POET Further Commits to Cellulosic Ethanol

Brandon--------" Some of this money finds its way in the hands of those that are killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan......"-------------

BRAVO! You are a good man, Brandon. All the oil in the world is not worth the death or maiming of one single US serviceperson.

If biofuels are to work they must
(1) contain significantly more energy than that required to produce them,
(2) not interfere with growing food,
(3) not require excessive use of other resources such as water, and/or
(4) leave residue that is useful as fertilizer and prevent soil erosion
This would probably require technologies like biomethane or pyrolysis that can use non-food portions of food crops and leave good fertilizer, or algae which does not take up as much land, water or nutrients. These are all promising technologies though some are not yet ready for prime time.
I think for ground transportation a better investment would be plug-in hybrid and all electric vehicles using lithium-ion batteries, and using wind, CSP/solar-thermal-electric, photovoltaics, hydro, geothermal and tidal power. Yes these vehicles are expensive now, e.g. the Tesla Roadester is $109K. But the Tesla Model-S will be about half that price and if the price of EV's and PHEV's can be halved again you will have an EV or PHEV that most of us can afford.
There were lots of good reasons posted for quitting fossil fuel. A couple other are as follows. Some of this money finds its way in the hands of those that are killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and of course global weirding.

Charlie------don't grow corn in California. Sugar Cane grows in California. Sugar beets grow in California. Wood grows in California. Hay grows in California. Citrus fruit grows in California. Agave cactus grow in California.

Ethanol can be made from any plant source at all.

Biodiesel can be made from algae---and algae can be grown anywhere. In California where water usage is a concern, algae can be grown in a closed loop system requiring very little input because there is no H2O loss to the atmosphere. After the lipids(biodiesel) are removed---the remaining biomass can be made into ethanol or other hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsch process that requires no water at all. You can get ethanol and biodiesel from the same biomass with all most no water input at all after initial set up.

http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039

http://www.valcent.net/s/HDVGS.asp?ReportID=264273

Water use to grow corn for Caliofornia ethanol is about 2000 gal to produce 1 gal of ethanol.

That adds up to a lot of water.

The gal of water use per mile traveled might be interesting

-----------"Why not use the CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels and "stimulate" plants"--------

Why burn fossil fuels? Why not use plant sources for our energy and skip the fossil fuels entirely?

-------"Funny how CO2 is OK from one source, but taboo from another."------

Because fossil fuels contain toxins from being in contact with the deep subsoils for millions of years, cooked in under great heat and pressure. And the conditions that caused them to become fossils in the first place. Toxins like sulphur, which when burned, combines with moisture in the atmosphere to form sulphuric acid which creates acid rain. Toxins like heavy metals such a lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, to name a few. Acid rain kills forests on a huge scale. Particulate and toxic fumes cause asthma---and asthma deaths have nearly tripled in the last thirty years, roughly parralelling out increase in the use of fossil fuels.
Strip mines destroy the earth's soil, water sheds and atmosphere.
Both coal and petroleum now come from strip mines.

--------" Ethanol is dirty, takes more energy to produce."----------

Vast numbers of people drink ethanol everyday for relaxation and enjoyment, and have throughout the entire history of civilization. I don't know of many people who drink gasoline or coal tar. Why would it be more "dirty" to burn it in internal combustion engines than to drink it? YOU are an internal combustion engine.

The energy needed to produce ethanol is sunlight. It has been done for thousands of years. We already have sunlight. It is there whether we capture and use it or not. If we capture it and use it, we have no need for fossil fuels.

Dear Fred-Linn,

Why not use the CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels and "stimulate" plants. Funny how CO2 is OK from one source, but taboo from another. Ethanol is dirty, takes more energy to produce.

Please help, I'm confused.

There are better solutions. The US must remove the preferential subsidies and mandates for corn and cellulose. Even Poet isn't claiming cellulosic ethanol will ever be competitive.

How much do you spend on gas?

70% of the gasoline that you pump into your gas tank is imported.

Every time you put fill your tank, you are sending money overseas to buy the oil to make the gas. Then you burn it up. Then you fill your tank and send more money overseas. Then you burn it up. Then you fill your tank and send more money overseas. Then you burn it up Then you fill your tank......................................................

Everytime someone fills up their tank with ethanol............ plants grow, and someone here harvests the plants and makes more ethanol. Then you fill up your tank and burn it up. When you burn it up---plants take the CO2 and make more plants, then someone here harvests the plants and makes more ethanol, and pays taxes, and buys things here, they buy everything people use. So people who work here have to make more stuff. So businesses hire more people. And they pay taxes. And they buy more stuff. And that keeps happening over and over.

Which do you think is better?

How much will this cost the taxpayers?