Dead trees may fuel future
Energy Dept. helping fund plant to convert beetle-kill to ethanol
Gargi Chakrabarty
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Ken Papaleo / The Rocky/2007
Tad Fry clears trees killed by mountain pine beetles along Colorado 9 near Frisco last year. Summit County is one of the areas in the state hardest hit by the beetle infestation.
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
It could be a solution to Colorado's 1.5 million acres of dead and dying lodgepole pine trees struck by an infestation of mountain pine beetles: turning the rotting trees into ethanol.
Canadian companies Lignol Innovations and Suncor Energy plan to build Colorado's first cellulosic ethanol plant, which would convert beetle-kill and other wood residues into motor fuel.
The $88 million project received the federal government's blessing Tuesday, with the U.S. Department of Energy announcing its decision to foot more than a third of the total bill, or $30 million. The plant, to be completed by 2012, could be built in Commerce City.
"For this plant in particular, its use of beetle-kill was one of the factors considered during evaluation for federal investment," said Kevin Craig, a DOE project manager.
The plant's potential for commercialization, its technology and a byproduct of the process, lignin, which is used to make lubricants and other industrial products, were other factors that helped attract federal dollars, Craig added.
It was among four proposed bio-refineries nationwide that together received $114 million from the DOE.
The federal government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support research into cellulosic ethanol, which uses switchgrass, forest waste and other biomass to make fuel. Critics say continuing to use corn to make ethanol is not a sustainable proposition because of the effect diverting food stocks for fuel could have on food prices.
At the demonstration stage, the plant would process 100 tons of wood residue per day, producing 2 million gallons of ethanol a year.
Lignol spokesman Bruce Wigle said the company has tested its cellulosic ethanol technology at a pilot plant in British Columbia. The technology originally was developed by General Electric and Repap Enterprises at a cost of more than $100 million.
"The pilot plant in British Columbia has successfully tested various feedstocks, including stock from large areas in British Columbia that has been devastated by the beetle," Wigle said.
Suncor, which owns the oil refinery in Commerce City, signed a memorandum of understanding with Lignol in March 2007 and supported Lignol's application for federal funds, Wigle said. It's not clear, however, whether or how much Suncor would invest in the plant. Currently, Suncor markets only corn ethanol in the state.
If successful in Colorado, Lig nol's technology could become an effective solution to the state's beetle-kill epidemic, which threatens to kill all mature lodgepoles in three to five years.
Observers have long said that thinning of forests, which could contain the beetle attack, could become very expensive unless there is a ready market for the felled trees.
Lynn Young, a retired U.S. Forest Service public information director, has been quoted in the Rocky Mountain News as saying: "The Forest Service is desperately trying to locate and stimulate new markets because that's what it's going to take. Cellulosic ethanol is a real good product, but it's expensive to get it out of Colorado forests."
An example of that was the announcement last year of plans by Broomfield-based Range Fuels to build the nation's first commercial plant to make ethanol from wood chips in Georgia, not Colorado. At the time, company CEO Mitch Mandich said Colorado's beetle-infested forests, spread over thousands of miles, was not a reliable source of wood.
Suncor spokeswoman Lisha Burnett said the company and Lig nol are "working through all the details," including where to locate the plant and how to collect beetle-kill and other wood residue for the plant.
"We have a vision of sustainability and alternate fuel to complement the petroleum products that we produce," said Gord Pinard, Suncor's general manager of biofuels. "We see a promising technology in what Lignol has to offer . . . but Suncor has not yet formalized an agreement."
chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976
Colorado's first cellulosic ethanol plant
Project details
* Owners: Lignol Innovations and Suncor Energy
* Possible location: Commerce City
* Cost: $88 million (includes $30 million from U.S. Department of Energy)
* Capacity: 2 million gallons of ethanol a year
* Feedstock: 100 tons a day of wood residues, such as dead and dying pine trees infected by mountain pine beetles, and forest waste
* What is cellulosic ethanol: Fuel from plant matter, such as grass and wood chips
Comments
Posted by CharliePeters on January 30, 2008 at 5:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Will fuel ethanol increase oil use and oil profit?
