Coskata, Inc. is a pioneering cellulosic ethanol production company. It was announced in January 2008, that GM had invested and taken an ownership stake in the company.
Coskata has developed a proprietary high temperature plasma gasification process that turns any carbon-containing waste or biological product into ethanol. In the first step the carbon containing material is gassified into CO and hydrogen. Proprietary microorganisms then combine both gases directly into ethanol. In the final step the ethanol is separated from the water.
The technique does not rely on expensive enzymes, as the microorganisms can reproduce themselves.
A great value of the technology is that ethanol can be made from many sources including numerous feedstocks, wood biomass, agricultural waste, sustainable energy crops, and garbage, old tires, and construction waste. It yields a 7 to 1 energy ratio and uses half the water it takes to produce gasoline.
Earlier this week the company opened a small-scale or semi-production facility in Madison PA that is capable of producing 50,000-gallons-a-year.
This facility demonstrates the capability of scaling up the technology from the laboratory into the 65 foot high structure. The next step will be opening a full scale production facility capable of producing 55 million gallons per year in 2012.
According to the company’s CEO Wes Bolen, the cost of the process is about $1 to make one gallon of ethanol.
As part owner, GM is also one of Coskata’s first customers.
“We invested in Coskata so that we could enable the rapid deployment of commercially viable and environmentally sustainable ethanol globally,” said Bob Babik, GM Vehicle Emissions Director. “We’re proud to say that we have already accepted some of Coskata’s ethanol at our Milford facility.”
As we know the Chevy Volt itself is E85 capable, and on one leg of the recent extended development test drives, the Volt prototypes were filled with E85 to analyze function using that fuel source.
Source (Coskata)
-24
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:26 am)(click to show comment)
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:27 am)I still am trying to learn the basics, like what the EROEI is for most ethanol plants, and whether burning the biomass to produce electricity would be a better choice. Between methanol, ethanol and butanol, there seem to be a heck of a lot of options, but it is hard to figure out which will work best. But Flex Fuel capability for all new cars should be mandated asap.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:33 am)This is an exciting development. if we can get off corn based ethanol, things can ramp up in this sector of energy. This company could take all my grass clippings and turn it into fuel (not to mention all the other waste products). We could stop having to choose between higher food or higher gas. Very cool! I’ve already begun researching for investment potential.
^^^STORY^^^
On our family trip from MO to CA and back, this summer, we were only able to find one e85 pump. I felt like a little kid again as I filled it up on the 85% American made fuel. The range was noteably lower for the tank of e85. The cool part was knowing that my fuel was not coming from a non-renewable source. The pollution generated could be offset by the planting of replacement crops. I love the idea of refueling my Volt with e85 for those few times I’ll actually require liquid fuel. I think e85 could also run many of the big trucks out there (non-diesels).
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:33 am)Buy Local and stop global warming
+21
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:34 am)It is smart business to create a small scale facility to demonstrate viability. Too many expect funding from a white paper and a slideshow. We need to get back to the times when we actually built something to get something.
+6
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:40 am)Lyle’s post kind of provides the proof wouldn’t you say? GM is already buying their product.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:48 am)I agree that flex fuel should be mandated. I don’t like a bunch of government mandates but the transportation and fuel industries are linked so tightly that they are holding each other back. Ethanol was once a common option in the 70s and early 80s. Since it is better for the environment and a wash economically, government is unfortunately needed to press the change over.
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:50 am)I like the buy local. Fighting climate change is a better descriptor.
+9
Oct 18th, 2009 (9:05 am)You’ll definitely be “seeing it”, Keith! How do I know? Because the fundamental chemistry and economics involved make the Coskata process highly viable commercially, as well as environ-mentally sustainable. As Lyle says above, “It yields a 7 to 1 (actually, 7.7 to 1) energy ratio and uses half the water it takes to produce gasoline.”
This is one reason GM’s scientists encouraged their substantial investment in Coskata. And I believe there very well may be another reason: Direct-to-Ethanol (DEFC) fuel cells*, which thus far appear to be a much more efficient & much cleaner means of extracting energy from ethanol than internal combustion engines. And ethanol would overcome both the storage and infrastructure challenge of hydrogen for fuel cell applications.
Also consider the fact that a DEFC is silent, has no moving parts and generates electricity directly. Imagine a later-generation Volt with a DEFC rather than an ICE & generator. No noise, no “shudder” concerns at start-up or shut-down, and with only water coming out the exhaust pipe. Plus, filling stations across the US could pump pure ethanol (as well as E85). I see why the DOE & scientists still see a future for fuel cells!
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell
Oct 18th, 2009 (9:06 am)Americans will figure out a way.
This is one of a multi-pronged push to get off of oil and on to sustainable sources. All locally produced fuel gets us closer to the goal.
All cars should be E85 capable. According to our science guy in DC, it’s a small ($100/car) thing to do.
Since this is a bio-mass converter, it’s going to make our garbage recycle-able.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (9:10 am)50,000 gal/year to 55,000,000 gal/year is quite a step ramp. Seems very agressive to expect to build one of these plants in a couple years. If the proto-type plant just came on-line, then they need time to first evaluate the effectiveness of the design, before moving ahead with building a full scale, presumably, very expensive plant.
I really wonder how realistic this is? How much would it cost to build one of these plants on this scale?
This could be an excellent solution, IF it works as advertised.
“All these questions and more, will be answered on the next episode of Soap…”
Oct 18th, 2009 (9:13 am)Jason,
The post does not prove that this technique is actually effective or that it can meet its own promises.
Thats why they built the small proto-type, to prove out the theory. If they knew it would be a success, then they would move right to the full scale facility.
Oct 18th, 2009 (9:36 am)The Govt wastes more money every second than it would cost to build a few of these, but what about the oil company lobby, will they let them do it?
Oct 18th, 2009 (9:37 am)Its good to see something happening in pa besides building prisions and nursing homes.
