DOE pours $385 million into cellulosic ethanol production
The U.S. Department of Energy has dug into its coffers once again for alternative energy research, this time putting up to $385 million forward to fund six cellulosic ethanol over the next four years. DOE Secretary Samuel W. Bodman made the announcement, going on to say that when fully operational, the six biorefineries will produce more than 130 million gallons / 492 million litres of ethanol per year. The funding is part of President Bush's Twenty in Ten Initiative which aims to reduce America's petrol consumption by 20 percent in ten years.
"These biorefineries will play a critical role in helping to bring cellulosic ethanol to market, and teaching us how we can produce it in a more cost effective manner," Secretary Bodman said. "Ultimately, success in producing inexpensive cellulosic ethanol could be a key to eliminating our nation's addiction to oil. By relying on American ingenuity and on American farmers for fuel, we will enhance our nation's energy and economic security."
Cellulosic ethanol is seen by the current administration as the best way to achieve their goal of increasing the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector by 35 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2017. Industry will have to more than match the DOE's contributions leading to a total of more than $1.2 billion that will be invested in these six biorefineries.
The following six projects were selected from the many proposals:
- Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas, LLC of Chesterfield, Missouri, up to $76 million.
- ALICO, Inc. of LaBelle, Florida, up to $33 million.
- BlueFire Ethanol, Inc. of Irvine, California, up to $40 million.
- Broin Companies of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, up to $80 million.
- Iogen Biorefinery Partners, LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, up to $80 million.
- Range Fuels (formerly Kergy Inc.) of Broomfield, Colorado, up to $76 million.
For the record, anyone who voted in our last poll - Best way to spend the DOE's money - for anything but cellulosic ethanol, well, I'm afraid you and I were both clearly wrong.
Related:
[Source: Department of Energy]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 9:53PM (3/04/2007)
"Analysis: What a great way to spend federal funds!" --Dane Muldoon
This is exactly what is required to get Politically Correct ethanol into production -- massive government subsidies. If that doesn't work, next will be government coercion. Then we will be stuck with this mediocre fuel, and no closer to being independent of fossil fuel than we were before. However, ADM will certainly be better off...
Oh, I forgot... the other thing that is needed to ram ethanol up our behinds is to make the vastly superior fuel, biodiesel (which doesn't need any government subsidies), ILLEGAL, at least for small-scale production. Unless, of course, ADM manages to get its cut of that, in which case, we might actually have a 'choice'.
Fortunately, I think that either straight EV or PHEV will be so obviously superior to ethanol that ethanol will quickly go away. It might even prove superior to biodiesel, at least for some applications, like small-car commuting. Also, once it sinks into the collective consciousness of the corn farmers that they are about to get royally shafted, ethanol will become considerably less Politically Correct, provided that realization comes fairly soon, and provided they actually understand what happened to them.
Reply
frank78 12:29AM (3/05/2007)
best commentary I've seen anywhere on here in awhile. agreed with 100%
Reply
Jimmy 8:29AM (3/05/2007)
Cellulosic ethanol is one of the most promising alternative fuels. Turning agricultural and wood waste into clean, renewable fuel which can used today is a good thing for America and the environment.
Reply
Rick 8:37AM (3/05/2007)
Cellulosic Ethanol is 2 main technologies: 1) Enzyme Ethanol and Gasification Ethanol.
MIT claims they can convert Municipal Solid Waste into ethanol for $.05-.95/gallon with gasification. They state further that the US has enough garbage to replace 25% of the gasoline we consume in the US. It's fabulous technology. Go here to read the 2 page report:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18084/
With a combination of PHEV's and MSW-to-Ethanol we could eliminate all oil imports within 10 years.
Reply
gschelble 11:30AM (3/05/2007)
Let's get a few things straight. Cellulosic ethanol is far superior to corn ethanol in terms of CO2 emissions, land use, and food supply disruptions. But, and this is a big but, it's not a long term solution to America's energy needs, because replacing foreign oil with domestic cellulosic ethanol would still require far too much land. Solar panels and battery-powered cars ARE the long term solution. They require far less land, even non-arable land. The only hurdle is cost. That's where the DOE comes in. The DOE should be crafting a national policy to give consumers an incentive to buy solar panels, thereby boosting demand, boosting production, and accelerating the drop in the cost of panels, which is already happening anyway. Not to mention, solar panels employ just as many people as ethanol production, and the US could easily become the world leader in panel design and production-- not a bad bonus.
Reply
Mike 2:53PM (3/06/2007)
Roll out the barrels! (pork barrels that is)
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 3:37PM (3/06/2007)
I'm not convinced that cellulosic ethanol is any better for total CO2 than any other flavor of ethanol. The big deal for cellulosic ethanol is that the leftover lignen can be burned to render enough energy for the conversion process, so that dinosaur juice isn't required. But lignen is a carbohydrate; the byproducts of burning lignen include CO2.
The only thing going for ethanol is that is isn't quite as insanely stupid as using hydrogen to power a car. Building 50 million ethanol cars is possible, requiring only massive government subsidy or government coercion. Whereas building 50 million hydrogen cars is not possible, and never will be.
Want to reduce atmospheric CO2? Then go carbon-neutral (biodiesel), or carbonless (PV or hydroelectric), or some combination. Both of those alternatives also have the benefit of being more economical than ethanol.
Reply