* Some folks think so
* Clean Air Performance Professionals
Posted by SASQUATCH on January 30, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another government boondoggle. Now that water thirsty corn and energy thirsty corn ethanol have bombed at the pump in the form of massive food inflation, Uncle is now going to give a wack at trees. Underwritting some 1/3 of the estimated $88 milion cost, it expects to generate 2 million gallons of ethanol per year. Pissant. And great economics too: if ethanol was priced at $4 per gallon, that 2 million annual rate translates into $8 million worth of product per year--about 1/11 of the cost of the new plant. Assuming a $1 per gallon profit margin (25%), the break-even payout is 44 years--2052 if the plant were built today. Excuse SASQUATCH while he laughs his hairy buttox off.
Meanwhile, we sit on top of endless supplies of coal, crude, shale, natural gas and nuclear power--all out of bounds and all bottled-up. The lodgepole solution!
Posted by glowrock on January 30, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Endless crude and natural gas supplies, SASQUATCH? Are you insane?
I agree with you that nuclear power plants need to be built for our electric needs. I completely disagree with you about your so-called analysis of the cellulosic ethanol plants about to be built. These are TEST PLANTS, not COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS! Before spending a billion or two on a commercial plant that may or may not produce appropriate fuel at a reasonable cost, it's very appropriate to build a few test plants with different methods of producing cellulosic ethanol, and then compare costs and results, before constructing larger facilities. Test plants are about research and testing, not about commercial operations. At least not yet.
Sasquatch is a fool.
Posted by SASQUATCH on January 30, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NO GLOWROCK, YOU ARE THE NUT HERE.
With 85% of the energy-rich outer-continental shelf out of bounds, ANWR out of bounds, new CRUDE refineries out of bounds, nuke power plants out of bounds, shale projects out of bounds, new coal gasification projects out of bounds and the Roan and Vermillion all bottled up, its a wonder that our economy can function at all. We got it all and more than enough--right under our butts.
The wacky renewable alternatives proposed by the tin foil hat wearing, moonbat crowd during the Jimmie Carter era are stll B.S. If $100 crude hasn't pushed solar, ethanol, biofuels, windmills from alternative to reality over the past 3 decades, it ain't ever going to happen. We don't need demonstration projects from Jurassic Park. Some things never changed, recycled B.S. from decades ago will remain tomorrow's B.S. that will be recycled by the next generation of fools. We have the obvious solutions, we need to explore and drill right under our butts.
Posted by BMat on January 30, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is really not about ethanol at all.
Something has to be done with all the beetle kill in Grand and Summit County. This WILL be the Colorado "Katrina" if something isn't done.
Ever see a twenty foot tall Roman Candle? Good, now picture 500,000 acres of them. The fire WILL happen and it WILL be bad. The air in Denver will be thick with ash and particulates and the run off will pollute reservoirs and other water supply. No more fly fishing or peaceful mountain views.
You can ban campfires and cigarettes but you can't ban lightning. When the fire occurs in the former lodgepole forest it will make the Haymen burn area look like a kid in the front yard holding a sparkler.
Ethanol or anything else is fine. Just get rid of the fuel for the fire before we replace vacation homes with FEMA trailers.
500,000 acres folks. This is NO JOKE. Ask your governor and your legislative representative what they plan to do AND WHEN!
Posted by ParkHillPosse on January 30, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sasquatch, indeed you are the foolish monkey suggested by glowrock. This is not about drilling for oil, or the liquification of coal, or other conventional heavily polluting energy sources. It's about satisfying our need for energy in the context of reducing carbon proliferation in the atmosphere, and concomitant climate destabilization. Thus, while you're correct that ethanol is NOT the long-term answer (e.g. because of it's tendency to hold water, and thus reduce energy extraction), it's a short-term (relatively low-hanging fruit) impact, in addition to energy-efficiency. Biomass and biofuels, geothermal, solar, advanced battery power...the list goes on. The economics are improving, and the advances are achievable (for example, moving from feed corn-based ethanol to corn stover-based ethanol), but what it takes is a commitment to new technology, and solving the problem, not a myopic perspective of just "drilling more oil." ANWR should remain closed, and on a global basis, the cheap oil has already been extracted. Your perspective is disappointing and you seem to ignore the fact that a solution can be achieved through focused research.