Oct 18th, 2009 (9:39 am)You need a heat source to make the syngas from carbon waste. You need a BIG source of carbon for any real production. It’s nice to utilize waste carbon but how much fuel can it provide?
We have massive stores of carbon in coal and shale.
Nuclear energy can provide the heat for syngas generation, for hydrogen generation and for seawater desalinization. All done safely and cleanly and with a minimal release of gases into the atmosphere.
Wonder if our economy will ever survive to get to practical solutions to our technical problems; problems which always seem to get displaced by political agendas?
+8
Oct 18th, 2009 (9:59 am)They may have “known” it would work, but potential investors wouldn’t know until a production process was demonstrated.
I believe every tech should go through development phases, because everyone involved is finally able to see the process end to end.
Oct 18th, 2009 (10:00 am)OK, so tell me again why we need electric cars?
+12
Oct 18th, 2009 (10:11 am)Easy! We need electric cars primarily because their ~5:1 higher efficiency over internal combustion/gasoline cars, even when the electricity comes from the grid, will help us break our addiction to oil —especially that from foreign sources, which are too often hot beds of global terrorism. Other reasons are that electric cars are far more economical, more climate friendly, more reliable, and even more fun to own & to drive! This is why most of the world’s major automakers have already announced new electrified designs!
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (10:24 am)Jason: “I still am trying to learn the basics, like what the EROEI is for most ethanol plants.”
….Coskata’s EROEI is 7.7 to 1! (It’s ethanol output contains 7.7 x the total energy input.)
Oct 18th, 2009 (10:40 am)The problem with the Coskata process is the huge amount of raw material that it needs to make ethanol.. and it is expensive to transport all that woody trash to the plant. So far they are expecting to get all that raw material cheap but that will change quickly if there is money to be made from trash… the cost of the ethanol is highly dependant on the cost of the trash. We will know if they succeed by the amount of these plants that spring up all over the country, but if they have to be subsidized by the taxpayer then…
Is it more effective to just burn the wood to make electricity?
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (10:40 am)“OK, so tell me again why we need electric cars?”
With the development of fuel produced from local waste the EREV earns increased notice as a major player in the reduction of foreign petroleum use. The EREV runs for 40 miles on pure battery power. Then can either be recharged at any of about 1.5 billion home outlets. Or be fueled with a gallon or two of home grown CE. And like the BEV, the EREV is always powered by the electric motor. Yes, you can have it all. And at $7000 less than a Mitsubishi iMiEV.
The questions now are:
a>Will the Volt again be redesigned? Ampera front?
b>Will the Volt be available to the public before November of 2010?
c>Will the initial price of the Volt be set higher than $40k to test demand?
d>Will GMAC financing offer interest free loans of $7500 to turn the tax credit into an instant rebate down payment?
e>How many Volt need to be sold before NGMCO finally believes in itself and places the technology into a truck?
A word of advice to GMAC. You delayed the Cruze so it wouldn’t compete with the Camaro. You delayed the Converj so it wouldn’t compete with the Volt. It’s time to stop being afraid to compete and get cracking on the the EREV car and truck programs.
The BYD e6 scheduled to be released in the USA in late 2010 or early 2011 happens to be a cross over. Gee, where did they ever get the idea that American’s like trucks? And isn’t it surprising that they were willing to listen?
It’s not too late.
=D~
Oct 18th, 2009 (10:59 am)Thats not the answer to everything.. Koskata can make ethanol at an approximate cost of $1.25 to $1.50 a gallon given that they get free woody trash, but their business model depends on them getting a gate fee for disposing of the trash.. in other words, just like a trash dump they get paid to dispose of the trash..
Wood is not a high energy density fuel, it takes fuel to transport it to the Koskata plant.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:04 am)Sounds kind of “EEStorish…”
-1
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:13 am)Great… so when we run out of oil we can keep dumping tons CO2 into the atmosphere by burning Ethanol instead.
Great solution! …NOT!
+5
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:13 am)Changes in scale can introduce radical, unforeseen issues. Moving directly from the blackboard to full-scale production is ridiculous. It’s impressive that they are generating ethanol using this process at all. Did you complain that they didn’t build full-scale nuclear power-plants a year after the Manhattan project was finished?
+3
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:19 am)______________________________________________________
EEstore does not have a demonstration working prototype….Coskata does…BIG difference!
______________________________________________________
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:23 am)While it is ok to make a few million gallons a year – as soon as you start thinking about getting this to the same kind of scale as current oil use – you quickly see how fruitless this whole ethonol thing is.
There is a long article in The Oil Drum on Coskata from last year worth reading before getting all hyped up.
“Cutting Through the Coskata Cellulosic Ethanol Hype”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4454
—
I believe this issue of low biomass density, which I have referred to as the logistics problem of cellulosic ethanol, is a killer for cellulosic ethanol. In fact, I recently calculated that to keep a medium-sized cellulosic ethanol plant running would consume the biomass equivalent of almost 900,000 mature Douglas firs every single year.
—
+2
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:34 am)______________________________________________________
I have in the past not been an Ethanol proponent but this Coskata demonstration project has caused me to re-think my position.
Drive the Volt 80% off grid electricity and the other 20% (when in RE mode) off E85 (Ethanol derived from otherwise waste/landfill fuel stock)…that’s my kind of Energy Independence! Only way to improve on that would be if (like in France) the grid electricity was from Nuclear vs. Coal.
Side Note: I like the two American Flags in Lyle’s center photo!
______________________________________________________
+2
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:34 am)OK . The British were going to make these cars . Then the Germans were going to make these cars.
Initially there were three world wide companies that were going to make these cars .( Remember)
OK , the people that used to say thgat there were three said that now there are two factories going to make them , now another company has decided to abandon them and the only company that makes them now is an American one .
You can talk all you want about it being the thing to do but I don’t think it would be too much to see the factory to close it down and say it is too costly to produce it at this time .
