EPA Denies Ethanol Waiver

No big surprise here, and I have been advising people that there was very little chance that the EPA would grant the waiver, but they have officially denied the ethanol waiver request from the state of Texas:

EPA denies Texas governor’s ethanol waiver request

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, during a conference call with reporters, said the agency’s assessment looked at the livestock issue and found feed prices have increased because of biofuel production. “However, is that the result of the (Renewable Fuels Standard) mandate? Our conclusion is no,” Johnson said. “And second, are those price increases meeting the statutory requirement of severe harm to the economy? And our conclusion is no.”

Environmental groups, concerned about how biofuels affect climate, water quality and biodiversity, also supported the waiver. Sandra Schubert, spokeswoman for the Environmental Working Group, said the denial is shortsighted and that the country should be focused on viable clean energy solutions. “Instead, the misguided corn ethanol mandate is forcing farmers to plow up marginal land and wildlife habitat, while increasing global warming and dumping toxic fertilizers and pesticides into our precious water sources,” she said in a statement.

On Capitol Hill, the decision drew mixed reaction. Members of the Texas congressional delegation, U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has filed legislation that would freeze future ethanol production at this year’s level, criticized the agency’s decision.

“I am disappointed that the EPA missed this opportunity to provide relief for American consumers who are dealing with skyrocketing food prices due to the unintended consequences of the continued escalation of the ethanol mandate,” Hutchison said in a statement.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, also a Republican, called the decision a “victory,” saying it will allow farmers to “continue to plan for and meet the fuel and food needs of the future.”

Given the Bush administration’s infatuation with ethanol, I thought the chances of the waiver being granted were very slim.

The Hydrogen Electrolyzer Debunked?

Popular Mechanics just ran the tests and reported on the results:

Water-Powered Cars: Hydrogen Electrolyzer Mod Can’t Up MPGs

I have told people not to waste their money, but that is just based on the science: It takes more energy to electrolyze water than you get back out of it. In theory, injecting hydrogen could allow you to run at a different compression ratio, which could allow you to derive more useful work out of the engine. Or, it could allow you to run at a different fuel/air ratio. So I don’t necessarily reject it out of hand until I have seen the data, I am just highly skeptical. Popular Mechanics provides some data. The background:

Water-powered cars continue to be the largest single topic taking over my in box—and the Comments section of this Web site. And it’s not just my recent column on the truth about water-chugging prototypes. This trend has become an obsession with many backyard inventors, and some of them have become quite strident, insisting that if I knew anything at all about cars, I’d be embracing this technology. They say it could help change the world as we know it. They even say it could eliminate the energy crisis altogether.

So, last month I received an electrolyzer, fabricated by my old Monster Garage partner, Steve Rumore at Avalanche Engineering out in Colorado. Steve cleverly designed the device into a steel toolbox, making it portable—just the ticket for someone tinkering with HHO/water/hydrogen/Brown’s Gas­powered conveyances. The unit consists of eight plastic bottles with stainless-steel electrodes, connected up in series—parallel to the vehicle’s battery. The cells are filled with plain ol’ water and a small amount of potassium hydroxide electrolyte to conduct electricity. A hose conveys the HHO output to the engine.

It took me a few days of puttering around in my shop to get the electrolyzer up and running. I’m using an HKS Camp 2 onboard computer, hooked into an LCD monitor that’s suction-cupped to the windscreen, to check things like mass airflow, fuel-injector pulse width, battery voltage and, of course, fuel economy.

But guess what? My fuel economy is exactly the same, whether the HHO generator is turned on or not. And that’s exactly what I expected. This isn’t anecdotal evidence from several tankfuls of gasoline. It’s steady-state, flat-road testing, and I don’t even pretend to have actual economy numbers. I’m using fuel-injector pulse widths directly from the OBD II port. That means I’m measuring the actual time the injectors are open and delivering fuel. When the HHO generator is toggled on, there’s no change. And when it’s turned back off, there’s no change. Well, the computer’s system voltage sags a couple of tenths of a volt, indicating the current drain to run the electrolyzer.

This is not a great surprise, but it didn’t take long for someone in the comments section following the article to invoke the oil conspiracy charge:

As an owner of an auto repair facility that installs and configures HHO Cells i have to disagree with your findings. I am not surprised by your results considering your methods and your obvious opinion going in that it would never work. It does in fact work when installed and configured correctly. Your article brings to mind the weak attempt Mythbusters described on their show. Needless to say my high opinion of Popular Mechanics and MythBusters is not so anymore. By the way, i wouldn’t be surprised if the oil companies financed your obviously biased experiment.

