The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 18, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

The Transition to Second Generation Ethanol

Rick Kment - DTN Biofuels Analyst
August 25, 2008  |  87 Comments

Amidst high fuel costs and a governmental push to become less dependent on foreign oil, the United States has launched one of the largest renewable fuel efforts in the world -- rivaled only by Brazil. But unlike Brazil, the U.S. was ushered into the renewable fuels era utilizing corn crops as the primary input. Although corn was relatively cheap during the early phases of the U.S. ethanol boom, rising commodity and food prices have placed increased urgency on the development of cellulosic or second generation ethanol.

Currently, the United States has 162 corn-based ethanol distilleries in operation with an additional 41 plants under construction and approximately five to 10 that are undergoing expansions. According to recent reports, the U.S. ethanol capacity has risen to 9.4 billion gallons replacing approximately 7 percent of the nation's gasoline. With the number of current operating plants we are on mark to quickly reach the 15 billion gallon cap on corn-based ethanol mandated by the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). But as we all know, the RFS has mandated the overall production of 36 billion gallons per year by 2022, which leaves a sizable gap that will need to be filled by second generation ethanol.

Although there is already a demand for cellulosic ethanol, there are no commercial, second generation ethanol plants currently in operation. There are projections that the first commercial cellulosic ethanol plant could be operational in a matter of two to three years; however, there are significant challenges the industry must undertake before a successful evolution to second generation ethanol can occur.

Technology

The first challenge will be a consolidation of technology and uniformity amongst plants. The corn-based ethanol industry has been more than 25 years in the making. Along the way to our current state of mass production, many changes occurred in infrastructure, technology, plant development and operations to increase efficiencies and make the industry commercially viable. Today's corn-based plants use one of two methods in creating ethanol — wet milling or dry milling — and although the processes are not identical at every plant, they are similar.

With second generation ethanol there has yet to be a set of standardized technologies proven to be the best or most efficient. The industry is experiencing a true disconnect with research and developers experimenting with countless types of processes. This is partially due to the fact a second generation ethanol plant should have the ability to use whatever type of input is most readily available. The popular current methods include biochemical (enzymatic and fermentation), thermo-chemical (gasification and carbohydrate reforming) and hybrid (gasification and fermentation).

The situation is similar to the battle between VHS and Beta tapes or to the more recent struggle between HD and BlueRay DVDs. Eventually, one or two of the best methods will need to push their way to the front as the industry favorites.

At this time, there has yet to be one method that has proven on a commercial level. So although the industry is sure to shift to second generation ethanol, the reproduction stage is expected to be relatively slow.

Infrastructure and Transportation

Other challenges will need to be addressed in the industry's infrastructure. Similar to the struggles the current ethanol industry is facing, new plants will have to overcome the logistical problems with transportation. Particularly, cellulosic plants will have to find a way transport increased input capacity. On average, a first generation plant would have to transport approximately four tons of corn per acre, but with inputs like switch grass or woodchips this volume could increase by as much as 20 to 30 tons of input per acre. This increased amount of input will need to be transported to the ethanol plant — most likely by truck — which will have an impact on an already strained transportation system and arterial road system around the ethanol plants.

Once transported another challenge will be the storage of inputs. There is a laundry list of items that researchers are currently experimenting with as ethanol inputs and as a result, each plant is going to need different methods to accommodate the storage of various items. For example, a woodchip plant will look quite different than a plant using residential wastes and will each require unique storage facilities.

Corn-based ethanol plants had the advantage of using an input with an established system with set protocols to not only store the product year round, but also to transport that product from the field to the storage facility. Grain elevators will not likely begin storing a random assortment of inputs such as switch grass and wood chips to accommodate a small number of cellulosic ethanol plants. Each plant will have to plan on procuring and storing its own supply of the necessary inputs.

A Move toward Hybrid Plants

There are a few well-established ethanol companies already producing corn-based ethanol that have begun building and integrating second generation technology into their existing plants. One ethanol company has begun expansions on a current plant to produce ethanol from both corn and corncobs. This hybrid plant would accept corn inputs at one side of the plant and corncobs on the other, and use both inputs to create one finished product.

The expansion of established corn-based plants to incorporate second generation ethanol production into their current operations might be best first step to successful commercialization of cellulosic ethanol. Granted, there will be some companies that strictly produce either corn-based or cellulosic ethanol; however, an integration of the two or the creation of hybrid plants might create the most amount of momentum for the cellulosic ethanol industry during the next two to three years.

As the necessary evolution occurs shifting from the U.S. from first to second generation ethanol there are still many unknowns that have been yet to be determined. Finding the most efficient production and technological methods and overcoming infrastructure hurdles will be the first task at hand for the industry. As the emphasis on and urgency for cellulosic ethanol continues to grow it is important that the research and developers share discovers to ensure the U.S. is able to create a strong commercial cellulosic fuel industry.

Rick Kment has more than 15 years of experience in the agribusiness industry. As an industry analyst, Kment writes ethanol market comments for DTN and provides other ethanol and biofuels commentary and analysis, as well as assists with shaping biofuels news coverage and serving as a biofuels expert at industry seminars, tradeshows and other public events. His commentary has been feature by the Wall Street Journal and the Dow Jones newswire. Kment's diverse experience has allowed him to obtain a hands-on approach to the ever changing biofuels and agriculture industry.

87 Comments

Register To Comment
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 5, 2008
Fred,
In my view, the coexistance of Arable Land and Water is fully subscribed.
Complaining about a relatively small area occupied by golf courses may be a waste of breath (who knows perhaps we can trade golf for a clean planet), bu my guess is that golf at very least is a motive not to pave over even more of our deforested land.

New grids are expensive. I suspect we're going to solve our energy problems without grids. Wave energy on the coasts, wind and solar inland, with some algae production and methane to fill in the gaps. That could probably meet current consumption without new grids.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 5, 2008
Then I congratulate you on your projects---and I hope they all turn out very well.

You've never said where you are---in some places there is a shortage of water---especially exacerbated by continueing droughts in the South and West. However, much more often, the problem is not so much not enough water---the problem is CLEAN water. I see the water problem as much more extravagant waste and and completely regardless pollution than one of legitimate use. Golf coarses in the middle of deserts. Run off from stripmines and abandoned industrial sites. Ground water contamination from deep mines.

I think we view water in a differing ways. We have plenty of water, if we use it wisely and don't pollute it. One thing I'd like to see happen---a national water grid. Similar to the electrical grid. Wind and solar generators along pipelines would punmp water to reseviors located near the continental divides. This would store energy as hydro power, and also store water that could be routed to areas that need water.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 5, 2008
Fred,
Telling is cheap, show me we can /economically/ make ethanol without arable land and water. (corn per se is a red herring).

Twice you accuse me of criticism without practical suggestion. That's uncalled for. There is always a place for scientific criticism, and your criticizing the conclusion that there isn't enough extra water world-wide to allow for fresh-water biofuels by attacking me ad hominen is less than friendly and not particularly persuasive.

It's both wrong and untrue to suggest that just because someone is advocating for scientific rigor that they are undermining a cause or the nations interest. for example: I actually support your position of Algae fuels, and inquired about a distributorship of algae equipment, and found an algae farm to visit. Moreover, I have several active Solar projects underway, some on the drawing board, and some prototypes built. By butt does get too much sitting on as you suggest, but that doesn't mean nothing is doing.
Best.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 5, 2008
You are STILL harping about corn ethanol after I've told you 50 times that we can make ethanol out of ANY type of plant material. The same plants that make ethanol out of corn can make it out of sugar cane, beets or sorghum. We can make it out of wood and there are 250-300 paper mills that do just that right now but they are burning the basic ingredient--wood liquor. Input the energy from wind, solar or something else and you have 100% solar energy. Grow algae and we can replace petroleum at a rate of one gallon replaces 2.3 gallons of petroleum. We only need to replace 45% of petroleum usage to be able to do all the same things we are doing right now with the same infrastructure and vehicles.
--------"but no one has ever been to sustainable energy on a national scale."--- Brazil has and its economy is booming thanks to the fact that they are exporting the oil they don't need to the US.

