Now that the food for fuel spooks have been chased away, we can proceed on the task of meeting and exceeding the 2009 RFS requirement of 10.21%. The EPA raised 2009 RFS earlier this year from 7.71% via the Clean Air Act as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

This latest USDA announcement while lowering the total corn for ethanol use is still a 22.3% increase over 2008. All in all a continuing win for the environment, national security, and the goal of energy independence. Congratulations to EPA for pressing forward with domestic renewable energy.

Call me what you want, but we're still here, and
corn ethanol is still as bad as it ever was.

I'm OK with plant based ethanol as fuel, but not from corn. So how about this: Let's limit our corn ethanol to 10% (where we are now) and anything above that needs to come from cellulosic or some other more sustainable source that doesn't use a ton of fertilizer and water.

There's NO WAY we can grow enough corn to meet our fuel needs, and going to over 20% (as planned) will destroy our cropland even more and will raise food prices. Maybe it will only raise them a tiny bit, but there's just no way to deny that it has SOME effect (even if small).

Also, it doesn't make economic sense. Why are we subsidizing corn ethanol at $0.51 per gallon? That's crazy. And even with those subsidies, corn ethanol plants are shutting down. This is ridiculous.

Yep. With all those taxpayer (read) government subsidies - you could say the big ag corn business is nationalized.

And of course the alcohol should be made from cellulose downstream. The entire ethanol business is aware of this and are acting on it ala Range Fuels, Coskata and a dozen other cellulosic projects.

Actually EP that's why I favor NG fuel for cars. Once you have the systems installed to handle gaseous fuels you can extend the stockpiles of NG by turning biomass into biogas and/or blending in H2.

Acually I'm not suggesting an expansion of fossil fuels.
I'm suggesting we replace carbon heavy oil fuels with carbon light NG as a stepping stone to renewables.
I just don't think we can bring renewables online fast enough.

Most if not all bio and agro fuels cannot compete with fossil fuel when crude oil price is as low as $30/barrel.

Current grain (or cellulosic) ethanol subsidies will progressively cost more and more as production ramps up.

The only way to offset this huge subsidy future cost and reduce oil imports at the same time would be with a selective but progressive carbon tax on fossil fuel.

It will never happen in Canada (a net crude oil exporter) and most OPEP nations but it should be more acceptable in Oil importing countries like USA, China, India, Japan, Indonesia and many European countries, where over 75% of the world crude oil is used.

What makes you think your "lower BTU gas" from "thermal processes" isn't a biogas?

Biogas simply refers to a gas produced from breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen.

One type of biogas IS produced by anaerobic digestion or fermentation of biodegradable materials such as biomass, manure or sewage, municipal waste, green waste and energy crops. This type of biogas comprises primarily methane and carbon dioxide.

But the other principal type of biogas is producer gas [AKA wood gas, syngas] which is created by thermal gasification of wood or other biomass. This type of biogas is comprised primarily of nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide, with only trace amounts of methane. However the exact percentages of each gas produced depends on the feedstock being cooked.

Although the gas produced is a mixture doesn't it make sense to put it through a filter and use the different gases for different jobs?

You're using a much narrower definition than I and many others would use but I don't want to argue this point, it would only be distraction. Let's use a different term; renewable fuel gas? RFG would be a more inclusive category, it would include biogas, producer gas from biomass and hydrogen released from water with renewable energy.

Which is the best use of limited feedstock? Well I don't like 'either/or' arguments, 'all or nothing' arguments or 'one size fits all' arguments. When it comes to renewable energy we should use a mix of energy sources and apply the right tech to the right job: Your low BTU producer gas is perfectly suitable for a stationary power application - want more power? Just use a bigger pipe. Heck, you don't even need a combustible gas; if it's hot or pressurized from the producer you can get usable power from it. But for mobile power [like in a car] you want your fuel to take up less space, so methane and/or hydrogen is it. Ideally we should be electrifying our transport but that's not always possible.

As for which process to use? We use the right process for the right feedstock. Is the feedstock "wet" or "dry?" Pyrolysis happens at higher temperatures and water takes more energy to get past the boiling point. Anaerobic digestion takes little energy when the materials are easily biodegradable. So you use thermal gasification on wood and other high cellulose material and "anaerobic digestion or fermentation on manure or sewage, municipal waste, green waste and energy crops." As I said.

