Corn ethanol or cellulosic ethanol? To Congress, the difference is sometimes irrelevant
Filed under: Ethanol, Legislation and Policy
AutoblogGreen readers know about cellulosic ethanol (if you're new to the site, click here for previous posts on the subject) What you might not know is that Congress, a big friend of big ethanol, has been stalling cellulosic ethanol production thanks to a single sentence inserted into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 at the behest of an methane-fueled ethanol entrepreneur. This offending sentence reads: "The term [cellulosic ethanol] also includes any ethanol produced in facilities where animal wastes or other waste materials are digested or otherwise used to displace 90 percent or more of the fossil fuel normally used in the production of ethanol." What this means is that even corn ethanol can count as cellulose ethanol under certain conditions. This tasty tidbit of information comes to us in from David Morris, who recently wrote "The Strange Legislative History of the Cellulosic Ethanol Mandate" for Renewable Energy Access. Morris is educated on the subject. He is vice president of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance and was an advisor or consultant to the energy agencies of Presidents Ford, Carter, Clinton and George W. Bush. He also wrote the books "The Carbohydrate Economy" and "Driving Our Way to Energy Independence." Morris is calling on the new Congress to change the Act back to the way it was before the late-night change to make the words "cellulosic ethanol" mean what they say again. He has a very convincing argument, and I encourage you to read the whole thing.
[Source: Renewable Energy Access]












Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-06-2006 @ 8:39PM
1985 Gripen said...
Biobutanol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobutanol
The funny thing is the same interests which back ethanol (corn lobby, et. al.) could just as easily back biobutanol as it requires biomass to create as well, but doesn't have some of the drawbacks of ethanol (special pipelines to transport, lower energy content). According to DuPont "existing bioethanol plants can cost-effectively be retrofitted to biobutanol production."
Reply
12-07-2006 @ 2:40PM
Howard Lee Harkness said...
From the referenced article:
"The key obstacle to rapid commercialization is that ethanol made from cellulose is and, unless the price of corn rises dramatically, will continue to be more expensive than ethanol made from corn for quite some time." (Morris)
Ethanol is already a dumb idea, in part because the actual (not subsidized) cost per unit energy is HIGHER than either dinosaur juice or biodiesel. Why make it even dumber by increasing that cost via congressional mandate?
Corn is a really lousy feedstock for ethanol. What Morris is admitting here is that cellulose is an even poorer feedstock for ethanol production than corn. This is nuts.
And on top of all that, ethanol is a relatively lousy fuel -- compared to almost any of the other current "alternative fuels" except hydrogen, which is insanely stupid.
Reply