Ethanol from almost anything? Coskata opens Lighthouse cellulosic ethanol plant
by Sebastian Blanco on Oct 18th 2009 at 1:01PM 
Coskata Lighthouse Cellulosic Ethanol Plant - Click above for high-res image gallery
Coskata's newly-opened semi-commercial flex ethanol facility in Madison, Pennsylvania is as small as it can possibly be. Co-located at a Westinghouse facility that also in some fashion uses nuclear energy, the Lighthouse project, as it's called, is running 24/7 to turn wood chips into ethanol. It's also intended to show off just how far Coskata has come since emerging from stealth mode almost two years ago. Oh, and the plant can also be scaled up to fit the needs of cellulosic ethanol producers from coast to coast.
The Lighthouse plant follows the Horizon integrated processing plant that started in 2008 in Warrenville, Illinois and precedes the Flagship plant that is due for 2012 at a location somewhere in the Southeast U.S. that will be announced later. The location for the Flagship plant has been selected, but Coskata will not specify where it will be until it can talk more specifically about the financing arrangements involved for the 55-million-gallon-per-year plant that will use forest residue and other woody biomass.
Coskata says the Flagship will be "the first commercially-viable, feedstock-flexible ethanol facility." The company has not taken any government money to date, but they may apply for DOE loan guarantees for the Flagship plant. Coskata will also not expand this Madison Lighthouse facility. In fact, they're only located there as a guest and will leave when the contract is up. The facility is modular and will actually be dismantled and trucked to the Flagship location in the future.
What might this plant offer, both for partner General Motors and for the U.S.'s biofuel needs? Find out after the jump.
Photos copyright ©2009 Sebastian Blanco / Weblogs, Inc.
What is flex ethanol?
Flex ethanol is the term Coskata is using for ethanol that can be made with almost any feedstock, i.e., ethanol made using the Coskata process. As we've heard since day one, the plasma torches and microorganisms can turn everything from tires to coal to municipal waste into ethanol. Flexible inputs = flex ethanol.
Making flex ethanol is fast, too. Coskata CEO Bill Roe said that it takes "just minutes" to go from feedstock to ethanol. The Coskata process is continuous, not a batch process, and the entire team in Madison was clear that there are no longer any technical hurdles to overcome in order to start full-scale cellulosic ethanol production using this system.
As shown in the slide below, the feedstock is sent into the gasifier where the plasma torches create a gas. This gas needs to be cleaned and is then sent into the bioreactor where Coskata's proprietary microorganisms (shaped like PacMan, apparently) eat it and make ethanol. Compared to standard gasoline, Coskata's cellulosic ethanol reduces greenhouse gases by about 96 percent and uses half as much water. The microorganisms could also be tuned to make butanol or other chemicals, but the focus is on ethanol for now.
The prehistoric anaerobic microorganisms are from the family of clostridium bacteria. These "bugs" are found in nature, typically in deep-water ponds. Cosakata has managed the strains with nutrient programs and a selection process to make them more efficient at producing ethanol. Coskata "did what Mother Nature would do, but on an accelerated path," Roe said. The microorganisms were discovered and developed with help from the Oklahoma Biofuels Consortium, made up of OSU, BYU and OU.
OK, what does it mean for E85 in the U.S.?
Coskata used to say that it would be able to make (not sell) ethanol for $1 a gallon. At the plant unveiling in Madison, that number was not mentioned a single time. Instead, Richard Fish from Alter NRG (home to the Westinghouse Plasma Corporation and a partner to Coskata) said that the Coskata system is able to produce ethanol at "a very competitive price" compared to the market as a whole. A "very competitive price"? How much is that? Roe explained that the exact cost depends on the feedstock going into the gasifier. Municipal waste will get you ethanol that costs much less than a dollar a gallon, virgin hardwood would cost you much more (but anyone using that particular feedstock is of questionable sanity).