And bring out some other type of car and say that it just is not worth it at the time being .
But it would be some thing that they would consider in the future .
Just look at the facts , For one thing , they have a list of people right here on this site that have said that they want one of these cars.
OK , so they don’t have a good number of names , but they sure could sell them to a bunch of at least 30% of them .
And sell them off to as many as possible from the general population over the next manufacturing schedule .
But to me it looks like a poncy scheme the longer I see what is going on , the more it looks like there is nothing going to happen .
That is the way I feel and that is the way I see things , and I am sorry because it is something that should be allowed to happen .
But come on the power drive is even foreign owned , think about it , why wouldn’t an American company be chosen to make a vehicle that is going to lead they way . An American one could have led this way and should have led this way .
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:37 am)EEstor lol, you need dust made from unicorn horns and those are endangered.
I said “So far they are expecting to get all that raw material cheap but that will change quickly” , and that is not true.. they actually charge money to dispose of the woody trash, their business model depends on it.
+2
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:42 am)Eric, the point of biomass-derived ethanol is that the plants scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere to begin with so there is no NET increase is global CO2 (depending on where you get the energy to power the process).
+3
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:45 am)I don’t see why charging a fee to take trash isn’t feasible for Coskata. All other entities that take trash get paid for it.
-1
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:49 am)whatever!.. as long as my VOLT will benefit it..
+3
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:49 am)Herm , Just how much fuel does it take to ship Oil from middle east to USA not to mention refining oil to gas plus shipping to gas stations ! And as far as raw material goes , I rent a building to a Tree Cutting service and they burn 50 tons of bio-mass daily because nobody wants there waste . At this time 100′s of billions of tons of waste still goes to the land fill , Can you tell me that its wouldn’t be better turning that waste into fuel? Before you answer , Please stick a sign in your back yard that reads free dump site then call a couple of yard services and Tree cut services and if you want to be run out of your home quick give a call to the local tire shops. I am pretty sure you don’t work with waste materials.
And Yes it would be would be simpler and more cost effective to burn wood for electricity . I doubt that the nation will switch from liquid fuel to electric (plug in) in the next twenty years . God knows what Tap & Trade (TAX) would do to the price.
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:51 am)evnow, I hardly think TheOilDrum.com is an un-biased source of opinion about the competition; nor is anyone planning on using mature Duglass Fir trees as feedstock!
The point is that people in every city in the world are already *paying* to have their garbage hauled off in trucks. It makes so much more sense to turn garbage into fuel than bury it in landfills.
It also makes a whole lot of sense to have one of these conversion facilities in every state, not only to cut down transportation costs, but to supply the waste heat to buildings or industry for heating or cooling – doubling the overall efficiency.
Lastly, by going to mostly electric cars, we can reduce the total gallons of transportation fuel needed.
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:52 am)It may be expensive to transport trash, but big cities are at their wits’ end when it comes to dealing with it all. Vancouver, BC and surrounding communities send a majority their garbage to a landfill 4 hours away in Cache Creek because nowhere else would take it.
+5
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:53 am)I suggest you just wait and see. In about 1 year you will know for sure. Many of us already are convinced GM will make the Volt but hey, you cannot convince everyone.
PS, your rambling message does not make much sense…
Also, GM was not chosen to make this vehicle. GM chose to make this vehicle. They are one of the worlds largest automakers and have demonstrated all of the technology to make a quality electric vehicle.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:55 am)I like the buy local, Supporting your local community is a better descriptor.
http://www.climatedepot.com
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (12:04 pm)What are you talking about? The Ampera? That was yesterday’s article. You are posting in the wrong thread it appears.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (12:10 pm)Shawn your statement holds water if you truly believe in Al Gore and his believe that Burning Carbon is changing the ecosystem , I believe and 2000 other scientist that Al Gore is out for is own pocket book his privet Jet and 7 million dollar Tn mansion which burns more fuel that twenty homes .
Oct 18th, 2009 (12:15 pm)The science here is intriguing. It sounds very similar to pyrolysis that I learned about in fire fighter recruit camp… simply put, when you burn a piece of wood, the visible flame isn’t from the wood directly, but rather the fire’s self-sustaining chemical reaction that superheats the wood and releases flammable gases, which in turn ignite in the presence of oxygen.
It seems that the plasma torches used are basically a source of heat, and the resulting gas vapors are what you would get from your regular everyday camp fire, except the lack of oxygen prevents it from all going boom.
Coskata’s process is great since it provides an answer to what to do with mixed household garbage. But I do wonder: should we be using clean wood and plant waste since it can be composted and put be back into the Earth, so to speak? The formula E=mc² talks about the interchangeabiliy of mass and energy… Wouldn’t burning mass to turn it into some sort of energy mean that mankind’s insatiable appetite for energy will eventually lead to nothing left to burn on the planet?
-5
Oct 18th, 2009 (12:24 pm)“… help us break our addiction to oil —especially that from foreign sources …”
So can ethanol … without electric cars.
“…more economical …”
Not at $1/gallon (and likely decreasing in the future) ethanol production costs.
“…more climate friendly …”
Ethanol from bio materials is carbon neutral. It’s concentrated solar energy. And there are no other significant pollutants that I know of, at least in comparison to electricity production.
“… more reliable …”
ICEs are pretty reliable. 6 of one, 1/2/ dozen of the other.
“… more fun to own & to drive…”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some may feel that way. Most want safe, reliable, affordable transportation.
“…~5:1 higher efficiency …”
From ground (or sky) to grave, including all losses, I doubt this claim. Can you provide a reference?
I’m signed up for my Volt. I’m fascinated by the concept. I hope it’s successful. I know the costs will come down. But at $1/gallon Ethanol production costs, I’m wondering what will win the future. I’ll need more convincing arguments than you have presented, Nasaman.