Of course I have to point out that since the commenter installs and configures HHO cells, he has a vested interest in claiming that they work. One good accusation deserves another.

Tester’s Energy Plan

Tis the season for energy plans. Coming up on the elections, everyone has to have a plan - and I was just e-mailed a copy of Montana Senator John Tester’s plan. There are some good components, but it is also rich with irony.

A common-sense energy plan for Montana and America

As Sharla and I buckle down for another harvest near Big Sandy, we’re feeling what all Montanans are feeling at home — the pinch of out-of-control energy prices.

It’s an issue that I deal with every day as a U.S. Senator and as a family farmer. Our energy problems are the result of poor presidential leadership and a weak dollar. And with $12 billion in borrowed money going to Iraq every month, our dollar isn’t going to get stronger any time soon.

For 30 years we’ve known that depending on imported oil was dangerous foreign policy and bad economic policy. But we haven’t done what it takes to get ourselves off it. That needs to change. And that’s why I support a three-part plan for the short term and the long term:

First, we ought to drill more in places that make sense, like eastern Montana. The Bakken Formation holds an estimated four billion barrels of recoverable oil. I don’t have a problem with responsible drilling offshore or in parts of Alaska set aside for drilling. But I want to be darn sure that oil stays in America, not shipped off to Asia so the big oil companies can make more record profits.

Second, I believe that oil speculation and hedging has gotten way out of hand. Some folks on Wall Street are trading oil they never intend to actually use in order to make a quick buck. That creates artificial supply and demand, resulting in artificially high gas prices. That’s why I support smart legislation cracking down on out-of-control manipulation of the oil market.

And of course, conservation and renewable energy have to play a big role in our energy future. It’s time to make a serious investment in renewable energy like biofuels, wind, solar power, and geothermal energy.

Unfortunately, a few White House allies in Congress shot down important legislation like extending tax credits for renewable energy, cracking down on speculators and hedgers, and getting tough on OPEC. They pay lip service to the need for renewable energy, then insist on voting only for legislation that gives big oil bigger profits.

Drilling for more oil can’t be the only solution. Drilling is a bridge, but without a long-term solution it will be a bridge to nowhere. As a country that uses 25 percent of the world’s oil, yet has only three percent of it, drilling alone won’t solve the problem. Some on the other side of the aisle are not shooting straight with Montanans.

You would think from listening to some politicians that the big oil companies’ agenda is the solution to record high gas prices. That defies common sense when the U.S. is exporting 1.4 million barrels every day to other countries. It’s another example of the failed leadership that has taken the price of a gallon of gas from $1.50 in 2001 to more than $4 today.

With our national and economic security at stake, it’s time for all of Congress to work together. It’s a shame partisan politics gets in the way of common sense. Montana families and main street businesses deserve better than that.

I’m always interested in hearing your thoughts on the issues. Please visit http://tester.senate.gov/contact to drop me a note.

Jon Tester
United States Senator

Funny story about Tester. Montana has a significant oil refining industry. Yet when he was campaigning, gasoline had just cracked $3/gal, so he campaigned on the party line: “Big Oil is evil and is ripping everyone off.” So, one day I was at home in Billings, and the doorbell rang. It was someone from the Tester campaign, asking if they could count on my vote.

I looked at him for a few seconds, and I said “I work downtown at the ConocoPhillips refinery. You have said some pretty nasty things about my industry, and insulted a lot of hard-working people in the process. So tell me why I should vote for Tester.” The guy looked very uncomfortable, and said “Look, buddy. It’s not personal. It’s just politics.” So I responded with “And it won’t be personal if I don’t vote for him.”

That is Jon Tester. A man with some good idea, but also very quick to fall in line and resort to the ad hominem attacks in order to win votes. In his proposal above, he calls for responsible drilling, conservation, and investments in renewable energy. I am with him on those. And then he makes some completely asinine statements that make me wonder “Is this guy serious?” Here are some examples:

But I want to be darn sure that oil stays in America, not shipped off to Asia so the big oil companies can make more record profits.

