Our Magazines Article Archives
 

Going Against the Grain: Ethanol from Lignocellulosics

By Jeff Decker
January 22, 2009   |   35 Comments

Do you like this magazine?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
35 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 35
January 19, 2009
Although cellulosic ethanol use has been very promising it is not without it's problems. The problem with biofuel is we have largely used corn in this process which only produces 400 gallons of ethanol per acre. Corn is a major food and feed for livestock. Using 20% of this staple for biofuel drove up the cost per bushel from 2.00 to over 6.00. Added to that dim fact the cost of energy to convert it is rather high. There is a tall reed type grass called Miscanthus (native to our country) that is capable of producing up to 1,500 gallons of ethanol per acre. Using a non-food source makes more sense. It also needs very little in the way of irrigation or fertilizer and can be grown on very poor soil thus not interfering with our existing food crop production. Bio fuels are a piece of the energy independence puzzle. We could if executed correctly replace 20-25% of our oil consumption with the production and utilization of biofuels. There is no one single answer to this major problem. There are many players in the big picture and it will take all of them to make the transformation our nation into energy independence.
Comment
2 of 35
January 23, 2009
Bill Roe, president and CEO of Coskata, claims that he will be able to produce ethanol from non-food based sources for less than $1 a gallon. Great if he can, but can anybody provide ANY (independent) studies providing evidence that these claims have a basis in reality? Does that price refer to just marginal operating costs? I find it hard to believe that it includes ammortized capital costs. And what kind of assumptions are they making about the costs of their feedstock?

One dollar per gallon is a lot, lot less than the $5.03 per gallon ($1.33 per litre) that the DOE hopes its funded plants can achieve by 2012.
Comment
3 of 35
January 23, 2009
Such a waste of land to pursue the Ethanol Sham. You'd be better off using the energy to plant or harvest ethanol crops, by simply using the energy cost to make hydrogen for a hydrogen economy.

Our Biofuels answer is with Algae production

In fact, one company can produce 180,000 gallons of biodiesel every year from just one acre of algae. That comes to about 4,000 barrels, at a cost of $25 per barrel or $.59 per gallon.

Pretty self explanatory.....

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/biofuel-algae-biodiesel/395...
Comment
4 of 35
January 23, 2009
Energy, food and CO2 reduction?

By massive desalination where 1/6 of the water is drinking quality & 5/6 just has the salts removed for agriculture the energy requirements can be reduced to aproximately 5.25 KWh / M^3.
For plant growth 0.765 M of water is required per year (2.1mm/Day). Each Hectre needs 21 M^3/Day = 110 KWh /Day
Assuming solar power at 3.5 KWh / M^2 per day only 31 M^2 of solar collectors are required for each Hectre. This has assumed zero rainfall and is an irigation level similar to the average rainfall in France.
Increased evaporation would increase rainfall reducing irrigation requirements for other (down wind) regions.
If we really want to we could irrigate all warm deserts, grow food and crops for transport energy, as well as some lumber to lock in CO2.
Fossil fuel is vital for our chemical industry may become too valuable to be burnt
Renewables could supply most of our power plants.
750MW per wind plant and 1.1 GW per combined wind and wave plant are possible.
This may be wishfull thinking but imagine what it would do for the world economy. With world participation could povety be eleminated?

Happy to explain
gy.mercer@ntlworld.com
Comment
5 of 35
January 23, 2009
Going against the grain of sensibility. All biofuels are solar. The chemical energy is stored by photosynthesis which is, in practice, less than 1% efficient. Either pursue some method of overcoming this handicap or focus on solar (PV) or solar heating. Use sewage or other really waste materials (e.g. demolition debris) to make biofuels. Otherwise the whole process is a massive subsidized scam that makes Madoff look like a cheapskate
Comment
6 of 35
January 23, 2009
Re. Comment 3 "Dominic Jermano"

"In fact, one company can produce 180,000 gallons of biodiesel every year from just one acre of algae."