While you are sitting around whining and crying---the US economy is sinking. Time to stop being a whinny, pouting, cry baby who has NO practical suggestions who sits around and throws rocks just for the sake of hearing yourself babble. In WW2 Germany provided all of it's power needs from fuels produced from wood and coal by Fischer-Tropsh. That included 140 metric tonne Panzer tanks, Me 262 jet aircraft, and V1 and V2 rockets. South Africa did all of its mining with vegetable oils. Much of the farming in the US was done with diesels run on vegetable oils.
Biofuels are the only technology that answer every need, involve the least amount of change to infrastructure and current system, and do everything we need. I think all of your sitting around on your butt, whinning and looking for some pie in the sky solution when the best solution is right in front of us, well used and well tested, is stupid. We don't need more research---the answer is already here, right in front of us, and has been all along.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 4, 2008
Fred,
I do very much like the idea of Hybrid Solar-Thermal and NG/methane, You're right a small amount of methane can go a long way to riding out cloudy weeks.

I'm not with you on the business plan picture though. The price of water would immeasurable by the pricing system you use, indeed, many things are necessary for life, and their price is not infinite. Price has more to do with the relationship between supply and demand, than the criticality of a commodity.

And I disagree that an Energy Plan should be reduced to platitudes such as the "every trip begins with a first step" in fact every trip begins with a good plan; usually called a map, perhaps a star, or a direction, but no one has ever been to sustainable energy on a national scale. Demanding that people take a first step discounts the many first steps which are and have already been taken. The truth is we've been taking steps for many years now, and it turns out we are exactly where we have started. We are no less dependent, and no more sustainable, than 30 years ago - indeed, we are going backwards by all accounts. This Pollyanna view that the best plan is more of the same random, irrational, un-rigorous poli-sci-fi - such as corn ethanol must be challenged. Some scientific discipline must be applied to the chaos of our energy policy.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 4, 2008
------"Say we supply 5% of the nations energy from recaptured methane. Is that possible, how much would that cost."--------

Ben, methane is the end product of biomass decomposition in anaerobic conditions. Biomethane will be produced whether we capture it or not. Methane produces 17X the heat capturing greenhouse effect that CO2 does. If we capture methane that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere---and mix it with natural gas in just a 6% mixture, we reduce greenhouse warming by converting high heat capture CH4, with relatively much lower heat capture CO2 and H2O.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 4, 2008
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. If you don't take the step--you will never get to the end of the journey.

----"Say we supply 5% of the nations energy from recaptured methane. Is that possible, how much would that cost."-----

Of coarse it is possible. We can supply all the methane we want. We WILL supply 5% at some point---on the way to 100%. If we are having trouble making enough methane---and we are stuck at 5%, we can do other things. We can conserve and improve efficiency--if we reduce usage by 1/2 --let's say we use solar thermal to heat water instead of gas, and just have the gas for backup--our 5% suddenly becomes 10%, AND each incremental increase we make suddenly counts for twice the increase. Converting to solar thermal water heating would be easy enough--we could even use waste heat from making the methane. Composting produces HUGE volumes of heat--that could be taken off directly. That is done already and has been for over 100 years--many farmers heat barns with compost.
Expensive? Making compost is not expensive. It has been done for thousands of years. What is left over is the most fertile soil you can get. Go to a garden shop and check out how much a bag of composted top soil costs. Then check out how much a bag of artificial fertiler costs. Add the two costs together. That is the amount of money that you will save using composted plant and animal waste instead of artificial fertilizer. And you will have superior soil. Artificial fertilizer kills beneficial bacteria in the soil,compost puts them in. The more you use, the better the soil becomes. Rich, organic top soil is one of the most basic needs we have in this world. We cann't possibly have too much fertile top soil. Top soil is worth exactly as much as you think it is worth to stay alive. You want to stay alive, you need to eat, you need top soil to grow food.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 4, 2008
Fred,
we never would have got to the moon with that approach.
That's like saying we're closer to the moon if we stack some boxes on top of the kitchen stool - "every little bit helps".

If you want to achieve a significant goal, you have to focus on the plans that can get you there within the budgetary and resource constraints of your reality.

I agree that recapturing methane can be constructive, but it is in my opinion a mere distraction unless it could provide a measurable component of our energy needs. Say we supply 5% of the nations energy from recaptured methane. Is that possible, how much would that cost. I'm afraid we can't even get to the second question.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 4, 2008
No goals whatever will be met if nothing is done.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 3, 2008
Fred,
I could agree that catching methane is generally a good idea, but I doubt there is enough there - there - to significantly affect fuel Independence. I'm fairly confident the winning technologies will be those which meet energy independence goals first, and environmental concerns second.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 3, 2008
Frank---the reason that I favor natural gas as a replacement for coal is that it can have biomethane (the only difference in natural gas and biomethane is the source it comes from)--- mixed in, in any proportion with no loss of performance. As more biomethane becomes available, you could simply use it mixed straight in with NG with no other change in equipment.

I hope your project works, it sounds to me like a thing that is WELL worth persueing. It sounds to me like it would be perfectly adaptable to installing capacity in steps. If there aren't the resources to install an entire replacement system, install a small set up first, then add more later on.

Here's the catch----methane has 17X the greenhouse effect of CO2. If you catch CH4 and burn it, you convert it to CO2 which has 17 times less heat capturing greenhouse effect. Deteriorating biomass is going to produce CH4 whether we catch it and burn it or not. The more that is captured and burned = the less greenhouse warming that will occur.

Using NG fossil fuel and mixing methane with it in a large enough proportion can actually give a negative greenhouse effect.
Frank J. Heller
Frank J. Heller
September 3, 2008
Ben, I'm on the verge of selling home 'natural' bio-gas 'factories fueled with both organic solid and liquid waste. They are made in India and need a bit of adaptation for the U.S., let alone Maine. .....but it's a start and the higher the price of alternative fuels the more attractive is the prospect of generating a portion of your natural gas from native renewables on a semi-sustainable basis.

The market target are really small organic farmsteads with several cows; more cows, more gas. Gas is usually burned to make hot water, something we use a lot of; it can also be scrubbed and compressed as an alternative fuel for vehicles or even in generators or in fuel cells--where It is rapidly becoming a preferred fuel.

If you value 'clean' than you can't beat natural gas.

If you despise---and who doesn't?, dependency on foreign oil supplies--esp. those cheeky Canuks!, then a backyard 'brewery' that only costs $500 or less, should be very appealing.

We sell service and support contracts, in case you decide to dumpdetergent or disinfectant in the digester and you kill off all the microbes in there...beats having to have a Ph.d. run your hydrogen plant or your son, the GOTH.

Once again, it's about politics and what's important to one...some like clean air; some like to make money trading carbon credits to guilt ridden liberal progressives.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 2, 2008
Right Fred, there is no way we can sustain the current population with a cave and firewood approach. That said, the population would quickly adjust ;-)
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 2, 2008
I've got an idea!!! Let's all go back and live in caves. Or will we have to worry about the market price of firewood?
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 2, 2008
Fred,
The NG mistake was already made in commercial electrical production, it was touted as cheap - Combined Cycle engines are more efficiency, and the cost per peak Kw is much lower even than dirty coal ( ~$700) - and they can be commissioned incrementally; however, there was so much new NG demand that the price of NG went up and a lot of the cost advantage was lost ex post facto.

If consumers buy an CNG car under the pretense of lower NG prices, and the price of NG doubles due to the new demand, those cars could become too expensive to drive.

