(Page 2 of 2)
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."
The influential biofuels startup failed because its technology proved too expensive.
ZeaChem starts construction in Oregon, but plans elsewhere have stalled or been scaled back.
$92 BILLION is the IIED estimate that we taxpayers will subsidize ethanol production from 2006-2012. Ethanol is CORROSIVE to metals, rubber, plastics, and fiberglass because it is a solvent and absorbs water. New studies show ethanol is increasing some health problems. Ethanol additives are destroying many of the older gas powered equipment running on it, and even some new equipment isn't being built to withstand ethanol. Motor manufacturers have severe biofuel additive limits on their warranties.
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.
The study by David Pimental has been debunked by other studies by researchers at USDA and Argonne National Labs. Please refer to: The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update_July 2002 (http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf). The study by Pimental relies on old data and lot of assumptions which haven't been backed up such as energy required to manufacture farm machinery, where no data is provided how energy embodied in farm machinery is calculated. Also, study by Pimental assumes low productivity and high fertilizer use as compared to the current widely accepted data available. I suggest you refer to other studies when discussing Net Energy value of Ethanol. Even in the worst case, which is Ethanol from Corn, the Net Energy value is positive and use of fossil fuels in Ethanol (corn) is less than Gasoline.
In addition to the DOE building the plants, the U.S. also subsidizes cellulosic ethanol at 2.5 times the rate of corn ethanol. That amounts to $1.28/gallon. When you have everything already paid for, of course it pays to put up a plant. To those who say that the EROEI of cellulosic ethanol is substantial, you need to look into the wording and assumptions of those estimates. Often they base their numbers only on "nonrenewable" energy. That makes no sense, portraying renewable energy as something that can be wasted all we like. Pimental was wrong in some areas, but the government estimates are also wrong. The EROEI is bad, and it gets worse as time goes by and biomass must be collected further from the plant.
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.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
orsos
1 Comment
Substrates
We have large acres along the Gulf that can grow sugarcane. This plant requires less nutrition, pesticides, water, etc. and has high levels of sugar that should be easy to ferment and distill.
Why chase corn, switch grass, wood without trying out sugarcane?
Reply
bkshilo
36 Comments
Re: Substrates
Grow sugarcane? If we started doing that, then we would have to further justify the high tariffs on Brazil's ethanol, which is derived from sugarcane.
Another question is: Why produce ethanol at all? Why not butanol?
Answer: It's all about the money.
Reply