By my calculations this equals 2.021 M-litre/ha/yr (after harvesting an processing losses)
At 32MJ/l HHV for bio-diesel, this represents an energy yield of 64.67TJ/ha/yr or 4.921KWh/sq-m/day.
Egypt, a hot sunny country, receives abut 6.5KWh/sq-m/day insolation so this system achieves about 76% solar collection efficiency. Taking into account that the tests were probably not carried out in the Sahara and there will be losses in the processing stage then this means the solar energy conversion/collection efficiency must be about 100%

This is definitely not a Photosynthesis process which has a maximum theoretical photo efficiency of about 13% and practical limit, under ideal conditions, of about half this, and in reality even less.
I would suggest a certain amount of caution when reading articles of this sort in Energy and Capital, after all it is not a biology publication.

If we say we can get 5% energy capture with algae (optimistic), allow 5% distribution losses and a tank to wheel efficiency of about 50% (optimistic) for a diesel hybrid car then "sunfall to wheel efficiency" is about 1.2%
Now consider CPV (concentrated photovoltaic) which can achieve 37%+ conversion, say 50% land utilisation(100% assumed for algae above), allow 10% distribution losses and a tank to wheel efficiency of 80%+ for BEVs, then "sunfall to wheel efficiency" for this combination is about 13%, i.e. over ten times less land is required for electric transport than use ICEVs (internal combustion engine vehicles), and this assumes we all drive top efficiency hybrids. The running costs of PV are also a fraction of biofuels.

In my view future land transport will/should not be oil based at all, bio or fossil. Maybe the basic aim is to give people something to do, however I've always hoped for the time the weekends are 5 days.
Comment
7 of 35
January 23, 2009
Thanks for running the numbers, Nick Cook! Too few people commenting on RenewableEnergyWorld.com (and even fewer writing the articles, it seems) ever bother to do that.
Comment
8 of 35
January 23, 2009
Super article, Jeff. The potential of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol and microalgae, has usually been overstated. It is not often appreciated that only 29% of the carbon in the feedstocks going into cellulosic ethanol refineries ends up in the ethanol. Most of the rest is released from the processing plant as CO2. Cellulosic ethanol will exacerbate net carbon emissions by reducing the amount of carbon sequestered in forest floors, fields, and soils. Moreover, the price of wood products will begin to soar within four years as the vast pine forests that have been killed by the pine beetle over the past decade are consumed by forest fires. Wood pellets are currently $190/ton even though oil is cheap. When cellulosic feedstocks are $400/ton (which is likely by 2014), ethanol produced from it will cost $5.50/gal. More sound info is available here: http://dotyenergy.com/Markets/Biofuels.htm .

Fortunately, there is a better solution. Scientists have recently shown that off-peak wind energy can be used to recycle CO2 into ethanol, gasoline, and jet fuel at up to 60% efficiency. These wind-generated carbon-neutral fuels, dubbed WindFuels, will sometimes compete when oil is only $45/bbl. Recycling CO2 into liquid fuels using off-peak wind energy addresses both the oil and the climate challenges, and it completely stabilizes the power grid. Detailed scientific, engineering, and economics analyses are available at http://windfuels.com/ .

Annual WindFuels production per land area in good wind regions will exceed biofuels production density in fertile farming areas by a factor of 4 to 30.

The cost of producing ethanol or gasoline from CO2 and wind energy will depend mostly on the cost of the off-peak wind energy. In some areas, its cost is already averaging below 3 cents/kWhr and it continues to drop as more wind is added. At this rate, the cost of ethanol and even gasoline from wind and CO2 can be below $2.00/gal. The DOE needs to support this.
Comment
9 of 35
January 23, 2009
Obviously, wind, solar and nuclear are the long term solutions for enviromental clean electricity which will run all the cars someday. They are all technologies that are well developed and efficient. The govt should be encouraging or giving grants to these production facilities instead of all the other sources of biofuels. If these biofuel facilties can compete by themselves...fine...let them bridge the gap while we get away from foreign oil. Otherwise, let's stop govt funding of an obsolete tool and work on the future. I hear all the promising ideas of algea/biodiesel. Why haven't I heard of plans of building a 100 million gallon/year facility yet?
Comment
10 of 35
January 23, 2009
David Doty - Thanks for the link to http://windfuels.com/, interesting.

