Maybe corn isn't good...

[Navy Blue]

niice!!

[09fathomgreen]

Using corn to produce ethanol is a bad idea from another standpoint--just based on how much water it takes to produce a crop, and by taking land out of production for food purposes, it just doesn't make sense.
I grew up in western Kansas, and moved back a few years ago. Over the past 20 years, more and more center pivot irrigation systems have been put in. Granted, they use more efficient delivery methods now, but still, it's just as much chance as a dryland crop. The yields are much, much better than dryland, but if there's hail or wind, or a disease, or frost, it's just not good.
The last five years, the growers here have been comparing their farming to gambling. They take their chances.
Also, using corn for ethanol has helped drive up food prices, and not just anything with high fructose corn syrup in it.
Notice how expensive beef has gotten? Cattle are fed corn to fatten them up in the feedlots. The conversion of feed to cow's weight gain is that it takes about eight pounds of feed for a cow to gain one pound. The average daily gain is approximately three pounds per cow, so that means each cow/steer is eating around 24 pounds of corn per day. Take that amound of feed times the number of cattle in feed lots and it's astronomical. In 2003, there were more than 10.5 million cattle in feedyards. That number hasn't really changed.
So when it comes to corn for ethanol, there is more to consider than just the environmental impact it has as a fuel, but its production, and other uses people might not consider.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I think I want to touch on another, more influencing aspect of the prices of meat, and corn, etc...

Gas. Yup. gas to harvest, gas to transport, gas, gas, gas....That 'resource' is going up in price, too (if you haven't noticed )

And according to a lot of reports I've read, the high prices of the above mentioned products has more to do with gasoline prices, than corn. Because from what I understand, the corn (as of today) that they are using to produce ethanol is 'extra' crop.

That's not to say I don't agree w/ 'ya FathomGreen.

[mega_man_01103]

i was watching a tv special on the history channel i beliver or discovery. a show called mega disasters. what would happen to the world when we ran out of oil.

anyways, they spoke about alternative methods of energy. one thing that stuck with me about ethanol is that one right now the cost to produce ethanol equates to about $3.50 a gallon. not much different than gas prices right now. also, that ethanol will only be a quick fix to the problem and that in a couple of decades, we will be back to where we are now.

my feeling is that automakers and alternative enrgey scientists should forget ethanol and work with hydrogen fuel cells. fuel cells are crazy espensive right now, $1000 per kilowatt of electric power output. and thats really because its at 50/50 efficieny (50% energy, 50% heat).

my $.02

"i think they should put more time into fuel cells."

[wildpaws]

mega man, be careful about "facts" presented on the Discovery Channel and many other channels/networks, they almost universally present a very liberal "tree hugger" slant to everything. Accepting all info you read, see, or hear can be dangerous, research can be your best friend.
Clyde

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by mega_man_01103

anyways, they spoke about alternative methods of energy. one thing that stuck with me about ethanol is that one right now the cost to produce ethanol equates to about $3.50 a gallon. not much different than gas prices right now. also, that ethanol will only be a quick fix to the problem and that in a couple of decades, we will be back to where we are now.

my feeling is that automakers and alternative enrgey scientists should forget ethanol and work with hydrogen fuel cells. fuel cells are crazy espensive right now, $1000 per kilowatt of electric power output. and thats really because its at 50/50 efficieny (50% energy, 50% heat).

my $.02

"i think they should put more time into fuel cells."

Yup, fuel cells have a bright future. They're just expensive, as you said. But even if all concenration was allocated to fuel cells - it would still be a couple of decades, I'd think, before any practical (i.e. cheap AND safe) implimentation was possible.

So that's where Ethanol comes in. As you said: It's a quick fix...but a lasting quick fix. In other words, it can be done quickly, and it can continue (theoretically) forever. (it being renewable and all)
Something to remember is that Ethanol (right now) CANNOT replace gasoline. It's impossible. But we're not looking at a single-fuel future, either. That, too - is impossible. So Ethanol is going to be around for a while, we can't drop it because it's too important.

As for the 3.50 a gallon, thing....I'm not so sure about that. Maybe that was the price to produce ethanol from corn two years ago....but that doesn't sound right for today...Then, forget about Corn ethanol for a second, which I'm SURE that's what they were talking about (conveniently). Think cellulosic, think Coskata (who says they can produce a gallon of ethanol for $1.00).

[mega_man_01103]

Originally Posted by wildpaws

mega man, be careful about "facts" presented on the Discovery Channel and many other channels/networks, they almost universally present a very liberal "tree hugger" slant to everything. Accepting all info you read, see, or hear can be dangerous, research can be your best friend.
Clyde

well i did a little research and i found this. im not sure on the date.