In any case, Coskata doesn't see itself really competing with other renewable energy companies – "We need a lot of producers in this industry," said Coskata CMO Wes Bolsen. "I don't see anyone in the biofuel industry as a competitor" – and has its sights set on gasoline. As long as Coskata ethanol can be made cheaper than gasoline – which requires that oil costs something in the area of $65 a barrel and that producers can get biomass for $50 a dry ton – the company thinks it has a winner.
Gallery: Coskata Lighthouse Slides
Gallery: Alter NRG Coskata Slides
What is GM's role?
GM has invested an unspecified amount in Coskata. While the money and association certainly don't hurt Coskata's efforts to bring cellulosic ethanol to market, the biofuel company has received large investments from other groups as well (including Vinod Khosla's venture capital fund). The bigger question is what does Coskata (and Mascoma, another company The General has invested in) do for GM?
Bob Babik, GM vehicle emissions director, was on hand in Madison to share GM's fuel diversification strategy, which is absolutely nothing new. These days, though, we more often hear GM talk about plug-in and hydrogen vehicles; the longer-term, sexy technologies. Biofuels? There's no thrill in that.
But biofuels are important to GM. Very important. GM started looking for biofuel partners in 2007 and was interested in the flexible input streams that Coskata can use in their production process. Getting cellulosic ethanol to market is a good thing, Babik said, because 96 percent of all vehicles on the road today still rely on petroleum. Biofuels offer a low-cost, feasible alternative to petroleum, and can do so sooner rather than later. The vehicles are here, after all. Worldwide, GM has built over five million flex-fuel vehicles and has publicly committed to having over 50 percent of its vehicles be E85-capable by 2012.
GM does get an immediate benefit from the ethanol that Coskata is making today. "We feel beholden to GM, for all that they've done for us," Roe said, explaining why some of the ethanol produced in Pennsylvania will be shipped up to Michigan for GM's testing purposes.
What could the U.S. get from all of this?
The U.S. government has set a Renewable Fuel Standard that increases the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into gasoline from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Coskata executives are dubious that the U.S. can reach this goal, especially without help from next-gen biofuel companies like Coskata.
Coskata's CMO, Wes Bolsen, said that Coskata plans on licensing the technology to other companies and he expects 4-6 commercial facilities to be spun off "fairly quick" now that the Lighthouse plant has been unveiled to the public. The feedstocks for these other plants will be determined by the company leasing the technology. Wood chips are readily available today, and construction waste and bagasse are also likely candidates. Bolsen couldn't say what he expects will be the most common feedstock for the Coskata plants of the near future, because biomass is such a local issue. Since Coskata plants could be made in all 50 states, Bolsen said there is no reason to build an ethanol pipeline in the U.S. Coskata would like to expand overseas, but it is currently "laser focused" on the U.S. market in order to meet the RFS mandate.
How can Coskata make more energy than it uses?
Argonne National Lab has found that with certain feedstocks, the Coskata process can "reach a net energy balance of 7.7" (meaning, the ethanol produced contains 7.7 times as much energy as it took to make the fuel). Because we've seen a lot of, um, interesting claims from people in the green car space regarding energy returns, we thought it makes sense to make it clear that no one is claiming Coskata has invented a perpetual motion machine.
For one thing, the system requires a constant influx of biomass, and the microorganisms need to be culled and replaced every few days. The production process itself is made as efficient as possible. It takes electricity to power the plasma torches, pumps, etc., and this generates excess heat. Some of this is recaptured; more is lost. Most importantly, the ethanol is made from the carbon energy trapped in the feedstock, so the Coskata process is really just converting energy trapped inside wood, for example, into liquid fuel. There's no hocus-pocus going on here. Think of it as a BTU conversion process. We made sure Roe explained it very clearly for everyone to understand, as you can hear in our interview with him (4.6 MB, 9:30 min, download here):
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
phez 1:08PM (10/18/2009)
Ethanol is still around?
Reply
Thunderbuck 3:07PM (10/18/2009)
There's really nothing wrong with ethanol itself. We can grow feedstock specifically for it, and with processes like Coskata's we can make use of biomass that would ordinarily have sat to rot.