I don't know if you are aware of the work done by Ulf Bossel et.al.,who also proposes a green carbon economy based on electro-chemical recycling of CO2 (albeit in argument against the 'hydrogen economy'). However the case for BEVs still stands unless someone comes up with a system to effectively capture the exhaust gasses from vehicles, the article http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html has an interesting analysis in this regard.
On the plus side running a 3C (closed carbon cycle) system for centralised electricity generation, particularly using highly efficient DCFCs (Direct carbon fuel cells), would provide a very efficient, compact and long term means of energy storage.
Comment
11 of 35
January 23, 2009
Jeff. You write, "In Burnaby, Canada, Lignol Innovations has found ways to profit from the lignin they separate from wood to make ethanol. The tough lignin ends up in motor fuel and foundry binders, among other products." I can understand the lignin ending up in foundry binders, but are you sure about it ending up in motor fuel?
Comment
12 of 35
January 23, 2009
Renewable energy great idea, only one question, anybody ever calculate how much will cost maintenance of all these Wind mills, solar panels and wave collectors.
Comment
13 of 35
January 23, 2009
Fermentation may not be the most efficient way to convert biomass.
Enerkem is building a plant to do pyrolysis on cellulosic waste. 1 ton of cellulosic waste gives 360 gallons ethanol, 100 liters of potable water, 150kg char.
The char sequesters the excess carbon and improves soil. No energy is required as the feedstock provides power

Telephone poles can be feedstock
http://cleantech.com/news/4058/utility-poles-make-cheap-ethanol-feedstock-enerkem
Comment
14 of 35
January 23, 2009
Renewable energy is great idea, my Country "EGYPT" is searching about that. We have big problem concerning Rice Husk.The farmers in my Country burns it yearly ...How can we use your technology to get rid of this problem ..Can we use your Technology to convert it to produce Ethanol for fuel ?
Telephone Number :+2 010 516 44 59
E-mail address : yheshmat.mic@gmail.com

Best regards

Eng. Yehia Heshmat
Chief Business Development Officer
INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS LLC"EGYPT"
Comment
15 of 35
January 24, 2009
Two points:

1) Ethanol production has neither pushed up the price of food nor decreased available food. The amount of corn available for food and export has risen despite ethanol production. The price of corn was raised by Chevron and Exxon Mobil buying corn futures. The type of corn used for ethanol production is the type animals eat, not humans. After the ethanol is produced, the remainder has the same food value for the animals, the only difference being that it is of higher quality because the starch has been removed. The proteins that the animals digest, are still there. This ethanol leftover is sold to ranchers as a high value food source. Nothing has been lost.

2) Of all potential energy sources, hydrogen is the worst. Before any calculations are made, take 30% off it's value. This is how much energy is lost, in the best scenario, during the production of hydrogen. This means, even if solar or wind are used (instead of natural gas which is the common source to make hydrogen), you've immediately thrown 30% of the energy out the window. No matter what technology is developed, transporting and storing hydrogen can never be done as efficiently as liquid carbon fuels. I don't want to type all day, but look into it. At EVERY step of the process, hydrogen is and always will be the worst source of energy. Why do you think Bush put so much money into research on hydrogen instead of other energy sources?
Comment
16 of 35
January 24, 2009
Yehia----" my Country "EGYPT" is searching about that. We have big problem concerning Rice Husk.The farmers in my Country burns it yearly ...How can we use your technology to get rid of this problem ..Can we use your Technology to convert it to produce Ethanol for fuel ?"-------


Germany used the Fischer-Tropsch process to provide their energy needs during WW2 by pyrolysis gasification. They used both coal and wood----wood was prefered because coal output was needed for steel production. This was over 60 years ago. This is the same process Enerkem will be using as Tom mentioned. This is the same basic process that Coskata uses with some minor tweeking on the input side. It has already been done on a large scale successfully. Fischer-Tropsch process was developed in 1924---it has been around over 80 years.