Posted by ParkHillPosse on January 30, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, Sasquatch, your taunting of the folks who pursue renewable technologies, and your deprecation of the technologies themselves, most clearly illustrates your lack of engineering and scientific knowledge. In the 1970s (presumably when your attitude was formed), many of these technologies weren't viable; but this is not true today. Check out the Colorado Cleantech Initiative, the NREL website, the CU Energy Initiative, or many other sources for examples of technologies that are viable and in development. These scientists deserve our respect for their innovativeness and willingness to address a problem that people like you seem to believe will go away if we only drill more oil, and your idiocy is representative of a pathetic and myopic approach to US geopolitical security and global energy and environmental security. You are a pathetic moron; are you working for an oil and gas company?
Posted by BMat on January 30, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These are all eloquent posts but they all miss the point.
THE POINT friends, is to mitigate fire danger.
It doesn't really matter if we make fuel or frozen drinks out of the trees. Let's not get sidetracked by a discussion of alternatives to and/or the viability of fossil fuels.
Ask your governor and your legislative representative what they plan to do AND WHEN.
Posted by rellimpank on January 30, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
----"Ask your governor and your legislative representative what they plan to do AND WHEN."--
--Ask, too, what any of these proposals for clearing hundreds of thousands of acres are going to cost the rest of the taxpayers who don't happen to have built in an area where they will get burned as Mother Nature takes her course----
Posted by BMat on January 30, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rellimpank -
Your view is remarkably myopic. It's a head-in-the-sand denial of the real problem.
This disaster will negatively impact tourism (which is the main industry in Colorado) for many, many years. Skiing, fishing and camping will all pay a heavy toll. That will effect the life and income of EVERY Colorado resident.
It doesn't really matter if you own a vacation home or not rellimpank. Look past your own front porch!
Posted by WillyNilly on January 30, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BMat gets the big picture. This isn't some debate about biofuel feasability or profitability. We *must* create a market for these dead trees to get rid of them, and fast.
If we don't take care of the situation, nature will, and it could be a disaster unlike any we've seen, with far-reaching consequences in both the short and long term.
I liked the analogy to the Hayman Fire. Denver Water has spent millions trying to clean up the mess that made for our water storage and transportation system on the S. Platte and continues to do so. Not to mention the environmental and asthetic damage to the watershed. But since the economics of this idea has been challenged, I am focusing on that side.
A great deal of the beetle killed forests are located within our complicated structure of reservoirs, canals and tunnels on the other side of the divide, which we rely on when east slope snowpack is low. Throw thousands of tons of silt and burned logs into that and see how much it costs to clean it up.
All it will take is a few weeks of dry, hot weather with a lot of wind, and a spark...we've been lucky so far but luck always runs out.
Posted by rellimpank on January 30, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
--"or $30 million. The plant, to be completed by 2012, could be built in Commerce City"--
A pilot plant--in four years--$30 million--what a fiasco--(I'm laughing almost too hard to type)
---let everybody with a house in the way remove the fuel for an acceptable distance, have the power company clear the powerline right-of-way, and let 'er burn---that's what's gonna happen anyway---
Posted by albert on January 30, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with using beetle killed trees for lumber or ethanol or anything in order to reduce the chances of a catastrophic fire. But, if that's the underlying reason, why not build the ethanol plant in Grandby or Kremmling or somewhere close to the dead trees? It doesn't make sense to haul them all the way to Commerce City.
Posted by chendricks on January 30, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Editor:
This is baffling to me, as investing 88 million in a plant that is located on the opposite side of the continental divide from the center of gravity of the mass of dead and dying forests just does not make economic sense. At current prices for ethanol, it is reasonable to consider that transportation costs and timber removal costs will not allow an economic return from this enormous investment. Even though this is a pilot project in the early stages, why not locate the plant near the center of gravity for the feedstock.
Either I don't understand the logic or someone has made an enormous blunder.
Charles J. Hendricks
6620 W. 10th Place
Lakewood, CO 80214
303-239-6538
Posted by AJacksonCountyStar on January 31, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I live in the middle of the state’s third hardest hit pine beetle infested county, Jackson, and work for a logging operation. I’m all for alternative fuel technology that capitalizes on readily available resources (yes, there’s a “but” coming here). We won’t know until Lignol/Suncor’s pilot program is evaluated whether taxpayers’ $30 million was well spent. I hope it is, but I’m not betting the farm on it.