I would counter-propose a diversity requirement for automakers that requires minimum quantities for a variety of suitable energies.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 2, 2008
--------". The more demand we place on NG, the higher goes the price. "--------

What is wrong with that? As price of NG goes up---it will impel the market to add renewable energy sources that do not require fuel input. Wind, solar, geothermal hydro power to reduce the need to purchase natural gas to a minimum. No subsidies required, normal market forces will move things in the renewable resource direction.

There are lots of sources of ethanol. Cellulose will be the main source of ethanol. Corn will continue to supply ethanol, but the corn will be directed at which ever market makes the most profit. If the price for corn used for food goes up, farmers will sell their corn where they can make the most profit. If that is for food, that is where the corn will go. If farmers cann't make a profit growing corn, they go out of business. No one has any corn for anything, food, fuel or anything else. Corn already has thousands of uses. For instance---corn is the base ingredient of biodegradable trash bags.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 2, 2008
Fred,
Natural gas is a non-starter. The more demand we place on NG, the higher goes the price. Naturally NG sellers, like "Pickens and Pelosi", would love nothing better than a mob mentality of "NG Only".

NG has a steep price/demand curve, Corn Ethanol has an even steeper relationship between ethanol demand and food prices - meaning a 1-2% use of ethanol has contributed to a 100% rise in food prices. That a hundred-to-one price/demand. If you want to argue, that ethanol wasn't the ONLY fact, you can get that curve down to 50:1, or maybe 10:1 but even 10:1 is a crazy steep price/demand curve.

NG has what - a 3:1 price demand curve? That's a seller market mon frair.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 2, 2008
It is not worth a single soldier, or one child with asthma----let get rid of oil and use biofuels.
Let's get rid of coal and use natural gas---we can STILL lower greenhouse effect if we do that even though it is a fossil fuel. There is plenty of room for renewable energy AND natural gas in a new energy environment.

Here is how:

http://groups.msn.com/BreakingTheChains/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=166&LastModified=4675686739890487706

Ben---you last statement is what I have been trying to persuade people to do all along. We don't need to figure out the dollar amount of fossil fuel subsidies---let's get rid of them and figure out how much we've saved later. I am sure it will be a very considerable sum.

"Do what you can, with what you have, from where you are."
------------------------------Theodore Roosevelt
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 2, 2008
Fred,
I disagree that you can undo the artificial advantages of oil by removing current subsidies. This is certainly not true for Nuclear, which has been soaking up subsidies for years. A Fair playing field would invest as much money in renewable energy as we have already spent in subsidizing oil and nuclear.
The other challenge is that you cannot calculate the value of fossil fuel subsidies (how much is an American Soldier worth in Dollar bills?) how much is the coal-induced asthma of a child in Appalachia worth in dollars and cents?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 2, 2008
Get it on the market where people can buy and use biofuels. They will be economically viable. People WANT to buy biofuels now, for environmental, for economic, for social and for political reasons.
Get biofuels in the market place, take off ALL subsidies on oil and make it pay its own way, no special favors, and oil will be as dead as the dinosuars it was formed from. Within 10 years. Easily.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 1, 2008
Fred,
re: arguing for its own sake. I suggest you underestimate the value of arguing. Every university stages arguments, the purpose of which is to learn and to study.

During this debate, I've done some research on high-lipid algae for biodiesel; I'm still a little undecided as to whether or not this technology has reached economic viability. I will say that I believe at current oil prices, oilgae is viable, and part of the reason it isn't being pursued more aggressively is the fear that oil prices will come down again.

I think the US could make large strides toward energy independence by providing a hedge against future oil price declines.

If the US were willing to provide a zero-based subsidy for bio-diesel along with a carbon cap&trade, I believe we would begin to see commercial production.

The zero-based subsidy would be zero at todays oil prices, but if oil prices went down, the subsidy would support the difference. The government would then have to tax oil in order to raise the money to fund the subsidy of more expensive biodiesel. Provided biodiesel remained a minor portion of the energy mix, the tax offset would be small.

Would you support such a zero-based subsidy? Anyone else?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 1, 2008
It doesn't matter how they started out---they are fossil fuels now. Burning fossil fuels puts new CO2 into the atmosphere and that is causing climate change.

My statement is not hyperbole. All you are doing is just argueing for the sake of argueing.

What the hell is "white-flight"? That is only a problem in YOUR mind. There IS no such thing. You are against grid tie technology because we aren't using it already---how are you ever going to have new technology if you don't start using it. You are against biofuels because you prefer the old petroleum technology. You are just being a professional anti-everything. Your arguements don't even make logical sense. You don't want to solve any problems---you just want to argue. Have another bannana, and enjoy your tree, the rest of us are leaving.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
September 1, 2008
Fred,
I think you missed the point of Russ's statement - It's actually a fairly old standard by Buckminster Fuller - and it seeks to measure consumption on the basis of renewal. Because Oil represents large accumulations of carbon (Biota) sequestered and concentrated over many millions of years, the consumption of Oil represents the consumption of Biota (from the past) What's of note is the relative rate of consumption, and his point is that we are consuming Biofuels (that's right all fuels are biofuels) at a prodigious rate.

"If we left everything..." Ok I enjoy hyperbole as much as the next guy. Thank goodness everything isn't left to one person.

You suggest that Grid-Tie is technology neutral, show me two large states in which the compensation for grid-tie energy is technology neutral?
That still doesn't solve white-flight.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 1, 2008
----"That said - there are some risks of changing the terms of a utilities monopoly. Specifically if the rich can effectively opt-out, there is a potential for white-flight from the grid (or rather rich-flight) - leaving the poorest subscribers holding an increasing portion of the costs. While there are some utilities which can avoid costs as people add PV, other Utilities cannot, and these regs compel them pass those costs onto subscribers.
I doubt that such as system could be scaled up to say 75% without seriously jeopardizing the remaining 25%."---------

If we left everything to you, we'd still be living in trees eating bannanas and being lectured on how you cann't kill animals with sticks with sharp stones on the end because there aren't enough trees or rocks to provide the materials necessary to make the tools on a global basis.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
September 1, 2008
-----"Fred,

We use just over a year's worth of the planet's entire biota every day. Fossil fuels are an energy dense accumulation of hundreds of millions of years worth of biota. We can't come close to replacing it with biofuels of any kind at today's rates of energy consumption."---------------

That is the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. Mankind cann't even SEE all of the worlds biota. The amount that mankind uses would be less than millionth percent of the total.
You need to stop just making up numbers and statistics out of thin air. What you suggest is just plain impossible. If there were anything even remotely near that kind of number going on, even 1/10th of one percent we'd have all died of suffucation years ago.

Plants produce oxygen which you need to breathe. Plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen. With no plants, CO2 builds up and oxygen goes down. Do that long enough and you and all other animals will suffocate. If there are no plants to produce oxygen, you cann't burn carbon compounds. The cycle stops. Animals would die. Plants would remain alive becuase they still have CO2. If all plants die. Then animals die. The system stops entirely. You cann't have animals without plants. Period.

-------"Your saying the grid should behave like a farmers market where everyone can buy and sell power - I have no problem with that - But I have a big problem with a provision which allows ONLY PV owners to benefit."------

Where did I say that? Solar PV is well suited for grid tie and makes a lot of sense economically for all parties involved. But grid tie is solely the delivery method. It does not matter where the electricy comes from. Grid tie is only collection, and distribution. The power can come from solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, wave, or a kite with a wet string and a key.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 31, 2008
Russ,
I object to the predominance of PV-specific inducements on the books (see DESIRE for federal and state by state listings). If policies were attribute-oriented rather than technology-centric, then technologies could compete on cost - instead, the US is directing the verdict on technology by providing unequal opportunities for innovators by imposing an arbitrary litmus test.

