The Oil Drum

What Matters

Like many of you, I want to "make a difference." I have felt this way as long as I can remember. After my first child was born, it became almost an obsession to make a better future for the generations that follow. When I see children enduring hardship, I internalize that by imagining my own children in that situation (this is why I avoid the news, as well as any discussions of “Die-Off”). Sometimes I wish I didn’t feel this way as it is often depressing, but this is the way my brain is wired. I strongly feel that we are making choices today that are setting up future generations for just the kind of hardship that troubles me. This, above all else, is what motivates me. And while I may fail to make a difference, I am compelled to try.

A big concern for me is that quality of life for a large segment of the world’s population - never good to begin with - is poised for further deterioration as fossil fuel supplies deplete. Quality of life to me starts with the basics: People have enough food and clean water, they have shelter, they live and work in safe conditions, and they have adequate access to affordable energy. At various stages of my life I have had involvement in projects in all of these areas, but most of my career has been focused on the energy portion – both in providing adequate supplies, and in urging conservation efforts to stretch our supplies.

Some people think I am anti-ethanol. That is an oversimplification, and a misrepresentation of my position. I have nothing against ethanol as a fuel. It isn't as good a fuel as butanol, but then again we can't make butanol as efficiently as we make ethanol.

My objection is that I think the way we make ethanol in the U.S. is a big mistake, and we will recognize this eventually. It may happen following a drought in the Midwest that causes corn crops to fail. That may be what it takes before we recognize that recycling natural gas into ethanol via food was a terribly bad and short-sighted idea.

In the middle of vacation, I'm taking some time to try to cover the Clean Tech 2007 conference in Santa Clara.  I arrived Wednesday morning, missing most of the keynote speeches. When I got to the auditorium, Vinod Khosla was speaking.  He was getting near the end of his presentation and toward the Q&A.

Introduction

There is a lot of government funding available for cellulosic ethanol processes. So, I have developed a new cellulose conversion process. I plan to get some of that government funding and apply for a patent. The invention is a personal cellulosic biomass reactor. In the first reaction step, the cellulose is gasified to CO and H2 (syngas). In the second step, there are several options for the syngas: produce methanol, ethanol, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, or combust it for heat or electricity. I chose to combust for heat, which occurs very rapidly following the 1st step. The combustion products are CO2 and water, but the CO2 that is released is equivalent to the CO2 that was taken up by the biomass while it was growing. It is therefore carbon neutral with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. I am hoping to get some government subsidies, or possibly Silicon Valley startup money for my invention. You can see a picture of it below.

Voters in California will go to the polls in November to decide the fate of Proposition 87, also known as the Clean Energy Initiative. However, the ramifications of this proposition have the potential to be felt nationwide. I have previously written a pair of essays on Proposition 87 that you can find here and here. My position is not so much that I am against Prop 87, and I am certainly not against the intent of Prop 87. But I do have concerns about the proposition, which are explained in my previous essays.

In response to my essays, Dr. Ana Unruh Cohen, former Rhodes Scholar and the Director of Environmental Policy at the Center for American Progress, asked if I would mind posting a rebuttal from her. Ana is certainly no stranger to the Peak Oil debate; her father was the person who got me seriously interested in the subject. I think most of us share a desire that we pursue responsible energy policy, and I believe that through a civil airing of diverse ideas we can better determine just what constitutes responsible energy policy. One of the things I find most enjoyable about debating these issues is that it gives me an opportunity to learn from others, and my views can evolve as a result of the things I learn. With those things in mind, I am happy to offer up her rebuttal to my previously mentioned essays on Prop 87.

I am trying to spend more time writing on topics other than ethanol. But I get a lot of e-mails on that subject, and often have 3 or 4 mini-debates going on at a time via e-mail. I just finished a debate involving a government official and some big names over the energy balance of gasoline versus ethanol. There still seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding this issue, so I asked for permission to publish the exchanges. I was reluctantly given permission, provided I deleted the personal information from the government official (name and government agency). The exchange involved myself, a government official that I will refer to as "Tom", Michael Wang from Argonne, and Vinod Khosla.

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.

One thing I strongly believe in is the issue of fairness. I enjoy a good scientific debate, and I find that the best debates are those in which opposing sides are honestly presented. With this in mind, below I present Vinod Khosla's vision of our energy future. If you are like me, you will find aspects of agreement, and aspects of disagreement, and perhaps even strong disagreement. But it would benefit all parties to have a good debate on the technical merits of the issues.

Mr. Khosla is to be commended for presenting his ideas to what I expect will be a relatively hostile audience. So let's be respectful, and if you have criticisms, please make them constructive criticisms. Mr. Khosla has heard my specific objections on several occasions, so I won't reiterate them here. But I have assured him that readers of The Oil Drum are a sharp group of people with diverse backgrounds, and this will be a good place not only to present his vision to people concerned about energy policy, but also to get some good technical criticisms of his proposals. Mr. Khosla will be reading responses, so be sure to present your criticisms, praise, suggestions, or ideas with this in mind. Many of us wish to influence the direction of energy policy in this country. This discourse with Mr. Khosla is a golden opportunity.