Back to cellulose ethanol discussion 9

[0707]

Back to cellulose ethanol discussion:

Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans

As more and more corn grain is diverted to make ethanol, there have been public concerns about food shortages. However, ethanol made from cellulose materials instead of corn grain, renders the food vs. fuel debate moot.

On the other way unexploited categories of cellulose material that will be removed from forests will also reduce the risk of forest fires during the warm season as it happened recently in California.

Cellulose ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulose biomass feedstock including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, and sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switch grass.

The "woodchips and stalks" represent resources that are currently available from forestry and agriculture, though very underutilized. One of the largest unexploited categories is wood that needs to be removed from forests to reduce the risk of forest fires. Well over 8 billion dry tons of biomass has been identified by the U.S. Forest Service as needing fuel treatment removal. The amount of this biomass potentially available for bio energy uses is estimated to be about 60 million dry tons annually

In times of fuel shortages, fermentation ethanol has been commercially manufactured in the US from cellulose biomass feedstock using acid hydrolysis techniques. Currently, some countries in locations with higher ethanol and fuel prices are producing ethanol from cellulose feedstock. However, it is only recently that cost-effective technologies for producing ethanol-from-cellulose (EFC) in the US have started to emerge.
There are three basic types of EFC processes—acid hydrolysis, enzymatic hydrolysis, and thermo chemical—with variations for each. The most common is acid hydrolysis. Virtually any acid can be used; however, sulphuric acid is most commonly used since it is usually the least expensive.

There are no commercial plants producing ethanol from cellulose biomass in the world, although cellulose ethanol has been produced during war time by processes featuring acid hydrolysis. Several commercial ventures have been proposed involving selling ethanol produced from cellulose biomass into existing chemical or fuels markets, suggesting that cost-competitive production of ethanol from cellulose biomass in these markets, although not bulk fuel markets, is within reach today. Funding for such ventures has however not been secured to date.


With the actual oil barrel prices it is time to clean “our gardens” and start to produce cellulose ethanol.

Luis marques

 

[KENAT]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21670502/

Sorry if anyone already posted it.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[csd72]

good one!

 

[GregLocock]

Energy efficiency of ethanol production

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/04/energy-balance-for-ethanol-better-than.html

Interesting analysis of US tax breaks/subsidies on ethanol

http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a/2007/11/04/greg_staff_on_ethanol_costs_and_ineffici

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[moltenmetal]

Yeah, taxes are only popular if they affect people other than us. The corrolory is that the only time we care about the poor is when they can be used as an excuse to avoid a tax we'd have to pay ourselves!

You don't fix poverty by subsidizing fuels any more than you can fix hunger by subsidizing food. Rather, you put money into the hands of the poor, or better still, take less of it away in the form of income taxes and claw-backs of the social program money we already give them. Then we let them decide what's more important: food on the table and time spent on (properly funded) public transit, or gas and road tolls for their wreck.

Like it or not, the higher fuel prices (due entirely to taxes) in the UK and Europe DO have an effect on consumption: their automobile fleets are something like 25% more fuel efficient than those in the US. There's also a great deal more and properly serviced and funded public transit alternatives in Europe. Contrary to popular belief, that's not ALL the result of higher population density.

Holding out hope of the great technological fix gets us nowhere. It merely gives politicians an excuse to do nothing. THAT'S why we, as engineers, need to de-bunk this crap when we come across it. Without the market forces to drive improvements in energy efficiency and consumption taxes to fund the alternatives, there will be no reason to buy hybrid cars, upgrade appliances or homes etc., and no viable alternative to the car for most people. We'll merely get more of the same.

 

[csd72]

moltenmetal,

I am sure that the Ford Focus that I have in the US is not as fuel efficient as those in the UK.

They are cheaper though.

csd

 

[KENAT]

I blame all the civil engineers that work on those out of town malls (including those for grocery stores) that you have to drive too.;-)

Or you can spend all day on the bus, sometimes one leg of the journey is even subsidized by the mall.

