Second-generation ethanol processing is cost prohibitive

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/second-generation-ethanol-processing-cost-prohibitive

Second-generation ethanol processing is cost prohibitive

2011-11-21

Costs for second-generation ethanol processing, which will ease the stress on corn and sugarcane, are unlikely to be competitive until 2020, according to a unique Queen’s University study.

“This study really lays out in black and white where we are and where we are going,” says Warren Mabee, an assistant professor in the School of Policy Studies and Department of Geography. “It should prompt companies to reassess (their processes going forward).”

The researchers found that building large scale facilities for second-generation ethanol production will be more costly than building plants for first-generation production. One reason is the extra infrastructure necessary for significant and costly pre-treatment of items like wood residue and waste paper. These replacements for corn and sugar cane contain multiple kinds of sugar while corn starch consists of pure glucose.

One solution to the high processing costs is companies responsible for just one part of the process, not building huge plants responsible for the entire process, Dr. Mabee said. This will reduce costs by spreading out the costs between more companies.

…

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.331

[MADem]

1. For now, but not forever!

I love the way headline writers put the "shit spin" on stuff.

[kristopher]

2. Current and future generation fuel cells are cost prohibitive.

If we apply the same reasoning.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Yup!

I’ve stated elsewhere that fuel cells are currently too expensive.

I’m sorry. This is relevant, how?

[kristopher]

4. It is a demonstration of the anti-battery electric spin in this string of articles you've posted.

Are you a financial stakeholder in a fuel cell company? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Oh! I’m anti-battery!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=317273&mesg_id=317310
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=315854&mesg_id=315854
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=314561&mesg_id=314561

(More ad hominem.)

[kristopher]

6. It isn't ad hominem

It is a direct and simple question. There is a major scandal in Japan because people who are financial stakeholders in the welfare of the nuclear industry attempted to sway public opinion without disclosing their financial ties to the industry.

That is a matter of basic ethics. On this site we are anonymous so there is no way to track the accuracy of your response, but still as a human you must possess a conscience and I'm making a request I believe you will be guided by your conscience to answer honestly.

Do you have a financial stake in in the success of fuel cells?

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Have you stopped beating your wife?

A simple yes or no will suffice. It’s an important question! The charges against Herman Cain remind us that violence against women is far too common in our society.

---

Not that it’s any of your business, but, no, I don’t have any personal investments in fuel cells. (I can’t say about my retirement funds.)

What you apparently fail to understand is that even if I owned and ran a fuel cell company, you are still using an ad hominem. Address yourself to the facts, not to the person who presents them.

[kristopher]

8. The presence of a conflict of interest is a relevant fact.

That is why disclosure is mandated in so many venues for discussion.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Have you stopped beating your wife?

Answer the question! (Yes or No?)

[kristopher]

10. I find it troubling that you wish to cloud the issue...

It is not possible that you don't recognize the difference between requesting disclosure regarding a vested financial interest in a product you are endorsing with a loaded question such as "have you stopped beating your wife".

Which begs the question of why you do it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. I find it troubling that you constantly employ ad hominems

Tell me about your investments.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Tell me about your investments.

Why is it taking you so long? What are you hiding?

[kristopher]

13. I have no financial stake in the success or failure of any energy related technology.

I've addressed this issue on numerous occasions.

"'I'm an independent self-funded researcher who has worked for 8 years trying to identify the type and source of misinformation in the public debate over energy.

I have a background in cultural anthropology and am trained on the subject of carbon mitigation policy, strategies and technologies. My professional profile would place me as an energy policy analyst specializing in the transition to a noncarbon economy."


My sole financial stake in this effort lies strictly with small possibility that I might attempt to publish the results of my research in the popular press as a book, which again would not depend on the success or failure of any technology.

It is unfortunate that you are offended, but your behavior in several cases has exhibited a distinct, very overt effort to misrepresent information related to battery electric autos and fuel cells. This link takes you to a perfect example.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=317778&mesg_id=317778

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. In what way is that a misrepresentation?

I can’t wait.

[kristopher]

15. You're going to have to...

..wait a long time.
I think it is self evident to any objective reader of the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=317778&mesg_id=317778

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Got it, more ad hominem

Address the topics.

“I think you know what I’m talking about…”

[kristopher]

17. It is argued in the thread itself.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Humor me

“I think it’s all quite obvious.”

[kristopher]

19. No.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Then don’t make charges…

…you don’t intend to support.

[kristopher]

21. The support is at the link.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Got it…

You won’t support it.

[Nihil]

23. Wife-beating? What else to expect from a fossil fuel supporter?

:shrug: