Filed under: Green, Autoline on Autoblog
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
THE BREAKTHROUGH WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR?
There seems to be an anti-ethanol bias in so much of the media that GM's recent announcement didn't get the kind of coverage it deserves. Did you miss it, too? Here's the news: GM is teaming up with a company called Coskata that's come up with a breakthrough to make cellulosic ethanol.
But there's a big difference between their effort and everyone else's. Coskata's process goes way beyond using switch grass. It can use any kind of agricultural waste. Even more importantly, it can use a lot of municipal waste, i.e., most the stuff we're dumping into landfills. In fact, it can use anything that has carbon in it, including used tires.
Move over Brazil! We're about to get into the ethanol game in a big way.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers. Follow the jump to finish reading this week's editorial.
Just to make sure everything's on the up and up, the Argonne National Laboratory analyzed Coskata's process. It says that for every unit of energy used to make this ethanol, it will generate up to 7.7 times that amount of energy. On a well-to-wheel analysis, it reduces CO2 emissions by up to 84% compared with gasoline. Coskata's process also uses less than a gallon of water to make a gallon of ethanol compared to three gallons or more for other processes.
And here's the best news of all. GM and Coskata say they can produce a gallon of this ethanol for less than $1 a gallon. They'll have a pilot plant up and running by the end of the year, and the plan is to go into mass production by 2011.
Lest you think I've gone too ga-ga, I'll be the first to admit that ethanol is not the solution to our energy problem. But it sure can make a big dent. The Department of Energy figures that bio-fuels could meet up to 30% of our transportation needs by 2025. Thirty per cent is a lot!
One of the key reasons oil prices are so high is that oil has no serious competition. OPEC and other oil producers can happily raise prices because the rest of us will gladly pay for it. Well maybe not gladly, but we do it because we have no choice. That's why demand for oil continues to grow despite the fact that prices have soared this decade. GM's chairman Rick Wagoner says the world is now using 1,000 barrels of oil every second. But if we can put some serious competition into the game, just watch: the speculators will start jumping out of the oil futures market like a house on fire.
Yes, there is that minor detail that ethanol delivers poorer fuel economy than gasoline. That's strictly because ethanol has less energy density than gas, fewer BTU's to be precise. But ethanol has much higher octane, about 105. Automakers can take advantage of that higher octane by boosting the compression ratio of an engine and gain back some of that fuel economy. Indeed, Saab claims its 9-5 BioPower car gets 15% better fuel economy running on E-85 at steady speeds.
Then there's the issue of not being able to easily find gas stations that sell E-85. It's a big problem and one that we need to focus on.
I know that none of what I've written here will placate the anti-ethanol crowd. They continue to ignore Brazil's amazing success with this fuel and will do everything possible to prevent us from doing the same.
But mark my words. If there is any kind of oil disruption, like if we start trading missiles with the Iranians in the Straits of Hormuz, there will be a stampede of Americans running to their local car dealers, banging on the doors, begging for flex-fuel vehicles that run on ethanol.
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 7:00AM on Speed and 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Last Week's Show: "The New Frontier"
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
There seems to be an anti-ethanol bias in so much of the media that GM's recent announcement didn't get the kind of coverage it deserves. Did you miss it, too? Here's the news: GM is teaming up with a company called Coskata that's come up with a breakthrough to make cellulosic ethanol.But there's a big difference between their effort and everyone else's. Coskata's process goes way beyond using switch grass. It can use any kind of agricultural waste. Even more importantly, it can use a lot of municipal waste, i.e., most the stuff we're dumping into landfills. In fact, it can use anything that has carbon in it, including used tires.
Move over Brazil! We're about to get into the ethanol game in a big way.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers. Follow the jump to finish reading this week's editorial.
Just to make sure everything's on the up and up, the Argonne National Laboratory analyzed Coskata's process. It says that for every unit of energy used to make this ethanol, it will generate up to 7.7 times that amount of energy. On a well-to-wheel analysis, it reduces CO2 emissions by up to 84% compared with gasoline. Coskata's process also uses less than a gallon of water to make a gallon of ethanol compared to three gallons or more for other processes.
And here's the best news of all. GM and Coskata say they can produce a gallon of this ethanol for less than $1 a gallon. They'll have a pilot plant up and running by the end of the year, and the plan is to go into mass production by 2011.