Corn-based ethanol is a little problematic (and yes, only a little) because corn production is fairly energy-intensive. While a hue and cry was raised about the use of a food crop for fuel, and corn prices shot up a couple of years ago, analysis shows that the use of corn in ethanol was far too small to have had that impact on the market, and that it was more likely that speculation drove up the price.
I'm a fan of cane-based ethanol, myself, and I'm assuming that once relations between Cuba and the US improve that we'll hear more about using that instead. Ethanol from the Caribbean would not only be easy to access and relatively cheap, it would do wonders for some of the worst-off economies in the Western hemisphere.
Even with cane-based ethanol, though, it's important to have a broad range of fuel options, and Coskata's technology is a big piece of the puzzle.
geo.stewart 4:10PM (10/18/2009)
seriously, E-85 is marketing crap. its diluted fuel and it shows in the lower mileage per gallon.
you can see it now in cars because several states have mandated a certain % of Ethanol in your fuel already.
the comedy is that they do not charge less for this gas. you pay the same, get less fuel, and less mpg. And you still have all the additional energy effort to create the ethanol, mix it, and deliver it so technically it has the counter effect it is touted as producing
matt234 10:32PM (10/18/2009)
re: fuel economy on Ethanol. The potential for equal or better fuel economy is there when engines are designed to take advantage of the higher octane. Today's flex fuel engines are going to get worse mpg on Ethanol. Hopefully with players like Coskata, eventually the price of the product will make up for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Fuel_economy
Chris O 11:08PM (10/18/2009)
@matt234:
The E85 infrastructure isn't very good in the USA. Certainly, you can find it in some places, but you couldn't do something like take a cross-country road trip on E85. I would imagine that vehicles will have to accept flex fuels for quite a while before this changes.
I do think that an E85-optimized engine (with higher compression), would have better efficiency, but you do need to keep in mind that there is less energy potential in a gallon of E85 than there is in normal gasoline. No amount of optimization changes that base fact.
Ideally, it would be nice to see some variable compression ratio engines make it out of development and into some vehicles. THAT would allow for a truly flexible selection of fuels.
naggs 9:38PM (10/19/2009)
e85 from biomass in a non batch process is huge
suddenly the price of race gas went from $5/gallon or more to 2.80
win win, this is the future
why not the LS2LS7? 1:14PM (10/18/2009)
I'm glad someone finally found a way to make everclear from trees.
Reply
SimbaDogg 1:50PM (10/18/2009)
indeed...hopefully the govt will realize that making ethanol this way, and not from grains is the way to go. i mean...diverting grains that would normally be used for feed (cows, chickens etc) and food to go to energy makes just about ALL food prices go up. And for what? An energy source that costs as much and has less energy per gram that conventional gasoline? talk about retarded. Hurry up DOE and switch to this rather than grains, because i paid way too much for my tenderloin chicken yesterday.
And on a happier note, how sweet are all those pac-mans going crazy in that bioreactor.
jpm100 4:23PM (10/18/2009)
We're not close to max food production in the US.
The price increase last year was because the rest of the world had a crop shortfall and we had record levels of unexpected exporting because of it.
Farmers don't invest in growing additional crops for a one or two season long demand when that demand could even be gone before the new crops come in. Ethanol on the other hand is on a more predictable demand schedule.
Conundrum 8:31PM (10/18/2009)
@ Simba Dog...
Do you realize that ethanol production from grain yields both alcohol for fuel AND feed for cattle? Ethanol production only removes the starches from the grain. The remaining mash solution can be dried and fed to cattle as a high protein food? You likely did not know this as most people do not.
There is another similar cellulosic test facility being constucted a few hours from the one in this article at Clearfield, PA.
Gary 1:24PM (10/18/2009)
All jokes aside, this is a great process... converting household waste (that municpalities don't know what to do with) into a liquid fuel for cars sounds like a great idea. And an operational plant shows that it can be done--unlike EEStor that keeps making promizes but has nothing to show for it.