Mike Miller-------"Why haven't I heard of plans of building a 100 million gallon/year facility yet?"---------

Range Fuels has a 100 million gal./yr plant under construction now in Soperton GA that will use Fischer-Tropsh process to convert wood chips from logging and millwork waste into ethanol.

http://www.rangefuels.com/conversion_process
Comment
17 of 35
January 24, 2009
----"Now consider CPV (concentrated photovoltaic) which can achieve 37%+ conversion"----------

CPV increases the amount of solar radiation striking the PV cell, not the efficiency of the cell. Increasing the output of the cell by reflected radiation simply moves radiation from a larger area---it does not increase efficiency.
Comment
18 of 35
January 25, 2009
"Range Fuels has a 100 million gal./yr plant under construction now in Soperton GA" -- Fred Linn

Um, the quote from the Range's own website (www.rangefuels.com/our-first-commercial-plant) is:

"Construction on the first phase of the plant is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2009, with the production of ethanol and methanol at a run rate of LESS THAN 10 million gallons per year to follow in 2010. At full-scale, the Soperton Plant is PERMITTED to produce over 100 million gallons of ethanol and methanol each year."

Actually, the current plant, at full capacity will produce 20 million gallons per year.

Permitted does not under construction. Rather, Range Fuels has permission to add up to four (or maybe five: some reports say 120 million gallons) additional 20-million-gallon modules after the current unit is built. Again, that is not the same as a 100 million gallon single plant.
Comment
19 of 35
January 25, 2009
So?
Comment
20 of 35
January 25, 2009
I am assuming you don't know much about Industrial Process Design so here goes:

1) All large projects are broken down into a series of step by step processes and work is finished on the basic things first---you cann't pile bricks on top of walls until you have the site excavations and foundations in place etc.-----financing is usually taken out in a series of smaller loans as needed so money is not sitting idle waiting for work to be done before it is needed----and interest is being paid on it.
2) Any large manufacturing facility, not only has to have a physical plant(building) it also has to have all the machinery, plumbing, wiring and various other components all ready at the same time. Not always possible. Especially when you are talking about an entirely new process. It usually has to be fabricated, assembled and tested before it is ready for use. Due to size limitations in fabrication equipment and facillities, it is usually cheaper and faster to make several smaller modules than one very large module. You don't have to wait on equipment fabricators to make suitable prototypes.
3) Most large factories are set up on a modular design with several smaller units contributing to total output. For one thing, it is more reiable. An equipment failure in one module does not shut down production in the entire plant. It is easier to keep spare parts on hand, one spare part can serve as backup for several modules, reducing costs and storage area needed. The entire workforce is not idled waiting for one repair.
4) In any market you need to prove demand, both to investors and banks. They like to dip a toe in the pool to check the temperature before they dive in. If it feels ok, go down the steps a little way.
5) You don't just start making 100 million gallons/yr of ethanol or anything else until you have developed the pipeline of supply and distribution to handle the flow.
Comment
21 of 35
January 26, 2009
Thanks for the lesson in Industrial Design, Fred, but recall that the first stage was heavily subsidized by Uncle Sam (and the State of Georgia);

Here is what the DOE announcement (www.energy.gov/news/4827.htm) said:

"Range Fuels (formerly Kergy Inc.) of Broomfield, Colorado, up to $76 million. The proposed plant will be constructed in Soperton (Treutlen County), Georgia. The plant will produce about 40 million gallons of ethanol per year and 9 million gallons per year of methanol."

In other words, the grant is supposed to cover the building of two modules. To get up to 100 million gallons per year, is Range Fuels counting on another hand out from its Sugar Daddy ... or should I say Sugar Uncle?

Recall that, at the time it won the DOE grant, "all" Range Fuels could count on in terms of subsidies supporting the sales price of its product was the $0.51/gallon VEETC and the $0.10 Small Ethanol Producers Tax Credit. That was supposed to be enough. Indeed, at the time, when oil prices were not much higher than they are now, Vinod Khosla, one of the owners of Range Fuels, was boasting that ethanol could compete with gasoline WITHOUT subsidies.

Subsequently, Congress in its wisdom decided that the VEETC and the $0.54/gallon import tariff wasn't enough and created a special tax credit for cellulosic ethanol of $1.01/gallon, or around $1.50/gallon of gasoline equivalent. (NB: the wholesale price of gasoline is currently trading at about $1.14/gallon: www.nymex.com.) Nice to have friends in high places, eh?
Comment
22 of 35
January 26, 2009
$385 million is a LONG way from over $850 Billion that Bush and Paulson rushed through to hand out to their friends in the banking business in less than two weeks to avoid a financial crisis and a recession.

