Posted on 06/15/2011 5:33:25 AM PDT by thackney
Dallas-based chemical company Celanese Corp. has engineered a process to produce ethanol from natural gas and wants the federal government to give it some of the same incentives afforded corn-based fuel.
The company is promoting its technology, called Celanese TCX, as the answer to problems of corn-based ethanol — unpopular subsidies and its competition for a food crop, contributing to rising food prices.
By using the prolific domestic natural gas supply to produce the gasoline additive, the nation can ease demand for corn crops with a petroleum product that doesn’t have to be imported, said Steven Sterin, Celanese chief financial officer and head of advanced fuel technologies.
Pressure on food prices “It allows us to alleviate some of the pressure on food prices, and we can do it without subsidies, using American-based resources,” Sterin said. “It provides solutions to all those problems that are facing our country.”
On Tuesday the U.S. Senate debated, but rejected, a measure to repeal corn ethanol tax subsidies, a benefit worth billions of dollars annually.
Ethanol also benefits from the Renewable Fuel Standard, a federal mandate requiring a national increase in the level of renewable energy blended into the transportation fuel supply from about 14 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. It calls for increased use of ethanol and other biofuels produced from renewable sources like wood, landfill gas, animal waste and other organic materials.
Celanese executives want to see natural gas-based ethanol on the list of gasoline additives allowed under the Renewable Fuels Standard. The product is chemically identical to corn-based ethanol and has the same low-emission properties.
Celanese executives want to see natural gas-based ethanol on the list of gasoline additives allowed under the Renewable Fuels Standard. The product is chemically identical to corn-based ethanol and has the same low-emission properties.
The problem is that natural gas isn’t renewable.
“That absolutely is not going to be qualifying as a biofuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard, and there’s no way around that,” said Paul Niznik, biofuels manager for Hart Energy, a consulting and publishing company for the energy industry. “Ethanol that’s not from a renewable source would not have any incentives on it to be used as a transportation fuel.”
Niznik noted that the Celanese technology could have industrial uses. Ethanol is also used in the manufacture of paints, antiseptics and other alcohol-based products.
Sterin said the company is weighing those opportunities. But transportation fuel remains its primary focus.
Cheaper than corn? He said Celanese has been encouraging legislators to introduce laws that will make natural gas-to-ethanol a preferred additive. He said Celanese can produce it more cheaply than the corn-based version, at the equivalent of $60 a barrel, about $1.50 a gallon. Ethanol futures traded Tuesday at $2.75 a gallon.
The Celanese TCX technology, developed at a facility in Pasadena, puts hydrocarbons through a thermochemical process to produce ethanol. Celanese is building a coal-to-ethanol plant in China to produce ethanol for manufacturing paints, antiseptics and pharmaceuticals. The company expects the technology will eventually be able to produce ethanol from organic materials.
Sterin said the company conducted a poll of 606 likely Texas voters and found 75 percent supported using domestic natural gas as a base for ethanol fuel. And 65 percent supported changing the Renewable Fuels Standard to allow the fossil fuel technology, the poll found.
A mandate Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association, called the technology interesting. But whether the market will take to it as a fuel for vehicles is questionable, he said, because it is not supported as an additive by the Renewable Fuels Standard.
“If it’s cheaper, the refiners are going to use it. But the problem they are going to have is the refiners have a mandate in place” to use renewable fuel, McAdams said. “You can’t just use natural gas and receive any consideration under RFS. It is excluded by definition.”
- - - - - - -
Sounds like they don't need a subsidy.
Ethanol is great...............in a martini...................
That makes too much sense.................
There are some similar projects started:
Shell: world's biggest gas-to-liquids plant to start soon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2731066/posts
Plant to produce fuels such as diesel, kerosene, naphtha
Naphtha is a feedstock to making gasoline.
Exactly - liquify the natural gas and put it in cars.
Of course, the infrastructure and motors, as well as the storage tanks would have to be modified....
Hmmm... why not just use NG for electricity generation and GASOLINE in cars? What a concept!
And you know what? We can get GASOLINE from OIL that we have IN THE GROUND in the United States, and we can build more domestic REFINERIES to make it out of that oil!
Wow! I must be a GENIUS!
“The problem is that natural gas isn’t renewable.”
Hmmm....is corn ‘renewable’?
At the end of the day, you are taking energy out of the soil...and its only ‘renewed’ when you fertilize.
This makes my head explode; I’m in the O&G business; anytime you take a “substance” like Natural Gas and convert it into another substance, you’re going to have to expend “energy” in the refinement process.....all so you can combine ethanol with gasoline when really all you need to do is...............convert cars and trucks to run on Natural Gas!!!!!!! It’s already being done; and more NG refueling stations are being built and there’s several hundred years supply of NG in the U.S.
The “waste” these clowns can come up with is phenomenal!
Fermented/distilled ethanol doesn't need one either. Besides, ethanol made from ethylene is anhydrous, making it a superior product to ethanol made from crops which will always contain 4% water.
Ethanol made from ethylene has always been cheaper than ethanol made from corn or sugar. But then liberals as a rule reject the most basic fundamentals of free market economics as they impose their will over the rest of us (at the point of a gun).
On Tuesday the U.S. Senate debated, but rejected, a measure to repeal corn ethanol tax subsidies, a benefit worth billions of dollars annually.
Solution. Exxon, Shell or BP buys ConAgra or ADM and instantly "Big Oil" is getting subsidies and the Progressives in the Senate will stampede to a special session for the sole purpose of passing a repeal of corn ethanol tax subsidies.
Of course, without subsidies it would be a reason to dismiss the entire Board of Directors for incompetence investing in something as foolish as corn ethanol
They don't want or need a subsidy. They need it added the the list of renewable fuels that refiners can use under the Federal Mandate. If it is added to the list, it will reduce the amount of corn based ethenol used thereby reducing the total federal subsidy for Ethanol.
Ford has been manufacturing natural gas vehicles for years.
According to Wikipedia, so have other car makers.
The problem with fueling stations has been the price.
High pressure is needed to fuel a natural gas vehicle quickly, and those systems have been expensive. I haven't checked into it in the last 5 years or so, so I'm uncertain about recent developments.
Fleets that can leave their vehicles to fill overnight are best suited for natural gas use, since the fueling system doesn't require such a high pressure, and so is much more affordable.
Exactly...if they can’t front the development money to provide a product to the market; and, if they can’t market the product to grow its demand; then, why should the taxpayer subsidize it? It’s the whole risk/reward model...not hedged-risk/all-the-reward.
Government subsidy of private market products is clearly anti-Constitutional.
Don’t let this one get started.
This sounds like a VHS vs Beta argument.
One solution is better technically, the other would be easier to market to consumers.
By including it in the renewable fuel standard, it will qualify for the blender's tax credit, a subsidy.
They still require the same high pressure. They do not require the higher flow rate to achieve a quick fill-up.
“incentives”? You mean like crony capitalism? If it is such a great deal, let it stand on its own two feet. If it is “sustainable”, let the company that develops the product enjoy the rewards.
If it takes eliminating the subsidy for corn-based ethanol, this should never have been proposed in the first place.
Ethanol bad, Butanol good
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.