Just another fanatical, tree-hugger, extreemist, 'chicken little' article....

One that states the sky is falling, with no science to back it up.

The issue discussed is...
We want to keep the planet the same as it was in 1850 when the earth had 1 billion human inhabitants.

How in the world do you expect things to remain 'status quo' with 10 times the people on earth now?

The only way for "the environment" to not change, is for the number of humans on earth to stay under 1 billion people. What these extreemists are really saying: Get out the nukes and blow away 9 out of 10 people is what you must do, if you insist on not making any changes.

 

"Last year fewer than 2% of U.S. gas stations offered ethanol, and the country produced 7 billion gal. (26.5 billion L) of biofuel, which cost taxpayers at least $8 billion in subsidies"

From the TIME article I posted.

This i worry about. What's a gallon of e-85 going for? Okay, add the subsidy to it. We're all paying it.

Just follow the $$$, that's why ethanol seems a good idea. But it's not.

 

^People who run regular gas also use ethanol, usually about 10%. Most of that money is going into diluting foreign oil with domestic biofuels that can run in all cars.

 

I was fortunate to attend an ethanol symposium this week of industry leaders.
There is exciting news coming out soon.

Starting with 2009, the newest production plants built will be 3x more efficient than most out there today.

Statistics:

An ethanol plant today uses about 28,000 btu of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of 76,000 btu ethanol, if heated dryers are used to dry the distiller's grain for shipment.

An ethanol plant today uses about 18,000 btu of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon, if dryers are not used, and the distiller's grain is sold as animal feed wet.

An ethanol plant of the future ( 2009 ) will use 6,500 to 8,500 btu of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of 76,000 btu ethanol. There will be no need for dryers at all. The feed parts of the corn will be taken out of the corn on the front end of the plant, not the back end, so it won't be wet in the first place.

An ethanol plant today needs 3 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. ( modest already )
An ethanol plant tomorrow will only need 2.3 to 2.5 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol.

An ethanol plant of the future ( 2009 ) will produce 2.6 gallons of ethanol PLUS 0.55 gallons of biodiesel from the same bushel of corn.
That boosts total fuel production to 3.15 gallons per bushel.
( Today they can get 2.7 gallons of ethanol, without messing with the oil for biodiesel. )

An ethanol plant of the future ( 2009 ) will pull the protien out if the corn at the front end of the plant. This could be food grade product for humans or livestock, where ever the demands be at the time.

An ethanol plant today, is 20% carbon negative. That is, production removes 20% more CO2 than it produces. ( U.S. Gov EPA says so, not ethanol producers, and many national labs, agree )

An ethanol plant of the furure ( 2009 ) will be 50% carbon negative. It will take 2 tons of CO2 out of the air for every 1 ton you and I burning the fuel puts back in.
Now that's an eye opener!

It was said at the symposium that "our world is carbohydrate rich, and protien poor" thus the fact that ethanol production will not have any effect on world hunger since ethanol only uses carbohydrates for fuel. The amount of food-grade protien on the market will increase over the years due to ethanol production.

New studies show that "sweet sorghum", a plant not generally used for food, produced excellent amounts of ethanol per acre, and grows in more arid climates un-suitable for corn. This is likely to follow corn as the feed stock of choice.

Research into cellulosic ethanol continues. But currently ( it is estimated ) it costs $6 per gallon to produce ethanol from cellulose, and, even at today's high prices for corn, it only costs $1.40 to $1.60 per gallon for corn ethanol. ( no subsidies are given to ethanol producers!!! Or farmers who grow ethanol corn! Really! )

Subsidies ( 51 cents per gallon in the U.S. ) are given to BIG OIL COMPANIES to encourage them to put in ethanol pumps at their gas stations. This is like asking Coke to sell Pepsi in 10% of their vending machines. Why would Coke do that of thier own free will without financial incentive?

So you see, ethanol should be, about $2.00 a gallon at the pump.
If it is more than that, walk in and cry bloody murder!!!!
The oil company ( not the station owner, per se ) is already getting 51 cents a gallon.
Therfore, it MUST be 51 cents lower than gas to start with.
The Oil companies can buy the Ethanol for $2.00 to $2.20.
If they are selling ethanol for $3.00 a gallon, they are making .80 to 1.00 PLUS 51 cents!

It is oil companies who are getting rich off ethanol.
It is oil companies who spread lies and bad rumors about ethanol.
It is oil companies who don't want our nation to succeed in energy independence.
It is oil companies who have raised the price of food and goods in recent years.

That milk farm is getting food for the dairy cows cheaper today than 10 years ago.
There is more feed corn on the market today than 10 years ago.

The milk farm needs to pay $4.00 per gallon for diesel to truck the milk to market, where 10 years ago, diesel was close to $1.00 per gallon. Natural gas for heat ( or electricity ) was about 50% cheaper 10 years ago.