Then again the poor have nothing better to do so we'll let them sit on the bus all day, it's their fault for not making more money.

While it would be somewhat painful for me now, I'm not fundamentally opposed to increasing taxes on gas so long as there was some hope it was going to be spent on worthwhile stuff, preferably transport related. I got used to it in the UK.

However, I do have concerns for the less well off, not just so I can avoid taxes. The infrastructure has been built up around cars, some are now deciding cars are bad.

I grew up without a car until the late 80s, we walked, cycled & when necessary trained or bussed everywhere. Trouble is the infrastructure got set up for having cars and it got harder and harder to do, and the bus & train got expensive. So we finally got a car.

I think it would take a lot of time to get back to a situation where most people can do with out a car. I am a beliiver/supporter of public transport but it doesn't answer all the questions.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[Gymmeh]

I just bought a really nice bike for $20...to had to the three I already have

 

[PSE]

If governments had even a chance to be as efficient with funds as vehicles are with fuel consumption, I might support tax increases for alternative fuel research/infrastructure funding. Decent charitable organizations can at least give you what percentage of your contribution actually makes it past the administrative expenses. Governments have a habit of appropriating funds for uses other than originally intended.

For me it is good to see alternatives coming into the marketplace not necessarily as a result of governmental initiatives. As the price of petroleum rises, perhaps some entreprenurial types will be able to bring additional alternatives successfully into the marketplace. In the US it will be quite a challenge as much of the culture and infrastructure is based around the automobile as primary transport.

Regards,

 

[Gymmeh]

PSE, I an very interested to see what will happen in the US when the price of gas at the pump actually cuts into the lives of the "middle class American". When driving becomes a have or have not, ultimately separating people into classes.

I wonder if anyone from the Gov't is reading the thread, there are a lot of good educated solutions to the energy problems.

 

[GregLocock]

The European driving experience shows you what will happen when gas reaches 10 dollars per gallon

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

The cost of running a new car is so dominated by financing that rational people will still buy whatever suits them, by and large.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[moltenmetal]

Greg: not quite true, as evident from the significantly greater fuel efficiency of the European auto fleet compared to the North American one. But you're absolutely right that even in Europe, the price of fuel isn't high enough to become the #1 determinant in regard to what sort of vehicle a person chooses.

In North America, there's virtually no motivation to buy more fuel efficient vehicles based on market forces. The smaller vehicles barely consume their original capital cost in fuel over their entire useable lifetime. That needs to change or we will get more of the same.

 

[SomptingGuy]

I've said it before here that the ONLY reason North Americans would buy a fuel efficient vehicle it to minimise the minutes spent freezing on the forecourts when refuelling during winter times. Cost is not a problem; comfort is.

 

[PSE]

Gymmeh,

I have already been considering the impact fuel prices have on my lifestyle. From less vacation travel to changing the hours I work so that my commute is less stop and go. My schedule is not compatible enough to carpool with others living nearby. One or two days a week is not fair to them. Am I in danger of not being able to afford to drive, not in the forseeable future. I'd contemplate a motorcycle but commuting around the city would at times be tantamount to attempting suicide.

SomptingGuy,

You might have something there. Keep putting smaller tanks in vehicles forcing people to stop to refuel more often. They might get tired of that and demand/look at more efficient vehicles.

Regards,

 

[Gymmeh]

SomptingGuy, the problem is people do the opposite where I live, they get the biggest SUV they can find in the winter, because its "safe" in winter driving conditions. From my experience, the safest part of winter driving is good tires and common sense. ex: don’t drive 70mph w/ 2inch of snow on the road (thats not a joke).

 

[Gymmeh]

PSE, I have also even watched my budget for gas and changed my life around it.

I know the prices have changed people, but what will be intersting is when people actually cant afford to drive at all, having 2 cars becomes a luxury! Driving is such a part of US culture that when this effects the middle class (majority of people). I am sure their will be alot of changes!