Your saying the grid should behave like a farmers market where everyone can buy and sell power - I have no problem with that - But I have a big problem with a provision which allows ONLY PV owners to benefit.

That said - there are some risks of changing the terms of a utilities monopoly. Specifically if the rich can effectively opt-out, there is a potential for white-flight from the grid (or rather rich-flight) - leaving the poorest subscribers holding an increasing portion of the costs. While there are some utilities which can avoid costs as people add PV, other Utilities cannot, and these regs compel them pass those costs onto subscribers.
I doubt that such as system could be scaled up to say 75% without seriously jeopardizing the remaining 25%.
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
August 31, 2008
Fred,

We use just over a year's worth of the planet's entire biota every day. Fossil fuels are an energy dense accumulation of hundreds of millions of years worth of biota. We can't come close to replacing it with biofuels of any kind at today's rates of energy consumption.
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
August 31, 2008
That's a good point, Ben

I don't think the government should be subsidizing the purchase of roof top solar any more than it should Priuses. However, it should make rules that allow panel owners to sell their excess power to the grid. That is a necessary development to develop solar and their is no measurable cost to other consumers. As the number of panels gradually increases the utilities will be able to make changes to accomodate them.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 31, 2008
Russ-----

-------"If America wanted to stop importing all oil, we could do that by just converting coal and shale into natural gas and liquid fuels. That technology was used by Germany to fight world war II and is used today in South Africa for much of their fuel."-----------

That is the Fischer-Trosch process, exactly the same process to convert wood to ethanol. Why dig up coal or oil shale from 200-300 ft. undergound, ruin the earth with stripmines and destroy water sheds----when all you have to do is rake up dried leaves and tree limbs and make exactly the SAME thng using exatly the same process?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 31, 2008
Who said ANYTHING about forcing anyone to do anything?

Every part of my plans are entirely voluntary.

The good thing about rooftop solar PV---they are available now--can made a significant amount of power---are beneficial to BOTH utility and customer at reducing costs--are scalable and upgradeable---if you don't have a large budget, start small and add more panels later. The payback from grid tie starts immediately in the for of directly reducing monthly bills and actually getting you a check from the utility each month if you produce more than you use---a good incentive to use less.
Havng grid tie systems that spread wealth from energy production and sale widely throughout the populaton also have large benefits economically, socially and politcally.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 31, 2008
Russ,
While I agree with you on Ethanol, I would put rooftop PV in the same category. Forcing (poorer than average) grid customers to support the richest folks on the grid while they make a microscopic and often redundant contribution back to the grid.

Google and Vinod etc... are funding CSP like Ausra, eSolar, and Brighlight. These are Utility scale projects with some reasonable expectations of impacting the energy mix.

In your opinion, what are the compelling reasons to continue funding rich-top PV? Tell me it's not the myth of 2cd-gen PV?
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
August 31, 2008
Sherry,

It's a little more complicated than that. If your only concern is for America to stop importing the 10% of the oil we get from "unfriendly" countries, that is real easy to do just by increasing gas mileage 10%. A 24 mpg Outback improving to 26.8 mpg is an example of that.

If America wanted to stop importing all oil, we could do that by just converting coal and shale into natural gas and liquid fuels. That technology was used by Germany to fight world war II and is used today in South Africa for much of their fuel.

The flys in the ointment are cost (buying oil off the world market is much cheaper than converting shale and coal) and greenhouse gases. If you can't find a source of energy that is both affordable and does not increase green house gases you don't have a solution. Ethanol as produced today is worse than oil in both cost and environmental degradation, not to mention it's helping to starve the poor.
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
August 31, 2008
My educated guess for long haul trucks would be to put the trailers on trains and have them met by trucks at the end of their destination, as is done with container ships. I've seen a design for a dolly that can chain together trailers so they can be pulled by a locomotive, skipping the process of stacking them on train cars. Wish I had a crystal ball.

Obama is a politician. He speeches are just words. Government alone can't save us. What can save us is good governance. By that I mean, government rules and enforcement of those rules that will unleash the power of the market on the problem. Rules that force utility companies to pay for residential solar, put a price on carbon, protect carbon sinks. The government has to then stay out of the way. It can't let lobbyists from the corn or soy industry, or the coal industry or whatever industry convince it to support their product. The competition has to have a level playing field. The Prius, for example, a market solution driven by consumer demand, is doing more than any other government program to reduce oil use.

How many people didn't buy a high mileage car because of government support of crop based biofuels which led to the Live Green, Go Yellow flex fuel SUV debacle, and the surge in biodiesel powered cars that eat ten acres of soy oil a year?

America has vast coal and shale reserves that can be converted to natural gas or even liquid fuels. Are they worse than oil pumped from the ground? For sure. Are they worse than crop based biofuels? Probably not. Crop based biofuels increase the cost of food and cause grassland and forest carbon sinks the world over to be plowed under because of the the high food price signal--the second leading cause of GW. Will cellulosic come to the rescue? If cellulosic were to meet the most optimistic goals, it would still only be a drop in our energy use bucket. We simply can't let cellulosic be used as an excuse to support crop based biofuels.
Sherry Jan
Sherry Jan
August 31, 2008
Ethanol is one piece of the puzzle America has yet to put together to get us out of the iron grip of our dependence on foriegn oil. We need a president who will go full speed ahead and implement every resource available to free us.

www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 30, 2008
Russ,
Ouch, that's what I call wide-eyed reality.
For me the first clue was water, or rather the lack of it.
Some follow up questions. Is is practical for larger trucks to cut fuel by 50% with hybrids? Or is it more likely 50% of long-haul will go by super-effecient train?

Can I mention that Obama's goal to "put American's on new energy in 10 years" exceeds Kennedy goal in a remarkable way. If Obama had said we will spend half the treasury to put 1 man on new energy - that may have been comparable, but Obama has said we will put 300 million people on new energy - measured in terms of raw infrastructure and energy handling, there are several orders of magnitude difference between the two. It takes a spoonful of energy to put a man on the moon - compared to the energy require to get 300 million people fed and to work everyday.
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
August 30, 2008
...in seven agricultural states?
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
August 30, 2008
"…The situation is similar to the battle between VHS and Beta tapes…"

The analogy breaks down for a couple of reasons. There is no consumer demand for ethanol. It is blended into our supply by government fiat. We are not only forced to subsidize its production, but we are then forced to pay to have it blended into our fuel and finally to buy it back regardless of price as a blend in our gas. Few people would buy this poor quality environmental and humanitarian disaster given the choice.

Next, both types worked. They were not unproven lab experiments like cellulosic and last, consumers got to choose.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm

The government also did not prop up the VCR industry with hundreds of billions of dollars for decades on end.

"…This hybrid plant would accept corn inputs at one side of the plant and corncobs on the other, and use both inputs to create one finished product…."

Cellulosic skeptics have predicted this move. Gone is the switchgrass ideal where there would be little fertilizer or water needed, carbon would be sequestered by roots, and it would all enhance wildlife habitat. Instead, farmers will continue to use their fields as giant pots where they pump in fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to grow corn. The stover will be used for fuel leaving nothing to put back into the soil, requiring more fertilizer inputs and on it goes. Food and fuel will continue to compete for the same product, keeping food prices high and growing.

"…As the emphasis on and urgency for cellulosic ethanol continues to grow …"

Urgency is a figment of the imagination. Consumers are free to purchase high mileage cars. My car is a five-passenger hatchback and cuts oil use in half. What makes more sense? Cut America's oil imports 50% by simply driving high mileage cars or cut America's oil imports 7% by usurping all of the cropland i
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
August 30, 2008
Fred, biofuels are helping to raise the price of food:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/31/95925/2107
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
August 30, 2008
There are no second-generation fuels. Cellulosic ethanol and algae biodiesel are hypothesis (they don't exist and may never prove viable) being used to justify the continued government support of crop based biofuel and all of their attendant humanitarian and ecological devastation in the name of profit for a handful of players--politicians and those they provide with pork to keep themselves in office. Everyone else loses.

