DOE To Invest $250 Million In New Bioenergy Centers

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman announced today that DOE will spend $250 million to establish and operate two new Bioenergy Research Centers to accelerate basic research on the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels.

The Secretary made the announcement with Congressman Jerry Weller (IL-11th), local officials and biofuels stakeholders during a visit to Channahon, IL.

"This is an important step toward our goal of replacing 30 percent of transportation fuels with biofuels by 2030," Secretary Bodman said. "The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) calls for the creation of new programs to improve the technology and reduce the cost of biofuels production. The mission of these centers is to accelerate research that leads to breakthroughs in basic science to make biofuels a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels."

Four billion gallons of ethanol were produced this year, mainly from corn. EPAct requires that by 2012, at least 7.5 billion gallons per year of renewable fuel be blended into the nation's fuel supply. To meet these goals, future biofuels production will require the use of more diverse feedstocks including cellulosic material such as agricultural residues, grasses and other inedible plants.

Universities, national laboratories, nonprofit organizations and private firms are eligible to compete for an award to establish and operate a center. Awards, based on evaluation by scientific peer review, will be announced next summer. The centers are expected to begin work in 2008 and will be fully operational by 2009.

The centers' mission will be to conduct systems biology research on microbes and plants, with the goal of harnessing nature's own powerful mechanisms for producing energy from sunlight. A major focus will be on understanding how to reengineer biological processes for more efficient conversion of plant fiber, or cellulose, into ethanol, a substitute for gasoline.

The announcement of the Bioenergy Research Centers initiative culminates a six-year-long effort by the DOE Office of Science to lay the foundation for breakthroughs in systems biology for the cost-effective production of renewable energy.

In early July, DOE's Office of Science issued a joint biofuels research agenda with the Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy titled Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol. The report provides a detailed roadmap for cellulosic ethanol research, identifying key roadblocks and areas where scientific breakthroughs are needed.

The proposal deadline for this funding opportunity is February 1, 2007. DOE's Office of Science will provide $25 million in the first year for the establishment of each center and up to $25 million per year for the following four years to support the operations of each center - for a total award of up to $125 million per center.

DOE began supporting pioneering research on microbes and microbial communities in 2000, with the objective of tapping microorganisms' powerful and diverse capabilities to produce renewable energy, clean up the environment and manage atmospheric carbon. This research has been supported by the Genomics: GTL program in the Office of Science.

Since initiating the Human Genome Project in 1986, DOE has played a major role in advancing modern biotechnology, and the department's recent research on microbes for energy production builds on those advances.

Today's announcement is part of a series of events highlighting the first anniversary of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which President Bush signed on August 8, 2005. A kickoff event was held in Washington, D.C., with Secretary Bodman and two Chairmen of Congressional Committees, Senator Pete Domenici and Congressman Joe Barton. Later today, Secretary Bodman will travel to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where he will visit the Clipper Wind Manufacturing Facility and discuss the importance of wind and other forms of renewable energy to our nation's energy security.

In addition to the production tax credits for renewable energy, including wind, in the Energy Policy Act, President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative significantly increases the government's investment in research and development to bring more affordable renewable energy to market. The Advanced Energy Initiative proposes a 13 percent increase in wind research and development in DOE, to a total of $44 million.

The problem with ethanol is that we make it from corn. Great for ADM, but it is terribly inefficient and costly compared to gasoline. It is also hard on the engine and fuel system of a vehicle, necessitating more expensive components.

Biodiesel, OTOH, can be efficiently produced (for about $0.20 more than petroleum-based diesel can be, as I understand it), and burns more cleanly while helping to get rid of lots of garbage. I'd put more eggs in that basket, and lean on the auto companies to produce more diesel (and turbo-diesel) models that the public would buy. Simply switching 1/3 of the US auto fleet to diesel would save something like a million barrels/day, even without biodiesel being available.

That's why there's a growing (ha) effort to make cellulosic ethanol, rather than corn ethanol. Provided the enzymes can be found to break down the cellulose, it would be much more energy efficient to produce.

I also like biodiesel and oil produced by thermal depolymerization of waste products.

Biodiesel, OTOH, can be efficiently produced (for about $0.20 more than petroleum-based diesel can be

What is biodiesel's breakeven price per bbl of petroleum?

What crops are best suited to the production of biodiesel oil?