Oct 18th, 2009 (12:25 pm)You only make more CO2 when you dig/pump carbon out of the ground and burn it. If you “take it from the top” you are CO2 neutral…
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (12:33 pm)LOL.
Larry,
I don’t think you know what TOD is ! It is not a “pro big oil” place – it is a peak oil website.
PS : Personally I think someone like Sapphire has a better chance at making fuel in a sustainable way than any of the ethonol guys.
Oct 18th, 2009 (12:44 pm)Shaft,
just about every one of your arguments has a whole in it!
I’ll point out just one of them: “So can ethanol … without electric cars.”
They are talking about using ethanol in fuel cells used to produce electricity to run an electric motor for traction. The ethanol won’t be burnt in an Internal Combustion Engine.
as for your other arguments, I’ll leave them to someone else to rebut.
Happy trails to you ’til you meet again.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (12:59 pm)Energy from waste products… Excellent!
Americans always invent the best stuff.
Next up: “Mr. Fusion”.
Then I can get my Delorian Time Machine up and running.
+2
Oct 18th, 2009 (1:08 pm)Have any studies been done regarding the organism’s biology regarding bio-hazards? If it can degrade anything with carbon in it, (including us), what are the hazards if some of it escaped?
It can reproduce. Can it evolve?
These are not things that have been disclosed.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (1:17 pm)If all this Coskata news is true GM would be smart to invest billions in that company. imho
A revolution like this doesn’t happen often. Probably a good place for those ‘stimulus’ dollars our government wants to wisely spend, too.
Thanks Lyle, this is the best news I’ve seen in months.
Oct 18th, 2009 (1:24 pm)Get up-to-date on the current status of Al Gore mansion!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Oct 18th, 2009 (1:48 pm)Fuel Cell cars ARE electric. They just use smaller batteries.
Oct 18th, 2009 (1:49 pm)Just because someone has a proprietary life-form, that does not mean that the owners of that life-form have done anything whatsoever to represent or study that life-form’s safety. Safety toward the millions of different kinds of other life forms on this planet cannot be possibly studied. This is the sort of situation that Centers for Disease Control ought to examine for safety. Also, Occupational Safety and Health Administration needs to look at this as well.
I just do not like the apparently casual and care-free manner that this sort of thing apparently is not examined by the appropriate safety agencies. Agencies that have been pretty well stripped of their financial abilities and human resources with which they would need to do all their work.
What if this organism can evolve and becomes wind borne all over the planet? MRSA might be nothing compared to it. These questions demand answers people!! I just don’t like this at all.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (1:57 pm)There is nothing wrong with making something useful out of trash, the whole oil industry started from this.. but people have this fantasy of vast plantations feeding Coskata type plants to make ethanol.. it would not sustain our economy and it definitely would not have a 7:1 EROI.
Oct 18th, 2009 (2:04 pm)they should also be methanol capable.. very cheap alcohol, extremely easy to make from wood waste or synthesize from methane or natural gas. At todays cost for natural gas it can be made for 70 cents a gallon, and we have LOTS of natural gas.
Problem with methanol is that it generates vast quantities of water when you burn it in an ICE, similar to a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and it does have corrosion problems in ICE engines. It would work very well in fuel cells to range extend a BEV. The water exhaust could be a problem generating ice on the roads in winter.
-3
Oct 18th, 2009 (2:05 pm)Exactly.
IF they knew it would be a success, they would have moved to full scale. But, obviously, there are many unknown ones as of now.
Therefore, they are testing the technology. Which, is exactly the point I am making. They do not know if it will work yet!
Oct 18th, 2009 (2:09 pm)You are right shipping and refining oil is expensive.. and doing the same with gigatons of wood would be even worse. There is a reason the industrial revolution abandoned wood as a fuel.
There is a very good place for it for making fuel out of waste.
-1
Oct 18th, 2009 (2:14 pm)You forget BYD in China, they make a range extended BEV today. Range extenders may die, but BEV are now here to stay.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (2:21 pm)And just how much will one of these facilities run?
Lets wait for some facts, on this “new” technology. So, far all we know is that they can produce 50,000 gal/year, or about 137 gal/day.
Also, there are “special” requirements for all this biomass. You need moisture free biomass, and most materials will not be in this state when recieved, so now you need to remove that moisture, which in turn requires energy.
So, lets get more facts of what “$1/gal” REALLY means, before we all jump into the Ethanol pool.
Oct 18th, 2009 (2:48 pm)DontDisruptTheFlow.com
=D~
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (2:50 pm)Here is a video of a guy running a pickup truck with waste wood, they used to do this in WWII when gasoline was not available to civilians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=Rx3rf-CtlNw&feature=related
Oct 18th, 2009 (3:01 pm)How about a solar power conveyor being used to carry dump waste products to the CE operation next door?
People who have had a bit of trouble with the law can serve their 180 hours community service by sorting and loading product. Community servers won’t need to be seen along roadsides picking up discarded McDonalds cups.
yes we can?
=D~
Oct 18th, 2009 (3:18 pm)Thanks for the link, Nasaman. I find it interesting that maybe in the near future, this technology could play a major role in displacing gasoline. I wish Coskata and GM great success in their endeavor.
+3
Oct 18th, 2009 (3:32 pm)They have already proven that it works. Now, with this plant in place, they have a showcase that can be used to demonstrate it’s process to new investors. Also, I’m sure they still can improve on the process before building more of these.
+2
Oct 18th, 2009 (3:40 pm)Dave, you think all this is a last minute attempt to divert us from electric cars?.. could be.
-1
Oct 18th, 2009 (3:44 pm)You are really complicating all this too much.. make the cars out of a renewable, easily recycled material such as molded plywood.. and just pull the car with a horse that you feed with grass. When the horse gets too old just kill it and eat it.. make glue out of the remains and use that to make the plywood.
