DOE to Fund Development of 10% Scale Cellulosic Biorefineries Using New Processes

Adapted from DOE Announcement:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on May 1 announced that it will provide up to $200 million, over five years (FY’07-’11) to support the development of small-scale cellulosic biorefineries. This funding  announcement seeks projects to develop biorefineries at ten percent of commercial scale that produce liquid transportation fuels such as ethanol, as well as bio-based chemicals and bioproducts used in industrial applications. 

Small-scale projects will use novel approaches and a variety of cellulosic feedstocks to test new refining processes.  These projects complement DOE’s announcement earlier this year, previous post, which makes available up to $385 million over four years for the development of six full-scale biorefineries.  The full-scale biorefineries focus on near-term commercial processes, while the small-scale facilities will experiment with new feedstocks and processing technologies.  Combined, these small- and full-scale projects will receive up to $585 million in federal investment.

This announcement will support demonstration projects that test key refining processes and provide operational data needed to lower the technical hurdles sometimes associated with financing a full-size commercial plant.  These projects are expected to be operational within three to four years and will speed the adoption of new technologies to produce ethanol and other biofuels from cellulosic feedstocks.  Commercial-scale demonstrations would follow thereafter.

DOE requests applicants to design, construct and operate an integrated biorefinery demonstration facility, employing lignocellulosic feedstocks for the production of some combination of liquid transportation fuel(s), biobased chemicals, and substitutes for petroleum-based feedstocks and products.  DOE seeks projects that can rapidly move to commercial-scale, supported by a sound business strategy and; encourages applications that demonstrate breakthrough technologies and collaboration between industry, universities, and DOE’s national laboratories.

Up to $15 million is expected to be available in FY’07, with the remaining $185 million expected to be available in FY’08-’11, subject to appropriation from Congress.  DOE anticipates selecting 5-10 awards under this announcement.  These projects require a minimum of 50 percent cost share from applicants.

Comments

[abbott-associates]

It is interesting to guestimate what $200M on demonstration facilities would do - a 1/10 scale semi-works demonstratio plant would be 5-10 million gallons per year. Cost of construction/gallon just on smaller scale alone would be multiples of a conventional ethanol plant, say $4/gallon of capacity. Add another $2/gallon for cellulose processing, and the probably low estimated cost of construction alone is $30-$40M, with operating costs in $5-$10M per year. These number might even be higher for non-fermentation approaches, such as gasification. Over five years, the total commitment of the submitting company could be as high as $75-$100M. Assuming a 25% support by DOE, the $200M allocated could fund arpound 5-10 demonstration facilities, depending on scale and scope of projects. This seems to about right given that DOE decided to fund 6 commercial projects.

[GreyFlcn]

Joy, cellulosic ethanol.

Even if we did cellulosic switchgrass E85 we'd have more ozone emmisions, and hardly any reduction in CO2.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol

All with a huge infrastucture cost.
Since Ethanol isn't compatible with any existing pumps or pipelines (And most cars)

California for instance has a whole ONE public E85 pump in all of the entire state.

_

Rather than wasting our time, and tax dollars on this, we should be putting it towards building high density batteries for electric plugin cars.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/plugins

[Kit P.]

I see no reason to not pursue both biofuels and PHEVs.

If you live in a dirty California city, it understandable that you would want and EEV. Most Americans have clean air and do not need to worry about ozone.

Let me point out to GreyFlcn that he has linked very rich idiots. Ron, the engineer, lives in a city with excellent public transportation, much of which is electric powered. Ron also lives in a city with great wind resources but no windmill for making electricity. Why does he need a car?

People from California like to tell other how to be green without ever noticing that they are just talking while other are doing.

PHEV are DOA, while ethanol and biodiesel have exceeded expectations. The engineers and farmers of the Midwest are looking to the next challenge. It is interesting that California passed one of the first laws mandating ethanol but has been very slow in developing facilities.

On a positive note, the nuke plant that Ron, the engineer, gets his electricity from just ran 531 days before shutting down to refuel. BZ

[GreyFlcn]

How do you figure Plugins are dead on arrival?

_

Ethanol as E85 requires millions of dollars of infrastructure, in pumps, and pipelines.

And you need a specialized vehicle to operate it.

And all the while, it costs more per mile, and uses over a dollar per gallon in tax dollars.

_

Whats more, serial plugin hybrids offer the benefits of scrapping virtually all the gasoline car components besides the motor.
And use only just a few electric components.

So you end up with a car that needs virtually no maintenence, is cost competative, should last for over a decade, and costs you less than 50 cents a gallon.

_

If cost is a big factor for ya,
How about the Javlon for $29,500?

http://greyflcn.blogspot.com/2007/04/affordable-electric-car.html

Comprable to a camry hybrid when you factor in the fuel and maintence costs.

[Kit P.]

PHEV are DOA because I just bought a fully loaded Corolla for under $16k. It will last 30 years and need very little maintenance (except for the battery). My ICE is economical, clean and quite.

So why would I want an electric car? There is no compelling reason to buy an electric car. GreyFlcn may think EV are cooler than sliced bread but I see no compelling advantage that a high quality economy car has over an EV.

For the record, I would not buy an E-85 POV either. Nor would I pay more for ethanol until I see more data to support the environmental benefits.

It is pretty simple. ICE POVs work fine and last a long time. EV do not work very well and batteries really suck.

[Don]

Cellulosic Ethanol is the Future of Fuels as we transition to Hydrogen power. Cellulosic Ethanol is a Self sustaining process - just add waste. Hydrogen Fuel cells can also be made more easily and efficiently using cellulosic ethanol. So, Ethanol can be used for bio-diesel, E85 & 95, as an additive for petro, and as the building blocks for Hydrogen fuel; also, there is no regulation on price. It costs less than a dollar per gallon to get it to the pump (for which there are grants and Wal Mart is a nation-wide distributor of E85 & 95).

You can fight the future, be upset by it, or whatever but to try and stop it is impossible. As for the emissions, those are controllable and lss than petro - not to mention that the easiest way to get rid of CO2 is to plant trees and plants... but wait, they might block our view of the terrorist... right? Is that the logic to the objection or is it just ignorance.

[nath]

Cellulose converted to glucose by enzymatic process followed by fermenation to produce Eyhanol is better and potentially more ecnomical in the long run. However, ethanol from fermentaion of sugar (can or beat sugar) is true and tried method as proven by Brazilian experience of twenty years.