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.

Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".

Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels-not ethanol-are used to produce ethanol", Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price".

so according to this, it costs more to produce ethanol than gasoline.

[stovt001]

We're definitely in a time of transition now. The gasoline powered ICE has been around for over 100 years, and we just keep refining the thing, but there is only so much polishing we can do at this point. Then we have alternatives like ethanol and fuel cells, but they are so underdeveloped that they are not currently viable solutions by themselves. Of course, with more development fuel cell prices will come down. The cost, sustainability, and environmental impact of ethanol will improve. But this will all take a major investment to get these things perfected to the level that we have gasoline-powered transportation developed today. On top of that, these new fuel sources require a complete overhaul of our refueling infrastructure. These are the reasons that gasoline has stuck around for so long. Sure we're not making huge leaps and bounds, but its pretty close to as good as it can get right now, its cheap, and everything is set up to support it. Change will be long, difficult, expensive, and confusing, but it will come eventually.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I think I want to touch on another, more influencing aspect of the prices of meat, and corn, etc...

Gas. Yup. gas to harvest, gas to transport, gas, gas, gas....That 'resource' is going up in price, too (if you haven't noticed )

And according to a lot of reports I've read, the high prices of the above mentioned products has more to do with gasoline prices, than corn. Because from what I understand, the corn (as of today) that they are using to produce ethanol is 'extra' crop.

That's not to say I don't agree w/ 'ya FathomGreen.

And don't forget the Gov still subsidises corn farmers for NOT producing corn. I'm not saying this will have a huge effect on the cost to produce corn based ethanol. But it should help if they get rid of the subsidy.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by mega_man_01103

well i did a little research and i found this. im not sure on the date.

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.

Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".

Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels-not ethanol-are used to produce ethanol", Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price".

so according to this, it costs more to produce ethanol than gasoline.

This has to be related to Corn based ethanol. The link in my earlier post shows the numbers to be closer to gasoline with cellulosic based ethanol. Again, I don't htink anyone is saying tha corn based ethanol is the way to bring ethanol into the mainstream as a gas repalcement.

I think Dragon hit the nail on the head by saying we will have mutilple engergy sources in the near future. Consumers will be given a choice of Fuel cells, hybrids, hydorogen etc.

[TAG UR IT]

http://domesticfuel.com/2008/02/

Here's an interesting site if ya'll want to check up on it from time to time.

Darnit if I just couldn't find the article or video from CNN where they were talking about cellulose corn based ethanol today. Basically, it wasn't too great for the ole' corn industry. They were talking gov't subsidies and how it was costing quite a bit to make the corn but not get enough out of it in return....basically that it wasn't efficient enough and things needed to change.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

They've been making ethanol for thousands of years. the ethanol for E85 made the traditional way is, for all intents and purposes, moonshine. its the same as the stuff that gets you drunk in beer, wine, vodka, and all the others. Its just 100% pure as opposed to 40% for most spirits, thats why the need to mix it with gasoline to make it a fuel. otherwise people might drink it at the pumps.

Ooo... Everclear anyone?...

[Georgianne]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

They've been making ethanol for thousands of years. the ethanol for E85 made the traditional way is, for all intents and purposes, moonshine. its the same as the stuff that gets you drunk in beer, wine, vodka, and all the others. Its just 100% pure as opposed to 40% for most spirits, thats why the need to mix it with gasoline to make it a fuel. otherwise people might drink it at the pumps.

And everyone thinks West Va is backwards! They have been a head of he game for years-just nobody knows it yet

[Mr. Wyndham]

Anybody still doubting GM and Coskata?? First off, tsk tsk. (joke)

But I'd like you to read this:

Can Coskata produce ethanol for less than $1 a gallon?


Wes Bolsen

CMO & Vice President, Coskata Inc.

I had the chance to chat with as many as 95 people on the GMnext site on February 21. I think the sentiment of most participants was best summed up with a question like “Is Coskata REALLY going to be able to produce ethanol for under $1/gallon at commercial scale?” The underlying message being, “Don’t go and get my hopes up for this technology, and then not be able to make it happen.” I want to try and address this and a few more issues in this follow-up to last week’s chat.

To be honest - I had the same questions when I came to work at Coskata over a year ago. I also wanted to know: “How does this compare with other technologies, and can Coskata really do this?”

The answer is Yes, we really can do what we are promising. Next-generation ethanol is here and commercially viable. However, you don’t have to take my word for it.

Companies like General Motorsand ICM who are the leaders in their respective fields, have had R&D teams examine the process first hand. As a result, some incredible partnerships and alliances have gotten under way in the last year.