Where would we be today if we had invested $850 Billion in renewable and sustainable energy instead of blocking funding for 7 years to RE projects in favor of the Petroleum/Coal/Nuclear cartel lobbyists?

We've spent nearly $3 Trillion to a war that is being fought on the basis of lies and deciet of the American people by Bush and crew to hand out favors to his oil buddies. Not to mention the loss of American and Iraqi lives, no one even knows how many---the Red Cross estimates something around 2 million.

We've been lied to, important research covered up or adulterated by strong arm politcal tactics. Untold economic and environmental damage done. It took three law suits and a supreme court decision for Dick Chenney and Dirk Kempthorne to FINALLY perform the required duty of the offices they swore to execute and declare the polar bear endangered as they were required to do by law under the findings of their own scientists! THEN Dirk Kempthorne turned around three days later and says that he will allow oil companies do do anything they wish to polar bears including kill them without any interference with from his department of Interior---the office that is charged with enforcement of the law.

Where would RE energy be today if it had had the support in terms of money and favors that Oil/Coal/Nuclear energy had for the last 8 years.

Your constant quibbling over these paltry minor subsidies to RE clearly make you a die hard supporter of the failed Bush policies of support for fossil fuels, a Canadian supporter of the destruction of vast swaths of boreal forest lands and water sheds to strip mine tar sands or a UN talkalot interested only maintaining status quo.
Comment
23 of 35
January 26, 2009
"Your constant quibbling over these paltry minor subsidies to RE clearly make you a die hard supporter of the failed Bush policies of support for fossil fuels, ... "

That's a laugh. George W. Bush, as well as his agricultural and energy secretaries, was a strong advocate of subsidizing and mandating biofuels.

"... a Canadian supporter of the destruction of vast swaths of boreal forest lands and water sheds to strip mine tar sands ... "

I'm not Canadian, and never was.

"... or a UN talkalot interested only maintaining status quo. ..."

I don't work for the UN, and I'm definitely not interested in maintaining the status quo.

www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=54478#readercomments

And what is your interest in this debate, Fred?

I do not accept the notion that just because the government spends money on something else (like a war, or bailing out banks), that when it spends money on biofuels, or anything else, we should not scrutinize that expenditure -- especially when it has been going on for 30 years, and keeps getting bigger every year. (To subsidize the displacement of all gasoline and diesel fuel at the current rates of producer subsidies would cost, at a minimum, $200 billion per year, every year, indefinitely.)

There is an opportunity cost to ALL expenditure. I guess you've missed the outrage, Fred, from the other renewable-energy industries upon learning that ethanol receives the bulk of tax credits to renewables?

For example:

http://forcechange.com/2009/01/12/in-2007-75-of-renewable-tax-benefits-went-to-corn-based-ethanol-industry/
Comment
24 of 35
January 26, 2009
You need to correct your article, Mr. Decker. The tax credit for cellulosic fuels is not "$3.82 per gallon ($1.01 per litre)", but $1.01 per gallon ($0.27 per litre).
Comment
25 of 35
January 26, 2009
Get a grip, Fred

George Monbiot, author of a book called "Heat" coined a term to describe the internet stereotype who threatens and slurs anyone offering legitimate critique of a given biofuel…

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/ :

"…The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent by the supporters of the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon…."

Joseph, Las Vegas said:

"… Ethanol production has neither pushed up the price of food nor decreased available food…."

Look at this graph which charts average annual prices of corn and retail gasoline since the RFS legislation was passed in 2005:

http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/food%20gas%20chart1.gif

Corn has increased in price and every agronomist acknowledges that ethanol increases the price of corn. They of course differ on how much. Corn is food for millions of poor people around the world. America is by far the largest supplier of this food for these poor. Corn is also fed to livestock and livestock producers are not happy with the higher prices either, which will eventually be passed on to consumers, who also are not very pleased with the high price of groceries.

This recent study suggests that cellulosic is not meeting expectations from an environmental perspective (ignoring financial ones for the moment):

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=EE&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b809990c&Iss=Advance_Article

Cellulosic ranked dead last out of eleven energy sources.
Comment
26 of 35
January 26, 2009
--------"which will eventually be passed on to consumers, who also are not very pleased with the high price of groceries."--------

I like canned peaches. The brand I buy used to be $.88, the price went up to $1.22. How does making ethanol from corn raise the price of peaches $.34 per can, nearly 40%?