Oct 18th, 2009 (3:51 pm)I’m sure Hollywood will come up with a science fiction movie of some kind.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (3:56 pm)I agree that it is not feasible to make enough ethanol out of waste to sate even 1/4 of our current auto fleet’s thirst for fuel. There is a lot of waste out there, but there aren’t gigatons of wood scraps just waiting to be used.
HOWEVER, the great thing about EREVs is that we can substantially reduce fuel usage. Maybe not quite as much as Dave G’s chart, but surely a lot. Then- lo and behold- we can indeed produce enough ethanol to support all our vehicles. Only EREVs or similar gas-sippers can make ethanol a viable replacement to gas (in passenger cars at least, other vehicles will take a while longer).
I don’t like government mandates much, but I don’t see a way around them in this case. ONCE there are enough cellulosic plants (not before, because then we’ll have to use the crappy corn stuff or import cane ethanol) we should aggressively transition. I say start by mandating all cars to be flex fuel (since it is only $100). At the same time start transitioning all fuel to be E10. Finally get every gas station to have an E85 pump and gradually phase out petroleum.
+6
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:00 pm)First, thanks to Lyle for a great article.
Too many people have been using old arguments to dismiss ethanol.
I believe the future for automobiles is 80% EREV and 20% ethanol. This will provide a sustainable, zero net carbon solution that allows us to continue our current lifestyle without range anxiety.
This is also the only solution that doesn’t require a massive new fueling infrastructure. We can leverage our existing infrastructure of home electrical outlets and liquid fueling stations. Our existing electric utility system could handle tens of millions of plug-in vehicles if they would be recharged during off-peak times, such as at night.
New high-compression engines will be developed to take advantage of ethanol’s higher octane rating, allowing ethanol to out-perform gasoline.
Once Ethanol processing plants like this sprout up all over the country, we’ll be well on our way to energy independence.
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:01 pm)That’s true. I really doubt they can hit their targeted $1 price. But here at least gas is $3.20 a gallon and I bet it is gonna keep going up. Even if their price is TRIPLE their estimates they could still be viable here. And that’s not even considering them getting preferential treatment, as I’m sure they would here in CA. I don’t think they are a panacea, but this is darn good news and has real, sound potential.
+9
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:15 pm)Speaking of energy independence, James Woolsey (former CIA director) made a great speech where he put today’s oil dependence in historical perspective. Here’s an excerpt:
“Salt was the only way to preserve meat until the very late 1800’s. It had a monopoly. Believe it or not, countries went to war over salt mines. If you had a salt mine, you could dominate your neighbor. It was a very big deal.
“Today – salt on the table out there. Do you know where it came from? Are we salt independent? Do you care? Does anybody care, unless they’re in the salt business? Of course not. It’s a useful commodity that does some things, and we buy and sell it in international commerce. Nobody dominates their neighbor anymore because they have a salt mine.
“We need to do that to oil. And we can do it with electricity the way electricity affected salt monopolies in the late 1800’s. We can, we should, and we must, as a major national priority, destroy oil’s monopoly. Absolutely, totally, completely, destroy oil’s monopoly.”
By the way, James Woolsey is also the spokesman for an organization called “Set America Free”, which happens to advocate a combination of plug-ins and ethanol as the solution to our oil dependence.
http://www.setamericafree.org/solution.html
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:23 pm)1) Is there enough land/stock to produce enough ethanol to fuel the US fleet? Recent studies show offpeak power can power roughly 80% of the US fleet if it was converted into plug-ins. Solar efficiency of plants are also very low, so it would take a lot more land to produce the same amount of energy than using solar panels or solar thermal.
2) Even with massive subsidies, ethanol so far isn’t that much less than gasoline in cost. Because so far most ethanol vehicles get lower fuel economy (some newer vehicles may change this), the small advantage in cost is also effectively eliminated. On the other hand, electrically driven vehicles like EVs and FCVs benefit from much higher vehicle efficiency, which decreases cost per mile.
3) The cleanliness of ethanol has been called into question many times. It is easy to track electricity emissions (you just need to look at the powerplant). It’s not so easy with ethanol. And you can’t just take the best case scenario for ethanol and compare it to the average scenario for EVs.
If you look at the easily attainable (I don’t think you can find cellulosic ethanol easily as this article shows vs something like a solar panel which anyone can buy today) best case scenario for the BEV, it is easily better than ethanol since there are virtually no emissions anywhere in the cycle. Even with biomass based ethanol the release of carbon is potentially faster than the capture of it and in the end it may not even be carbon neutral if destructive forestry is used.
When looking at the average case, under current ethanol production, it seems electrically driven vehicles still have an edge in carbon emissions per mile (40% less from the below article; don’t let the title mislead you, the article is a rebuttal, since the 30% more is based on 100% coal electricity, which doesn’t exist anywhere) because of higher efficiency. Also with the ICE you still have local pollution.
http://gas2.org/2009/10/14/study-electric-cars-produce-30-more-emissions-than-ethanol-cars/
4) Reliable also applies to brakes (regen braking greatly reduces brake usage) and lower maintenance (no need for oil changes, spark plugs). Drivetrain-wise, the decrease in complexity over the ICE/transmission means electric motors should have higher reliability. However, the disadvantage is batteries/fuel cells don’t last forever.
5) This depends on the specific car, but there isn’t a reason why an ethanol ICE can’t be fun to drive. So I agree on this point.
6) I believe ~5:1 is only vehicle efficiency/best case. If you are using fossil fuel based sources, typical powerplants are around the 30-40% range in efficiency. There are plants that can do better with combined cycle (60%) and cogeneration (up to 90%). Of course with renewable/carbon free energy (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear) this efficiency number doesn’t really matter as much. Typical ICE efficiency is in the 20% range, so you are looking at roughly 1.5:1-4.5:1 depending on which kind of fossil fuel plant you are looking at.