More than three dozen journalists, many with the same questions and natural skepticism I saw last week, have toured the Coskata headquarters and lab facility. As I mentioned in my chat, take a look at the Cars.com article here for a sense of the “OK, let’s see it” attitude that is out there. The reporter humorously describes his visit and the setting of our headquarters. After his initial doubts, he decided Coskata is the real deal. I’ve seen this same thing happen with many visitors to our pilot facility. I still get a kick out of the “Aha,” moment that comes at varying times depending on the visitor. That never gets old for me.

Another question that was prevalent was: “So, OK, you can do this process at gallons per day, but can you do this at millions of gallons per year?” Answer: Absolutely. But I do not want to brush off the learning and the challenges that will come with building a world-class biorefinery. This is an engineering challenge, and not a science challenge – and that is why we are engaging and partnering with the best design-and-build firms in the United States and globally.

More about our technology. Coskata has a three--step process. 1) Gasification 2) Fermentation of syngas and 3) Ethanol separation. Gasification is a well-proven technology at scale. Ethanol separation is a technology also has been around for a long time. Just look on the back end of every corn ethanol facility in the country. So there are no “scale” challenges or even worries about separation technology.

The real question comes down to this: “Can Coskata’s microorganisms, living in proprietary bioreactors, really ferment (consume the gas) and make ethanol?” Again, the answer is “yes.” At our facility, I get to see it happen every day. As for making more ethanol, that is exactly what Coskata plans to do. We just need the time, about two and a half years to be exact, to get a commercial-scale facility built. The “bugs” will eat and convert as much syngas as we can feed them. They don’t really care how big of a tank they are in.

A 40,000-gallon commercial demonstration plant will start production in the next 12 months. This is what people call, “minimum scale engineering.” Coskata will “linearly” scale from this to the full commercial facility. What that means is that we will just increase the numbers of what is already working well. Instead of eight or 10 Coskata bioreactors, we will simply have more fermentation tanks. We have multiple designs that we continue to progress on as well.

The final question to be addressed is one that will be with us until the day Coskata’s distribution partner starts taking ethanol from the first facility in late 2010 or early 2011. And that is: “Can you really produce this ethanol for $1/gallon?”

Rather than just say yes, let me lay out the top five reasons Coskata will be able to deliver on this promise:

1) Coskata does not have an expensive pre-treatment process, with expensive enzymes to break down the input material. This also saves a lot of water, large tanks, and a slurry.
Since we avoid handling the lignin – the leftovers from enzymatic breakdown -- and the drying of that material on the back end, we are right into feeding time for the bugs.

2) Coskata has significant advantages by using multiple input We do not need a specific enzyme for a specific material to make cellulosic ethanol. We can use the whole stalk, fiber, and cob or other lower-cost material like fast-growing energy crops, trash, tires and a mixture of ag waste.

3) Compared to other technologies that use gasification and get the same input material flexibility, we do not have to pressurize the syngas. We can also co-locate with a current corn ethanol plant, pulp and paper mill, blending terminal, or other user of steam, because we recover the hot syngas, (1,600 degrees F), and cool it to 100 degrees F before it goes to our organisms. This is part of the energy-positive Coskata process.

4) We do not need an expensive chemical catalyst on the back end of a gasifier that ends up making a mixed alcohol and requires a specific CO-to-Hydrogen ratios in the syngas and expensive water shift reactions to get to that ratio. The Coskata organisms eat low- temperature, low-pressure, much less “cleaned up” syngas, which avoids some off the scrubbing required, in whatever ratio we feed them. The bugs reproduce themselves with only a little bit of energy, so we don’t have to worry about “generating” enough organisms.

5) Since Coskata’s anaerobic (dies in the presence of oxygen, non-harmful to animals and humans) organisms are able to live in a recycled water stream, we have major advantages on water usage and no solids handling on the back end with dried-distillers grains, lignin, or anything else. The only product coming off the back end is ethanol..

Add all of this up and it gets you to less than one dollar per gallon for the ethanol production. A simple, (but patented), system that is able to take variable feedstock material and gasify it. The bugs then eat the syngas and turn it into ethanol via Coskata’s bioreactor design. We then separate the water and ethanol to have saleable fuel to the consumer.

I hope that this wrap-up answers many of the lingering questions that we didn’t have time for during the chat, as well as a fuller explanation of the ones that I did get to. I look forward to sharing Coskata’s news with you over the coming months, as we continue to reveal major partnerships and key announcements. Stay tuned, and thanks again for your interest in Coskata.

http://www.gmnext.com/Details/Though...1-20a98d39c753

My only concern now is how quickly they can get this stuff out the door. They need to hurry.