Another commercial-scale cellulosic biofuel plant began operation in the US this month. In a press release, POET-DSM Advanced Biofuels LLC called its new facility, in Emmetsburg, Iowa, the "first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in the US." Actually, in July 2013, INEOS Bio started what it declared to be commercial production of cellulosic ethanol near Vero Beach, Fla. But in December the company reported problems and expressed hope for continuous operation of its plant this year. Apparently, the problems linger.
So things go with cellulosic biofuel. The INEOS plant was one of two 2013 start-ups on which the Environmental Protection Agency based the cellulosic component of its renewable fuel standard (RFS) for 2013. The EPA expected as much as 1 million gal from INEOS and 5-6 million ethanol-equivalent gal of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel made from biological wastes by KiOR at a Columbus, Miss., plant that started in March 2013. In an August conference call, just days after EPA had issued its final rule on 2013 biofuel requirements, the company slashed its production outlook. Prodded by the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, EPA slashed the 2013 requirement. Last month KiOR said it needed more capital.
Two more plants
Reporting on start-up of the POET-DSM plant, which has a capacity of 25 million gal/year, the Energy Information Administration didn't mention the INEOS or KiOR plants. Instead, it pointed to two cellulosic-ethanol facilities that might begin operations this year. One is a 25-million-gal/year plant under construction by Abengoa at Hugoton, Kan. The other, a 30-million-gal/year plant by Dupont, is in Nevada, Iowa. In a sense, therefore, the POET-DSM plant is a first-in this round of projects.
Until last year, the EPA deliberately set challenging targets to push the development of ways to make biofuel from the inedible parts of plants. Those methods won't be pushed. Tax credits as high as $1.01/gal for cellulosic ethanol, federal loan guarantees, and other such help haven't advanced the US to anywhere near the dream of fueling cars and trucks with corn cobs and wood shavings.
In fact, they haven't advanced the country to anywhere near the targets set by Congress in 2007. The statutory target for cellulosic biofuel this year is 1.75 billion gal of ethanol equivalent. Through July, output totaled 76,910 gal. If all three Midwest projects mentioned by EIA were to start promptly and operate at capacity all next year-which, given the record, seems laughably optimistic-total output would be less than 3% of what Congress envisioned for 2015. Decomposing cellulose for fuel manufacture is not as easy as making ethanol from corn starch. It requires more than an act of Congress, implemented by a whip-cracking agency consistently late with annual RFS numbers.
The cellulosic-biofuel program is expensive folly. It makes refiners and importers buy credits to compensate for failing to sell required amounts of a substance that doesn't exist in those quantities. The requirement is unjust. And it's part of a broader program that mandates sales of more ethanol made from grain than the gasoline market can use. There, too, regulated enterprises must pay for failing to do the impossible.
Inflated ambition
The RFS program is collapsing under the weight of the inflated ambition of starry-eyed politicians. Some of that ambition is volumetrically excessive. Some of it is proving to be technically and operationally impracticable. Of course, the industry profiting from this fiasco cheers every plant start as proof that the age of cellulosic biofuel finally draws nigh. Everyone else should consider how many 30-million-gal/year plants the US needs to materially affect a 222-billion-gal/year liquid-fuels market and wonder how many false starts must happen before political ambition yields to physical realty.
The problem should end where it began: in Congress. Killing the RFS program would force both political parties to admit mistakes. This would represent bipartisan humility, chances for which, of course, approximate those for meaningful supplies of cellulosic biofuel.