I like cheese pasta with sun dried tomatos. The price went from $1/box to $1.34 per box. How did making ethanol from corn cause the price of pasta to rise over 30%?

The price of tomatos went from $1.49/lb to $1.99/lb---how does making ethanol from corn cause the price of tomatos to go up over 30%?
Comment
27 of 35
January 26, 2009
Russ---your "dead last" article does not even take into account biofuels produced from Fischer-Tropsch process, nor does it look at biodiesel.

This article is pure BS. There are no electric vehicles available that fill the needs of what we need our vehicles to do. There are no manufacturing facilities available to produce electric vehicles. There is no means of recharging electric vehicles. There are no repair and maintaince facilities available for electric vehicles. Nobody can afford electric vehicles.

Biofuels are completely compatible with current vehicle design and technology. Biofuels can be used in any combination with current petroleum and infrastructure. You cann't do that with any electric vehicle.

You are living in a complete fantasy dream world if you think electric vehicles will replace internal combustion engines. Electric vehicles are only useful for very limited applications, golf courses and shopping malls.
Comment
28 of 35
January 26, 2009
Fred,

I surely don't see how corn ethanol would impact the price of those goods, or the high price of my shoes for that matter. Maybe the high price of oil has something to do with it? Oh, wait, the price of oil isn't high. Snap!

"...You are living in a complete fantasy dream world if you think electric vehicles will replace internal combustion engines. Electric vehicles are only useful for very limited applications, golf courses and shopping malls...."

We need our vehicles to consume about 80% less liquid fuel regardless of where it comes from. The Prius gave us a 50% reduction, plug-ins will get us pretty close to 80%. Stuffing food into the gas tanks of a car fleet that averages 24 mpg is a dead end strategy. As far as global warming is concerned, coal is a much bigger problem than oil. We should be burning our biomass to displace coal instead of turning it into a liquid for SUVs. We don't because there is no governement subsidy for it because there is no lobby for it:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/17/12447/1102
Comment
29 of 35
January 27, 2009
Hi Fred
Re your comment (24th Jan):
"CPV increases the amount of solar radiation striking the PV cell, not the efficiency of the cell."

I wasn't intending to imply it does, however because the amount of active material required for CPV cells can be 100's of times less than 1-sun PV cells, the cells can be more more complex to improve efficiency, the ones I was considering are made by Spectrolabs and are a three layer hybrid device.

Check out http://www.spectrolab.com/prd/prd.asp for more info.
Comment
30 of 35
January 27, 2009
Fred,

I didn't find anything you said that I don't agree with. You've made a number of intelligent arguments. Keep it up.

You mentioned the $850B going to Bush's friends. It did essentially nothing for the economy except increase our debt. Nothing was built. Our dependency on foreign oil wasn't decreased. Now another trillion is about to be spent and there are fights about the small amounts allotted to renewables and construction of infrastructure. There is a loud voice that only wants checks going into peoples pockets. It didn't do any good the first time around, but I guess it will get someone a vote here and there.
Comment
31 of 35
January 27, 2009
Thank you Joseph---I appreciate the remarks, it is nice to know that someone out there is getting the message. I hope you'll pass it on too.

Nick---another option is to just skip the PV cell and utilize the solar heat(energy) directly. This could be done various ways depending on the application, phase change physics or even just plain ole passive solar. You could do things like heating or air conditioning directly, or use a sterling cycle or rankine cycle engine to create mechanical work(generate electricity for instance). I think concentrated solar power offers a lot of options that many people don't think of.
Comment
32 of 35
January 27, 2009
-------"I surely don't see how corn ethanol would impact the price of those goods, or the high price of my shoes for that matter. Maybe the high price of oil has something to do with it? Oh, wait, the price of oil isn't high. Snap!"-----

That is my conclusion also, oil. The price of oil WAS up at the time of the price increases. Oil went down in price, and the others didn't.
My feeling is that the price of oil is going to go back up when increasing economic recovery begins to take hold sending demand back up---and when it does, the increasing price of oil will kill off any gains in economic recovery. It seems to me that we are in for a yo-yo of high oil prices killing off any hopes of economic recovery----and then the price going back down when the economic recovery crashes just as we are starting to recover.
Economically we need to get off of oil dependence---and I think that is an even MORE pressing need than environmentally(although we shouldn't procrastinate there either).
That is why I draw a timeline of months, not years.