One advantage not mentioned is electric cars (and I’m talking about plug-ins here) allow us to tackle two emissions problems at the same time: both the grid and the transportation sector. The best thing is efficiency/emissions improvements can be made on the grid without changing the architecture of the vehicle.
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:28 pm)This test plant is only about 1.5 hours from my home. If they offer public tours, I think it would be very interesting to go and see it in operation….
But until then, here is a link with more information:
http://cleantech.com/news/5169/deep-dive-coskata-bacteria-ethanol
-1
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:29 pm)We done need to get that 15% Ethanol mix in them dang cars already. Obama bet git it done. I want no more xcuses we really need 20% in all new cars mandatory in pump . No more excuses. Git er done Obama. I got more corn acres than i knows what to do with. OUt.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:30 pm)” The ethanol won’t be burnt in an Internal Combustion Engine.”
LRGV,
The Volt can burn ethanol in its ICE. And that is GM’s intent. GM is big on burning ethanol in its ICEs!
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:32 pm)Corn Power FTW !
Don’t even get me start on ‘Cane. I will open a can of whoop-ass if you go in that direction.
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:42 pm)1. You could be right on this point. I’d need to see more data.
2. My point is that Ethanol seems to be a reasonable competitor, price wise, for EREVs and pure BEVs. Time will tell.
3. Agreed. But I think its manageable.
4. I’ll be worried about that battery point for at least the next 10 years.
5. Agreed.
6. These numbers are certainly more reasonable than Nasaman’s. I think that efficiency matters to some extent, but I agree that interpreting comparsons has to be done carefully.
Tying the grid with transportation is definately worth looking into, and many are doing that. If enough ethanol can be produce cheaply enough, then this may not play a big role.
My point is that it’s not obvious to me yet what will win out.
Oct 18th, 2009 (4:48 pm)I do not envision a few LARGE Coskata plants around the country due to the cost of transport of the raw material. But I think it could supply a needed percentage of our fuel needs if MANY plants are in most states and they use the waste from nearby cities to cultivate ethenol.
I am excited about the possibility and wish them well which is actually wishing all of us well. Any thing that contributes to our [the world] getting off oil is great in my opinion.
+2
Oct 18th, 2009 (5:08 pm)hi Herm … Good question. BIG OIL lost a lot of friends when the world population was gouged to the point of home foreclosure and job loss. This was a painful awakening (kick in the azz) for millions of consumers, including myself.
No, the talk of recycled waste product fuel use isn’t taking away from the significance of the electric vehicle movement. Can you believe that in just 10 months the world will see a lineup of electric vehicles ranging from Nissan and Mitsubishi city cars to freeway ready vehicles like the desirable Chevy Volt and the foreign competitor China’s e6 and F3DM. With Tesla, Fisker, Phoenix, and others providing alternative vehicles for niche markets.
Look at the recent leap in battery technology. AONE goes public. ABAT has announced new orders stretching 12 months forward. New GM has their own world class R&D battery lab. And I feel NGMCO has a CEO who is using his head to make the VERY tough calls which arrive at his desk on a daily basis. Gasoline power trucks will be in demand for some time. Mr. Henderson is addressing this reality with interest in fuels such as CE. This is his job and he’s doing the right thing. Playing the percentages to his companies favor.
I often talk with my coworkers and list the new electric models in production. They actually seek new information now. “Hey Dave, what’s going on with electrics now? Is GM still going to make that futuristic electric Cadillac?”
Interest is growing. Most young people I know are leaning toward buying American made electrics. The degree of public access to the progress on the Chevy Volt is impressive and inspiring to future buyers.
=D~
Oct 18th, 2009 (5:20 pm)There used to be this thing called research ethics. At least there ought to have been several comments regarding some sort of attempt to discuss safety here.
Isn’t anyone tired of the same old story when things go very wrong where those at fault are completely protected by the corporate veil from not only responsibility, but a requirement for research ethics; (or financial ethics, or any other type of ethics), using
The almighty
“We didn’t know” defense?
It’s their job to know. It’s everyone’s job to know and to ask a few safety questions of any type. If people don’t care about it, then sooner or later, WE ALL will get the failures of all types. And, where enough goes wrong all over, then the financial and other catastrophies occur. (Like last year at this time.)
ALL because not enough of us relentlessly asked those few critically important questions (especially media, who bring these normal concerns out to the light of day for us).
We’ll have only ourselves to blame if we never share these questions with leaders of media who can not be expected to think of everything at all times.
-1
Oct 18th, 2009 (5:59 pm)Gore is a hypocrite who did many of his home improvements only after he was called out for his wastefulness.
Given the Money Al Gore makes, it is no big deal that he can create a Green mansion.
The point of his mansion story is that Al preaches death and destruction from CO2 but his house initially was a typical American home (high energy use).
Oct 18th, 2009 (6:07 pm)Even 55MGal/yr will be a drop in the bucket.
The US uses about 140B gallons of gasoline per year. 55M is 0.03% of total consumption.
They will need to bring online about 26 of the 55MGal/yr plants to be able to produce 1% of the US’s fuel needs.
Maybe in 2030, when E-REVs and BEVs reduce total fuel consumption down to 90B gallons per year, and they’ve scaled up this sufficiently to about 5B gallons per year will we finally be making a difference (and possibly off foreign oil).
Oct 18th, 2009 (6:54 pm)You think BEVs will only reduce gasoline consumption to 90B gallons a year?.. probably a lot more than that.. trucks will continue to use diesel but cars wont have to use gasoline. 20 years after the BEV revolution starts you will be hard pressed to sell any gasoline.. probably a few gallons to hobbyist here and there.. even the classic muscle cars from the 60s will be converted to electric.
Oct 18th, 2009 (7:19 pm)My point is that it’s not obvious to me yet what will win out.
———————————————————————
Exactly…you said it all by missing the point. Currently, oil has something to close to a monopoly on transportation. If multiple sources of energy can be made to be more competitive with each other for transportation, oil rich nations loose their unwarranted influence. Since electric energy is produced from wide range of sources, it is very appealing.