Can biodiesel be blended into petrodiesel advantageously from a performance and regulatory POV?

What is the first-cost penalty of going diesel instead of spark ignition, including the turbocharger and/or the hybrid electric drive required for decent performance?

" == The problem with ethanol is that we make it from corn. == "

Precisely the reason that an efficient process for obtaining ethanol from cellulose is so important. When President Bush mentioned "switchgrass" in a speech it was the first time most Americans had ever heard of it. But if ethanol is to become economically significant, corn cannot be the source. Contrary to the yammering press, I believe that this is about the right level of government involvement in the research, as against private investment.

We don't still burn whale oil in lamps, or use many buggy whips in our daily commute. These guys aren't stupid, they want to sell products that people will buy. Any da**ed fool that thinks the oil companies are not doing their very best to advance this and every other form of energy has a head full of cotton candy - conspiracy theories and other fluff stick there, but anything of substance just crushes it.

That would be hard to answer. Biodiesel has different breakevens depending on how and where it is made and what blend you are using. The best crop to use depends on what region you are talking about. Blending also depends on the region, and what regulations are in place for the area. And diesel engines, until the 2007 models make it out, have a problem with NOX. And do you want to factor in the costs associated with dealing with third world dictators into the price of petrol?

I think biodiesel is more expensive to produce than the other guy suggests, or perhaps his figures factor in the subsidies. As for blending biodiesel with regular diesel in can be done and is done. From what I've read a little biodiesel, like 2%, blended in with petroleum diesel is actually good for engines. Allegedly it has good lubricating properties. It can be made cheaply from waste oil, the stuff that restaurants have used, but there just isn't enough of that to make much of a difference. Producing it from soy beans or some other crop is really expensive. We can only produce enough etanol to supply a small portion of our gasoline needs, but all the estimates I've seen show that we'd be able to produce even less biodiesel. We probably won't see mixtures with high biodeiesel content being widely available, although we probably will see more B2, B5, and B20 available in the near future. As for diesel performance, I drove a diesel Mercedes for years that was a fine car. I've also driven a new Volkswagen diesel that really seemed to be a great car. It had plenty of pep, even from a dead stop, and it neither rattled nor smoked like older diesels do. I was quite impressed. In most parts of Europe I understand that close to half the new cars for sale are diesels. The fuel economy on these things is great compared to gasoline, and if the newer diesel engines hold up anything like the older ones tended to hold up, we'll see a lot of these cars still on the road decades from now.

"Four billion gallons of ethanol were produced this year, mainly from corn. EPAct requires that by 2012, at least 7.5 billion gallons per year of renewable fuel be blended into the nation's fuel supply. To meet these goals, future biofuels production will require the use of more diverse feedstocks including cellulosic material such as agricultural residues, grasses and other inedible plants."

I don't see why they just have to have cellulosic ethanol for production to jump from 4 billion gallons to 7.5 billion. As I understand it, currently a little over 14% of our corn crop goes to ethanol. About 18% of the corn we grow is exported to countries like Japan and Mexico. Mexican farmers have actually been complaining a lot about our corn which they say is sold in their country for 15% to 20% less than it costs us to produce it. We're actually undercutting the price of Mexican corn in Mexico. That's kind of funny to me considering there are probably a lot of Mexicans working in our corn fields.

I'm wondering though why in the heck it is that we would sell corn for 15% to 20% less than production costs? Why not sell it at cost to ethanol producers? If we exported less we could easily double what we use for ethanol from around 14% to around 28%, and farmers could just grow more corn if necessary for export purposes. We'll need cellulosic ethanol before we could ever possibly get to the point where 30% of our transportation fuels are comprised of biofuels, but we wouldn't have to have that technology in place to increase from 4 billion barrels per year to 7.5 billion per year.

Trying to figure out all of the entangling alliances involving corn production and distribution will give you a headache long before it starts to make any sense. I think it fair to say that Big Corn makes Big Oil look like a bunch of amateurs when it comes to getting their way in Washington.

All I know is that if cellulosic ethanol pans out as projected, Big Corn will take a backseat to Big Prairie Grass. This $250 mil. for cellulosic ethanol research won't help Big Corn much, and while it may seem like a lot of money, it's only a tiny amount compared to what the government spends on other things. I think they've spent about that much every single day on average for the war in Iraq.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.