As for your comments about hybrid cars----although technically classified as electric vehicles---hybrids STILL use liquid fuels. Hybrids operating on oil do nothing to change anything, only extend the timeline a little. Biofuels on the other hand offer something that petroleum gasoline does not. Internal combustion engines tuned specifically to use the high compression ratios possible with ethanol(16 or 18 to 1 vs. 8 or 9 to 1 with gasoline) can achieve much higher thermal efficiency than gasoline engines, on the order of 2X as efficient----even without the heavy, complicated and expensive electrical components. That is the secret to why Indy racers and Grand Prix Formula One cars all use biofuels---thermal efficiency.
Comment
33 of 35
January 28, 2009
I would respectfully like to take a crack at the following, Mr. Linn, and see what you think.

"This article is pure BS. There are no electric vehicles available that fill the needs of what we need our vehicles to do. There are no manufacturing facilities available to produce electric vehicles. There is no means of recharging electric vehicles. There are no repair and maintaince facilities available for electric vehicles. Nobody can afford electric vehicles."

This may all be true at present, but those facts were at one time all true about internal combustion vehicles, until Ford decided to change the facts on the ground. EV factories can never be built? Mechanics somehow are too dense to be trained on EV repair and maintenance? And as for recharging, I will repeat an idea which I've been writing in other venues, a fact about the great majority of battery-powered devices which seems to escape participants in these discussions: one can design for the batteries to be REMOVEABLE. That way, existing filling stations, almost all of which by now have access to plenty of grid electricity, can site charging stations and transfer machinery to remove the discharged set, lay it on the charger or a staging area awaiting space on the charger, then install a completed set from the charger. Tell me why this process could not be honed to take no more time than it takes to fill up an SUV.

"Biofuels are completely compatible with current vehicle design and technology. Biofuels can be used in any combination with current petroleum and infrastructure. You can't do that with any electric vehicle."

Then how is it being done with the current hybrids? Electric propulsion is being used in combination with petrofuels.

"Electric vehicles are only useful for very limited applications, golf courses and shopping malls."

The only things I see precluding electric vehicles are high-speed racing and war, the latter of which will hopefully lessen with our efforts.
Comment
34 of 35
January 28, 2009
Avery----I will go along with everything you say. I really have no quarrel with EVs.
You may be right and someday all those things will be available and competitive. That would be great as far as I'm concerned.
My only point is, they are not available to work with right now. And we are fast running out of time. I think we need to use biofuels now. If EVs come along later and prove to be a good choice as well---that's great---it's a big world and there's room for everybody.

-------"The only things I see precluding electric vehicles are high-speed racing and war, the latter of which will hopefully lessen with our efforts."-------

War is a major reason I think we are running out of time---and as we stretch further and further from peak oil---I think we are in for more of it[war].

That's why I think we need to get biofuels into use as soon as we can. That doesn't mean that I'm against EVs----they just aren't ready right now.

I think that hybrids have a LOT of design advantages that could revolutionize the way we make and use our vehicles. However, the basic concept of WHY we use hybrids only makes sense to me if we make them biofuel capable.
Comment
35 of 35
February 12, 2009
"That is the secret to why Indy racers and Grand Prix Formula One cars all use biofuels---thermal efficiency."

Correction to Fred Linn's comment No. 34:

The fuel used in Formula 1 engines is gasoline (very small amount of additives allowed) and has been for decades.

IRL race cars use ethanol.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
ISSUE COVER IMAGE: About Renewable Energy World

With over 50,000 subscribers and a global readership in 174 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine covers industry, policy, technology, finance and markets for all renewable technologies. Content is aimed ... more »

 

Advertise With Us

American Solar Energy Society Southwest Windpower SMA America, LLC Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency Valentin Software, Inc - providing Solar Design Software Geothermal Energy Association Conergy Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine 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 India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters