Ethanol for $1/gallon, without corn

the_technocrat

<p>Government mandates are forcing the US to move to five times its Ethanol production by 2022. <a href="http://www.coskataenergy.com/">Coskata</a&gt; has developed a process in which 99.7% Ethanol can be created out of any organic material, from plant matter to trash.</p>
<p>Ethanol from corn produces 1.3 times the energy needed to produce it. Coskata's method produces 7.7 times the energy input, and less than 84% of the greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>Coskata plans to have a 100,000-gallon-per-year facility open by 2011.</p>
<p>via <a href="http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/01/ethanol23">Wired</a></p&gt;

RWB

100,000? Is that even considered a good start?

Leonardo

100,000? Is that even considered a good start?

That was my question as well. I guess it actually would be a good start, if the enterprise is considered a proof of concept operation and working demonstrator.

I really hope this works. Corn ethanol is nothing more than a political racket to secure loyalty from the cornbelt states. It basically screws everybody else not in the industry: taxes to pay for federal corn farming subsidies, higher food prices for all grain-based food. Corn ethanol - boondoggle, racket, political sacred cow.

the_technocrat

Leonardo wrote:

That was my question as well. I guess it actually would be a good start, if the enterprise is considered a proof of concept operation and working demonstrator.

I really hope this works. Corn ethanol is nothing more than a political racket to secure loyalty from the cornbelt states. It basically screws everybody else not in the industry: taxes to pay for federal corn farming subsidies, higher food prices for all grain-based food. Corn ethanol - boondoggle, racket, political sacred cow.

I believe it's a proof of concept.

I've read arguments that putting a premium on corn for ethanol, at the expense of other crops, can be considered a crime upon society, but for the health effects and food shortages. I'm not ready to go full-on into that, but they do make some good points.

In any case, I can't help but wonder if sharing your food source with energy usage is a good idea... doesn't seem like it

shwaip

is it food grade?

the_technocrat

shwaip wrote:

is it food grade?

I think the general argument is that farmers will plow under soy, wheat, etc to plant corn because of the high demand.

Leonardo

the health effects and food shortages

Well, no shortages that result in hunger, at least no in North America. But shortages meaning a tightening of supply of grain - yes, that's happening now. That means more expensive corn products and anything that depends on corn. This also affects beef and pork prices.

I think the general argument is that farmers will plow under soy, wheat, etc to plant corn because of the high demand.

It's not an argument, it is fact. It is happening now. To add insult to injury, corn production is federally subsidized. So you get only slightly more energy out of corn ethanol than the energy required to produce it, you lose grain available for the food and livestock market, and we pay taxes to subsidize this. Put the ethanol in your gas tank, and due to it's poor energy density compared to gasoline you pay a penalty there as well (more fuel required for the same amount of work). I'm all for ethanol and alternative fuels, but only if they are true economical alternatives.

I'm not a pessimist. I am a true believer in technology and am not afraid of our future with respect to energy. I am though, not so optimistic about the ability of our elected representatives to make decisions that will benefit the greatest number of people, and not just the various groups making loud noises (left or right).

the_technocrat

Leonardo wrote:

I am though, not so optimistic about the ability of our elected representatives to make decisions that will benefit the greatest number of people, and not just the various groups making loud noises (left or right).

agreed, unfortunately.

mmonnin

Leonardo wrote:

To add insult to injury, corn production is federally subsidized. So you get only slightly more energy out of corn ethanol than the energy required to produce it, you lose grain available for the food and livestock market, and we pay taxes to subsidize this. Put the ethanol in your gas tank, and due to it's poor energy density compared to gasoline you pay a penalty there as well (more fuel required for the same amount of work). I'm all for ethanol and alternative fuels, but only if they are true economical alternatives.

I believe the estimate of the small gain in energy from growing corn is made with calculations of using gasoline in the farm trackors. There is no reason that ethanol cannot be used there as well.

Corn is actually one of the least efficient ethanol sources. Freakin wild grass is tons better. On top of that it is less mainentance to farm.

I've also read research that the energy output from ethanol is being improved to be more inline with gasoline.

The natural laws of economics say that prices for corn based products will only go so high and then we will find other sources for ethanol for fuel or other alternative sources. I can't say what that is as we havent yet hit that point with oil prices, at least not like what happened in the 70s/80s.

jhenry

Most tractors run on diesel, especially red industrial diesel since it's cheaper (subsidized i believe), so it wouldn't be that easy to run them on ethanol. They could definitely use biodiesel though.

mmonnin

Thats what I mean...