That’s stupid on several fronts. First, oil removed from federal lands must already stay in America. Second is the implication that oil companies are engaged in the shady business of sending oil to Asia when we have shortfalls at home. (More on that below). Finally, he wants to be sure that America’s oil stays in America. How about Canada’s oil? As Canada is our largest supplier of oil, where would we be if Canada adopted Tester’s plan - that Canada’s oil stays in Canada? What if all of our suppliers adopted that position?

You would think from listening to some politicians that the big oil companies’ agenda is the solution to record high gas prices. That defies common sense when the U.S. is exporting 1.4 million barrels every day to other countries.

That’s just rubbish. He needs someone on his staff to do a bit of investigating before he makes uninformed statements like this. First off, here are the numbers from the EIA on exports from the U.S. of petroleum and petroleum products. What is the #1 destination for these exports? Mexico, one of our largest suppliers of crude oil. #2? Canada, our largest supplier of oil. And what are we sending them? Here, again, is the breakdown. The #1 product that we are supplying? Petroleum coke. #2? Residual fuel oil.

Less than 10% of what is exported is gasoline, and less than 2% is crude oil. Is that the picture Tester painted? Of course not. He has us exporting over a million barrels of crude oil to China so big oil can get rich. This is the Tester that I found so annoying during the campaign. Is he badly misinformed, or just playing political games?

Of course one might ask why we would export any petroleum products to other countries. That’s quite easy. If you are a refiner in Montana or Texas, and your product pipelines are full - or your orders are otherwise filled - you may sell some across the border to Canada or Mexico. Or, your petroleum coke that you might not be able to find a home for (and which you are selling at a loss) ends up going out of the country. Or you have some material that doesn’t meet U.S. specs, but it does meet the specs of some other country. When I was at the refinery, I remember we got in a shipment of butane. It did not meet one of our specs, but it did meet Mexico’s, so we sent it south. It had originated in Canada, came to Montana, and ended up in Mexico. It was counted as an export.

Further, I think if we adopted the position that we won’t sell to Canada or Mexico (which may be prohibited by NAFTA anyway) then we might have trouble convincing them to provide oil to us. This would be a problem, since those two countries provide more than three times the amount of oil to us as the amount of exports Tester is complaining about.

The irony then in Tester’s e-mail is that he felt compelled to write:

Some on the other side of the aisle are not shooting straight with Montanans.

And

It’s a shame partisan politics gets in the way of common sense.

I guess we can be thankful that Senator Tester is above all of that.

Pinning Pelosi

I received an interesting e-mail yesterday:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Author of “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters” will answer questions in a live discussion on washingtonpost.com today (Wednesday, Aug. 6 at 3 pm ET).

Pelosi will discuss the current political scene heading into the conventions, the message of her new book and other questions submitted by readers.

To submit questions and participate in the live discussion click here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/08/01/DI2008080102174.html

This seemed to me to be an ideal opportunity to pin her down on two issues that she is clearly passionate about, but seem to me to be diametrically opposed: Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and reducing carbon emissions. So, I submitted the following question, several hours prior to the chat:

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

Perhaps you could clarify an issue that is baffling to me. On the one hand, you have spoken passionately for the need to combat global warming by reducing our carbon emissions. This is clearly a priority for you, as well as for large segments of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, you have also come out strongly in favor of tapping oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to bring oil prices down. Given that high prices are causing the public to abandon SUVs and to embrace fuel efficiency and mass transit - exactly the sorts of things that need to happen if we are to reduce carbon emissions - how is your position on the SPR not completely inconsistent with your position on global warming? If in fact you push through your proposal on the SPR, won’t that lead to increased consumption and therefore increased carbon emissions?

Had I been a bit more long-winded, I would have pointed to reports that gasoline demand is in fact down this year, breaking a multi-year trend of increasing demand. Or I could have shown the many news stories showing record demand for Priuses while SUVs are not moving. The reason demand is down is clearly price-driven. Price is the clearest handle we have on moderating demand.

Unfortunately, Pelosi (or the person screening the questions) decided not to answer my question. Instead, they answered a question in which she could once more push for tapping the SPR!

Marietta, Georgia: Dear Madam Speaker,

Although this forum is primarily focused on your book, I cannot help but bring up an issue that is affecting each and every American. Why have the American people not seen energy legislation that lowers the price of gas?

Thank you

Nancy Pelosi: Now let’s pivot from book questions to a topic many of you have raised: the high price of gasoline at the pump and what we can do about it.