Lest you think I've gone too ga-ga, I'll be the first to admit that ethanol is not the solution to our energy problem. But it sure can make a big dent. The Department of Energy figures that bio-fuels could meet up to 30% of our transportation needs by 2025. Thirty per cent is a lot!
One of the key reasons oil prices are so high is that oil has no serious competition. OPEC and other oil producers can happily raise prices because the rest of us will gladly pay for it. Well maybe not gladly, but we do it because we have no choice. That's why demand for oil continues to grow despite the fact that prices have soared this decade. GM's chairman Rick Wagoner says the world is now using 1,000 barrels of oil every second. But if we can put some serious competition into the game, just watch: the speculators will start jumping out of the oil futures market like a house on fire.
Yes, there is that minor detail that ethanol delivers poorer fuel economy than gasoline. That's strictly because ethanol has less energy density than gas, fewer BTU's to be precise. But ethanol has much higher octane, about 105. Automakers can take advantage of that higher octane by boosting the compression ratio of an engine and gain back some of that fuel economy. Indeed, Saab claims its 9-5 BioPower car gets 15% better fuel economy running on E-85 at steady speeds.
Then there's the issue of not being able to easily find gas stations that sell E-85. It's a big problem and one that we need to focus on.
I know that none of what I've written here will placate the anti-ethanol crowd. They continue to ignore Brazil's amazing success with this fuel and will do everything possible to prevent us from doing the same.
But mark my words. If there is any kind of oil disruption, like if we start trading missiles with the Iranians in the Straits of Hormuz, there will be a stampede of Americans running to their local car dealers, banging on the doors, begging for flex-fuel vehicles that run on ethanol.
###
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 7:00AM on Speed and 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Last Week's Show: "The New Frontier"
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
spw 10:12AM (1/26/2008)
It is so awesome that by very late 2011 that biofuel plant will start production, and eventually will yearly produce enough fuel for 100 seconds of worlds needs.
You guys rock.
I am so happy that I will run to my Chevy dealer and buy an Daewoo from you!
Reply
Derek 11:14AM (1/26/2008)
and you have a solution that would fulfill all of our fuel needs in a similar amount of time?
If this process can be better than hydrogen generation (ie: produce more energy than it consumes) then we might have a winner. Carbon-neutral and renewable.
rgseidl 4:07PM (1/26/2008)
Mr. McElroy should do some homework on TDP (thermal depolymerization), a process that can also cope with arbitrary organic chemistry feedstock and turn it into a number of useful products including a synthetic diesel fuel. Turkey offal, tires, medical waste etc. And there is an actual plant running in Carthage, Missouri.
Separately, he should look up the energy balance for gasification. First, syngas production happens at ~700 degC, so it is poorly suited to wet feedstocks. In addition, the Coskata process relies on bacteria to produce the ethanol from syngas, so that has to be cooled down to ~40 degC first to avoid killing them. Some of the process heat can be recycled and some can be used to drive a secondary steam cycle, but you still have to burn a fair amount of dry feedstock to keep the gasification going.
TURNERSVILLE 10:18AM (1/26/2008)
This is great news but only on a small level. It seems that we are moving faster in the "plug-in" direction for those under 40 mile travelers (most of us) that we need to focus on electricity production. But any less money in the hands a Chavez and friends is good for the USA.
Reply
Luis 2:36PM (1/26/2008)
I'm with you on the short distance travel subject. I also think that any help is good, no matter the percentage. Which relatively is a big help, thirty percent is a huge number. Any option that can help with our oil dependance is ok with me. Of course you're going to have the oil companies fighting against because it will cut their profits but I'd like to see more options available on a larger scale, if not for me, in the future for our kids.
Andrew 10:44AM (1/26/2008)
It's nice to see GM getting behind new technologies, but this is the wrong one. It's appeasing too many of its "constituents". We'd still have to rely on internal combustion engines, meaning heavy frames, lubrication of engine parts, transportation of fuel. Unless they start breaking paradigms, the future of the auto industry will be led by someone else.
Reply
Andrew 10:47AM (1/26/2008)
BTW: I usually don't read through McElroy's dribble, as he's fully immersed in the big 3 Kool-Aid. Unfortunately, there's going to be 20 Mustang or Corvette toting "patriots" blasting my views. Bring it on, we'll see what happens in 50 years.
Derek 11:08AM (1/26/2008)
So, where do you see the future leading? Even an electric powered vehicle needs a frame. The current weight of automotive frames is driven by consumer demand, not by the requirements of the engine. Anything with rotating parts (like wheels) will need some form of lubrication. We will still have to transport fuel as well - either on power lines or by transporting whatever fuel powers the onboard generator.