"…According to recent reports, the U.S. ethanol capacity has risen to 9.4 billion gallons replacing approximately 7 percent of the nation's gasoline…"

Does not compute. My spreadsheet shows that 9.4 billion gallons would only replace 2.6% of our gasoline supply. Sources:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a103600001m.htm
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm

Let me put that into perspective. To actually replace 7% of our gasoline (factoring in the decrease in gas mileage from ethanol) would require every square inch of all available cropland in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia and then some. This would cost taxpayers over 13 billion dollars in 51 cent per gallon federal blenders subsidy alone, not to mention state subsidies.

"…The corn-based ethanol industry has been more than 25 years in the making…"

Translation: It has been, and continues to be, propped up by government pork for well over a quarter of a century and still can't compete in a free market even with the cost of oil at record highs.

"…So although the industry is sure to shift to second generation ethanol…"

This is repeated over and over as if it were a fact. Cellulosic can't compete with cane. Ethanol is going to come from sugar cane imported from South America grown on free land where the Cerrado and Amazon carbon sinks once stood.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 30, 2008
Just for the record. The REAL cause the rise in food prices is not ethanol or biofuels. We have always been making those. The REAL cause is inflation, brought on by deficit spending to fight two wars basically over oil. We are spending over $700 Billion to fight a war over Iraqi oil reserves. Money that the government borrows. In effect, crank up the printing presses and print new money and putting it into circulation. All those little green pieces of paper floating around are worth less and less, pretty soon, people will be dropping $20 bills in the parking lot and not even bothering to pick them up. Just like pennies or nickels. We are spending nearly $ 1 Trillion dollars per year to buy oil just to burn it. This is transfering wealth out of the country to foreign markets. This is the basis of the housing market crisis---America is losing equity because of oil and it is showing up in the economy. Food costs more because EVERYTHING costs more. You see it in food first because food is something that everyone needs every day.
What you are seeing is the begining of the end of a society that is based on a fossil fuel economy. Fossil fuel is running out, and with it, the society that is built on cheap oil energy is going to collapse too. Don't think that there is a lot of time to sit around argueinng about things, we've already wasted over 30 years argueing and doing nothing.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 29, 2008
Yes, biomethane is another option. And I agree with you it is a good option. I see it as more useful in fixed point applications----but you are right, there is no reason it couldn't be used for vehicles too. It already is for shuttles in areas where pollution needs to be reduced. And it works very well. I think that is probably where it would first be used, city busses for instance.

The only problem with its use in vehicles is that we aren't set up for it right now, but that doesn't mean that couldn't change in the future. In the meantime, I can see a lot of use for biomethane in utility and home use. It is chemically the same as natural gas and we can mix any proportion we want depending on availability. If we don't have enough to cover needs, we mix it, as availability of biomethane grows, we can increase the mix and not affect performance in anyway. The consumer at the other end would not be able to see any difference at all.
Marston Schultz
Marston Schultz
August 29, 2008
Which biofuel can be made without crops, is the cleanest burning vehicle fuel available now, has an existing infrastructure and is the cheapest at the pump. The answer is not biodiesel, not ethanol but Compressed natural gas. Natural gas is renewable. We can make our own natural gas (methane) from our organic waste stream. Sewage plants, by using Anaerobic digestion, can produce biomethane. Organic material going into landfills can be used to make biomethane. The solids and liquids left over can be returned to the soil as non petroleum based fertilizer. The existing natural gas grid can be expanded. Anywhere there is a gas line, you can put a fueling station. You can even put a fueling appliance in your garage and fill up at home.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 29, 2008
If that is the case Ben, then the price of DDG goes down and the price of fuel goes up. Farmers would find it more profitable to plant beets and get six to eight times the ethanol producing capacity that they would planting corn. That is the nice thing about a diversified system where you can substitute inputs. More than twice as much corn goes to produce high frutose syrup than is used for DDG/ethanol. If corn is diverted from fructose syrup production, it can easily be replaced with cane or beet sugar---that is what we were using in the first place. The switch to corn syrup only came about when corn prices were lower than sugar prices.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 29, 2008
Fred,
The problem with using byproducts is that they scale up to meet demand independently. The demand for fuel, I would assume, is potentially much larger than the demand for DDG.

Let's hope some of these issues can be resolved - but generally I understand we can get far more energy from CSP than from biofuels with less water and less land requirements.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 29, 2008
Frank,
ouch.
I like your point actually about converting tax sinkholes into a profit center - were you proposing that ethanol production is a profit center, and food production was a tax sinkhole?

Unfortunately, they are both tax sinkholes. I do hope that biofuels can come around; but I don't believe they can make a big difference - because there isn't enough untapped arable resources - pretty much anywhere in the world - that know of.

Africa has plenty of land and sun - no Water - Maine I suspect is wet with less sunshine.

Florida's arable land is currently producing food crops where possible I'm sure.

I use the phrase BioHummer to represent the red states' simultaneously endorsement of corn-biofuels and high cafe standards which promote huge vehicles like the governator's favorite.
Frank J. Heller
Frank J. Heller
August 29, 2008
Ben, I can only speak for Maine; but we are a water exporter and under current climate conditions our lakes are overflowing.

Hurricane FAY dropped over 24" of water on Florida; suggest you contact them as well.

Converting sugar to fuel has a lot of routes to take, whether corn or cane or ??

The economic benefit of midwest farm prosperity after decades of deep debt is not to be discounted; as is putting land long out of production back into production and turning a tax sinkhole into a profit center.

It's all a matter of values and priorities! I didn't know HUMMERS could burn ethanole? ....but it makes great propaganda for Obama's energy policy, which appears to have been ripped off of the USDOE's web site.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 29, 2008
------"Unfortunately, corn ethanol was food for fuel from the beginning."------

Farmers were going out of business left and right in the early 80's---there was so much over production it was a common sight to see mountains of corn sitting by elevators just rotting because there was no place to put it. Corn was selling for $.40 a bushel and farmers were going into bankruptcy and foreclosure left and right. As many as 50% in some areas. Making corn into DDG is what turned things around. Ethanol was just the byproduct of feed making that found a use replacing MTBE in gasoline to keep it from preigniting. We could make DDG for about 1/2 the price of soy meal because you can grow 2.5 to 3 times the amount of corn per acre than you can soy beans. DDG is still the product and ethanol is still the byproduct. DDG is fed to cattle, swine, fowl, and fish to produce meat, it produces dairy products from cream to yogurt, and it produces eggs as well. All of those things are food the last time I looked.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 28, 2008
BTW
I'll be introducing some technology to make CSP cheaper = later this year, and I would hope, that if my technology took from the poor to give to the rich, the way that corn ethanol does - that people won't be shy in pointing that out, and sending the idea to an early grave.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 28, 2008
Fred,
Unfortunately, corn ethanol was food for fuel from the beginning. It is also water for fuel which may well be worse, or the same thing. My objection is to pretending otherwise. This article goes on to discuss second gen; but the opening paragraph deals with corn ethanol as if it were the victim of higher prices, when in fact the poor who were impacted by higher prices were the victim of corn for fuel.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 28, 2008
Then support and use biodiesel and forget ethanol. You can get along without just fine. Just drive a diesel car or truck.

As for ethanol from corn. Forget ethanol from corn. We can make ethanol from ANY kind of plant material there is. We can even make ethanol from garbage---there is a plant under construction near Los Angeles to do just that right now.

All your food for fuel talk makes you sound like a parrot. Trained by oil lobbyists.