Every American family is affected by the high price of oil and gas. It is our responsibility in Congress to protect the consumer and increase the domestic supply of energy. For the past 18 months, the Democrats in Congress have set forth an energy agenda. Some has been passed into law - and some has been blocked by the Republicans.

House Democrats have put forward 13 major proposals that would increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers and transition America to a clean, renewable energy-independent future. Each time a majority of House Republicans have voted against these proposals.

Let me be very clear: drilling for oil in protected areas offshore will not bring down the price at the pump for 10 years - and then only 2 cents. To say otherwise is a hoax on the American people.

Here’s what we can do:

1. Free Our Oil

We can have immediate price relief at the pump. Freeing our oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will bring down the price of oil in 10 days. President Bush refuses to take this step for immediate relief.

10 years or 10 days - the choice is clear.

2. Use It or Lose It

Democrats passed the Drill Bill which says to Big Oil “Use it or lose it!” - drill in the 68 million acres in the lower 48 states or let someone else drill there. Also, “use it or lose it in Alaska. All of these areas have permits for drilling - and will produce oil sooner than drilling in protected areas offshore.

3. End Excessive Speculation Which Raises the Price of Oil

Democrats were part of a strong bipartisan vote was taken in the House but GOP leaders twisted arms to block passage.

4. Repeal the subsidies for Big Oil

With Big Oil making record profits, they do not need American taxpayers funding their drilling.

Instead we can invest in research, renewable energy, and tax credits for wind, solar and other renewables. This passed the House but failed in the Senate by one vote - John McCain was absent that day but said he would have voted no.

5. Increase Our Energy Supply With Increased Use of Natural Gas - a cleaner energy source.

There is immediate relief for the consumer - if only President Bush would free our oil.

I must say that Number 5 is a surprise, and something I have long advocated. Instead of recycling our natural gas into ethanol, it would be much more efficient to use it directly as fuel. As I have pointed out before, Brazil - the poster child for ethanol production - also has 8 times the number of natural gas vehicles on the road as we do in the U.S. They don’t waste their natural gas separating ethanol from water. Besides Brazil - Argentina, Pakistan, Italy, and India all have larger natural gas fleets than does the U.S. So for those who suggest that we don’t have the infrastructure in place to manage this, maybe we can learn from India and Pakistan. So I agree with Pelosi on this point: As our supply of oil depletes, we can moderate the decline with natural gas.

Number 1 on Pelosi’s list is the very contradiction I asked about, Number 2 promotes a myth (there already is a ‘use it or lose it’ provision in the law) and is nothing more than pandering, Number 3 may have some merit, but is again in contrast to her position on global warming (higher prices equal lower carbon emissions), and Number 4 says that oil companies should not be entitled to the same sorts of tax deductions afforded every other industry. I will let you all in on a dirty little secret: Big Oil also deducts the salaries of their employees from their gross receipts, just like every other business. Maybe that ’subsidy’ should be eliminated. Maybe their deductions for capital spending should be disallowed. More subsidies. But I digress.

Can anyone explain to me why championing action on global warming while also championing tapping the SPR is not blatantly contradictory? Anyone? Or why nobody in the Democratic Party seems to have the guts to speak out on this contradiction? Instead, Barack Obama - long opposed to tapping the SPR - has now fallen into line and is calling for the same.

Actually, I think I know the answer to the contradiction. Proponents of tapping the SPR think that alternative fuels are going to rapidly scale up, displace petroleum with cheap ethanol, and the consumer won’t have to suffer in order to bring fossil fuel consumption down. To that, I would point out that the Energy Information Administration - the source of Pelosi’s claim that drilling in the OCS would only bring prices down by 2 cents a gallon - testified last year that they don’t foresee that cellulosic ethanol is going to scale up to even a billion gallons by 2030.

The EIA also predicts that fossil fuels will continue to be the dominant source of our energy supply for decades to come. So, the very agency Pelosi references in her argument for tapping the SPR is telling us in no uncertain terms that alternative fuels aren’t going to ride to the rescue. With that in mind, I believe it is impossible to reconcile a position of tapping the SPR with a position that reducing our carbon emissions is a high priority. It’s like saying “I propose that the nation needs to go on a diet. And by the way, I also propose that we increase the supply of donuts to make them more affordable.”