I assume you are proposing some technology that has not yet been shown in any sort of concept form?
My feeling is that the current best solution involves more than one vehicle per person. A small electric only "runabout" capable of most daily commuting/errands. Plus a series hybrid vehicle for longer trips. The onboard generation allows for quick refueling and easy adaptation to whateve fuel source we happen to be using.
MemphisNET 11:27AM (1/26/2008)
Andrew, the only flames you are going to get is that you are so anti-american everything & anything, its unreal.
Best case post from you is, well... thats fine, but... - worst case is ''It's sh!t, just scrap them all together.''
Andrew 12:58PM (1/26/2008)
Derek: I'm between hydrogen fuel cells and electric, while cutting down vehicle weight in huge proportions. Hydrogen can be produced on location from water + solar cells (it's currently being done in Sweden). In order for electric to take off, we'd need to change our power systems to a standardized nuclear system like GE did with France. If the effing democrats would stop getting in the way of nuclear power, we'd be golden for at least 100 years, as fission is probably just around that corner.
As for lubricating hubs, that's a miniscule amount of oil compared to the cooling/lubricating system in an engine, especially as engines get larger. We'll obviously need oil for a long time, and that's what I'm thinking about, a long time from now. Just because we have enough oil to sustain us for, what some say, 100 years, I realize how terrible of a timetable that is. We need oil to last us presumably the age of the planet. I'm not thinking about our children, I'm thinking about the continuance of the human race.
MemphisNET: I dislike the direction certain American companies are going. I don't understand why they don't try to solve problems on a larger scale. They're thinking too short term. Although it's silly to compare this to slavery, the imagery is important and pertinent to your Memphis surroundings. Imagine we're at a crossroads, like Civil War America. People were asking towards the end of the war that we end slavery. I'm asking that we have equality. I don't understand why CEOs aren't on the same page.
What's best for a country is not what's best for you or me. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have poverty, poor education, or war. I love America, and wish for it to be the greatest country on earth for centuries to come, ushering in new ages of peace and free trade. Those are high ideals for which many paradigms will have to change.
Andrew 1:03PM (1/26/2008)
Oh, and my problem with McElroy is his position with these aforementioned companies. I don't know if he's getting paid by them or has been seduced by the industry because he came from a small town or something, either way they're in bed. He praises every step they take with no regard to what direction it's going. He puts no thought into the implications of what these companies are doing. Their bad decisions are obvious to most, I just don't understand why no one in the auto industry writes about it.
Owain Ozymandias Buck 3:40PM (1/26/2008)
"What's best for a country is not what's best for you or me. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have poverty, poor education, or war. I love America, and wish for it to be the greatest country on earth for centuries to come, ushering in new ages of peace and free trade. Those are high ideals for which many paradigms will have to change."
Andy, dude, I wouldn't even reply, but the sheer length or all your posts I had to scroll through to read others' comments left me with the feeling that you needed to hear some things. First off, it's clear that you haven't applied much serious critical thinking to your analysis of the world's problems and the way to fix them.
In the quoted block above, you seem to espouse a range of irreconcilable ideals that seem to blend Marx with Adam Smith. Perhaps when you get a real job and have to stop partaking of Cannabis so much, the logic will be clearer.
Just a few points:
Solar is impractical for base load generation.
The lack of nuclear generation is starting to swing in the U.S., and past oppostition has truly not been a partisan movement.
You obviously don't have a good understanding of the various new thermochemical processes being developed to produce motor fuels and other hydrocarbons and useful byproducts from biomass; they truly are promissing and much more sustainable and environmentally friendly than mining fissionable elements for nuke plants, safe and clean as they are.
Anyway, my advice is put down the pipe, lose the narcissism "gahh! everybody's so stupid!" mentality, get over yourself, and get your tail to work and figure out what part you can play in us moving forward.
BobbyBud 7:59PM (1/26/2008)
I completely agree. Ethanol and the like are bold steps sideways.
Derek 10:14PM (1/26/2008)
Solar cells and electrolysis is a fine idea, but I haven't read of solar cells yet that produce as much power in their lifetime as it takes to make them.
But, for this to be renewable, the solar cells have to be more efficient than that. The energy consumed in electrolysis is greater than the energy produced by the fuel cell. Also, hydrogen stored in your fuel tank must be allowed to evaporate for storage safety.
