Qteros caims the following: Sophisticated Technology, Streamlined Process
Qteros brings the critical missing factor required for the successful commercialization of cellulosic ethanol: a highly-integrated, streamlined and low-cost process. Combining proprietary science and advanced microbiology with proven process engineering, Qteros has developed an industry-standard Consolidated Bioprocessing (CBP) platform that simplifies complex engineering operations, reduces costly production steps and delivers low-cost cellulosic ethanol from a broad variety of non-food feedstock sources. Please read the following: http://news.indiamart.com/story/praj-industries-qteros-announce-strategic-partnership-129653.html Is this process commercially feasible to produce ethanol economically? On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:46 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > ON THE RANGE FUELS FAILURE (FIASCO) > > This is my first ever post to the gasification group. However the Range > fuels failure was predictable, and is worth a response . The Range fuels > failure discussed on gasification listserv brings up the 40-year old > question of whether cellulosic ethanol by any path can really work > commercially. I have been working on this for (believe it or not) almost 40 > years. > > I have been mostly in biofuels --digestion recently. Also looking > (skeptically) at such things as cellulosic ethanol, algal biofuel, and in > depth (more than possible to detail here) at small-scale gasification to > produce clean motor fuel. As an academic credential I have coursework and > qualifiers and all but dissertation for a Ph. D from MIT (if you want to > believe that sort of credential) . I also have over 30 years' experience in > fieldwork on biofuels, see for example World Bank site presentation at > > http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUSWM/Resources/Angenstein_controlledlandfill.pdf > > > AND > > I have looked at cellulosic ethanol in great depth, over the 30+ year time > span as an employee of Exxon Research and Engineering, the Electric Power > Research Institute and IEM. (independently) > > SO > > From my original analysis along with coworkers' help. I and we *see no way > that cellulosic ethanol can be commercially feasible.* I attach a Power > Point presentation we gave in Vancouver BC in 2006. The presentation makes > that case. I also append below a brief writeup by John Benemann on The Oil > Drum which makes the same points. Nothing has changed to the present. The > failure of Range fuels, and failure of dozens of other cellulosic ethanol > projects to come to fruition would vindicate our conclusions. > > The problem is that getting the community's attention about problems, when > enthusiasm abounds and over $10 billion are being thrown at fantasies, is > extremely hard when you are in the 5% or less minority of naysayers > > Don Augenstein > IEM, Inc. (nonprofit) > Palo Alto California > > *JOHN BENEMANN'S 2006 POST ON "THE OIL DRUM" ENERGY SITE* > > *Whither Cellulosic Ethanol? > > *Posted by nate hagens on August 16, 2006 - 10:25pm > Topic: Alternative energy<http://www.theoildrum.com/topic/alternative_energy> > Tags: cellulosic ethanol<http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/cellulosic_ethanol>, > ethanol <http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/ethanol>, > lignocellulosic<http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/lignocellulosic>, > vinod khosla <http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/vinod_khosla> [list all > tags<http://www.theoildrum.com/special/tag_listing>] > > > *[editor's note, by Prof. Goose]* > > This is a guest post from TLS's friend Don Augenstein (Pomona96 on TOD) > > This post presents a perspective on ethanol from lignocellulose by my > friend and co-worker, John Benemann. We have worked on, and been immersed > in, biofuels and analyses of fuels from biomass processes for over 3 > decades. We are to substantial degrees biotechnologists, as well as chemical > engineers and have successful processes going today (methane from wastes. > You can google Don Augenstein). We have worked long and hard on biofuels for > entities including Exxon (long ago), the Electric Power Research Institute, > and others. Our carefully considered view, for which we will be happy to > provide abundant evidence is that severe barriers remain to ethanol from > lignocellulose. The barriers look as daunting as they did 30 years ago. > Ethanol from lignocellulose may indeed come to pass. But the odds against > are so dismal that a hydrocarbon fueled 200 mile per gallon passenger > automobile would be more likely to be developed. We have been tied up with > project work and were not able to participate in the interesting, and > extensive Oil Drum discussion regarding Vinod Khosla's views on ethanol from > lignocellulose. Better late than never. I present John Benemann's statement > below. > > Subj: Vinod