase MPG and they lost thier legal case, when a federal judge stated that only OUR congress could legislate fuel efficiency standards. And again earlier this year our house and senate reniged on increasing the standards saying it would hurt americans to raise fuel standards. This is insanity. 90% of Americans (red and blue states) before Katrina in a Yale poll taken June 2005 stated that increase fuel prices were negatively affecting their quality of life and were concerned about our national fuel security. This year in CA a poll was taken with much the same conclusions. Each american has to make a personal decision on this issue, and there are some options, and more coming next year. I'm a mom with 2 kids and drove a van to haul them and thier friends around. I was spending in 2005 $50 once a week to fill up. I bought a diesel mercedes wagon and have driven on 99.9% biodiesel for a year now and spend $50 a month. The higher MPG's in the wagon is the reason. I also know where my fuel was made (I ask every time) the last couple tanks have been from recycled waste grease from the Las Vegas casino's and made in Vegas. With the new national diesel fuel at the pump this month new european vehicles will be entering the states next year. I want an american made car with a mercedes diesel engine that is also a hybrid. Hybrid E85 cars are also possible, this is the answer to the reduced fuel efficiency. I go to the local ford and dodge dealer on a regular basis and ask when will they have a diesel passenger cars, I write to Ford and GM on a regular basis asking for diesel and E85 hybrids. Will you join me? I have been writing to my congress people demanding that they write/sponsor legislation to demand an increase in american car fuel efficiency standards, will you join me?
Kari Lemons
Outreach Director
Biodiesel Council of California
http://www.biodieselcouncil.org