Autoblog Green: Cellulosic ethanol "floodgates" will open in 2013

[txlibdem]

Cellulosic ethanol "floodgates" will open in 2013
By Eric Loveday
Posted Oct 23rd 2011 12:57PM


Output of cellulosic ethanol will surge starting in 2013, according to the U.S.' largest corn-based biofuel production firm, Poet LLC.

Poet says 2013 marks the start of commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol production in the U.S. and predicts its lone facility will "open the floodgates" for the advanced biofuel.

Come 2013, Poet will start producing up to 25 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol a year at its site in Iowa. In addition, competitors British Petroleum and Abengoa plan to have their U.S.-based advanced biofuel facilities online by the end of 2013.

Cellulosic ethanol differs from conventional ethanol because it's made mainly from non-edible substances, including corn stover, switchgrass or woodchips.

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/10/23/cellulosic-ethanol-floodgates-open-in-2013/

[NYC_SKP]

1. I think I'd rather they stay somewhat closed. Let's concentrate on electrics and hybrids.

There's an awful lot of support for ethanol, cellulosic and conventional, from the existing powers that be.

George Bush loved him some ethanol, for example, and perpetuating the use of the ICE just seems to be putting off the better path.

Nonetheless, I think that cellulosic ethanol development should continue, but not as a replacement for petroleum.

Thanks for the link.

:thumbsup:

[txlibdem]

2. It's only a stop gap measure until the vast majority of cars are electric

But if it works then why not use that instead of oil???

/edit to add: there are 140 million cars in America. It's going to take a long time to replace them with Electric Vehicles. And some drivers (with classic cars for instance) are never going to give up their cherished piece of iron.

[sofa king]

4. I don't claim to know for sure, but....

...I believe the most common argument against ethanol is that it takes much more energy to produce than it stores. It requires energy to till the fields and plant, energy to harvest, energy to control and maintain the fermentation reaction, and energy to distribute it.

Some of that energy input is usually petroleum based, because alcohol does not store the joules per liter needed to perform the operation all by itself--the previous production cycle does not produce enough stored energy to complete the process with a surplus of ethanol.

That's one reason why many here argue that cutting gasoline at the pump with ethanol is a terrible idea: to replace ten percent of the gasoline's volume with ethanol, you have to burn (and pay for) considerably more petroleum to get it in there in the first place. The alcohol begins to take on the price of the gasoline with only a fraction of the performance.

That's not to say that it couldn't be done. Augmenting the operation with solar, wind or nuclear power might help (obviously, solar power direct from the sun grows the plants in the first place, but that time and expense is free with oil because that solar energy was input a billion years ago).

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. “…more energy to produce than it stores…”

This may (or may not) be true for corn-based ethanol. Some studies suggested that it was true, more recent studies suggest it is not. The fact that there is some question should suggest that the energy advantages are not dramatic.

That’s part of the reason why http://www.google.com/search?q=celulosic+ethanol">cellulosic ethanol (ethanol produced from plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose">cellulose i.e. plant fibers) has gotten so much interest.

Check out this report for more information:
http://genomicscience.energy.gov/centers/BRCbrochure2010webFinalURLs_LR.pdf

[txlibdem]

6. +1 couldn't have said it better myself...

[sofa king]

7. Thanks, OK

I'll check into that when I have the time. And yes, my knowledge of the subject is dated, very dated.

One of my first lessons in "how the press is full of crap" came to me over the alcohol-in-cars issue, which was launched behind a large disinformation campaign during one of the fuel crises of the late 1970s.

A Washington, DC cab company purchased one alcohol-fueled test vehicle, and told a mooning press that the two-ton Crown Vic was getting 40 miles per gallon on its first day on the job.

"How come we don't run everything on alcohol?" I asked my father, an engineer.

"Because they're lying to you," said the old man. Then, on the back of an envelope, he showed me how--in BTUs--it was impossible for a regular old car to achieve a higher MPG with alcohol than with gasoline.

That basic math is still true and always will be, but does not take into account a myriad of tricks and techniques available thirty-five years later to lower the cost and energy input needed to make alcohol fuel. So what if it has two-thirds the output if it costs half the price to make? Unfortunately, as far as I know, that price point has not yet been reached. But I hope to find out I'm wrong.

[wakemewhenitsover]

3. K&R n/t