Shell and Iogen abandon project to build large-scale cellulosic ethanol facility in Manitoba
30 April 2012
Royal Dutch Shell is abandoning the pursuit of a project with Iogen Corporation to build a larger scale cellulosic ethanol facility in southern Manitoba.
In June 2010, the two companies made a further investment in Iogen Energy, their jointly owned subsidiary, to accelerate the commercial deployment of Iogen Energy’s process for making cellulosic ethanol from agricultural residue. Shell committed to fund research and development activities at Iogen Energy until mid-2012. (Earlier post.)
As a result of the decision, Iogen Energy will “refocus” its strategy and activities. This refocusing will lead to a smaller development program at Iogen Energy and a loss of 150 jobs.
Shell says it will continue to explore multiple pathways to find a commercial solution for the production of advanced biofuels on an industrial scale.
Iogen Corporation will continue to employ approximately 110 people at its Ottawa headquarters and plans to expand its line of offerings with new technology for the production of advanced and cellulosic biofuels.
Iogen Corporation’s industrial enzymes business—solutions to customers in the grain processing, animal feed, pulp and paper and textiles industries—will not be affected by these changes.
Cellulosic ethanol is a failure
Posted by: Treehugger | 30 April 2012 at 09:10 AM
Canada does not need bio-fuels for another 100+ years.
By that time, electrified vehicles may have replaced all ICEVs.
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 April 2012 at 02:58 PM
Even if Canada doesn't need them, if they can be made economically from e.g. straw or forestry wastes they could be a worthwhile export.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 30 April 2012 at 05:15 PM
The efficiency of converting solar light into biomass is very low, and at this low efficiency there is not enough land area to make enough fuel for a modern country. Trees can be used very effectively to capture CO2, and all areas that once had trees and are now bare should be reforested with trees even if WaterBoxx units must be used.
There is rarely a good reason for any industrial country to use biofuels because many natural land areas have been destroyed to produce food and fuels for people over thousands of years. To import biofuels from less developed countries like Canada and others just destroys their forests and natural grasslands; a strip mine in your own country will be far more ethical. We know of very good ways of not producing CO2; Growing permanent trees, not burning them, is a way to permanently capture CO2 at low cost.
Infina solar dishes are an efficient way of using the surface of the earth to capture solar energy; bio-mass ethanol is not. Ethanol itself is a food even if it is made from cellulose which is also a food for goats etc. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 01 May 2012 at 01:33 AM
E-P: Fuel from tar sands cost about $32/barrel while bio-fuels cost 2X to 3X more.
Which fuel will USA and bean counters buy?
Secondly, after the 179 billion barrels from tar sands, there are another 40 billion more barrels in the Golf of St-Lawrence, mainly on Anticosti Island and Gaspé Peninsula, to feed Eastern Canada for decades to come.
Canada does not need and should not produce expensive bio-fuels from food or non-food feed stocks to do like others and to please farming speculators.
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 May 2012 at 09:32 AM
Canada does produce lots of agricultural and forestry products for export. So long as the activity is going on anyway, making fuel out of non-marketable parts of the plants looks to have possibilities. I don't see much in the way of a Canadian goat industry, but if someone decides to take wood chips from BC or straw from Manitoba and turn them into something someone wants to buy, more power to them.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 01 May 2012 at 10:15 AM
"Fuel from tar sands cost about $32/barrel while bio-fuels cost 2X to 3X more."
Unless of course you don't figure in the cost of environmental damage e.g. remediating the land, atmospheric damage, health issues, delay in conversions to non-fossil fuels, etc. In which case cost per barrel to public is well above $100/barrel.
Sounds like Shell has seen the market and decided to keep it for itself.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 01 May 2012 at 06:21 PM
Unless of course you DO figure in...
Posted by: Reel$$ | 01 May 2012 at 06:22 PM
Man, what an irony.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 01 May 2012 at 09:21 PM
EP - you really have sunk into the realm of conspirator nut cases. What's RC got to do with anything? A defunct* unit of Fenton's PR firm:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
There is a rather large difference between toxic and particulate emissions (CO, NOx, PAH, hydrocarbons, Benzene etc.) and CO2. Perhaps you should catch up.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 01 May 2012 at 11:34 PM
You're really scraping bottom when you use populartechnology.net as a reference. Look at the list of contributors on the sidebar; not a scientist in the lot.
You're as bad as that French guy who publicly spouted some nonsense that he believed was true "because he found it on the Internet".
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 02 May 2012 at 02:49 AM
Er, what part of the truth-about-realclimateorg do you deny?
Posted by: Reel$$ | 03 May 2012 at 12:32 PM
BTW EP, you do know your leader Dave Fenton "entered the activist fray in the anti-nuclear movement of the late 1970s, co-producing the 1979 “No Nukes” concerts headlined by Bruce Springsteen and Bonnie Raitt. "
All brilliant artists I might add. Even RC knows nuclear is not a safe or economical replacement for fossil fuels. MIT's Dr. Lindzen contributed to the RC expose.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 03 May 2012 at 01:25 PM
You're funny, but don't try stand-up. Getting laughs out of an audience requires lines that they understand as humorous immediately. You just get "ye gods that's stupïd" head-shakes.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 03 May 2012 at 06:39 PM
Dave is responsible for the creation of "Real Climate" (all in the link.) You should pay closer attention to the roots of organizations you associate with. He's not a bad guy. Especially with regard to his acknowledging the extreme dangers of nuclear fission.
Happily Real Climate agrees with the sober lot of scientists who oppose expansion of nuclear fission for energy.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 04 May 2012 at 09:16 AM
Strange, all the stuff I read on RealClimate is written by climate scientists or their commenters (I've commented a few times myself). You're saying Michael Mann is a sock-puppet of somebody named Fenton? Stay right there, I've got a call to make to some people who have some nice new clothes for you. Like a jacket that buttons up the back.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 04 May 2012 at 04:23 PM
"sock-puppet" - I LIKE it EP! Add two buttons for eyes and you got Lamb Chop's Play Along. Here's a little dialog:
"Golly Mike, these tree rings are smaller than the one on my finger. But if they prove there never was a MWP - I believe you!"
Thankfully guys like Dave Fenton know their PR. Here's the link again so you can keep up with the rest of the class:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
Posted by: Reel$$ | 04 May 2012 at 06:57 PM
The only thing at that link is unsupported assertions. The contributors at RealClimate are working climate scientists. You might as well be claiming that their webmaster authors everything on the site, and that would be consistent with your usual record of accuracy.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 05 May 2012 at 08:35 PM
No such claim. Just that RC authors work for a well known PR Firm. Hey, that's not so bad. They could work for guv'mnt!
Posted by: Reel$$ | 07 May 2012 at 07:35 AM
If you think the operator of someone's domain is automatically their employer, you really deserve your slot in the loony bin.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 08 May 2012 at 04:21 PM
Well, if they're so independent and untethered from Fenton Communications - why don't they HAVE their own domain?? Besides, no one pays attention to reelclimate anymore. That game's been dead for a couple years:
“The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is to post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point 'has been refuted by real scientists at RealClimate.org' “. Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist
Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org.”, also noted that “writers [at RealClimate] try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them”.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 09 May 2012 at 07:42 AM
So now you're quoting an astrophysicist as an authority on the psychology of the climate scientists at RC. Truly, you've gone down the rabbit hole.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 09 May 2012 at 10:34 AM
Er, astrophysicist - sorta like Jimmie Hansen at GSS??
Posted by: Reel$$ | 10 May 2012 at 11:33 AM
Climate (ultimately, physics) modelling isn't amateur psychology.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 10 May 2012 at 04:41 PM