Tag Archives: congress
Building A New Biofuels Industry
Volume 91 Issue 4 | pp. 20-22 Issue Date: January 28, 2013 Building A New Biofuels Industry After years of delays, the first commercial-scale cellulosic fuel facilities are nearing completion By Melody M. Bomgardner Poet-DSM Advanced Biofuels, KiOR , Beta Renewables , and other firms will validate the technologies, confirm financial returns, and draw additional investment. “If you look at these projects, they show that the industry has come a long way,” says Jim Lane, editor and publisher of Biofuels Digest, an online newsletter covering biofuels. He’s not dwelling on past proclamations. “Sure, we could rerun the tape, but there were many things the companies were not in control of. The good news is they are here.” Cellulosic fuels are intended to be an alternative to petroleum-derived fuels and first-generation biofuels made from corn. The barriers to commercial success have been technology, the ability to scale up, and project financing. By 2008, after five years of laboratory work and pilot successes, several biofuels firms thought their technology was ready to go. But when the recession hit, the capital markets dried up, and the industry spun its wheels. “What we view as the dominant factor behind the slow scale-up is constrained availability of capital,” asserts Pavel Molchanov, research analyst for investment bank Raymond James in a note to investors. “Second-generation commercialization is a highly capital-intensive undertaking—much more so than the prior decade’s build-out of corn ethanol plants.” [+]Enlarge Molchanov says facilities based on technology that uses dense but cheap cellulosic feedstock such as timberland wastes or municipal waste come with the highest price tag. KiOR’s $222 million plant will make 13 million gal per year of its biocrude from forestry residuals. That works out to a capital cost of $17 per gal. Cellulosic ethanol plants that run on corn-farming leftovers, like the facility run by a joint venture of Poet and DSM, will carry capital costs of $10 per gal and up. In contrast, modern ethanol plants that run on corn sugar are built for close to $2.00 per gal. However, corn ethanol producers face high and volatile feedstock costs, and that is why cellulosic fuel producers are confident that their more expensive plants will still be profitable. “We wouldn’t be making the investment if we didn’t think it was an opportunity to generate good business for the joint venture,” says Wade Robey, a member of the Poet-DSM board. Robey says he is “very bullish” about Project Liberty, the venture’s first facility, located in Iowa, as well as plans to expand to other Poet locations that currently make corn ethanol. Expanding may bring new hardships, however. For companies that use agricultural waste, Lane points out, each new facility will be increasingly difficult to site because of what he calls the “biomass radius problem.” A typical facility consumes 285,000 tons of biomass per year, requiring a reach of 40 to 50 miles of cropland. The next plant must find its own untouched radius of land. All the more reason why it’s good to be first. Access to capital is the key reason why Beta Renewables’ plant, in Crescentino, Italy, will likely be the first to start commercial production. Beta’s parent company, Mossi & Ghisolfi, the world’s second-largest producer of polyester resin for bottles, has heavily invested in cellulosic ethanol research and development. Beta’s sister company, Chemtex, M&G’s engineering division, built the plant. “It was a gutsy decision to invest hundreds of millions of M&G’s own money to be first—to put their money where their mouth is and slash through the chicken-and-egg problem,” says Kevin Gray, vice president of biobased chemicals for Chemtex. Although the Italian plant will be built without any government assistance, Beta’s first U.S. facility, in Sampson County, N.C., will benefit from a $99 million loan guarantee and a $4 million biomass crop assistance grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Other projects have been similarly blessed. Abengoa can take advantage of a $133 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for its cellulosic ethanol plant near Hugoton, Kan. Ineos Bio has been awarded a $50 million DOE grant, a $75 million USDA loan guarantee, and a $2.5 million grant from the state of Florida. The more important government assistance, however, comes from the Environmental Protection Agency’s RFS, which requires fuel blenders to use cellulosic fuels in their product or pay a fine. By guaranteeing that all production will be bought, RFS drives investment in new capacity. Petroleum and fuel blenders are pressuring EPA to waive the requirement or even do away with it. “Congress foresaw that the aggressive renewable fuel standards might be unattainable and established several waiver provisions in the Clean Air Act, including for inadequate domestic supply,” Charles T. Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, recently said. “If zero production doesn’t meet the definition of inadequate, then it is time for Congress to reexamine the entire RFS and its failure to produce their desired results.” So far, challenges to RFS have hit a brick wall at EPA. The agency has not yet set the amount of cellulosic biofuel that blenders must use in 2013, but the Energy Information Administration has told EPA that it expects 9.6 million gal to be produced this year. In 2014–15, capacity will expand again as the first facilities from BlueFire Renewables, DuPont, Fulcrum BioEnergy, LanzaTech, Mascoma, and ZeaChem come on-line. Not every company is likely to succeed, but the scattershot approach will uncover technologies that work, Lane predicts. “You don’t need more than three if they work,” he says. “If you have a growing technology and you take the corn ethanol boom as an example, there is no reason you can’t build 100 or 200 of these plants a year.” Chemical & Engineering News Continue reading
EPA Slashes Cellulosic Biofuels Mandate
August 7, 2013 The EPA has slashed the amount of cellulosic biofuels that refiners must blend into their gasoline and diesel, from its initial proposal for 14 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel to 6 million gallons in the final 2013 requirement. The rule, issued yesterday, sets percentage standards for four fuel categories that are part of the Renewable Fuel Standard program. The final 2013 overall volumes and standards require 16.55 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be blended into the US fuel supply— a 9.74 percent blend. This standard specifically requires: Biomass-based diesel (1.28 billion gallons; 1.13 percent) Advanced biofuels (2.75 billion gallons; 1.62 percent) Cellulosic biofuels (6 million gallons; 0.004 percent) The biomass -based diesel and advanced biofuels requirements are the same as originally proposed by the agency in February. In all, the 2013 quotas represent an almost 9 percent increase over the 2012 mandated renewable fuel volume of 15.2 billion gallons. The EPA is also giving refiners more time to comply with the 2013 volume requirements by expending the deadline by four months, to June 30, 2014. During this rulemaking, the agency says it received comments from a number of stakeholders concerning the “E10 blend wall.” Projected to occur in 2014, the E10 blend wall refers to the difficulty in incorporating ethanol into the fuel supply at volumes exceeding those achieved by the sale of nearly all gasoline as E10. Most gasoline sold in the US today is E10. In the final rule issued yesterday, the EPA said it will propose to use flexibilities in the Renewable Fuel Standard statute to reduce both the advanced biofuel and total renewable volumes in the forthcoming 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard volume requirement proposal. In January, a US federal court struck down the 2012 Renewable Fuel Standard target for refiner use of cellulosic biofuels, which stood at 8.65 million gallons, but upheld the government’s goal for use of other advanced fuels. The EPA says the final 2013 standard for cellulosic biofuel announced today was developed in a manner consistent with the approach outlined in that ruling. The American Petroleum Institute (API) had filed a lawsuit against the EPA over the cellulosic biofuel target. There was no commercial production of the fuel last year, BusinessWeek notes. Despite the lower cellulosic biofuel requirement and extended deadline, some oil industry groups aren’t happy with the EPA’s final ruling. API president and CEO Jack Gerard called the 2013 biofuel mandates a “missed opportunity to fix the problem” and called on Congress to “immediately repeal the broken mandate,” echoing earlier calls by API and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers for a complete repeal of the Renewable Fuel Standard . The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), on the other hand, applauded the ruling and said it provides advanced biofuel developers and investors with confidence that if they can produce advanced and cellulosic biofuels, they will have market access. Efforts to repeal the program are “motivated solely by the oil refining industry’s desire to block competition and consumer choice at the pump,” said Brent Erickson, executive vice president of BIO’s Industrial & Environmental Section. The Energy Independence and Security Act established the Renewable Fuel Standard program and the annual renewable fuel volume targets, which steadily increase to an overall level of 36 billion gallons in 2022. To achieve these volumes, the EPA calculates a percentage-based standard for the following year. Based on the standard, each refiner and importer determines the minimum volume of renewable fuel that it must ensure is used in its transportation fuel. Continue reading
California Calling: Australia Isn’t Alone On Carbon Action
