So what happend to ethanol???

[Scotsman]

GM is still promoting the hell out of it and supposedly there was a study released not that long ago by some science magazine saying it's ultimately more harmful than petrol production and burn (or one or the other)!? I keep hearing about this study putting an end to the ethanol fan-fare but yet it's nowhere to be found. And what the hell happened to second gen bio-fuels like Cellulosic ethanol??? A

[Mr. Wyndham]

Do you have a link/quote to this article? I'd like to have a look at that....

Ethanol is very much still alive as far as I've heard.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by DerScotsman

GM is still promoting the hell out of it and supposedly there was a study released not that long ago by some science magazine saying it's ultimately more harmful than petrol production and burn (or one or the other)!? I keep hearing about this study putting an end to the ethanol fan-fare but yet it's nowhere to be found. And what the hell happened to second gen bio-fuels like Cellulosic ethanol??? A

I heard that there is another company out there that claims they can more or less match whatsits company . . . the one that GM helped. Anyway, $1/gal production costs for ethanol are on their way. These guys are working on building a facility to produce usable amounts, thousands of gallons a day, in the near future.

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Do you have a link/quote to this article? I'd like to have a look at that....

Ethanol is very much still alive as far as I've heard.

I'll try to look it up, if I can only find it..........

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I heard that there is another company out there that claims they can more or less match whatsits company . . . the one that GM helped. Anyway, $1/gal production costs for ethanol are on their way. These guys are working on building a facility to produce usable amounts, thousands of gallons a day, in the near future.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...laims-725.html

When Coskata came out of stealth mode in January with a General Motors Corp. partnership and a claim that it could make ethanol from nonfood crops for less than $1 per gallon, it certainly raised eyebrows.

After all, other estimates place the ethanol cost at closer to twice as much. In 2006, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman put the cost of producing cellulosic ethanol at about $2.20 per gallon, twice the cost -- at the time -- of corn-based ethanol.

But now another company has joined Coskata in making promises that -- if it can meet them -- will dramatically revise those economics.

The Alternative Energy Technology Center, traded over the counter as "AETE," announced last week that it plans to produce cellulosic ethanol in the U.S. market for less than $1 per gallon, compared to costs of $2 per gallon to make ethanol from corn. It also announced Monday that it is in the "completion phase" of designing and building a biorefining system to make 20 to 100 tons of ethanol, gasoline, diesel and other products per day.

And the AETE press releases are likely to be only part of a series of announcements from companies claiming they can meet Coskata’s cost target, said Rick Kment, a biofuels analyst for DTN Research.
Wes Bolsen, vice president of business development at Coskata, thinks so too.

"There are going to be a lot of players coming out and saying stuff like that," he said. "Coskata came on the scene with a pretty big splash, and you figure other people in this space are saying ’Holy crap, we’ve got to get out there with some news.’ Some of the best minds and entrepreneurial companies in the country are trying to come up with an alternative-energy fuel solution and that’s exciting."

The idea that cellulosic ethanol could soon be cheaper than corn-based ethanol is gaining traction, in spite of the higher costs so far. Take Gulf Ethanol, which earlier this month said it planned to convert corn-based ethanol plants into cellulosic-ethanol plants, forecasting cellulosic materials would be a quarter of the cost of corn (see Corn Prices Drive Gulf Ethanol to Cellulose)......

Kment recommended caution. After all, cellulosic ethanol hasn’t actually become commercially viable yet, he said. And the prices that companies expect to pay for cellulosic materials are likely too low, he added.

"Companies are really focusing on a price target of $1 per gallon, but until there’s an actual product [in production], it would be hard to put a lot of stock into that level," he said. "For new companies, there are usually a significant amount of additional cost. And $1 per gallon, including the overall cost of the plant, sounds awfully low."

In AETE’s case, Kment said it’s hard to evaluate the company’s technology based on the information released so far.
For example, AETE didn’t explain how much of the plant’s cost it is attributing to products aside from ethanol, he said. "You can make ethanol for $1 a gallon if you’re charging all the plant costs to another product," he said. "It’s very vague."
AETE officials could not be reached Tuesday.

But even if the $1-per-gallon target includes the plant costs, the economics could soon change, Kment said. Competition could end up raising the prices of cellulosic feedstocks, mirroring the corn prices that have more than doubled in the last couple of years, he said.
Are cellulosic-ethanol manufacturers trapping themselves in the same situation faced by corn-based ethanol manufacturers today?
Coskata’s Bolsen says no.

He says that’s because cellulosic ethanol could drop prices to below the "tipping point." That is, 20 to 30 percent below the price of gasoline, to account for the fact that ethanol delivers 20 to 30 percent fewer miles per gallon than gasoline. Once ethanol prices reach that level, he said, consumers will demand ethanol in quantities great enough to make room for players.

"We are going to be able to sell at lower than the tipping point," Bolsen said. "It’s such an opportunity in front of us. I will be so excited what a lot of people are producing ethanol at less than $1 a gallon. That’s where it has the potential to really replace gasoline and to be a primary fuel."