Khosla FROM Jbenemann > > > TO THE OIL DRUM - drumbeat I read the presentation of Vinod Khosla and most > of the responses. I have some experience in this field, about 30 years of > being in the ring of biofuels technology development, with first-row seats, > so to speak, on the fights I was not in myself. > > > > > > Re. lignocellulosic ethanol, I am, bluntly, a skeptic. See our abstract, > copied > > below. This is R&D, not something ready for commercial ventures, at least > not in any time, or with any risk ratio, a typical venture capitalist would > accept. Perhaps Vinod Khosla is not a typical VC, though I have no basis for > assuming that. Much more important, this technology is not ready for policy > decisions. It compares with, for one example only, the near-late-lamented > Hydrogen Program of the Bush-Cheney Administration. Coming from the same > source, talk about curing our addiction to Middle East oil by substituting > for it an addiction to Middle America ethanol, has just as much credibility. > > > > > > > I note that all long-term R&D (is there any other?) for hydrogen is being > terminated > > next month by the Dept. of Energy. > > > > > > Of course, the issue is not whether Vinod Khosla is making a wise > investment, one > > that will make him even richer and his investors too, or the opposite is > true, or even what the Bush-Cheney administration dictates that our reality > will be. The issue is, does the technology work now, can it be made to work > in short order, or can we predict when and if it will work with any > assurance? One thing I notice from this entire discussion is an absence of > any arguments based on technology. > > > > > I am among other things a biotechnologist, and very familiar with the > associated > > chemical engineering issues. I would have expected at least some mention of > past and recent experiences, of problems, such as needs for extensive > feedstock pretreatment or problems with fermentations, about current R&D > focus, at least a few citations to the web. > > > > > > Nothing. Neither from Vinod Khosla nor the 360 odd Oil Drum respondents.The > > > only information presented is that Vinod Khosla has invested in three > different technologies. Well, a fair enough investment strategy, but even > with a one out of three chance, this is a long shot, even in the long term, > by which I mean over 10 plus years, beyond which there are no crystal balls. > > > > I strongly support R&D in this field. Money would be better spent on that > than on > > just one commercial plant. Or even a pilot plant. And, let me hasten to > add, that it is perfectly possible to make ethanol from lignocellulosic > biomass, it's just extraordinarily inefficient, with EROEI easily determined > to be about 1:5. The Soviets had some wood-to-ethanol plants running during > WWII, and kept them going afterwards, with at least one going on until the > Soviet Union collapsed. Not a pretty technology, without even looking at the > energy balance (cheap coal or then-cheap Soviet natural gas to expensive > state subsidized ethanol, an economic model now adopted for corn ethanol in > the US.) > > > And we, in the U.S., even made butanol from seaweed harvested off San Diego > > > during WWI, in a major industrial enterprise that was set up in a few > months, a perfect example of necessity as the mother of invention, and > showing how fast we can do something when we need to, for our survival. > > > > > But extrapolating from making explosives for war to transportation > > fuels for civilians driving SUVs is more than a bit of a reality stretch. I > like the analogy of this being the difference between going to the Moon and > Mars, another Bush-Cheney vision, I must note. > > > > > Of course, we still haven't figured out why to go to the Moon, aside from > the feel- > > good factor. Bottom line, making ethanol from lignocellulosics is a > technical issue, actually many separate technical issues: can we really make > 60 or 80 or 100 gallons of ethanol per ton of biomass, can we really ferment > pentoses outside the laboratory, will we have a positive energy balance and > not run this on fossil fuel as we do corn ethanol? > > > > > And, coming to the details, can we really use commercial enzymes, or the > same > > fermentation vessels that are used in the corn ethanol business, or do we > need to go to very, very expensive contained fermentations. And at the end, > do we get a high enough ethanol content in the fermentation beer (above 10%) > to have a reasonable distillation cost? And, finally, can we put it all > together, starting with the necessary pretreatment of lignocellulose (and > what kind at what cost?). > > > > > Actually, some applications for particular, minor, biomass waste resources, > could > > make ethanol now at food processing plants, breweries and such, but this is > not what Bush-Cheney or Gates-Khosla are promoting, to bring up another > "venture" investor's name. > > > > Not