That is the whole point of this article to start with----biofuels are no longer "food for fuel" and never were.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 28, 2008
Fred,
I have no doubt the nuclear and oil industries are spewing FUD, and I've done more than my share to address some of that ;-)

But at the same time, its my position that sustainable energy should be beneficial and socially responsible. My take on food for fuel is that it is not socially responsible, and that corn was subsidized for the same political reasons that brought us the bridge to nowhere and subsidies for NOT growing.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 28, 2008
Thanks John. I'd just add that the smaller production facillities near the raw materials sources being more efficient is good----but that same model in the economic picture is even better. Jobs spread over a wide area disbursing the income generated down an economic ladder to a widely dispersed economic area is also a benefit I think.
John Kelley
John Kelley
August 28, 2008
Ben, Fred's right, if you don't like ethanol then please put MTBE back in your California water supply. Rick's correct that ethanol from corn was a good start as corn was abundant, available - it still costs below its historical CPI adjusted mean, and there STILL IS no national energy policy. RE: corn surplus - the USDA calls it a surplus, I'll let you swim in the endless USDA statistics; of course the US runs food surpluses - where do you think the government cheese, etc., comes from? government cows?

RE: water, yes there's a drought in Carolina, et. al., - first, haven't heard of any water court approtioning rivers under the riparian rules in the eastern or central US (and >87% of the corn crop is dryland (non-irrigated)); second, Carolina or Nevada (your other example) are not the breadbasket of the nation. RE: sugar. Sugar beets are grown in the northern US with significant crops in ND, ID and other places - but not in quantities, as is corn, that could support a fledgling ethanol industry. Sugar cane is grown from Florida to Texas - but again not in the quantity necessary to jump start of national fuels program; but eventually there will be several ethanol refineries powered with sugar bagasse feedstock.

Rick's analysis is spot on, especially with its comments on hybrid plants and niche refineries that are close to feedstock sources. It will not make economic sense to haul biomass (waste wood, switchgrass, miscanthus, municipal solid waste) to large refineries. Instead the refineries will co-locate with the feedstock source.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 28, 2008
Ben---the best plan in the world will not work if it is not implemented.

Political reality---due to hostile propaganda biofuels and renewable energy have been lied about for many years by the fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies. I do what I can to combat this, but the fact is, there are a LOT of people out there that do not think. The larger the group, the more the resistance. I think this is one reason why we see so much more being done on the state and local levels than the federal level. So, what I have done is to select the free market system to give people freedom of choice. A sort of "election by purchase". Once we get things going, people will act in their own best interest, we can count on that. Biofuels give the most people the most opportunity to act in their own best interest. No huge outlays for new technology--keep what you like and are familiar with, like a car with a large engine and lots of horsepower for instance, you'll NEVER talk those people into an electric shoe box with wheels no matter HOW good it is.
If YOU don't like ethanol, that is fine with me. There is plenty of room for you to simply support biodiesel grown from algae(by the way---there is a way that it can be grown even without the use of holding ponds---very promising technology). Invest in that if you want and buy yourself a diesel powered car, that's FINE with me. That would be doing what I'd like to see happen---replacing petroleum with a renewable and sustainable biofuel.
There are still a sizeable number of people out there that want the performance that ethanol can bring. That's ok, let THEM invest in ethanol. And let THEM have what they want. Nobody tells YOU what to do, and you don't tell THEM what to do. I think that is fair, and everyone gets what they want.
There is plenty of room for both, and nobody is going to starve.

watch this: http://www.naturalnews.com/023378.html
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 28, 2008
Fred,
My criticism of this article was the presupposition that corn ethanol was a good idea that met circumstances outside its control - when world class institutions like the IMF (IIRC) have fingered corn ethanol as a major cause of those high prices - and not merely for biohummers, but also for the poor.

Your proposed plan here is a strong improvement over all corn, all the time; and deals with the issues of limited water and arable land, rather than the consequential shortage of one commodity over another (ie corn v. rice).

Some have suggested that the poor would be better off starving than being flooded off their land by global warming, and that the food v fuel argument should be resolved in favor of fuel - which would then be used disproportionately by the hummer-driving classes. I take exception to this view, and limit my support to non-water, non-arable land biofuels.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 28, 2008
Biofuels do not need to replace ALL of our petroleum consumption. Petroleum is SO inefficient that if we replace only 45% of the petroleum consumed we can do everything we are doing right now with no changes. 40% of that is biodiesel which we can make using no arable land or fresh water----using closed circuit algae. That leaves jet fuel, and we can use algae for that too, it is already being done. Heating oil can be replaced with other means or at least the need reduced, such as solar, electric etc. That leaves about 1/2 of the remainder to be made up by ethanol, less than 20% of the total fuel consumption. We can easlily produce that---we have many sources of ethanol, the food or fuel arguement does not apply. Wood alone can produce far more ethanol than we need. It is already being produced by paper pulp mills as a by product of treating wood pulp. It was used to produce ethanol as far back as the 1890's in both the US and Germany. Right now it is burned to produce power to supplement mill operations for the most part. If we replace the electrical power produced with burning wood liquor wind something else renewable, wind or solar say, then we are driving our cars on renewable energy. All we need to do is make our cars flex fuel. We can do that easily at little or no extra cost---they are already being made and have been for about twenty years. Older cars with fuel injection can be converted easily by changing injectors, adding a fuel sensor and changing some lines and gaskets. By the time we do that, we are using only a small fraction of the petroleum we used previously. An amount that we can easily supply domestically. The cost savings will be enormous----just try to imagine the amount of money that we save by not shipping all that oil around. And not having to refine all that oil. Prices will go down.
NOT changing is costing us HUGE bucks each day we delay.
Keith Vosburgh
Keith Vosburgh
August 28, 2008
Interesting discussions....

Seems like total efficiency and sustainability perspective shows us some things of how things are done and could be done. Evolution of our methods and application of technology to better use our resources is ultimately the area that needs improvement. Without the ability to critically analyze ourselves, no major improvement is possible...keep doing the same things over again. (that is the definition of insanity....doing the same things and expecting different results) NO SACRED COWS!

Thinking of the logistics and distribution picture of fossil fuels, makes little sense to consume so much energy in that activity. Maybe if we minimize this model in the future, there can be better overall system efficiency and local jobs created. Seriously, our energy mix must include the best feedstocks for the given locations and think of distributed point of use generation. Cogeneration where the overall efficiency realized is much greater than single use energy generation should be considered as well to tweak efficiency to let some of the available process energy be put to useful purpose.

Government support and monetary factors definitely distort overall production cycle cost considerations. Considering that the energy consumed by global business shipping is not taxable, promotes wasteful international shipping practices. They say that money is the root of evil......maybe it is bad policy. (which involves our money, but we have little say in the matter other than to complain about the levied taxes)

Maybe a total product life cycle cost comparison would take some emotion down, think like engineers.....beat each idea to death until the strongest survive. That is the critical thought process!

That's my 2 centavos.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
You have no clue how it came to be that we have corn ethanol in the first place do you?
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 27, 2008
Fred,
and yet corn was the first choice - it follows that sugar beets would have been more costly or otherwise less desirable. I suspect that just as Sugar is more expensive than corn syrup, sugar fuels would cost more than corn fuels.

funny how you keep arguing that the losing candidate solves all the problems. It assumes that the people choosing silicon for PV over thin films, or corn for ethanol over sugar beets are somehow incapable of due diligence.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
Sugar beets could be processed just as easily as corn----actually even more so. Sugar beets would not require the worting process to convert the starch in corn into sugar---beets already store their energy as sugar. Beets would produce about 4-6X as much ethanol per acre as corn.

Plant some acreage in corn, and some in beets. Beets are also legumes, they have bacteria in their roots that actually leave the soil more fertile than before they were grown. It would be beneficial to rotate beets and corn on the same fields----and the same plants can process either one.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 27, 2008
Corn is the only thing production quantities of ethanol are produced from or sold from in the US.