Think about this another way though. Nature has already given us a great "solar cell" in the form of Chloroplast. GM is just proposing using the products of that solar cell.
I am 100% with you on reducing vehicle size/weight. The bloat in cars today is unbelievable.
Rene Curry 10:53AM (1/26/2008)
You hit on the head on why we have high oil prices...
John says "One of the key reasons oil prices are so high is that oil has no serious competition."
Who let big oil merge? Yes, our politicians! It should NOT be Exxon/Mobil, it should be Exxon versus Mobil.
It is amazing that the oil company's supplier (OPEC) is raising prices and it is NOT squeezing their margins.
That alone shows we have a problem.
Each oil company is having the same board room discussion....Should we increase capacity, efficiencies, and lower prices to capture market share? Naw!
It is good that GM is expanding into other segments, especially since it is an industry that they have knowledge. The auto industry will continue to get more competitive. They will need other markets and products in the future to survive. However, they need to do this without losing focus on their core business and venture into industries they have knowledge.
If we could free up government regulations that allow refineries to be readily built, that could open up competition in the oil industry.
Reply
Jay 11:16AM (1/26/2008)
"It is amazing that the oil company's supplier (OPEC) is raising prices and it is NOT squeezing their margins.
That alone shows we have a problem. "
No, is shows you don't understand commodity markets. It's like complaining that prices on Ebay are too high and they should lower them.
naggs 2:19PM (1/27/2008)
how is it that the price of the raw materials goes up and so do their profits?
when the price of grain goes up, do bakers make more?
name one other industry where fixed costs go hand in hand with high profits, record profits even
they control their product at every step from pulling the black stuff out of the ground to filling your tank at the pump. when the price goes up they say that capacity is not high enough, they couldn't build more refineries. when all the refineries are running fine, then its the raw cost of oil (they are not buying it from anyone, they are pumping it out of the ground).
it is the most obvious case of collusion and market manipulation i have ever seen and it is all allowed to happen because they have their guys in washington.
there is no price war, no competition, no alternative for the consumer to do anything but pay whatever the price is. there is money to be made and nothing stopping them from overcharging as much as they want. you can't even blame them for doing it, its a company, thats what companies do, make money.
i blame the complete lack of oversight. the same BS that let enron rob california by manipulating the market (turning off powerplants for "mantaince" during peak demand and selling their own power to their own company and then selling it back again at a profit). the guys who are supposed to be protecting the public against this kind of large scale market manipulation are texas oil men and good friends with all the guys doing it. they see everything from the side of the industry and they see the unprecedented profits as a sign of a healthy economy. they are so corrupt that they dont even see it.
for that reason alone, bush/cheny should be impeached, tried and executed
oby 10:56AM (1/26/2008)
More advertising for GM! GM could bring out a vehicle powered by a hamster wheel and you guys would go ga-ga over it. This ethanol process sure looks good on paper but the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. This alliance with GM is nothing but an excuse for them to do nothing and say, "see we were right all the time".
"But mark my words. If there is any kind of oil disruption, like if we start trading missiles with the Iranians in the Straits of Hormuz, there will be a stampede of Americans running to their local car dealers, banging on the doors, begging for flex-fuel vehicles that run on ethanol."
Don't hold your breath! Americans rushing to car dealers is the last thing they will worry about if that happens. Seeing as things are so great in Brazil would you be kind enough to fill us in on the WHOLE story.
Reply
J.Crew 11:29AM (1/26/2008)
How about you educate yourself on Brazil instead of complaining about it. Do a little digging and you will find out hwo they have cut regular gasoline imports significantly by using sugar cane based ethanol. This deal GM has made would also significantly help Ford and Chrysler with move their flex fuel vehicles, so you should be thankful for this discovery. I know you hate GM, but they are on a roll in every way which really eats at you. Your loss I guess.
rodan32 11:48AM (1/26/2008)
The key word there is SUGAR. That's where our ethanol process breaks down. Sugar cane ethanol is up to two-thirds cheaper to produce than corn-based, and more efficient besides. I'm not opposed to exploring all options, but I think the whole corn ethanol idea smells a little too much like vote-buying in the Midwest.
If they can pull off something like what John is describing here, however, then theoretically my lawn clippings could fuel my Metro. Again, I like to see what research can pull off, but this seems like one of those "breakthroughs" that never really breaks through.