that Vinod Khosla lacks information - his semi-public presentations on > the > > topic earlier this year (I saw one of the power point presentations) > provide some technology background, which, perhaps not too surprisingly, was > almost exactly what was presented just before (or even on) January 31st in > the briefing papers for White House, to support the "oil addiction" talk in > the State of the Union speech. > > > Another great example of sales of good sounding policy first, supporting > facts to be > > provided later, a well used modus operandI. And now the Bush-Cheney > administration has reshaped the federal government funding priorities for > biomass R&D, to support their ethanol from lignocellulosics visions. > > > > > However, these visions of tens of billions of gallons ethanol per year from > biomass > > must, by all reasonable analysis, be considered a distant possibility not > an imminent accomplishment, as is being portrayed. That is the bottom line. > > > > > Of course, reasonable researchers will argue about where exactly we are and > when > > and how can we could get there. As one close colleague told me, all the > technical problems I talk about (see attached abstract) are actually viewed > as "opportunities" by the R&D community. I agree, but there is now the > belief that with current high ethanol prices, we have the means to this end > at hand. After all, if for the past 25 years we were almost there, according > to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and others working on this. It > stands to reason that with ethanol prices two or three times that high we > must now be in clover. > > > > > Right? Well that is the rub of it. Wrong. We aren't any more "there" or in > clover > > than before. Yes, we can shave down some of the assumed costs to reach such > low, low costs, but the assumptions are still there, only slightly closer to > reality. > > > > > Need I point out that there is only one pilot plant operating, Iogen in > Canada, at a > > quarter of initially announced capacity? That is all we really can, and > actually need, say about the commercial status of this technology. Thus > jumping on this bandwagon and joining in the suspension of disbelief, which > seems to pervade public discourse, outside some participants of this > esteemed Peak Oil blog, is premature. > > > > > There is more to this argument, however, than just the issue of whether > there is > > real technology (real could be defined, loosely and very charitably as less > than $10/gallon of ethanol, or about a $100/mmBtu liquid fuel). The most > important question is: what is a better way to use our billion plus ton per > year potential biomass resource (and I stress potential, also not real, > maybe one or two hundred million tons are real): conversion to ethanol or > use for other purposes? Would it not be better to use surplus and waste > wood, crop residues, or energy crops (another whole subject) to heat our > homes, using wood pellets or even gasification to make heating oils? > > > > > And if we really want ethanol from crops, and I would favor some, 10%, to > 20%, of > > our use if ethanol is economically or energetically feasible, would it not > be better to grow high starch crops (requiring lower fertilizer inputs than > corn)? Then we can make ethanol the way we know how, while using part of the > crop residues for the process heat, rather than coal or natural gas. That > should be an improvement what we are doing now, the corn to ethanol fiasco. > > > > > Well Vinod Khosla is probably correct, as I read him, that there is nothing > that can > > be done about the world as we find it, and the function and reward of > capital is to serve the system as is, not as it should be. And when I ask, > do we want to drive our SUVs or freeze in our homes, that is rhetorical, as > I do realize that the question is becoming irrelevant, the "we" will include > only those who can do both, and they won't really care, any more than any > other ruling class has, about those that can't heat their houses or drive > their cars. > > > > > And a final question, should we, including our venture capitalists, foist > on to other > > countries, let me give India as an example I know of personally, our > simultaneously myopic energy policy and visionary technology focus? The > answers to this and the prior questions are apparent, they hardly need to be > answered, but they are not being sufficiently asked. > > > > So I sincerely wish Vinod Khosla all the success in his enterprises. I hope > they > > work for him and his investors, and for all of us. However, I am not > enthusiastic about the free enterprise tail enabling -- or even able to > enable -- this preordained policy dog to wag. Bluntly, we should not put our > trust and future in ethanol from biomass saving the day. No more than in to > that prior canard that H2 would save the day after tomorrow (remember those > GM ads so long ago, was it last