Is Cellulosic Ethanol All it’s Cracked Up to Be?

- by Edward Dodge, Decem­ber 10, 2014, Break­ing Energy

The EPA has long pro­mot­ed cel­lu­losic ethanol as the future of bio­fu­els, but tech­ni­cal chal­lenges have kept pro­duc­tion far below tar­gets. A recent rule change allows RNG, renew­able nat­ur­al gas, to qual­i­fy as cel­lu­losic bio­fu­el even though RNG is not cel­lu­losic, but this helps EPA appear to be meet­ing their goals.

RNG growth has been dra­mat­ic and is the low­est car­bon vehi­cle fuel avail­able today. Per­haps the EPA should be pro­mot­ing a Renew­able Gas Stan­dard instead of a Renew­able Fuel Standard.

In 2013, pro­duc­tion of cel­lu­losic ethanol was effec­tive­ly zero, even though the leg­is­lat­ed tar­get vol­ume for for 2013 was 1 bil­lion gal­lons. In August 2013, EPA reduced the tar­get to 6 mil­lion gal­lons, and again reduced the tar­get retroac­tive­ly to 810,185 gal­lons, less than 1 mil­lion. By all accounts this rep­re­sents a com­plete fail­ure of the cel­lu­losic ethanol pro­gram. In July 2014 the EPA revised the cel­lu­losic bio­fu­el rules to allow RNG to be cat­e­go­rized as cellulosic.

The RFS pro­duc­tion data tells the sto­ry. In 2013, cel­lu­losic bio­fu­el pro­duc­tion was near­ly zero. In 2014, a small amount of cel­lu­losic ethanol was pro­duced, but all of a sud­den there are 17.5 mil­lion gal­lons of renew­able CNG and LNG. The appear­ance of RNG was pure­ly a func­tion of the rule change in July that allowed already exist­ing (unsub­si­dized) pro­duc­tion of renew­able CNG/LNG to qual­i­fy. The pro­duc­tion of cel­lu­losic ethanol is bare­ly half of the already mod­est tar­get despite exten­sive fed­er­al support.

Ethanol fuels have been sub­ject to a great deal of crit­i­cism for both envi­ron­men­tal and engi­neer­ing rea­sons. Ethanol is tra­di­tion­al­ly made from sug­ars fer­ment­ed into alco­hol. The sug­ars are derived from agri­cul­tur­al crops, pre­dom­i­nant­ly corn in the USA and sug­ar­cane in Brazil, the world’s two largest ethanol pro­duc­ing coun­tries. Since the use of food crops for fuel com­petes with food pro­duc­tion and rais­es food prices there has been much effort to devel­op alter­na­tive path­ways to pro­duce (cel­lu­losic) ethanol from non-food crops such as grass­es, wood and waste.

The prob­lem with cel­lu­losic ethanol is that it is quite chal­leng­ing to break down cel­lu­lose because it is the part of a plant that is meant to be tough. Cel­lu­losic ethanol pro­duc­ers have strug­gled to find ener­gy- and cost-effi­cient means of accom­plish­ing the task and many have gone bank­rupt, such as KiOR recently.

There are sig­nif­i­cant engi­neer­ing chal­lenges in using ethanol as well, the biggest being that ethanol is hydro­scop­ic, mean­ing that it attracts and absorbs water. Water build up can cre­ate cor­ro­sion in tanks, fuel lines and engines and can cre­ate phase sep­a­ra­tion of the fuel itself caus­ing engine per­for­mance issues. Ethanol also breaks down cer­tain types of poly­mers and rub­ber sealants, as well as attack­ing iron, cop­per and brass and in some cir­cum­stances ethanol has been thought to react with fiber­glass fuel tanks cre­at­ing sludge build up.

Old­er engines can be ruined by the use of ethanol, though mod­ern engines use mate­ri­als that are resis­tant to such fail­ures. A prop­er­ly designed engine can run on pure (neat) ethanol, though atten­tion must be made to manufacturer’s instruc­tions regard­ing appro­pri­ate fuel choice.

Ethanol blends in gaso­line up to 10%, known as E10, are approved for gen­er­al use in the US and are com­mon today, but blend­ing ethanol above 10% is a heat­ed debate. The 10% thresh­old is known as the “blend wall” and cur­rent ethanol pro­duc­tion lies right at that lev­el. Ethanol pro­duc­ers and advo­cates are active­ly lob­by­ing the gov­ern­ment to approve blends of E15 and E85 (15% and 85%). Petro­le­um inter­ests are active­ly opposed to increased ethanol blends, for obvi­ous rea­sons, as they are try­ing to pro­tect mar­ket share for their product.

Con­sumers, vehi­cle man­u­fac­tures, fuel dis­trib­u­tors and retail­ers are caught in the mid­dle. E15 would be mar­ket­ed for gen­er­al use and there is a great deal of con­cern that increased ethanol ratios will cre­ate major main­te­nance prob­lems. As it stands today E10 is not used in boat­ing, is dis­cour­aged for use in small engines such as lawn mow­ers and chain saws, and is not dis­trib­uted through pipelines due to cor­ro­sion issues. Ethanol must be trans­port­ed sep­a­rate­ly from gaso­line in trucks and blend­ed at the end of the line near the point of distribution.

The vast major­i­ty of ethanol pro­duced in the US is made from corn, which is an inten­sive crop to cul­ti­vate, requir­ing fer­til­iz­ers, pes­ti­cides and heavy equip­ment, all of which run on fos­sil fuels. This is why life-cycle green­house gas emis­sions from corn ethanol are only mar­gin­al­ly low­er than for gaso­line. GHG emis­sions from corn ethanol are high­er than that of fos­sil nat­ur­al gas. Cel­lu­losic ethanol has low GHG emis­sions in the­o­ry, but since there is hard­ly any actu­al com­mer­cial pro­duc­tion it remains a theory.


Posted

in

by


EJ Communities Map

Map of Coal and Gas Facilities

We are mapping all of the existing, proposed, closed and defeated dirty energy and waste facilities in the US. We are building a network of community groups to fight the facilities and the corporations behind them.

Our Network

Watch Us on YouTube