Even here it's not an 'either/or' argument. Anaerobic digestion of wet biomass will produce higher concentrations of methane but leave behind a lot of material - a lot but it's still reduced in mass, therefore it will take less energy to bring it up to pyrolysis temperatures. What remains after this could be used as biochar or put through a plasma torch to get the last bit of gas out.

No, you're talking to an ally in the fight for renewables. Try to remember that before you chew me out.

A while back, you asked me: "maybe you can tell me the conversion efficiency from cellulose to biogas, as well as the capital cost and conversion time."
And yes I didn't answer - because I don't know and don't see as it matters; We shouldn't be using that process on cellulose. "We use the right process for the right feedstock." So we use thermal gasification on wood and other high cellulose material.

>Let's use a different term; renewable fuel gas? RFG would be a more inclusive category
•It also conflates radically different things; biogas typically means a mix of about 50% methane and 50% CO2 with an LHV of around 500 BTU/ft³, biomethane is predominantly methane with an LHV over 1000 BTU/ft³, and pyrolysis gas is 300 BTU/ft³ or less depending on whether it's made using air or oxygen, the CO2 is removed, etc.
•RFG already means reformulated gasoline.

Fair enough.

>Solid torrefied biomass may be superior to any gas based not just on the efficiency, but on the ease of fueling and storage.

I thought we were talking about fuels to run vehicles here. Solid torrefied biomass would be great in displacing coal at power plants but we can't run it through an IC engine.

>If the feedstock is wet, it's going to be too heavy (and probably also too bulky) to be worth shipping. You've got to process it very close to the point of production.

Of course.

But biomass that's 'too heavy and bulky' to ship as fuel is shipped anyway, every day, for other reasons and uses. Once it's been used and labeled 'garbage' we ship it again even though it's more heavy and bulky.

In the mid to long term, the technology used to produce usable liquid fuels or electric energy will depend on the relative production and distribution cost per unit of energy.

That being said, one of the best way to promote one technology over another is the good old fashion subsidy route coupled with selective taxes (to fund the subsidies).

When fossil liquid fuels price change drastically, as it did it during the last six months, alternative fuels (or energy) subsidies have to be adjusted accordingly to maintain relative competition. Above a certain crude oil price, the alternative fuels subsidies could even become negative.

Alternative fuel could also be promoted by taxing fossil fuels but too many people would disapprove. Not that many people will accept to pay an extra $1/gal for fossil fuels to pay for alternative fuels subsidies.

Since alternative fuels cannot compete with $30 or $40/barrel crude oil and we do not want to tax it to ramp the price up to alternative fuel production cost, alternative liquid fuels may be doomed for as long as cheap crude oil is available or we accept a new fossil fuel tax.

The country cannot keep on increasing the subsidies without a new source of revenues. It is deep enough in debt allready.

This is what I mean by subsidied oil-
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

@E-P
>>I thought we were talking about fuels to run vehicles >>here.
>I am. Charcoal was used in on-board gasogenes during >both world wars,

I know this, my grandfather drove a cab during WWII with with set-up but the system he described took up the whole of the boot and had a huge gasgag on the roof.

>>But biomass that's 'too heavy and bulky' to ship as >>fuel is shipped anyway, every day, for other reasons >>and uses. Once it's been used and labeled 'garbage' >>we ship it again even though it's more heavy and >>bulky.
>I submit that you have it backwards: waste is shipped >not because it has uses, but because it is useless
>(creates nuisances and hazards).

No, I was refering to the original biomass being shipped in as being useful. The waste reference was a separate sentence and separate issue.

>Being able to treat it closer to the point of origin >is a big selling point of many of the waste-to-fuel >processes.

Agreed and that IS the point I'm trying to make. When talking about biomass-to-fuel/energy you have to concider many issues with the feedstocks; one (which process is best for which feedstock) I've gone over already, but another is 'what was the feedstock being used for before?' The whole "food-to-fuel" issue is just one side of that, most of the feedstocks ARE being used for something else. We should only use biomass-to-fuel/energy when they aren't being used for something else or when it improves the feedstock: I favor thermal gasification for MSW, because it's only going into a landfill anyways, and anaerobic digestion for farm/green wastes for the same reasons farmers like it.

>The same search turned up a 2003 Usenet posting with a >claim that the nitrogen in the digestate winds up >mostly in the liquid filtrate rather than the >dewatered solids (which are typically just 18-22% >solids), so nutrient cycling is an issue.

I believe farmers use the liquid also.

Also, here's something of interest-
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/the_gospel_of_green/video.html