Breaking Ground on Cellulosic EthanolContinued from page 1
What's more, there are many unknowns about how well the thermochemical process will work when it comes to making commercial-scale quantities. Past attempts by scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to scale up thermochemical techniques showed that smaller systems that work well face problems when processing chambers are bigger. Also, plants operating at high temperatures and pressures tend to deteriorate quickly, adding to costs. The latter concern might be less of a problem now, however, says Steve Deutch, a senior research scientist at NREL, because of the more-resilient materials. Thermochemical approaches to making biofuels, such as Range Fuels' approach, also face competition from new biological methods that use enzymes and organisms to break down cellulose and produce ethanol. Indeed, in September, Mascoma, based in Cambridge, MA, announced that it would build a cellulosic plant in Monroe County, TN, that will make ethanol from switchgrass. At this point, it's still not clear which approach will work best, because no commercial-scale plant of either type is operating. During the DOE's funding earlier this year, the agency backed both thermochemical and biological approaches. Ultimately, it's still too soon to predict how successful early attempts like Range Fuels' will be. "It's hard to make money on the first one of anything," says Lanny Schmidt, a professor of chemical engineering and materials science at the University of Minnesota, who is also developing thermochemical methods for making biofuel. However, if the first plant works as well as Mandich hopes, the production of cellulosic fuel could quickly accelerate. "Who knows how the economics will work out?" Schmidt says. "You have to build it and see what happens. It's a wise move on DOE's part to try different technologies, because no one knows at this point who's going to be the winner." |
Gasoline from Vinegar
09/09/2009









Comments
Why chase corn, switch grass, wood without trying out sugarcane?
orsos
11/15/2007
Posts:1
Another question is: Why produce ethanol at all? Why not butanol?
Answer: It's all about the money.
bkshilo
11/15/2007
Posts:18
Scientists at Cornell University say making the fuel uses more energy than it creates, while the National Research Council warns ethanol production threatens scarce water supplies.
Stanford University researchers say ethanol, originally added to gasoline in the 1970s to reduce tailpipe emissions, does nothing to improve the environment. "It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it actually gives off," says David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor who has studied production of the fuel for two decades." Take out the 51-cents-a-gallon federal subsidy, and the true cost of U.S.-produced ethanol is equivalent to paying $6 a gallon for the same energy as gasoline, calculates Michael B. McElroy, Harvard professor of environmental studies.
Propanol is superior to ethanol but still cost prohibitive, and though I have several logging slash piles I would love to see turned into fuel, I doubt logistically it will ever happen.
RD
11/21/2007
Posts:112
salil
12/14/2007
Posts:1
BTW, there's a very good way to use wood chips for energy that doesn't require a lot of money or excessive energy: burn it for electricity. It's been the largest source of renewable energy for several years now. But the government skews the economics so badly by being so determined to push an agenda, the handouts cloud better judgement.
MakeSense
04/17/2008
Posts:93