The price of milk ( bread, eggs, meat, T.V. sets, etc. ) has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with the production of ethanol. It has everything to do with the price of energy skyrocketing, and the U.S. dollar being very, very weak now.

We ( in the U.S. ) used to joke about the Peso being wothless...
Back in the 1990's I got a meal at a 4-star mexican resort for $3.
Now Mexicans are crossing the border to buy stuff here since their Peso goes a long way.

After looking at all the facts, it is unreasonable for an educated person to think ethanol is harmful for industry, or the economy, or the planet. But fear is powerful persuasion. And me telling you it is good is not as persuasive as TIME magazine telling you it is bad.

Ever notice it is always scientists and engineers telling you ethanol is good, even if just slightly better than gasoline? But it is always reporters telling you it is bad, very very bad?

I wonder why that is, and I wonder moreso why people trust reporters, the same folks who bring you O.J. Simpson, Anna Nicole, and Paris Hiltion, over scientists?

-John

 

finman — Just a note. The "Time" article you referenced quotes from the same "Science" paper that I attached to my post #120.

Stan

 

This is remarkable. How are they reducing distillation energy requirement? Distillation under a partial vacuum?

How do they separate the feed parts from the starches and sugars?

Thanks,
Bob Wilson

 

#1 the 'good' plants use vacuum distillation right now. So boiling points are down around 140'F. Keep in mind you ferment at about 95'F so that's not a lot of extra heat that needs to be added to the system.

#2 the fibers, the unfermentables, ( and undigestables ) are taken out of the grain at the front end, and burned in the boiler to produce the heat needed for distillation. No need, or little need for fossil fuel. ( It was stated 80% of the energy for the plant can come from burning this corn fiber, that otherwise contained no nutrition for animal feed anyhow. )

#3 instead of vigorous hammering of the corn that homoginizes all the parts, gentle rolling of the corn will be used. Then, I guess pneumatically and mechanically, the "lights and the heavies" can be separated. The "lights", the fiber, can be burned in a boiler like you could do with saw dust. The heavies, the protien and fat, will be used for food. The rest, the starches, will be used for fermentation.

I'm sure that is way simplified, but that is the general idea.

What's the downside? The new improved system costs 30% more to build, and we are at a time in the economy when banks are not very willing to lend money.
So you have a greater up-front cost, but you could/should recover that investment by not having to purchase fossil fuel, in only a couple years of operation.

-John

 

Thanks for the recent update on ethanol. I love it when the "average Joe and Jane" present information that makes those high profile journalist and others look silly. I'm all for using our stuff on own terms. I wish we could develop a group of independent service station owners who will sell E85 at the price it should be at.

 

This thread was started to tell you it may be better for your car, your wallet, and your MPG if you used 20% ethanol or 30% ethanol. It has turned into a good discussion and has become one of the most viewed threads. So shall we keep it going? In the news today:

"ICM is working with a team of companies and research institutions to develop the cellulosic ethanol project, including Ceres Inc., Edenspace Systems Corp., South Dakota State University, AGCO Corp., the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Novozymes, VeraSun Energy Corp. and SunEthanol Inc. The proposed plant will use a variety of feedstocks including corn fiber, corn stover, sorghum and switchgrass, and will integrate biochemical processing and demonstrate energy recycling within the biorefinery. Preliminary plans call for a pilot-scale facility built next to LifeLine Foods LLC, an existing 40 MMgy corn-based ethanol plant in St. Joseph, Mo., which will reduce the new facility’s infrastructure costs including transportation access, energy, water, wastewater treatment and utilities. LifeLine Foods was also tapped to provide 12,000 gallons of ethanol to fuel cars at all 16 races of this year’s Indy Racing League series. LifeLine is the first plant in the United States to produce both food and fuel from corn in one process. Portions of the corn kernels are processed for use in chips, cheese crisps and various other foods, while other portions become ethanol and distillers grains. "

Exerpt from Ethanol Producer Magazine
http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3971

 

Over the news wire:

"American public opinion leaders say Brazil deforests to grow sugarcane [for ethanol]. Over 90 percent of Brazil's sugarcane crop is grown in the center-south, thousands of miles away from any tropical forests, according to the Sao Paulo Sugarcane Industries Union, or Unica."

Brazil is the only Nation that exports ethanol. Primarily to the U.S. and Europe.

Also:

In Florida, the Central Florida Pipeline will commence delivering ethanol by pipeline between the Port of Tampa and Orlando. The first batch will be delivered in the third quarter of 2008 to a 23 million gallon storage facility established in Orlando.

See! I told you, you can deliver ethanol by pipeline... you just can't use "dirty" pipes because ethanol will clean them out and make the ethanol dirty!