I see two major errors in the Lignol/Suncor plan: 1). Cellulosic ethanol was a good idea ten years ago, but Lignol/Suncor is behind the curve. By the time the plant is built (2012), the dead trees will have burned up in a megafire, the likes of which have never been witnessed in recorded history. Though those of us living in beetle country have known of this epidemic for years, it wasn’t until the Hayman fire that preoccupied Front Rangers got a glimpse of the devastation forest fire can wreak on the environment and the economy. We simply couldn’t get anyone’s attention until the effects glimmered in the rear view mirrors of politicians and industrialists who felt they could either be personally impacted or could capitalize on our losses. I feel so sorry for the recently impacted, wealthy Boulderites whose scrawny backyard pines have turned to rust. Wake up and smell the fire.
The effects of a megafire will not only impact counties like Jackson, Grand and Summit (the three hardest hit counties in Colorado), it will devastate agricultural, skiing, hunting, fishing, and other industries statewide; not a small issue for Colorado. Colorado’s watersheds supply water to no fewer than eight downstream states. And 90% of water consumed by human activities in Colorado occurs in agriculture. It won’t be for long. BMat and WillyNilly got it right. Colorado hasn’t begun to see water problems until the water turns to an ashen mud.
Posted by AJacksonCountyStar on February 1, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
P.S. The beetle epidemic stretches the full length of the Rockies; from Canada through central New Mexico. The West as we know it will never be the same and the environmental and economic effects will resound far outside our Colorado borders. Guess what Canadians did years ago when the beetle epidemic first took hold. They sold their timber to the U.S. with the help of NAFTA, undercutting our timber prices and putting all but one major sawmill in the state of Colorado out of business. In fact, 95% of wood used in Colorado construction comes from out of state.
2). If the beetle-killed timber is in the forest, why build the plant in Commerce City? Competitor Range Fuels chose to build its cellulosic ethanol plant in the middle of the Georgia forest where trees are grown commercially. Range Fuels is depending on a long-term supply of biomass to feed its plant for many decades to come. So build the Lignol/Suncor plant near the source of the supply. Why not Jackson County? God knows our struggling economy could use a shot in the arm knowing that our economic base of recreation, logging and ranching will soon go up in smoke.
Side note on transportation costs: The 100 tons per day of timber Lignol/Suncor needs to feed its pilot plant equates to roughly four log truck loads of timber. At a market price of $30/ton (that’s what a pellet mill will pay), a logger gets $750/load at market for the dead stuff . That’s $750 to cut, skid, delimb, deck, load, truck and unload. Four loads per day barely keeps a small logger in business (want to guess what worker’s comp and liability insurance costs are in the fourth most dangerous job in the world?). At that level, Lignol/Suncor will have created jobs for just five loggers.
And to rellimpank, who says, “Ask, too, what any of these proposals for clearing hundreds of thousands of acres are going to cost the rest of the taxpayers who don't happen to have built in an area where they will get burned as Mother Nature takes her course.” We’re all going to get burned rellimpank, whether we’ve built in Winter Park or Park Hill. I think the smoke must be clouding your view.
Is the Lignol/Suncor ethanol plant the be-all and end-all to Colorado’s pine beetle epidemic? Nope. But when one is drowning, even a punctured life raft looks good.
Posted by bookwerm on February 3, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some very good points here. IF one is to make Ethanol, that should occur as close to the source as possible.. carrying all those logs 100's of miles pretty much defeats the purpose of getting positive energy gain out of the deal.
HOWEVER... what is REALLY best is something hardly EVER talked about. Why even MAKE ethanol? Look up 'wood gas' at wikipedia, or just search via google. You can make HUGE power with JUST THE WOOD! No expensive ethanol process, no big factory..all you need to do is build a power plant NEAR the power lines. And bing bang boom, you make energy.
Check out
http://www.gocpc.com/
Essentially you can run a car on wood, a generator, or whatever! You partially combust VERY cleanly, and use the producer gas to run an engine. By the time you take into account ALL THE NET LOSSES of ethanol production for Cellulose (NOT in the bag), you come out WAY ahead just combusting the wood.. and no, you don't put up more CO2, same or less.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.