Why ethanol from cellulose is a hoax!
calde...@yahoo.com
The biofuel zealots falsely claim that our current disastrous use of
corn for ethanol production is only temporary, and is somehow a
building block or stepping stone for future ethanol production from
switchgrass, crop waste, wood chips, and other sources of cellulose.
The problem is that the equipment (manufacturing plants) used to make
corn vodka (ethanol) are of no use in making ethanol from cellulose,
which is a complex and expensive two stage process requiring new plant
construction and costing millions upon millions of dollars. The
current cost of making ethanol from cellulose is the same as making
gasoline from crude oil that costs $305. a barrel. As ethanol has 30%
less energy than gasoline and thus delivers poor gas mileage, this
product is currently economically dead. If we can improve our methods
and cut the cost in half, that still brings us to an oil equivalent
price of gasoline made from crude oil at about $150 a barrel, plus we
still have the 30% loss in energy per gallon compared to gasoline.
Even if they got the cost down to an oil equivalent of $100. a barrel,
it is still not a good deal because of the 30% energy loss inherent to
ethanol, which cannot be changed unless you make another fuel product
altogether.
As expected, many money hungry companies are making big claims about
having bacteria that can make ethanol from cellulose work, but ask
yourself how and at what price? If they had a bacteria that could do
the job instantly it would be the ultimate anti-human life weapon,
because if it got loose it would eat up the earth's biosphere and we
would have nothing left but bacteria. Obviously, you can make ethanol
from lots of substances given enough time and money, and "time is
money." It takes time and specific conditions (usually higher
temperatures) to make these bugs work, and the time it takes to rot or
dissolve wood chips and switchgrass into something that can then be
fermented into alcohol is a complex, time consuming, and expensive
process.
A new study from three agricultural economists at Iowa State
University with insider information on the latest biofuel technology
says ethanol made from cellulose will likely NEVER be affordable The
Federal tax credits for ethanol made from cellulose would have to be
raised from the current $.51 to $1.55 per gallon, which will be
unacceptable to Congress and the American public. Switchgrass, crop
waste, and wood chip biofuel schemes are too expensive to ever work!
The newspaper article can be found here - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746
The full study can be found here - pdf 180kb at:
http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp460.pdf
Coming soon after the Princeton study published in SCIENCE showing
that all biofuels are far worse for the environment and global warming
than gasoline leaves the biofuel zealots little cover to hide behind.
SEE - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861
Another problem with our current corn vodka infrastructure is that it
is located in the wrong areas, and not near the "marginal" prairie
lands" that Bush wants to grow switchgrass on. So the idea that corn
ethanol is a stepping stone to anything but more corn ethanol is a BIG
LIE!
Quoted from my web page.
"The outlook for biofuels is dismal - Growing massive amounts of
switchgrass to produce ethanol from lignocellulose has most of the
same drawbacks as making ethanol from corn. We will use land, water,
fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor to grow switchgrass that will be
diverted from food production, with soaring food prices a result. If
we grow switchgrass on land currently used to graze cattle, we will
reduce beef and milk production. If we grow switchgrass on unused
"marginal" prairie lands, we will soon turn those marginal lands into
a new dust bowl, which they may turn into anyway due to global
warming. Computer models for the progression of global warming show
the America Midwest and Southwest getting hotter and dryer, with much
of our farm and grazing land turning into desert. We know that
biofuel production will speed up global warming, so why are we pinning
so much hope on an environmental battle plan that any fool can see
will blow up in our face over time? We won't be able to produce
enough biofuels to run our cars, or enough food to fill our
bellies.
The very process of making ethanol from lignocellulose has not
been proven to be economically viable (cellulosic ethanol not
affordable, pdf 180kb), and the Bush energy bill assumes new
scientific breakthroughs that have not occurred. Some new biofuel
crops are toxic weeds which will have a destructive impact on wildlife
and biodiversity around the world. In practical terms, there is not
enough usable land area to grow a sufficient quantity of biofuel
plants to meet the world's energy demands. Even if the USA dedicated
100% of our corn and soybean production to biofuels, we would only
satisfy 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. To quote
Stuart Staniford, "The biofuel potential of the entire human food
supply is quite a small amount of energy compared to the global oil
supply - somewhere between 15 to 20% on a volumetric basis, so 10 to
15% on an energy basis." Every year the human race burns up the
equivalent of 400 years worth of planetary vegetation in the condensed
form of fossil fuels. How are we going to replace all that
concentrated energy by growing biofuel crops on our desperately
overpopulated, pure water starved little planet?
Growing algae to make biodiesel is being touted as a cure-all for
all our biofuel problems, but we are still stuck with the fact that
algae need solar energy to turn carbon dioxide into fuel. To make
biodiesel, algae are used as organic solar panels which output oil
instead of electricity. Research reports brag that algae can produce
15 times more fuel per acre of land than growing corn for ethanol, but
that still means we would need approximately 30 million acres of
concrete or plastic lined algae ponds to meet 100% of projected US
automotive fuel usage by the year 2022. Those algae schemes that use
less land invariably call for feeding algae sugar. Sugar must be made
from corn, beets, or other crop, so you are simply trading ethanol
potential to make oil instead of vodka. If you grow genetically
engineered super-algae in open-air ponds, the genetically modified
algae will be immediately carried to lakes, reservoirs, and oceans all
over the world in the feathers of migrating birds, with unknown and
possibly catastrophic consequences. Using agricultural waste water
for algae production is a good idea, but algae may be more logically
used for making modest amounts of animal feed, as algae is very costly
to turn into fuel.
Using agricultural "waste" to make biofuels has its own
problems. Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed
under increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the
most potent greenhouse gas of all; nitrous oxide. Much of the
residual crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil
integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion will increase
dramatically. If we mine our topsoil for energy, we will end up
committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire. Without
topsoil, the world starves! Using wood chips to make ethanol sounds
like a good idea until you remember that we currently use wood to make
pellet fuel for stoves, paper, particle board, and a thousand and one
building products. Every part of the trees we cut down for lumber are
used for something, including the bark which is used for garden
mulch. The idea of sending teams of manual laborers into forests to
salvage underbrush for fuel would be prohibitively expensive. Our
forests are already stressed just producing lumber without tasking
them with producing liquid biofuels for automobiles, a scheme which
will inevitably drive up the price of everything made from wood,
creating yet another resource crisis."
------
Please visit my page on biofuels, "The biofuel hoax is causing a world
food crisis!" at:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
You can find the latest biofuel disaster news at -
http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html
Christopher Calder
Roger Coppock
wrote:
> Why ethanol from cellulose is a hoax!
>
> The biofuel zealots falsely claim that our current disastrous use of
> corn for ethanol production is only temporary, and is somehow a
> building block or stepping stone for future ethanol production from
> switchgrass, crop waste, wood chips, and other sources of cellulose.
Excuse me, but I though cellulose was to be converted
to methanol, not ethanol.
V-for-Vendicar
<calde...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Why ethanol from cellulose is a hoax!
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
Plants have been fermenting cellulose to ethanol for several billion years
now.
Thtat's quite some long lived hoax there, Bubba.
chemist
Not in my book.
Day Brown
will produce 100-120 gallons of ethanol/acre, which can then be
further processed to produce butanol, which has the same fuel energy
as gasoline and will burn in the same engine.
The USDA website says sorghum can be grown in my area (Ozarks 36deg
No) for 3.5 gallons of tractor fuel/acre. It is gonzo easier to deal
with than corn.
Its green all right; the problem is not green, its the red ink for the
BATF. If you ferment the juice of sorghum, you get rum, not whiskey,
and there's no isopropyl alcohol to worry about. You drive on it, but
you can also drink it. The BATF would loose control of the liquor
industry!
I dont have a problem with that. Do you?
V-for-Vendicar
"Day Brown" <dayb...@hughes.net> wrote
> Its green all right; the problem is not green, its the red ink for the
> BATF. If you ferment the juice of sorghum, you get rum, not whiskey,
> and there's no isopropyl alcohol to worry about. You drive on it, but
> you can also drink it. The BATF would loose control of the liquor
> industry!
>
> I dont have a problem with that. Do you?
Oh look. The drunk RepubliKKKan is manufacturing yet another conspiracy
before our very eyes.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
Kelley Eidem
N-butanol can be used to eliminate migraines in about two minutes.
It's been done thousands of times in Europe.
It was also used in a medical trial consisting of catatonic
schizophrenics by injection. This was done about 1949.
Some of the patients began to behave normally. One patient who hadn't
spoken in two years began to joke with the nursing staff. The study
was discontinued apparently because it caused a rash for some
patients.
In Germany, the n-butanol form of butanol was included in the first
aid kits of the Mercedes Benz automobiles. It can stop arterial
bleeding without dropping blood pressure.
It will also stop spontaneous bleeding in cancer patients for a period
of 2-3 days.
Poetic Justice
Liquor TAX, that's what they would lose control of.
V-for-Vendicar
>> Excuse me, but I though cellulose was to be converted
>> to methanol, not ethanol.
"chemist" <tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> Not in my book.
Why do you think methanol is also called "wood alcohol"?
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote
> Liquor TAX, that's what they would lose control of.
Oh look. The drunk RepubliKKKan is manufacturing yet another conspiracy
Trakar
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:dd4fd251-20a8-4cbb...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>Excuse me, but I though cellulose was to be converted
>to methanol, not ethanol.
Either is possible, but most current R&D is toward the production of
cellulosic (lignocellulosic) ethanol.There are many issues involved in such,
it is not as simplistic an analysis as some are trying to portray it. Of
primary importance, with relation to biofuels, is the understanding that
they are not a substitute for crude oil derivatives in a business as usual
future. They can however, provide a valuable supplement to help us wean and
transition our technological base off of and away from fossil transportation
fuels.
V-for-Vendicar
"Trakar" <TShaitanaku-at-comcast-dot-net>\
> Either is possible, but most current R&D is toward the production of
> cellulosic (lignocellulosic) ethanol.