I just wish a politician would have the guts to step forward and address this contradiction.

Obama Was Right

I was traveling the past couple of days, or I would have been all over this story. As it stands, I certainly won’t be the first one to make this point.

You may know that Barack Obama recently suggested that if all Americans kept their tires properly inflated and their cars correctly maintained, this would save as much oil as we could get from new drilling. Here he is making these comments, courtesy of YouTube. Obama’s critics (and his political opponent) jumped all over this, and are having a field day with it, suggesting that this is Obama’s energy plan, that he said “that’s all we need to do”, or “this will make us energy independent.” That’s not what he said. Time has already weighed in with a definitive rebuttal:

The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

I thought the issue had probably passed, but apparently not. I am presently in the Netherlands, and during my visits here I have a roommate who is very conservative. This morning, he was listening to Fox News, and I overheard Sean Hannity ask “How on earth is keeping your tires inflated going to reduce dependence on foreign oil?” As someone who has long advocated this as a way to reduce gasoline consumption, I had a hard time believing that Hannity had asked that question. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that under-inflated tires alone waste about 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline a year. To put that in perspective, that’s 28 million barrels of gasoline a year, worth over $3 billion that we won’t send out of the country for foreign oil purchases.

Of course I mentioned this to my roommate. I said “You know, Obama is correct about that.” My roommate then said that he has a device in his tires that enables his tire pressure to be monitored remotely. He said - completely tongue in cheek - that we should require this on all new vehicles and have someone in the government monitoring everyone’s tire pressure to make sure they were properly inflated. If not, fine them $25 for being unpatriotic and supporting foreign dictators with their unnecessary gasoline purchases.

Whether it’s a good idea to get government involved in monitoring our tire pressure is beside the point. The bottom line is that the suggestion that this would reduce our dependence on foreign oil is correct. While I have criticisms of some aspects of Obama’s energy plans (McCain’s as well; his gas-tax holiday is a joke) - and I believe he is definitely pandering on this windfall profits issue - his comments here are on the mark.

Further, I have a real problem with people who would ridicule someone for suggesting that we conserve. This sends the wrong message that this is not a serious issue. Our energy problems aren’t going to be completely solved by increasing supplies (drilling our way to independence) or by conservation. It’s going to require both. Let’s keep that in mind, and not suggest that conservation won’t have an important role to play.

Taxes versus Subsidies

The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, has just issued a report comparing the effectiveness of fossil-fuel taxes versus renewable energy subsidies for increasing the usage of renewable energy:

Impacts on U.S. Energy Expenditures and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions of Increasing Renewable-Energy Use

From their concluding remarks:

Our analysis also indicated that increasing to 25 percent the share of renewables can significantly reduce CO2 emissions. However, the incremental increase in energy cost per unit of CO2 reduction varies widely depending on circumstances, reaching very high levels unless there is very substantial cost-reducing innovation in expanding renewables. Fossil-fuel prices that are higher than the baseline levels assumed in this analysis would induce greater use of renewable energy and thus reduce the incremental cost of achieving 25 percent renewable energy (thereby also lessening the need for setting this as a policy target). High fossil-fuel prices also improve the economics of other alternatives that can reduce GHG emissions and improve energy security, such as energy efficiency and unconventional energy sources.

The latest issue of Subsidy Watch also weighed in:

Rand Institute study favours fossil-fuel tax over renewable energy subsidies

A fossil-fuel tax would increase the cost of fossil fuels, making renewable energies more competitive; subsidies would lower renewable-fuel prices, allowing renewable energies to better compete with fossil fuels; while the revenue-neutral tax-and-subsidy mechanism splits the difference, using a fossil-fuel tax to fund renewable-energy subsidies.

Michael Toman, the study’s lead researcher, told a meeting of congressional staff on Capitol Hill that a fossil-fuel tax would encourage conservation, while also raising revenues which could be returned to the consumers to help offset higher fuel costs. In contrast, renewable energy subsidies shield consumers from real prices, giving them little incentive to conserve. Subsidies would also lead to an increase in government expenditures.

Their conclusion is the same as my oft-stated position: It makes more sense to raise fossil fuel taxes than to subsidize specific biofuels. The reason, as I have argued, is that subsidies attempt to pick technology winners. Taxes simply increase the cost of unsustainable fossil fuels and encourage competitors. In this manner, competitors can compete on a level playing field. A carbon tax should also minimize the kinds of political games we have seen where subsidies are denied for one biofuel and allowed for another.