Still, Kment said it will be difficult for cellulosic-ethanol companies to differentiate themselves because they are making a commodity, not a proprietary product.

"In cellulosic-ethanol technology right now, there are so many different types of processes and products that seem to be flooding the market," Kment said. "And I think in the future, that’s going to be boiled down to probably three or four major types of processes that really catch on. Some of these processes will be winners and others will fall by the wayside."

As some standardization happens, he said, the processes with the lowest costs will win out and then the manufacturers that grow most quickly will have the advantage.

Bolsen disagreed with the idea that technology won’t be a determining factor.

"Coskata’s talked about a licensing and build, own and operate model," he said. "This is not about us saying Coskata is going to control 10 billion or 15 billion gallons of ethanol because we’re building all that ourselves. We think we have some of the best technology and want to get it out to other people’s hands."

Still, he agreed the market calls for a "speed-to-market" play.

"It’s definitely about getting out there and establishing yourself, and I think that’s what a lot of people are trying to do," Bolsen said. "You can’t just have a technology; you have to have someone to build it too; you’ve got to have partners. There are going to be some great ideas that don’t go anywhere because they don’t have the backing they need."

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...laims-725.html

[Scotsman]

Ethanol myth blasted in new Science mag
Posted Feb 11 2008, 02:54 AM by Jon Markman
Filed under: Investing, Alternative Energy

Corn-based ethanol production is sure to go down as one of the greatest mistakes ever in U.S. energy policy, yet it is so heavily embedded in election-year politics it just won't go away.

The government's recent move to boost ethanol production -- embedded in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 -- panders to Midwestern and Southern farm-state electorates that are influential in presidential races, yet will end up costing the nation billions more than it purports to save.

I wrote about this scam back in October in a column titled, "Shuck the ethanol and let solar shine," but apparently for some reason my expression of outrage was not enough to prevent Congress from passing a law in late December that will cost taxpayers as much as $550 billion over the next four years.

Now scientists have finally completed research that shows ethanol is not only bad business but also bad for the environment. According to news reports, the latest issue of Science magazine highlights studies showing that biofuels produce more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels when all of their production inputs are accounted for.

Two studies shows that replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades. The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%.

How? It's because, as I described in my piece, so much energy is required to fertilize, harvest and refine the fuels. It's also because the growing of fuel plants replaces the growing of vegetation that actually consumes harmful greenhouse gases.

The research at Princeton and the Nature Conservancy found that an intensified push to grow fuel crops would also rob the world of biodiversity as it would require the clearing of vast tracts of pristine rainforest in South America and Africa. In total, the researchers said they discovered it would take as much as 300 years to pay off the carbon debt caused by biofuels' initial cultivation.

Luckily, some public officials are waking up to the danger of ethanol. The United Nations recently tasked a panel to evaluate biofuels sustainability, and there are rumblings that the next session of Congress will look at the possibility of already reforming the recently passed bill.

Investors meanwhile should continue to avoid the ethanol-based stocks, including popular names like Pacific Ethanol and recent initial public offering BioFuel Energy.

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...ience-mag.aspx

[Mr. Wyndham]

hmmm, I wonder if these scientists are the same guys who figured out Global Cooling, or Warming...maybe? Oh, heck - let's just call whatever it is Climate Change, yeah - that's it.....


But I digress, EVERYTHING I've read so far has shown that Ethanol from ground to exaust pipe reduces emissions compared to gasoline from well to exaust pipe. But most of that reduction is taking into account the C02 emissions that would have occured due to these plants decaying in the landfils after we've eaten them, or just the waste siting on the ground anyways. However, I will scede that Corn Ethanol, though still advantageous...isn't great. It's reduction is only like...20%?

After reading up and learning about this stuff, the way I like to describe it, is that gasoline is pumping out Mother Earth's crap, and reintroducing it into the atmosphere...it would have stayed where it was if it wasn't for us. Plants, however, would always keep decaying, making emissions by burning it instead of letting it decay doesn't make much of a difference.

Plus, how can ANY study show anything like that 30 years into the future? By using a very narrow view of everything staying the same as it is now. Efficiency will change; and by that time, there's been talk of growing the 1.5 - 2x the amount of corn/switchgrass in the same landspace....

And if anybody even suggests that we cut down rainforests for biofuel, me and Billions of other people will personally wring their necks. Wrong. Ain't gonna happen.

It seems to me, I'm no physcic and I'd hate to be wrong, but it seems this guy doesn't like Ethanol very much...and has his own gains to be made off of other energy sources.......

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It seems to me, I'm no physcic and I'd hate to be wrong, but it seems this guy doesn't like Ethanol very much...and has his own gains to be made off of other energy sources.......

And generating hits for the website of his employer??? Pandemonium in this country sells. I think you'd have a seirously hard time proving something like this, but when there's a pot of sunshine somewhere, hell, why not piss on it???

[DGthe3]

I've said it before, I'll say it again:
Corn ethanol bad. Cellulose ethanol good. Chemically identical, but completely different from a practical stand point.

The thing regarding the startup costs is that there is already a market for ethanol fuel. Most places offer a 10% blend. High costs for startup can be absorbed easier in a low % blend. Then, once things become viable, E85 will take off. Also, current economics say that at 3.25/gal for gasoline E85 won't work. But what happens at 4.50/gal? the whole picture changes.

[Roflmao]

I'm not too learned on the whole idea of ethanol, but why is corn ethanol bad compared to cellulose ethanol? If it is because the price of corn could skyrocket, I think that idea seems idiotic to me. One of the things almost every american history class teaches is the fact that the farming industry has become so efficient that the gov't pays them to not farm. I know part of that is to encourage crop rotation, but the other is to keep the price of the crop stable. It would be pretty simple to allow farmers to plant more corn to supply the bigger demand, if that is the case. If not just ignore me haha.

[DGthe3]

basically, the idea of using ethanol is to produce a clean, renewable fuel and reduce dependancy on foriegn oil. however, corn ethanol typically requires more oil than it displaces. Its like thinking of a loan as a source of money. you get the bank to give you $5000, but in the end it costs you $5500 to pay back that loan. Great for a quick fix but not sustainable. Same goes for corn based ethanol. Increasing ethanol use isn't making food more expensive, its the price of oil. But still, American farmers are capable of producing corn cheaper than the mexicans can, and thus flood their market with cheap corn. mexican farmers have protested the importation of american corn, they are losing their income because they cannot compete. And this is when you try and limit production, and thus increase price -supply and demand

I keep bringing up oil with the production of food. Pesticides are derived from oil. fertilizers are derived from oil. tractors run on diesel, so do transport trucks. All of this adds up, and unless the food is grown organically, there is an awful lot of oil that goes into growing things like corn. Thats why using cellulose is good. the stock thats used is basically waste from something else. So nothing extra is needed to make it. but its more difficult to make.

[Scotsman]

I'm wondering why these ehtanol-banshee's didn't bother to slam Brazil??? The whole country runs on sugarcane based ethanol.

[Roflmao]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

basically, the idea of using ethanol is to produce a clean, renewable fuel and reduce dependancy on foriegn oil. however, corn ethanol typically requires more oil than it displaces. Its like thinking of a loan as a source of money. you get the bank to give you $5000, but in the end it costs you $5500 to pay back that loan. Great for a quick fix but not sustainable. Same goes for corn based ethanol. Increasing ethanol use isn't making food more expensive, its the price of oil. But still, American farmers are capable of producing corn cheaper than the mexicans can, and thus flood their market with cheap corn. mexican farmers have protested the importation of american corn, they are losing their income because they cannot compete. And this is when you try and limit production, and thus increase price -supply and demand

I keep bringing up oil with the production of food. Pesticides are derived from oil. fertilizers are derived from oil. tractors run on diesel, so do transport trucks. All of this adds up, and unless the food is grown organically, there is an awful lot of oil that goes into growing things like corn. Thats why using cellulose is good. the stock thats used is basically waste from something else. So nothing extra is needed to make it. but its more difficult to make.

Makes sense, basically the production does not exceed the amount needed to produce the product in the first place.

[Scotsman]

I sent an e-mail to Coskata regarding the issue last night, and a surprise in my e-mail "box" this morning...

My question:

Hello, First, I'd like to say I'm very pleased with the possibilities Coskata presents us in the form of Cellulosic ethanol production for the masses. However, there have been recent reports issued by scientists regarding pollution produced in ethanol production being even higher than CO2 emitted by cars (correct me if I'm wrong?). Thus limiting the proposed benefits of ethanol as an alternative fuel choice. What is Coskata's response to this? Thank you,

Coskata's reply:

*****-

Thank you for your interest in Coskata.

While we have not formally responded to the recent reports, particularly the recent Science article regarding the CO2 effects of ethanol, here are a few points to take under consideration:

1) The recent report in Science, and the associated article in the NY Times, noted the impact of land use changes as a significant source of CO2 production. In this case, destroying rain forests to grow corn for ethanol would result in a damaging CO2 balance. While we have not verified these assertions, we are certain that our technology need not rely on feedstock sources that require significant land development. One of our technologies' advantages is that we can make use of existing material sources (including MSW and agricultural waste products) to produce ethanol.

2) Our GREET analysis performed by Argonne National Labs that showed at potential for up to 84% decrease in CO2 emission compared to gasoline was very comprehensive in its scope. We are confident that this evaluation was sound and correctly reflects our prospective operations.

We hope you will continue to follow Coskata as we make progress toward the large scale production of affordable and efficient ethanol. We will begin to announce our projects over the coming months at www.Coskata.com.

Thank you again for your interest.

Best Regards,

Coskata, Inc.