To sum it up…diversification into competitive energy sources for transportation is the key.
I’m just rambling on from here down…
Yes you can say…inexpensive refrigration/electricity broke the “salt strangle hold” on preserving food supplies. But it really was the competitive diversification that removed so much power from a small pockets of the planet. Believe it or not…salt is still used as a food perservative…just not the main (primary) resource.
Of course, this does not fit into the business model of the oil companies; so their reaction is to protect their business…like you would protect your source of income for your family. Call it what you will…evil or progress…but western governments have proactively built up oil companies. Why? to improve their respective transportation systems…not just to hear the sweet sound of a finely tuned V8.
I do not about you…but oil has saved my life once or twice. Where I grew up…even in a ICE vehicle…it took 40-60 minutes to get to a hospital. Hence, I’m thankful for the oil…but it does not mean that I approve the oil government/political/business model which is one of the direct influences in starting wars.
Humans still fight over limited resources…the resource(s) just change until a solution is found to reduce importance of the limited resource by accident, divine intervention, and/or the will & know-how of the people.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:06 pm)Ok, Lets bookmark this and revisit in 1 year. My guess is that things are not as rosy as predicted.
I know I am being pessimistic, but that pessimism comes from being disappointed in most large corporate “save the world” gimmicks that they come up with.
Lets see some pudding for once!
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:12 pm)Herm,
Since oil is a commodity, the price will always stay in the sweet spot. Oil will not just sit in tankers looking for buyers.
Oil will priced at what people will pay for it. This is one of the biggest threats to BEV’s and other alternative energy sources.
I guarantee if $3/gal gas does not sell they drop it to $2.50…$2.00..$1.50….$1.25..$1.00…$0.99
Oil will always be “For Sale” (at least till it runs dry, which is a totally different argument)
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:19 pm)“Matter can be neither created or destroyed”
Don’t worry, be happy!
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:41 pm)We don’t live in a vacuum. Or even in a routinely predictable world. What is the recent history of per barrel oil prices as they flirt with $50? The media talks them back up.
What news items have been highlighted in the latest 3 month surge?
1>Pirates attack oil tankers
2>Troop levels increase
3>Suicide bombers remove senior war commanders
4>Iran refuses to stop Nuclear testing
5>North Korea ignores UN resolution and continues missile testing
6>Mountain fighters attack oil pipeline per Bin Laden’s orders
7>Single world currency a possibility
8>Oil demand rises on S&P advance
9>Oil demand rises as holiday season approaches
10>Peak oil is here
What will lower the price per barrel?
A refusal of world media to be led by the BIG OIL nose ring. As long as the media keep repackaging and hyping these 10 reasons. Per barrel oil will never drop below $50.
=D~
Oct 18th, 2009 (8:58 pm)Wow. I was on this thread this morning, but, it has taken a turn somewhere.
I doubt that anything we (mankind) can do will affect the continuing evolution of earth. The earth will finally get rid of us all and go on revolving around the sun for more billions of years. We are but a blip in the timeline.
For the next hundred or so years, Americans will figure out a way to keep their lives on track. After that, it’s a crap shoot.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (9:17 pm)Oil may be available but it has to be refined into gasoline.. and present day refineries depend on huge volume to make any money at all.. and they struggle to make money even selling those 140b gallons of gas.
In the future you will have small boutique refineries making batches of expensive gasoline to supply the hobbyist market…
Oct 18th, 2009 (10:27 pm)Shaft, I see your point. In reality, we have a loooooong road a ho if we are planning on electrifying our entire transportation system. We have hundreds of millions of legacy vehicles that could be WAAAAAY more easily converted to run on ethanol than electricity. Planes, trains, semi trucks, farm equipment, boats etc. etc, all could be powered by ethanol, electricity? maybe in about 20 years, MAYBE.
But, ethanol has some of the same issues. The US alone burns 375 million gallons of gas a year (about 137 billion gallons a year by my calculations). I don’t even know how much more oil is burned in heating oil etc. These guys are saying they might, if all goes well, be able to make 55,000,000 gallons a year at each plant. We would need 2,500 of these. Do we even have enough bio mass to sustain that? Maybe, but it will take decades before we get up to that output.
I believe that bio fuels and electricity should work hand in hand. With EREVs, we can have people use no gas 95% of the time and use ethanol 5% of the time, saving ethanol for other ICE only cars that can’t afford EREVs.
The other big wild card here is IF it really costs $1/gallon. As the caps demonstrate, that is a BIG “IF”. We all know how things sound cheap on paper but then with a million unforeseeable obstacles, legal red tape, land use rights, unionizing workers demanding insane health care benefits…who knows what, the price gets to be a lot more expensive than the engineers figured it out to be originally. If they can make it for under $3/gallon, I will be surprised.
Oct 18th, 2009 (10:43 pm)CSX can move 1 ton of product 436 on 1 gallon of fuel.
1 ton of biomas makes 80 gallons of fuel.
Jobs for the Railroad Boys!
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:08 pm)Shawn Marshall,
When we were burning all of our easily accessible domestic oil, all of the practical solutions you mentioned were considered “political solutions”. It’s often a matter of how far in the future you are willing to fix your focus. A planet with 7.5 billion people, 8 billion or 9 is going to make a lot our decisions look short sighted, and they’ll be entrenched and incredibly expensive to change.
+1
Oct 18th, 2009 (11:13 pm)If we take our garbage and landfill it, doesn’t that sequester a lot of carbon, slowly releasing it over time? If we use energy to get ethanol from trash to gas stations and into cars doesn’t that release all of the CO2 right now?
Oct 19th, 2009 (1:55 am)Now here is a group of people who dont want the truth told .
You have to feel sorry for them .