Maybe the solution is not a biofuel at all. Maybe it is PHEVs powered by solar thermal electricity. But all alternatives are not treated the same with the current subsidy system we have in place.

Watch Stephanopoulos Grill Pelosi

George Stephanopoulos was relentless with Nancy Pelosi on ABC News regarding the question of allowing a vote on opening up more areas for drilling. In between repeated questions of “Why won’t you allow a vote?”, she repeated the canard about oil companies sitting on all of this undeveloped land (there already is a ‘use it or lose it’ provision), said that we need ‘real solutions’ like tapping the SPR, and said that allowing drilling wouldn’t make any difference anyway and was a gimmick. (Why not then extract money from the oil companies for the right to look?) She spoke out against the threat of global warming, and just as passionately called for oil to be released from the SPR, completely undermining her position on global warming.

See the video for yourself: Stephanopoulos Grills Pelosi

My hat is off to Stephanopoulos, as he didn’t let up. He kept asking the question, and she would throw all of these reasons out, and he would come back with “Why not allow that debate to play out?” He also pointed out her hypocrisy in refusing to allow the vote.

The Washington Post went after her as well in a Friday editorial:

No Drilling, No Vote

Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? “What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy,” she said yesterday when asked that very question. “What we’re saying is, ‘Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.’ . . . It is the economic life of America’s families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we’re saying is, ‘What can we do that is constructive?’ “

If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation’s energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn’t mean the country shouldn’t consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling — environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate?

The money quote, and the theme that Stephanopoulos kept coming back to: “If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote?“

I will reiterate my position. I think that by the time this oil would come online - perhaps 10 years from now - the country will be in desperate need of it. We could sell the leases now and dedicate that money to moving away from oil. This addresses both the supply and demand issues. I don’t support drilling without these kinds of conditions, because we will just burn that oil up and then we will be back where we started from - or more likely worse off. If we fail to do anything, then we will continue to send more and more money out of the country to feed our dependence.

My position is explained here - The Drilling Debate: Narrowing the Chasm.

The Lowdown on Miscanthus

Now that Blogger has determined that I am in fact a real person (see this note for an explanation), I am back in business. I notice the Barack Obama is now in favor of my proposal for allowing drilling and using that to fund alternative energy. Just glad I could help. Call me if you need an energy secretary who detests politics and doesn’t respond to direction very well. More on that proposal in a later post, but first there was some topical alternative energy news from a couple of days ago.

A new report from researchers at the University of Illinois suggests that using Miscanthus as a feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production would be far superior to switchgrass:

Miscanthus can meet U.S. biofuels goal using less land than corn or switchgrass

Using corn or switchgrass to produce enough ethanol to offset 20 percent of gasoline use – a current White House goal – would take 25 percent of current U.S. cropland out of food production, the researchers report. Getting the same amount of ethanol from Miscanthus would require only 9.3 percent of current agricultural acreage.

“What we’ve found with Miscanthus is that the amount of biomass generated each year would allow us to produce about 2 1/2 times the amount of ethanol we can produce per acre of corn,” said crop sciences professor Stephen P. Long, who led the study.

In trials across Illinois, switchgrass, a perennial grass which, like Miscanthus, requires fewer chemical and mechanical inputs than corn, produced only about as much ethanol feedstock per acre as corn, Long said.

One finding that I felt was significant:

“One of the criticisms of using any biomass as a biofuel source is it has been claimed that plants are not very efficient – about 0.1 percent efficiency of conversion of sunlight into biomass,” Long said. “What we show here is on average Miscanthus is in fact about 1 percent efficient, so about 1 percent of sunlight ends up as biomass.”

That’s pretty good solar capture for biomass. It is far short of the efficiency of solar cells, but you have a built in storage mechanism - the primary weakness of solar power.

So what’s the catch? Seems like there is always a catch, doesn’t it? The catch is that it is still highly energy intensive to turn this biomass into ethanol. You have energy inputs in growing and harvesting the biomass, getting it to the ethanol plant, converting the cellulose to sugars, fermenting the sugars to ethanol, and then purifying the highly dilute broth to fuel-grade ethanol. That is of course the conventional cellulosic route, and as I have argued before I do not believe this route will ever be commecially viable. The chemistry and physics are strongly aligned against you, which is why we have spent over 40 years failing to crack this nut. That doesn’t mean that companies won’t try to commercialize. They are trying. I just don’t think they will be commercially viable, any more than I think a company is going to cure the common cold in the next 3 years.