Tony Wood 2 Aug, 9:32 AM The Conversation Australia will not be linking its emissions trading scheme to California any time soon. But Australia will have to increase its emissions reduction targets to between 15-25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, following climate action by the European Union, US, Canada, and China. At a public seminar hosted by Grattan Institute earlier this week, the chairman of the California Air Resources Board destroyed two myths. Mary Nichols, one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people, demonstrated that the world is moving on climate change and that cap-and-trade emissions trading schemes are well and truly alive. However, political uncertainty regarding the future of Australia’s emissions trading scheme means that, for California, linking the Australian and Californian schemes, and by extension the EU scheme, are not an immediate priority. So, what can we learn from California and from climate action around the world? California dreaming This year President Obama resorted to regulation to ensure that the USA meets its target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. Professor Ross Garnaut joined Mary Nichols at last night’s seminar and noted that, before its election, the Obama administration had been looking to cap-and-trade as the most efficient and lowest cost way to reduce emissions. Having failed to get that legislation through Congress, they accepted that regulation would be necessary , albeit inefficient and higher cost. However, individual states have flexibility in how they proceed, and California has adopted an ETS . Its target is to scale back emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The scheme became operational from January 1 2013, and there have been three auctions of carbon allowances to date. The scheme now covers electricity, cement, refineries and other large industries, with natural gas and transport to be included from 2015. The scheme also covers emissions produced in other states to generate electricity consumed in California. Permits are currently trading above US$13 per tonne, and the scheme includes mechanisms to support companies so they don’t move operations elsewhere to avoid the carbon price. Linking to Quebec From January, 2014 the Californian scheme will be linked with Quebec’s cap-and-trade scheme . Mary Nichols made it very clear that this linkage had been carefully planned, and that there is close alignment between both schemes on the important design elements. While Quebec will auction its permits, in contrast to California’s decision to allocate most of its permits for free, this does not affect the value of the permits in the carbon market place. It will be interesting to see if and when other US states follow the Californian example, rather than go down the higher cost, regulatory route. While in Australia, Mary Nichols signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the chair of Australian Climate Change Regulator, Chloe Munro, to guide collaboration between the agencies in addressing the global issue of climate change. Both agencies intend to learn much from each other’s experiences in implementing an ETS. What about China? Discussion regarding international action on climate change and policies doesn’t make sense without considering China, now the world’s biggest emitter. Both Mary Nichols and Ross Garnaut highlighted progress being made in China to reduce the emissions intensity of its economy. Measures include shutting down old, dirty coal-fired power plants, constraining coal consumption, supporting renewable energy and introducing pilot ETS programs . At a conference on Tuesday, Xie Zhenhua, the vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said China could spend nearly $US300 billion on renewable energy in the current five-year plan. He also confirmed that, in 2015, the government will gradually expand the carbon trading pilot program towards the creation of a national market. Australia doing its part In Australia, both the government and the Coalition support Australia’s international commitment to reduce emission by 15-25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, conditional on international action. The actions being taken by the European Union and countries such as the US, Canada and China demonstrate that this commitment will need to be formally triggered. It may not be as neat as many environmental activists might wish, but global action on climate change is well beyond the claims of sceptics and those opposed to Australia’s playing its part in this action. In April, 2011 Grattan Institute’s report, Learning the hard way: Australia’s policies to reduce emissions , concluded that only an economy-wide carbon price can achieve the scale and speed of reductions required for Australia to meet its 2020 commitments without excessive cost to the economy or taxpayer. Adoption of this approach by an increasing range of governments suggests that this conclusion is the right one. Tony Wood is Program Director, Energy at Grattan Institute. He owns shares in a number of companies, both directly and via his superannuation fund. Some of these could be impacted positively or negatively by the policies associated with this article. This article was originally published at The Conversation . Read more: http://www.businesss…n#ixzz2atkOUETC Continue reading