Oct 19th, 2009 (4:50 am)Good point jeffhre
Since the waste is already at the landfill site…
Using free labor from the community service program and a solar conveyor will provide additional landfill space. It will also provide alternative energy and a sense of purpose to those in the community service program.
Release of more CO2 right now?
The machines that bury dump waste need fuel. Rather than have them burn gasoline or diesel. Simply fuel up on site with CE. This will save the CO2 released during oil transport.
California really needs to get smart and install economical, self contained, and self supportive systems as this. The will is here. Not being a native of California, I continue to be impressed with the one mindedness toward recycling and efficiency here. This may be why California leads the GM Volt dot com waiting list. The demand is real.
=D~
Oct 19th, 2009 (7:25 am)From the release information:
“The prehistoric anaerobic microorganisms are from the family of clostridium bacteria. These “bugs” are found in nature, typically in deep-water ponds. Cosakata has managed the strains with nutrient programs and selection process to make them more efficient at producing ethanol. Coskata “did what Mother Nature would do, but on an accelerated path,” Roe said. The microorganisms were discovered and developed with help from the Oklahoma Biofuels Consortium, made up of OSU, BYU and OU.”
-1
Oct 19th, 2009 (7:56 am)Me agree with Al Gore??? Personally I suspect that Gore is a phony hypocrite backed by pernicious corporate entities(GE?) which stand to profit immensely from the greenwave charade. This includes the electric utilities which are backing Crap&Trade. They cunningly backed deregulation too just to line their own pockets. The shameless CEO of AEP said recently on TV that production costs under Crap&Trade may double but that’s better than being regulated by the EPA since the Supreme Court injudiciously decided that the EPA could decide if CO2 is a pollutant.
In case you haven’t noticed there are no honest men left in our corporate HQs or in government – everybody is grinding their own axe. And this degenerative behavior will certainly doom us to poor decision making and economic disaster.
I’m with Lutz; Man made Global warming is a crockapoo.
MAYBE new batteries will make solar power generally feasible and we can get off the grid and get this malevolent government off the backs of the people.
Carbon to ethanol is attractive for the same reason as the Volt – break the Cartel of our enemies. When oil goes down so will IRAN and Afghanistan.
OH PS: Al Gores motivation to betray his country besides filthy lucre? The world wide Kingship of Greeniness as a salve to losing the election. Perverse ain’t it?
Oct 19th, 2009 (8:00 am)Eggzacktamundo!!!!!!!!!
+1
Oct 19th, 2009 (8:17 am)Let’s not get too excited until they get funding to build dozens of full-scale production plants. Yes, 7-1 sounds great. What does that include? The fuel needed to grow, collect, transport, etc. the feedstock and final fuel? If it’s going to be economical it must include all the energy and resource costs. If it’s not high enough, it will be too expensive for our current cheap energy consuming infrastructure.
Remember, the numbers are likely to be exaggerated. One dollar ethanol using ANY feedstock would save the world. So, excuse me if I wait for all the details and see the actual economics work out. Until then, nice progress and let’s hope they are not BSing us.
Oct 19th, 2009 (11:03 am)Keith:
Actually, I agree with you. I was going to post the exact same comment. Sorry, +1 is the best I can do, LOL.
When they start producing the 55 million gallons a year for $1/gallon, I will be thrilled to stand up and eat my words. As my dear friend the late Harold Walker always used to say:
“I’ll kiss your a** at high noon on the courthouse steps and give you 30 minutes to draw a crowd.”
God send that it shall be true, but always remember:
“Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see.”
Oct 19th, 2009 (11:24 am)Coskata’s developments are excellent news and GM’s investment in them is very smart. Taken together with the development of the EREV VOLT, we are significantly closer to watching those middle eastern Shieks shreak in financial pain!
Do some math: if the VOLT gets true 40 mpg in extended range mode, and you drive 30% of the time in extended range mode, over a year of 15,000 miles you will drive about 4,500 in ER. You would use approx 112 gallons of petroleum. (math = 15,000 *30% / 40 = 112.5 gallons)
Now, instead, fill up with E85. Even if your ER feul economy drops by 20% to 32mpg, if you drive the same 30% of 15,000 miles in ER, you would reduce foriegn petroleum use to only 21 gallons! (math = 15,000 * 30% / 32 = 140.625 * 15% petroleum content = 21.09 gallons)
So, if you compare a VOLT running on E85 to a non-E85 capable small car with an ICE getting great 40 mpg average over 15,000 miles of driving, the E85 VOLT saves a whopping 94% foreign petroleum use! (math = 15,000 / 40 = 375 gallons).
One more huge plus for Coskata’s technology – if it was smoke and mirrors, they would have done an IPO based on their ‘white paper’ and cashed in. The fact that they’ve built a working smaller scale facility speaks volumes for their optimism.
Oct 19th, 2009 (3:04 pm)If the fuel thing doesn’t work out, I recommend NOT buying any Coskata whiskey.
Oct 19th, 2009 (3:34 pm)Loboc:
Alas, I truly fear that you are right. And so many things we do just accelerate the process, and just give Her more motivation to get rid of us sooner, rather than later.
Oct 19th, 2009 (3:38 pm)Larry R:
I laughed at San Francisco when they started shipping their trash to Lassen County by rail 20 some years ago. Now we in LA are getting ready to ship ours by rail to Riverside County. And NYC ships theirs by rail to God knows where.
See Loboc’s comment at #24 and my reply. Wait for it.
+1
Oct 20th, 2009 (12:36 am)the US is not the whole world.
a gallon of ethanol (produced this way)
is one dollar less, in the hands of the terrorists.
I just hope it works.
Oct 20th, 2009 (12:33 pm)d
Oct 20th, 2009 (12:48 pm)Ahh, I think you mean “Energy”…
and energy CAN change form (energy to mass and vice versa).
Oct 21st, 2009 (8:57 am)[...] http://gm-volt.com/2009/10/18/coskata-opens-semi-production-cellulosic-ethanol-plant/ [...]