Ethanol production costs reduced by 60% by Carnegie Mellon Chemical Engineers

[JohnWxy]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070129-07571600-bc-us-ethanol.xml

Researchers upgrade ethanol production
PITTSBURGH, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. engineers have found a way to improve ethanol production, thereby helping ensure biofuels become a significant part of the U.S. energy supply.

Carnegie Mellon University chemical engineers say they used advanced process design methods combined with mathematical optimization techniques to reduce the operating costs of corn-based bio-ethanol plants by more than 60 percent.

The technology involves redesigning the distillation process by using a multicolumn system and a network for energy recovery that ultimately reduces the consumption of steam, a major energy component in the production of corn-based ethanol.

[elocs]

1. Ethanol has 30% less energy than gas so you get fewer mpg using it.

Have the Carnegie Mellon University chemical engineers solved that problem yet?

[NobleCynic]

2. Ultimately, that isn't pertinent

If the costs continue reduce, although I have my doubts as to how much further the efficiency of the process can be increased, but if the costs continue to reduce and gasoline continues to increase to the point where is ethanol is cost competitive on a cost / mile basis, then it doesn't matter.

[JohnWxy]

3. I guess you are new to this issue. I have posted many times that Ethanol is a high octane fuel.

Gasoline is not (92-93 for high test). THe higher octane of ethanol enables use of higher compression ratios which would cause dangerous engine knock (pre-ignition) with gasoline. You can also achieve a boost in compression using turbo-charging or super-charging. THis enables you to take advantage of the higher octane of the ethanol. The result is you get more power out of the same amount of cubic inches. This means you can reduce engine size. And with a smaller engine you get less fuel consumption.

Saab has done this with the 9-5 Bio-Power (2005). MIT engineers went a big step further by using direct injection of ethanol combined with turbo-charging and they get more power and are able to reduce engine size and get 30% better gas mileage than a gasoline-only engine of similar power. Ford is working with these MIT engineeers (with thir ne wstart-up company) to mass produce this engine by 2011. check here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x76034

THe BTU content is not a indicator of how a fuel will perform during combustion under pressure.

[lakeguy]

5. my bad, there they are!

[elocs]

6. Hardly. Please go to PeakOil.com and straighten them out about ethanol.

I am sure you will have your hands full debating people who have their own studies, engineers, and facts. There are plenty of credible and knowledgeable people who do NOT think that ethanol is going to be our energy savior. Everybody has their own studies and opinions, so it behooves everybody to study both sides and not swallow any single argument. Where I live there are many who are big supporters of ethanol because they are making a buck from it and that's why politicians like it.

[JohnWxy]

8. usually ethanol critics fault ethnaol because it is NOT our "energy savior". The critics say

that ethanol will not replace ALL the gasoline we need (thus won't be our energy savior) and therefor, they say, it doesn't deserve our attention or any investment. This reasoning is patently false in that even if ethanol can't replace ALL the gasoline demand that's no reason to not take advantage of the benefits ethanol can bring - reduced imports of gasoline, for one.

Regarding those studies you refer to ("Everybody has their own studies") I would like to see any studies you care to offer which purport that ethanol is not worth developing. So far, I haven't seen any that are convincing or even valid. The overwhelming evidence generated by legitimate research shows that ethanol production yields more energy in the end product than is invested in producing it. Here is one from the USDA for example - latest USDA study). Research conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State University and Colorado School of Mines all show that there is a net energy gain in producing ethanol. A meta analysis of six studies of Ethanol energetics published in the journal Science, Jan 2006 concluded: Ethanol can replace gasoline with significant energy savings, comparable impact on greenhouse gases. This compares to a 19% LOSS in the production of gasoline (Wang, Argonne National Laboratory).



The argument you insinuate that the only reason ethanol is being developed is that some people are making money from it ignores the fact that many more people (in the oil industry) are making much more money in petroleum with billions of tax breaks and program subsidies boosting their bottom lines. Were it not for these subsidies, gasoline would cost at least $5.00 a gallon at the pump( http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html).

In fact ethanol is justified by the legitimate research. IT can replace about a third of the gasoline demand (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and given research from MIT on direct ethanol injection engines that proportion could be boosted to 58% (if all cars and light trucks were using this engine). MIT direct injection ethanol engine gets 30% better gas mileage than gasoline only engine

[lakeguy]

4. what, no bold or funny colors?

[Javaman]

7. "thereby helping ensure bio-fuels become a significant part of the U.S. energy supply.

That one sentence I quoted above says it all.

I wrote an editorial sometime ago entitled, "the rise of the ethanol giant".

The production of ethanol has absolutely nothing to with saving our "car driving nation", it has everything to do with making money.

The various studies that have been done regarding the production of ethanol prove this point.

In the end there will never ever be enough ethanol produced to even remotely cover the required amount to keep the country moving.

If tomorrow, our resident in chimp* decided to use all the corn fields souly for ethanol production, it would barely cover 13% of our need. If he* then decreed that we have to use ALL of our fields for ethanol production (by all I mean all fields currently producing all of our fruits and vegetables) and that was the only thing being done. It would still only cover roughly 25-30% of our needs.

Now suppose that did happen. Lately a lot has been talked about this little thing called climate change aka global warming. Between the forest fires and droughts, how would production continue if say, a massive drought the likes of which Australia is currently experiencing, hits us? No crops, no corn, no fuel.

But again, suppose we have such amazing weather and it rains the right amount and gets the right amount of sun. Since ethanol production uses ALL of the crop, meaning, it not only uses the corn, but the stalks, husks and roots. This is stuff that is usually plowed under to "re-feed" the soil.

What usually follows is erosion. There already have been reported cases of fields going fallow because of lack of nutrients.

But wait, we will just use fertilizer, right? Nope. Just about all modern fertilizers are fossil fuel based. Now if you are not one of those "peak oil doomers", then the whole point of using fossil fuels to fertilize our crops totally goes against the whole idea of producing ethanol from corn. See my point?

But if you do believe in peak oil, such as I do, then we will need to rotate crops, to keep the fields healthy. But given the various models and the level of production regarding the out put of ethanol, it appears as if the "ethanol giants" seem to have found a way around this little fact and don't seem to be willing to tell us how they plan to do that.

So to recap. If we use 100% of our arable land for ethanol production, we won't have veggies or fruits, will have to export them all(which will be done with who's ethanol), we will be laying waste to the farm land and still at the end of the day, will repeat the same bell curve as oil.

As land goes fallow, less ethanol will be produced. But here's the fun part, as the land goes fallow, less food is also produced.

The solution is fairly simple. Cellulose ethanol production which is generated via agriculture waste.

But since corn is such a gigantic industry in this country and is in just about every single processed food that is made, I doubt seriously that this option will be explored.

The agra-corps own it all and they know it.

Check out the video "the future of food" and see which former Monsanto execs now inhabit our various branches of government.

As long as the crop is subsidized and an not the farmer (as in europe) this trend will continue forever.