Coskata

After only two years, Coskata is bull-dozing ahead toward its goal of producing cellulosic ethanol for less than $1 a gallon, holding the attention of not only a wide range of investors but the media as well.<br /> <br /> Gasification systems to turn waste into energy are gaining ground and Coskata uses just such a process coupled with anaerobic organism digestion to transform agricultural waste and other carbon containing cellulosi... More >>

After only two years, Coskata is bull-dozing ahead toward its goal of producing cellulosic ethanol for less than $1 a gallon, holding the attention of not only a wide range of investors but the media as well.<br /> <br /> Gasification systems to turn waste into energy are gaining ground and Coskata uses just such a process coupled with anaerobic organism digestion to transform agricultural waste and other carbon containing cellulosic material such as switchgrass and wood chips into ethanol. It can also take in other inputs such as old tires and municipal solid waste. <br /> So how does Coskata differ from other gasificiation or ethanol producing companies? Well, its final output is pure ethanol, as opposed to a mix that has to be separated. Their process produces over 100 gallons of ethanol per dry ton of feedstock (which is a lot for a cellulosic ethanol plant) - this not only reduces feedstock cost, but also reduces nearly all other costs on a per gallon basis. Coskata\\\'s process is also significantly less taxing on water resources. While other current methods of ethanol production take 3 to 4 gallons of water for each gallon of fuel produced, the Coskata process needs less than a gallon of water per gallon of fuel. Finally, there is little pre-treatment required for inputs. Though $1 a gallon may be a bit of a stretch as an estimate, it is certainly a worthy goal. Even if these technology differentiators can bring down production costs to $2 a gallon, Coskata would still be pretty well placed.<br /> <br /> But what really differentiates Coskata are its connections and business plan. It recently announced a partnership with the state of Florida and US Sugar to build a 100 million gallon per year plant to process sugarcane remnants in the middle of the everglades as part of Florida's effort to expand conservation and received funding from GM in January 2008 for its continued research. It further is preparing for a business model that includes licensing of technology, rather than building more and more power plants itself. This will further reduce the capital intensity while providing a road to growing revenues if the pilot plants go well.<br /> <br /> Of course, the GM money might not be renewed next year, but there are plenty of other investors in line. The company pulled in $40 million in December 2008 despite the recession. The Series C round was led by the Blackstone Group, through a venture funding arm and included support from prior investors such as Advanced Technology Ventures, Great Point Ventures and Khosla Ventures.<br /> <br /> I am a strong supporter of companies turning waste into energy, especially if the energy can be produced in a place that doesn't require much transportation. Coskata is on the right track.<br /> <br><span class=\"add_review\">On 12/31/2008, Ghazal added:</span><br> I would like to thank Daniel and Jake for starting quite a debate! <br /> <br /> I am the first to agree that ethanol is not the future. Ethanol based on corn is totally crazy and has only been supported domestically because of the fabulously powerful agricultural lobby. <br /> <br /> But as I said in my original review, I like the idea of transforming waste to energy and I have a special fascination with gasifiers: put agricultural waste / household trash / tires in one end and get fuel out the other? amazing. I think this type of waste to energy does have a place in the future energy mix.<br /> <br /> Thanks to Jake for unearthing some of the financial estimates for Coskata - I had not seen these before. I agree that the cost efficiencies are not there now. I am optimistic about cost coming down with further technological refinement, but would drop a star based on these numbers. << Less

Coskata has my praise (a small shred of it) on only one issue: they are focusing on other materials to produce cellulosic ethanol rather than valuable food crops like corn. At very least they recognize the sheer stupidity of expending valuable food sources in an inherently inefficient process. But again, the mere fact they are even pursuing ethanol as a solution will, in due course, result in collapse. <br /> <br /> To clarify some... More >>

Coskata has my praise (a small shred of it) on only one issue: they are focusing on other materials to produce cellulosic ethanol rather than valuable food crops like corn. At very least they recognize the sheer stupidity of expending valuable food sources in an inherently inefficient process. But again, the mere fact they are even pursuing ethanol as a solution will, in due course, result in collapse. <br /> <br /> To clarify some information posted by other reviewers – Coskata's claim to produce 7.7 units of energy per 1 unit expended in ethanol production is very transparent. The metric they use to calculate this figure is called the GREET model developed by Michael Wang from Argonne National Laboratory. Although a noble effort, it has been notoriously misused in calculations precisely like this one. It only takes into account certain factors affected by fossil fuel use during the production of a fuel, in this case, cellulosic ethanol. Many other energy sources and expenditures during the production of ethanol should be taken into account (but are not included in the GREET model) when determining how much energy is required (lost or wasted, in this case) to produce ethanol. How convenient for Coskata.<br /> <br /> In some ways, Coskata's use of grass, woodchips, and other random agricultural waste is even more inefficient than using corn. The only benefit here, as I pointed out earlier, is they are only wasting their own time and resources, not depleting food stores. Oh, and GM's resources, since GM is a major supporter of Coskata. But seeing as top management at GM recently flew in individual private jets to the capital to demand billions and billions of dollars in a bailout unwilling to accept negotiations (that's some nerve, huh?), I can't put much weight in their resources, nor their support. Bye bye, Coskata funding.<br /> <br /> I'd like to highlight some flaws in Coskata's approach. Their plans for a plant suggest they could feasibly produce 40,000 gallons of ethanol per year – this translates to under 3 barrels of ethanol per day. Sounds almost as impressive as it actually is. They have announced that they will need $25 million to build this plant on a pre-existing site. <br /> <br /> Firstly, for comparison's sake, The Energy Information Administration suggests that corn-based ethanol production for an average U.S. plant runs a price tag of around $25,000 in capital costs per daily barrel. To put that in perspective before we even look at Coskata, big oil companies churn out barrels of oil at around $3000-4000 in capital costs per daily barrel. <br /> <br /> Now, crunching the numbers based on Coskata's necessary $25 million in capital investment to produce under 3 barrels per day of ethanol, we come to a figure of over $9 million per daily barrel. Doesn't sound all that hot, does it? It's not. <br /> To get a more in-depth look at Coskata's destined-for-failure approach, I invite you to visit the grouping of articles I found most insightful in deciphering just how ineffective Coskata will prove themselves to be (http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/08/coskata-dead-man-walking.html). Funny enough, the article is titled "Coskata: Dead Man Walking." Promising.<br /> <br /> To spare you the rest of my rant on ethanol, I'll leave with one remark: There are many other places to waste your money besides investing in Coskata. Burn your spare dollars for fuel, perhaps – I'm sure it would be more efficient.<br /> <br><span class=\"add_review\">On 12/30/2008, Jake added:</span><br> Another, more in-depth and helpful article - same Author:<br /> <br /> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4454 << Less

I have always been a skeptic when it comes to the ethanol industry. (If it was a really good source of energy, it wouldn't need government subsidies to sustain itself).<br /> <br /> Now as for Coskata, they claim their process avoids some of the major limitations associated with the more popular, corn-based ethanol process currently in operation across the US. For the sake of other readers, the limitations to corn-based ethanol a... More >>

I have always been a skeptic when it comes to the ethanol industry. (If it was a really good source of energy, it wouldn't need government subsidies to sustain itself).<br /> <br /> Now as for Coskata, they claim their process avoids some of the major limitations associated with the more popular, corn-based ethanol process currently in operation across the US. For the sake of other readers, the limitations to corn-based ethanol are as follows:<br /> <br /> •Corn is a valuable resource and its usage as fuel feedstock has had an adverse effect on the cost and supply of food.<br /> <br /> •Land, fuel, fertilizer, pesticides and water consumption to grow corn for ethanol has a negative impact on the environment.<br /> <br /> •Energy consumed to produce ethanol is great; typically this energy comes from fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, etc). Ethanol from corn only returns 1.34 units of energy for each unit expanded. So we are burning a lot of fossil fuels to get energy from corn-based ethanol. <br /> <br /> So is Coskata's process much better than corn-based ethanol?<br /> <br /> The one positive element is that corn is not the feedstock. They claim to use "carbon based" input material. The following is from the website: "Virtually any carbon-containing input materials can be converted to syngas, including energy crops such as switchgrass and miscanthus; wood chips, forestry products, corn stover, bagasse and other typical agricultural wastes; municipal waste and industrial organic waste like petroleum coke" <br /> <br /> Let's also consider energy consumption. Coskata claims that the process can produce 7.7 times more energy than that used in making ethanol. This claim sounds much better than the 1.34 times factor for corn-based ethanol; so far, however, I'm finding little scientific evidence to back up this claim. In fact, I have found several references that this claim does not include all of the energy inputs into the process, and only reflects the fossil energy usage. If this process is to be considered a true "clean" technology, the company needs to provide evidence to back up this steep claim. <br /> <br /> Considering the logistics, the company claims that their process is geographically independent. While this may be true, obtaining feedstock would still be a major limiting – and cost - factor. For example, operation of a 50 million gallon facility (typical size of US ethanol plant) would require 500k tons of biomass per year, the approximate equivalent to 600k mature douglas fir trees. This significant amount of biomass source would need to be local or shipping by truck or rail.<br /> <br /> In summary, I'm not convinced that Coskata's process is really any better than the corn-based ethanol processes. Their energy consumption claims do not appear supported and the feedstock needs to be transported to location further increasing costs. <br /> << Less