year, saying that todays' toddlers would get > their H2 cars for high school graduation?). And remember all the venture > capital that went into those hydrogen companies? Anyone into financial > forensics? But that is not our problem.OK, as I said, reasonable people can > argue the merits of this case, but these merits, particularly the technical > nitty gritty, have not been argued to the extent necessary in this forum, > neither by Vinod Khosla nor the many who responded to this blog. I hope to > add to knowledge, in a minor way, by pointing this out, and some of the > technical issues, and suggesting that ethanol from lignocellulosics is not > something we should count on, any more than most of the other 1970s ideas > and technologies being re-floated (biodiesel from algae being a personal > favorite of mine). Yes, biofuels are and will be very important, we are > already doing some things, and need to do much more. Much work is required, > in many areas, from anaerobic digestion to crop production, and including > R&D on lignocellulosics to ethanol. Maybe we will get the proverbial > breakthroughs. But multiple barriers must be overcome, and betting the farm > on just this one ticket, on only ethanol from switchgrass and such, is > foolish in the extreme. And that is, what I am afraid, the Bush-Cheneys are > now attempting and the Gates-Khoslas accomplishing. This single rathole > could easily consume most biofuels funding and, most likely, nothing real > will be accomplished.Another victory for the fossil-nuclear energy > companies? > > > John Benemann > > > > > The following abstract is to be presented August 29th at the Conference on > Biofuels and Bioenergy: Challenges and Opportunities, Univ. British > Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (see www.task39.org).ETHANOL FROM > LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS - A TECHNO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT John R. > Benemann1*,Don C. Augenstein1, Don J. Wilhelm2 and Dale R. Simbeck2 > > 1. Institute for Environmental Management, Inc. 4277 Pomona Ave., Palo > Alto, CA 94306 *Presenter and contact, [email protected] > > 2. SFA Pacific, Inc, 444 Castro St., Suite 720, Mountain View, CA 94041 > > Proposed lignocellulosic-to-ethanol processes envision a pre-treatment > step, to liberate cellulose and hemicelluloses from lignin, followed by a > hydrolysis step, to convert the carbohydrates to simpler sugars, and then a > yeast or bacterial fermentation step, to yield ethanol, followed by ethanol > recovery (distillation, drying). Some steps might be combined, such as in > acid hydrolysis (combining pre-treatment and saccharification) or in a > simultaneous saccharification-fermentation process. After five decades of > intensive R&D, currently only a single pilot plant (Iogen Corp. in Canada) > is operating, reportedly producing about one million liters of ethanol per > year, though well below its planned capacity.An independent analysis > identified many problems with the currently proposed processes, including > the relatively high costs of biomass delivered to commercial-scale plants > (which would need to be 200 million liters per year output, or greater, for > economics of scale), the problems with pretreatment, the low rates and > yields of sugars from enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis, the resulting low > sugar and ethanol concentrations, and the overall high energy consumption of > the overall process. In addition to not tolerating high ethanol > concentrations, genetically engineered organisms developed for combined > hexose-pentose fermentations are subject to contamination, which will > require prohibitively expensive containment systems.Even ignoring, as most > studies do, such major problems, and using available corn stover and > enzymatic hydrolysis, the currently favored biomass resource and process, > our techno-economic analysis estimated a cost of ethanol twice as high as > that of ethanol from corn. Forest residues and wastes, biomass crops, and > municipal wastes are even less promising. The conclusions of this assessment > are that none of the existing processes are ready for commercial > applications in any foreseeable time frame and that continuing fundamental > and applied R&D is required. Some opportunities may exist for near-term > applications of cellulose conversion technologies to some specific, > modest-scale, agricultural wastes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gasification mailing list > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > [email protected] > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org > > for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site: > http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/ > >
_______________________________________________ Gasification mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site: http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