P.S. I don't agree with using wood waste as a fuel... that should be composted and put back into the Earth.
Reply
chartmetz 1:33PM (10/18/2009)
I'm happy someone finally found a way to produce ethanol without burning other fossil fuels to heat up the biomass. That pretty much made ethanol no better than normal gasoline.
Really though, if you want to be super technical, the elements taken from the wood waste will eventually find their way back into the earth and forests via photosynthesis, the exact same way that they would find their way into the earth by composting. Composting releases the same compounds and energies as burning the fuels (CO2, H2O and Heat), just in a slightly different way.
Dave 3:04PM (10/18/2009)
"All jokes aside, this is a great process... converting household waste (that municpalities don't know what to do with) into a liquid fuel for cars sounds like a great idea."
It does sound like a great idea.
But I think theyre saying one ton (2000 lbs) of biomass produces ~1 drum (55 gallons or 360 lbs) of ethanol. So there must be 1640 lbs of waste product that will still go to the landfill.
Jimbo 4:40PM (10/18/2009)
Dave: Not necessarily. A lot of that feedstock is converted to heat during gasification. That heat is used in the distillation process or simply lost. Little of that 2000 lbs actually ends up in the landfill.
Jimbo 4:54PM (10/18/2009)
Whoops, I should probably clarify since mass isn't actually converted to heat energy here. The 2000 lbs of material gets gasified into syngas (carbon monoxide and hydrogen), releasing a lot of heat that is used in distillation. The syngas goes in a bioreactor where the microorganisms use it for survival reproduction, with some ethanol and CO2 as byproducts. So most of the 2000 lbs is actually creating more biomass, which is why so little is recovered as ethanol. The biomass could probably be mixed with fresh feedstock and get reused in the gasifier. Again, little of that initial 2000 lbs returns to the landfill.
naturalyshocked 2:56PM (10/18/2009)
i don't think you'll drive cheaper.
they wil tax it probally around normal gasonline.
the holey cow is realy importand for a gov, cheaper fuels means less income in the national treasure box.
less money for homelandsecurity and the game basicly restars some day.
: )
but hey ... still most want to have turbo v6 and v8.
Reply
Boyprodigy1 4:44PM (10/18/2009)
You miss the point. This is domestically produced energy. That means that we buy less from other countries. It also means that we get rid of approximately 1/5 of what would otherwise be waste and actually make something out of it. That is why it is valuable.
It can in fact become cheeper, but not by much. The thing about it is that it won't go up in price like gasoline is expected to. It will obviously go up in price, but not because it is becoming rare: simply because the energy going into it is more expensive or labor costs go up.
naturalyshocked 6:31PM (10/18/2009)
@Boyprodigy1
you could buy a Suzuki Alto with 3cyl engine or simular.
you would achieve pretty much the same.
less need from external sources.
but pride ....
i encourage these technology, because it wil lead to less co2, but not @ cost of a rissing food price.
Oluseyi 7:04PM (10/18/2009)
@naturalyshocked
While changes to consumption are an important part of conservation strategy, they do not negate the need for changes to energy sourcing. Suggesting that investment in ethanol from varied cellulosic biomass is unwarranted is silly; why not try and get benefits everywhere? Further, even reducing consumption of fossil-based fuels won't negate the simple fact that the amount of fossil fuel (petroleum, etc) available is FINITE and non-renewable. Cellulosic ethanol is independent of biomass origination, and since expended wood chips (construction/demolition debris, for instance) is a material that GROWS, this is totally worth it.
Now to work on mating ethanol to electric drive!
Oluseyi 7:09PM (10/18/2009)
Also, I need to address your contention that this will somehow affect food price. The belief that "ethanol means corn" stemmed from last year's correlation of investment in ethanol production and a rise in corn prices, but correlation is NOT causation. As jpm100 pointed out above, the rise in corn (and food) prices was related to a global shortage.
You can guarantee that no non-waste food stock will be used as inputs to the Coskata process while waste material exists and is viable. This will have little to no impact on food prices.