Breakthrough In Biofuel Production Process
James Dumesic of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his former student
George Huber, now at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, are breaking
new ground in the development of an alternative fuel called "green
gasoline." (Credit: University of Wisconsin-Madison)
ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2008) - Researchers have made a breakthrough in the
development of "green gasoline," a liquid identical to standard gasoline yet
created from sustainable biomass sources like switchgrass and poplar trees.
Reporting in the April 7, 2008 issue of Chemistry & Sustainability, Energy &
Materials (ChemSusChem), chemical engineer and National Science Foundation
(NSF) CAREER awardee George Huber of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst
(UMass) and his graduate students Torren Carlson and Tushar Vispute
announced the first direct conversion of plant cellulose into gasoline
components.
In the same issue, James Dumesic and colleagues from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison announce an integrated process for creating chemical
components of jet fuel using a green gasoline approach. While Dumesic's
group had previously demonstrated the production of jet-fuel components
using separate steps, their current work shows that the steps can be
integrated and run sequentially, without complex separation and purification
processes between reactors.
While it may be five to 10 years before green gasoline arrives at the pump
or finds its way into a fighter jet, these breakthroughs have bypassed
significant hurdles to bringing green gasoline biofuels to market.
"It is likely that the future consumer will not even know that they are
putting biofuels into their car," said Huber. "Biofuels in the future will
most likely be similar in chemical composition to gasoline and diesel fuel
used today. The challenge for chemical engineers is to efficiently produce
liquid fuels from biomass while fitting into the existing infrastructure
today."
For their new approach, the UMass researchers rapidly heated cellulose in
the presence of solid catalysts, materials that speed up reactions without
sacrificing themselves in the process. They then rapidly cooled the products
to create a liquid that contains many of the compounds found in gasoline.
The entire process was completed in under two minutes using relatively
moderate amounts of heat. The compounds that formed in that single step,
like naphthalene and toluene, make up one fourth of the suite of chemicals
found in gasoline. The liquid can be further treated to form the remaining
fuel components or can be used "as is" for a high octane gasoline blend.
"Green gasoline is an attractive alternative to bioethanol since it can be
used in existing engines and does not incur the 30 percent gas mileage
penalty of ethanol-based flex fuel," said John Regalbuto, who directs the
Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program at NSF and supported this research.
"In theory it requires much less energy to make than ethanol, giving it a
smaller carbon footprint and making it cheaper to produce," Regalbuto said.
"Making it from cellulose sources such as switchgrass or poplar trees grown
as energy crops, or forest or agricultural residues such as wood chips or
corn stover, solves the lifecycle greenhouse gas problem that has recently
surfaced with corn ethanol and soy biodiesel."
Beyond academic laboratories, both small businesses and Fortune 500
petroleum refiners are pursuing green gasoline. Companies are designing ways
to hybridize their existing refineries to enable petroleum products
including fuels, textiles, and plastics to be made from either crude oil or
biomass and the military community has shown strong interest in making jet
fuel and diesel from the same sources.
"Huber's new process for the direct conversion of cellulose to gasoline
aromatics is at the leading edge of the new 'Green Gasoline' alternate
energy paradigm that NSF, along with other federal agencies, is helping to
promote," states Regalbuto.
Not only is the method a compact way to treat a great deal of biomass in a
short time, Regalbuto emphasized that the process, in principle, does not
require any external energy. "In fact, from the extra heat that will be
released, you can generate electricity in addition to the biofuel," he said.
"There will not be just a small carbon footprint for the process; by
recovering heat and generating electricity, there won't be any footprint."
The latest pathways to produce green gasoline, green diesel and green jet
fuel are found in a report sponsored by NSF, the Department of Energy and
the American Chemical Society entitled "Breaking the Chemical and
Engineering Barriers to Lignocellulosic Biofuels: Next Generation
Hydrocarbon Biorefineries" released April 1. In the report, Huber and a host
of leaders from academia, industry and government present a plan for making
green gasoline a practical solution for the impending fuel crisis.
"We are currently working on understanding the chemistry of this process and
designing new catalysts and reactors for this single step technique. This
fundamental chemical understanding will allow us to design more efficient
processes that will accelerate the commercialization of green gasoline,"
Huber said.
Adapted from materials provided by National Science Foundation.
Trakar
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:WseLj.50904$dA2....@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "Trakar" <TShaitanaku-at-comcast-dot-net>\
>> Either is possible, but most current R&D is toward the production of
>> cellulosic (lignocellulosic) ethanol.
>
> Breakthrough In Biofuel Production Process
Thank-you, I had not seen that article yet, that is good news!
Anon
convert it to petrol. Is Petrol IsoPentane? Cellulose is (C6(H20)6)n with
the C6 as a ring. The takes out the OH to make C6H6 plus H2O then
catalyitcally convert it with hydrogen to make it into C6H14 then crack it
to make isopentane. C5H12+CH4.
I would think the price would be similar to making petrol from tar-sands.
--
Anon
<calde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:55dae544-5105-4f4a...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...