Biomass gasification is another story. While the capital costs are still very high, in the long run you may be able to justify growing something like Miscanthus for a gasification plant to produce ethanol, methanol, or diesel. First, though, there is a lot of available waste biomass that could be utilized. Use the waste that is currently rotting or just being burned, and then let’s debate whether or not to dedicate good cropland to growing fuel.

I Need Engineers

An off-topic post to be sure, but I need to find some engineers who want an opportunity to get rich while working in a ‘green’ job. My company, Accsys Technologies PLC, is looking for more engineers to support our Accoya® business. You can see a complete listing of our job openings here. However, what I am looking for is more specific.

I need process engineers, from fresh out of school to highly experienced. I need people who are prepared, at least for the first six months, to spend two weeks a month in the Netherlands working for our Titan Wood division and learning our wood acetylation process. For WWII buffs the city is Arnhem, home of Operation Market Garden (aka A Bridge Too Far).

These positions report to me, and I am very picky. I have gone through 100 resumes to find the right person. So let me be very specific on what I need. My ideal junior candidate will have a chemical engineering degree, a high GPA, some work experience, an interest in sustainability, an interest in travel and other cultures, the ability to get along with diverse groups of people, and most importantly they will be a creative thinker with the drive to see their solutions implemented. I am looking for inventive solutions to unusual problems. The person will be tenacious, but respectful. They will be persuasive without being overly pushy. They will demand high standards from themselves. Our process doesn’t exist commercially anywhere else in the world, so you will see some problems that are unique from a chemical engineering perspective.

My ideal senior candidate will have design experience. They will understand mass & energy balances, equipment sizing, PFDs, P&IDs, and will have been involved in some major projects. This candidate will help support the design and construction of the Diamond Wood facility in China, followed by the Al Rajhi facility in the Middle East. They will also help mentor and develop the junior engineers, who may be involved in unit support, or helping to support the new facilities. They will be able to assume the lead position when I am away.

For legal reasons, I am advised that applicants must be either U.S. citizens or hold a green card for positions that will be based in Dallas, Texas. Separately, I am looking for applicants who are authorized to work in the Netherlands. I think this includes citizens of all EU countries. This position will be based in Arnhem.

I don’t want to sort through a bunch of resumes, so let me provide some guidance. For entry-level engineers, if your GPA is not on your resume, I will ask you about it. I will ask for references. I will call your professors to find out their opinion of your ability. I am looking for people who excelled in their science and engineering classes. I am looking for someone who, without any references, can approximate the answer to this question: If you dropped a cannon ball from the surface over the deepest part of the ocean, how long would it take to reach the bottom? And they will understand why I asked that sort of question.

If I haven’t scared you off, and you are prepared to be shipped to Europe right away, look up my e-mail address in my CV and e-mail me a copy of your CV and any questions you might have. You may also feel free to ask general questions following this post. If your qualifications look like what I have described, I will call you back.

New Patent Granted

Mostly off-topic (but energy-related), I just got a notice that one of my patents that has been working it’s way through the system was finally granted:

Reactor and process for making synthesis gas

United States Patent 7,381,230
Rapier, et al. June 3, 2008

Abstract

The invention relates to reactor systems and processes for producing synthesis gas. In one embodiment, a reactor comprises a first reaction zone comprising a combustion catalyst, wherein the first reaction zone is operated at conditions sufficient to produce a combustion zone product comprising heat generated by the combustion of a fuel. The reactor further comprises a second reaction zone comprising a partial oxidation catalyst, wherein the second reaction zone is adapted to receive the combustion zone product and a reaction feed comprising a hydrocarbon gas. The second reaction zone is operated at conditions sufficient for partially oxidizing the hydrocarbon gas to a product stream comprising synthesis gas. The heat of combustion is transferred directly to the reaction feed by mixing it in a feed mix region located in the reactor between the first and second reaction zones, in such a manner that the reaction feed does not need preheating prior to entering the partial oxidation zone.

This patent is a gas to liquids (GTL) application, but has implications for CTL and BTL as well. From the time of application, it took 3.5 years for this one to be granted.