 

[jmw]

Sompting guy,
comfort may be a factor for the driver but for the gas station it is turn-around times.
Modern gas pumps deliver fuel faster and all the companies that make this equipment are geared up to introducing new technologies that will speed up filling up cars significantly.
Fatser turnarounds is just one way to increase revenues for gas stations. In the Uk of the £1.02 per litre perhaps 2p is the gas stations profit, 25P the oil companies. Most of the rest is tax.
In the UK we are promised that truckers will stage another go slow. They will thus attempt to demonstrate their annoyance to the government. In the UK, government hasn't had to worry about the peasants revolting since the corn riots, I'd guess. The truckers are about the only exception. The last time they did this was to protest a tax rise. The chancellor postponed the rise until they'd gone home for their teas. He learned this from the French approach to disturbances (they have a lot to teach the Brits about starting a protest and ending one).

It would be a mistake to think that tax increases will work and will forever be accepted. At the moment much of the difference increased tax makes in expenditure for the poorer elements is at the expense of other things like car maintenance and insurance. When I was lad not having insurance was unheard of. Today it is fairly common. So too is driving a car when uninsured and without a tax disc. The goevernment is very strong on computers (despite the huge problems they have with them) so they think that by computerising everything they have closed the door on these activities. So sure, if you have a car in the system with you as the registered keeper and it is insured and taxed and has a valid MOT, all that info is on the system. Let one or the other lapse and you get a penalty notice through the post.
Change addresses, don't get on the system and you are free and clear.
So there is a limit approaching when the real extent of the problem will become apparent.

High fuel tax, unilaterally applied means UK businesses operate at a disadvantage to those in other countries.

Any system has to be fair, equable and uniform. It has to produce results.
Taxation disadvantages the poor. This highlights the rich/poor divide unnecessarily and leads to more social unrest.

Perhaps a better system would be to introduce some form of rationing.

However, any system that leaves any sizeable portion of the population with an unsatisfied demand will ultimately lead to that demand being satisfied via a black market. Whatever the system adopted the law abiding will suffer and the rest will evade.
It already happens in the Uk that fuel thefts are on the increase. Farms are targeted for their red diesel (is it still red?. Fuel smuggling is possible even if perhaps not so easy as cigarette smuggling.

All in all many of the measures are actually bad for society even if they are well intentioned for the environment.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[davefitz]

rather than convert your 10,000 lb SUV to burn lawn clippings, it might be easier and smarter to just trade in the SUV.

The US fleet averge fuel economy is only 19.8 mpg . Today, in Europe, you can buy a Toyota Yaris diesel that gets 75 mpg highway. For city drivers, the hybrids have similar high MPG city ratings. Thats better than a 3:1 reduction in fuel consumption, without the benefit of carpooling, bus riding, or telecommuting. You may have some trouble towing the 24 ft 350 HP boat with the Yaris, though.

 

[KENAT]

JMW, rationing - I believe I raised that point in a previous thread and no one really caught on. I did see an article about 'carbon rationing' a while back. Basically everyone got a certain allotment, I think there may have been trading if you had excess and I can't remember if they literally cut you off if you exceeded it or if you paid more tax, I suspect the latter.

davefitz, the US has slightly different emissions laws than europe. Many of the most efficient small European/Japanese cars don't meet them, especially for particulates with diesal.

if I recall correctly often nominally the same model in the US has slightly lower mpg, I assume from adjustments made to meed emissions standards.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[davefitz]

The new diesel technology, which makes use of ultra low 15 ppm sulphur diesel, can meet the particulate requirements, but they require either a rich/lean burnoff of catalyst deposits or urea additive to a scr type catalyst. At least in the prototype stage.

If push came to shove and we had to reduce fuel consumption ( due to loss of access to mideast oil) the gov't waiver for particulates would be just a signature away.

 

[Gymmeh]

KENAT, I think there are also different additives in the fuel which make in burn differently, and different octane requirements.

There are no diesel cars allowed in my state at this time…what is better 30mpg gas and low admission, or 55/75mpg diesel and high sulfides?