What could be is what could be.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
Suburban lawns, golf courses, baseball, football, and soccer fields, parks and road medians and right of ways, all produce no usable crops yet consume huge amounts of energy and water to maintain. Perhaps that is the first place we should look to instead of agricultural land use. Building swimming pools and golf courses in the desert is the most extravagent and wasteful water usage I can think of.

I think your criticism of agriculture is the red herring. Corn is NOT the only thing biofuels are made from---corn is one of MANY things that biofuels can be made from.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 27, 2008
rice vs. corn, non-food crops vs. food crops

These are Red Herrings

We don't have a limited supply of corn - we have a limited supply of Water and Arable land. If the non-food crops are planted and watered instead of corn - the effect is the same, if corn is planted and watered instead of rice, the effect is felt in the rice market. Don't fall for these red herrings...
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
------"We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of stones."-------

So far as energy is concerned, we haven't left the stone age. We are still hunter/gatherers just like the cavemen. We hunt for fossil fuels, use it up and hunt for more. Farming was the innovation that allowed man to give up hunting/gathering and build permanent cities and build civilizations.

Biofuels and renewable energy sources are exactly the same application to energy that farming was to food supply. It is what made civilization possible in the first place.

Conservation, multiple use, and elimination of waste is just as important to renewable energy sources as fertilizer is to farming. We can do exactly the same things with less energy consumed, and the energy we do consume will be renewable and sustainable. We have right now an incredible amount of waste---we do not need to replace ALL of our energy production with renewables---only what we really need.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
Gary---who says you have to bring crops to the plants? Why not make mobile processors on trucks and take the plants to the crops instead?
Gary Chatman
Gary Chatman
August 27, 2008
We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of stones.
Food as fuel, stay tuned, we are only in phase 1 of biomass to bio-fuels. The transition is taking shape daily. As the founder of a next generation bio-fuels company, I think the door for breakthrough is wide open and we are making great strides.

The 162 corn to bio- fuel plants will be able to make front end changes to use different non-food feed-stocks. The pretreatment technology needed for this process is available now, I say again, available now. As for transportation, storage and sustainability, these are business issues and any plan worth reading addresses this. I support "Vertical Integrated Bio-refining", it incorporates energy crops that are climate change positive (bamboo and other fast growing grasses), refining and distribution. These smaller scale facilities can be built close to the feed-stock crop, processing and fuel distribution centers. This will create jobs, revenues for the local area and help move us to a bio-energy economy.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
------"And biodiesel from algae is still not cost-effective after 30 years of trying."---------

PetroSun is right now producing 4.4 million gallons per year of biodiesel from saltwater algae on 1180 acres of seawater holding ponds in Rio Hondo TX.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
--------"Cellulosic distillation is a hope, there's lots of waste cellulose around; but how much water will be required in the process? "---------

Using Fischer-Tropsch thermal process, water usage = 0 F-T has already been used on a wide scale basis in WW2.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
Eugene---the fact is that we ALREADY produce and waste more than enough biomass to produce all the biofuels we need.

Petroleum is SO costly and inefficient that we only need to replace about 45% of current energy production to do exactly the same things we do with petroleum right now.

We can even replace 40% of our current petroleum consumption with biodiesel made from saltwater algae, no food competition and it uses seawater not fresh to produce. It requires no refining and can be used in any diesel engine currently in use with no modification, and it is stored, transported and delivered exactly the same as petroleum diesel. We can start with biodiesel. It can also be used to generate electricity with the use of diesel generators already in use in many smaller markets. Nothing to change. Just pour it into the fuel tank.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
DDG is 12-14% protien, field corn is 2-4% protien. You don't limit something to make up for a deficiency in some nutrient---you add the nutrient. Brewer's yeast is the commercial source for protiens, B-complex souluble vitamins, and trace minerals like zinc, selenium and others.

The yeast that produce the ethanol only utilize the starch content of the corn. The starch is the plant's(corn) method of storing energy. It has no nutritional value other than calories.

Corn ethanol is not the cause of rising food prices. Corn has nothing to do with rice. Rice is the cause of rising food prices, and no one makes ethanol from rice.

DDG does not "replace" corn in feed. It replaces protien adjustment with soy meal because it is cheaper to produce---corn produces 2.5-3 times as many bushels per acre as soybeans.
EUGENE Lucas
EUGENE Lucas
August 27, 2008
I like the idea of biofuels too, but the concern of many about water are valid. And many of thefeedstocks of bioduels we are now producing are very inefficient. Corn is lousy! And it drinks lots of water too! The fact is that there is not enough land or water to really effect the petroeum situation. And biodiesel from algae is still not cost-effective after 30 years of trying. And God help us if they develop the "super bug," which the aquatic Species Program identified as a major potential environmental disaster. Cellulosic distillation is a hope, there's lots of waste cellulose around; but how much water will be required in the process? I don't know, but we all should keep close watch. Spot solutions, like ethanol from corn, rarely work out. The whole system needs to be analyzed before we commit. Have a nice day.
chris eddy
chris eddy
August 27, 2008
John - 2007 corn crop did NOT have a 10% surplus. That's a deliberate distortion by NCGA. Corn is harvested in fall and stockpiled for use over the next 12 months. The 12/1/07 stockpile was higher than prior year because the 2007 harvest was higher. The stockpile build is NOT surplus -- it's being used over the current 12 month period by the ever-growing ethanol industry.

Fred - whether DDGS is "higher quality" food than corn is debatable. You must limit DDGS in the feed mix, especially for poultry and hogs, as it is deficient in many nutrients. What is NOT debatable is the fact that DDGS represents much less food than the original corn. Ethanol processing removes 2/3rds of the food value from corn, DDGS gets the other 1/3rd. NCGA and RFA want you to think ethanol does not reduce the feed supply, but this is a lie. The raw numbers tell the truth. Look at slide 9 of the NCGA presentation John linked to see how much corn DDGS displaces. Do the math and you'll see this is less than 1/3rd of the corn removed from the feed stream.

All this said, corn ethanol is only one of several causes behind rising food prices. Booming foreign demand is also a big factor.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
Brazil has already switched to biofuel use and is prospering at a remarkable rate because they are selling oil to the US.
Biofuels do anything and everything that petroleum does, and they do it better.
Biofuels are already cheaper than petroleum even before it is refined. Take the subsidies, special favors, give aways and favoritism away and the price of petroleum will triple---and we are already paying those costs---they are hidden, meant to keep the price at the pump so people won't complain, but we are still paying them anyway.

Yes, we SHOULD get rid of all subsidies and interference by the government. If we do, biofuels would cost about 1/3 the price of petroleum products.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
------" I heard some of these distilleries run on coal, with special dispensations on emissions."---------

The run on electriciy with special dispensations to make the electricity with coal. It is the fossil fuel coal that is the culprit here. We can make electricity by other means.

-------"This guy celebrates the 200 and some distilleries that are on line and being built to run this cockamanie process."--------

Drilling 2-5 miles down in the earth to get crude oil, to ship the the equivalent of twice around the earth and THEN refine into fuel is a cockamamie process. To get oil from the middle east it has to go around Africa, across the Atlantic, and up the Gulf of Mexico. 20,000 miles, THEN the ships have to return empty beause there is no return load. 40,000 miles before it can be be refined into fuel. It is a similar situation in the arctic. This consumes over half the amount of oil produced.

Solar energy comes to earth free. The only efficiency that is needed is how efficiently we use the plants produced. Most edible crops have many uses besides ethanol, so your efficiency numbers comparing to oil are useless. You cann't get a steak and baked potato with butter and sour cream from drilling for more oil---but you do get steak and potatos from making ethanol.

Biodiesel is right now being made from saltwater algae in seawater holding ponds in an arid area. Ethanol is being made from cellulosic plant waste.

Take the subsidies off of oil and let the true cost be reflected at the pump and there is not a single driver that will want to buy petrolueum.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 27, 2008
Sadly, Sugar Cane doesn't grow as well in the latitude of the US as it does in Brazil. If you think all Politics is local - let me introduce you to Agriculture. Years ago, In Speckles, California, an insect blight destroyed an entire region of Sugar Beets, leading to the shuttering of the Sugar industry in California (Lived there). I don't know if Sugar is grown anywhere else in the US.
Robert Michael Foster
Robert Michael Foster
August 27, 2008
Brazil already has second generation ethanol that our taxes keep out, sugar cane ethanol. There is energy left over with sugar cane ethanol! I last read that it takes 28 cubic feet of natural gas to make a gallon of corn ethanol, while sugar cane provides its own energy.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 27, 2008
Paul,
It may take longer for the best ideas to get to market, because we're busy right now subsidizing PV for the rich and burning food for Hummers.

Thanks Andrew - that's interesting.
Andrew Strachan
Andrew Strachan
August 27, 2008
Corn as an abundant US crop perhaps was OK to get the ball rolling, bt what happened in the US regulatory world during the last 30 years while Brasil during that sae perid had strong government support for their ethanol industry, the fruits of which the US import tarif taxes at 54 cents a gallon to protect corn ethanol??
surprising no one has metioned jatropha which evenGoldman Sachs cites s one of the best alterntives. It is inedible (high toxicity), grows in marginal land areas (already used widely for land restoraton), canbe ued as a rotational crop, requires little fertiliser and water, resisitent to pests, its seed renders 40% of its oil which can be used directly in diesel engines and the rest of the plant for biomas generators, fertiliser...
The oil is already used as a replacement for many petrochemicals including in soaps. Air New Zealand plans to use 10% jatropha oil in it's ful mix by 2012, andas an arid crop can go a lng way to helping arid african countries get out of their poverty trap.
Lots of reserch has been done, but much more is needed to commercialise on an industrial scale.
Meanwhile, keep the 235-300 billion estimated fossil fuel subsidies worldwide rolling right along while the congress can't even pass an inconsequential 15 billion bill to support alternative enery because it's 'too ambitious'.
I'm going to miss te snow at Christmas.
Andrew Strachan
paul tousignant
paul tousignant
August 27, 2008
My basic concern is that food should not be used to make fuel.

The fuel source with the most promise is algae - the right strains can be pressed to make biodiesel and the remaining matter can be used to make ethanol and methane. The left-over from that is used for livestock feed and fertilizer. The potential is tremendous - some claim up to 30,000 gallons/acre/year just in biodiesel!

There are a number of companies and processes working on this, but it is years from commercialization at the current rates of investment and effort. What is needed is a concentrated effort to bring this technology to the forefront.
Frederick Gralenski
Frederick Gralenski
August 27, 2008
Let's see if I have this right:
Solar energy comes to the earth. Plants(corn, sugarcane,etc)utilize some of this energy by photosynthesis to make biomas, and we use this to make biofuels. Now photosynthesis has a maximum theoretical efficiency of using about 11% of the solar energy, and in practice convert about 5%of the incoming solar energy to biomas. After processing we can expect less than 1% to be converted to biofuels. This we use in internal combustion engines with a fuel efficiency of less than 20%. This guy celebrates the 200 and some distilleries that are on line and being built to run this cockamanie process. I heard some of these distilleries run on coal, with special dispensations on emissions. I mean, the whole concept is so ridiculous! Without subsidies at every level it would be a farce, but government stupidity prevails. I guess it keeps a lot of people working as we screw up the environment.
ken riddle
ken riddle
August 27, 2008
Are the water related concerns valid? Absolutely, currently world wide water is one of the scarcest resources. Was the ethanol push handled well? No, cause and effect is never a big part of politics. I favor letting the economics (consumers) make the choices. Has it been the major driving force behind world food price increases? No, most valid research indicates ethanol can be blamed for only a portion of that increase. Coming from the midwest I know the hardships most farms have been laboring under for decades. Most of those now decrying higher food prices think food comes from a supermarket. Most of the increase in food prices currently being seen are going to processors, not farmers. Corn ethanol was never a great long term idea. It was more a get the ball rolling type of idea. The future of that industry is strategically placed hybrid plants utilizing low grade water sources and zero discharge.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
Ben---I take it you may be in California? If you are worried about wasteful water usage---how about looking into building golf courses in the desert? How much more extravagent and wasteful can anything be? If you want to blame starvation on something, that seems a likely place to start to me.

Climate change is the major cause of depleteing water supply. Along with wasteful, completely stupid usage. Golf courses and swimming pools in every back in the middle of the desert. Endless suburban lawns with sprinklers going, in the desert. Mountain snowpacks and glaciers disappearing that hold and redistribute moisture.

Completely stupid and wasteful use of resources and trying to "conquer" nature's natural cycles instead of working with them is what is causing mankind's problems. Arrogant status seeking and greed are the basis of almost any problem you can name.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
August 27, 2008
Ben---the final product of corn fermentation is DDG, high protien animal feed. Meat, fowl, fish, dairy products, and eggs are all still foods. The ethanol is a by product.

You have higher quality food than corn as the finished product, and the ethanol as an added bonus.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 26, 2008
John,
I know from first-hand experience that Salt-Water intrusion in occurred in California. I also know first-hand that North Carolina has been under drought conditions for several years, and that Georgia has had a water crisis. Las Vegas Nevada has halted construction for lack of water. Mexico has been complaining for years that the US has sucked the Rio Grande dry.

How about you provide a link to a real location in google earth where there is adequate water and arable land which is not already part of the World food supply.

Here's one article: I could cite thousands more more, but much of my observations on Water is first hand - true, I haven't been anywhere - but the general trend has been to develop around water, to build and farm around water, and by and large, the hottest places to build were Las Vegas, and NC, and they not longer have water - so it is suggested that Water is in fairly short supply Globally and nationally.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html
John Kelley
John Kelley
August 26, 2008
BG: It's doubtful you were checking math 25 years ago; any more than you were checking math now. If you were checking math you'd know that corn is remains well below its historical CPI adjusted mean price: http://www.321gold.com/editorials/wright/wright062708.html . That the record 2007 corn crop had a surplus of 10% of the harvest (slide 3, one can cross-check these numbers with the USDA stats): http://www.ncga.com/news/presentations/PDF/2008/022608PresentationNationalEthanolConference.pdf . And that few if any waters in the central and eastern US are over allocated.Your platitudes lack any scientific rigor.

Rick: nice summary of the state of the industry.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 26, 2008
The Author misstates cause and effect:

"Although corn was relatively cheap during the early phases of the U.S. ethanol boom, rising commodity and food prices have placed increased urgency on the development of cellulosic or second generation ethanol."

In Fact - the use of corn for burning in hummers /caused/ the run up in prices which moved millions of people from subsistence to poverty, and from poverty to starvation. Pat yourself on the back if you support burning food in Hummers.
Ben Gatti
Ben Gatti
August 25, 2008
Many of us did the math on Corn Ethanol before we embarked on this misguided adventure; and were not surprised at all to see the cause and effect.

The reality is that every drop of water in this country - and every other country - is spoken for and already committed to the production of food. Many regions of the World, and the States are over-budget for Water from the sea-water intrusion in California to rationing on the Altlantic Coast.

I for one reject out of hand the authors narrative that somehow corn ethanol was a good idea if only things hadn't changed.

The Truth is that nothing changed. Food crop were burned in Hummers by pandering an ill-informed energy policy for cheap political gains - leaving the poor to pick up the pieces. There must be some that care enough about the environment to do the math and make decisions based on science rather than convenience.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 9
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 8
    Finland's New Energy Solutions
  • 1
    Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Natural Power
  • Rotork plc
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • Green Power Conferences
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information