Cellulosic Ethanol Has Arrived

There is also the INEOS plant in Vero Beach, Florida - now on stream. We lived nearby for 6 months whilst my wife was doing some locum work there a few years back. The plant was just getting built then:

http://www.chemicals-technology.com/projects/ineosbioenergyfacili/

Maybe now we will now get IC engines designed specifically for ethanol fuel without those shrieks of "it corroded my tank." "All my rubber seals have failed" etc.

We must get away from using MIDDLE EAST oil before they have enough money to buy our entire countries.

you're kidding, right? this wont dent gas usage the United States, a daily average of about 374.74 million gallons there is NOT enough land to "grow enough fuel.

its an assist, not an alternative

you'd starve before that happens...

Unless otherwise there is a catalyst for organic decomposition, the process of fermentation may take a little while.

The problem in burning is low efficiency recovery from combustion, you know, the best theoretical efficiency from combustion only about 30% approximately(carnot cycle), which is pretty low, while when you would convert it via chemical process through fermentation could be 30.1%? Not bad, for 0.1% of 300M gallons is 0.3M gallons.

not quite.....

There will be a lot of charcoal from this process. and the problem is, this would be in a near powdered form. Very difficult to transport you'd have to water it down and ship it to a power plant, if you can find one........ BUT, the coal powered power plants are getting shut down by the EPA.

Secondly, you can't make the charcoal into briquettes or pellets because every thing is strip from it, and that includes binders such as Lignin. You'd have to add binders back into it. Such as ...... corn starch.

Thirdly, the charcoal is exothermic and can self ignite.

In conclusion....... for every $1.00 that you process, you'd basically have spent $2.00 to get it processed.

I agree.

In addition; The "miles-per-gallon" fuel efficiency when running on ethanol is far less than when running on gasoline so I am very sure that boiler efficiency will be likewise affected resulting in higher electricity generation cost.

The fuel mileage-per-gallon on both of my vehicles drops from 31MPG to 17MPG on my car and from 20MPG to 12MPG on my truck.

I did the math and the cheaper cost of ethanol and E85 does not provide any cost savings benefits and instead increases vehicle operation cost significantly.

I also suspect the pollution is not decreased significantly either due to the poor fuel mileage requiring more fuel to be consumed.

I do agree though that we must become energy independent from the rest of the world if we are to survive as a strong nation.

If we are going to use ethanol we must come up with equipment and methods to better extract the needed BTU's for industrial processes at a much higher efficiency rate.

Ethanol is a chain of C-H-O compound, drastically some of the potential energy from chemical reaction of oxygen, some of the energy was spent vaporizing the watery H2O chain in ethanol (as Latent heat). Pure HC or hydrocarbon w/o Oxygen in its chain has higher heat content, generally.

I just wanted to lecture for free he/she whom who OTed me.

Pls. read Wikipedia Heat of Combustion perhaps learn something today. The extra O is a dragged on the Ethanol compares to pure HC chain fuel.

Stover is the part that mostly is left behind in the fields after harvest, consisting of leaves, stalks, etc.

Whether it gets used as ethanol production feed-stock (transportable fuel, or just fuel additive), or gets burned or converted to gaseous fuel for a gas turbine, it does not matter, a BTU used this way is a BTU conserved. Converting to ethanol would remove pressure on a food crop, thus helping to decrease the cost of corn based food products, animal feed, and thus also the price of meat and milk.

Corn is one crop that does not require the plowing under of the stalks to enrich soil, although that does not hurt next year's crop. Bio-degradation of crop residues is also a major release mechanism of the dreaded carbon dioxide (if aerobic system), or of methane (anaerobic). It is better IMHO to convert to a fuel we are going to burn anyway, save the corn itself for feeding animals and ourselves, and make a happier planet all around.

Arrived? ahh,..... nothing like showing up late.

This as been around for quite some time. We make liquid smoke, and we use (lease) the proprietary properties from these people.

And the reason why I said about showing up late, there are a number of new plants doing this same thing that have either already gone bankrupt or shut down due to the high costs

These are the ones I recall off the top...

Plant in Hawaii

The need for ethanol as an oxygenate to replace MTBE is a solution to a nasty problem that has cost many billions to clean up.....Ethanol gives reduced mileage compared to gasoline because the engines in use now are not really made to capitalize on the higher octane that ethanol provides...An engine made to run on ethanol needs a much higher compression ratio....

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/ccrp-0611-e85-ethanol-fuel-test/

Now remember a small engine for increased range is desirable for a hybrid gas/electric car....so a small engine running on e-85 could produce a lot of power...

...and yes there have been pilot projects attempting to make cellulosic ethanol economically that have failed....this is a full scale production facility, with a proven model, not a pilot plant...and the first real step in making a renewable sustainable, meaning we produce the feedstock, fuel that is carbon neutral...and eventually from wild grown grasses that can be grown and harvested cheaply for our domestic fuel needs....and yes we can replace oil as a fuel source....

Eventually we could go to ethanol fuel cells to replace the batteries in EV's, eliminating the need for the ICE altogether...this would reduce the demand for fuel about 80%....

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411848/efficient-ethanol-fuel-cells/

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/20/greenlings-why-choose-a-fuel-cell-or-an-internal-combustion-eng/

Solar to Ethanol to Fuel Cell - I agree, that would be a great combo towards efficiency.

900 hp from a 2.3L 4 banger....

http://www.hotrod.com/news/1510-bisimoto-engineerings-900hp-ecoboost-mustang-is-heading-to-sema/

for 5 seconds? .... I didn't read the article.... anyways the caloric value is not as high as gasoline.

...but it can be used more efficiently...

..." the typical internal combustion engine of a car is about 25% energy efficient.^[56] In combined heat and power (CHP) systems, the heat produced by the fuel cell is captured and put to use, increasing the efficiency of the system to up to 85-90%.^[35]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Theoretical_maximum_efficiency

When I was doing research and analysis for our charcoal. I came across and excel spread sheet I'll share with you, that had some nice comparison for FUEL VALUE CALCULATOR by USDA Forest Service Located at Forest Products Laboratory One Gifford Pinchot Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53726.

Here is a PDF of it, on it is a link to the excel file.... it's pretty interesting, It really helped for comparing heating value

Lower calorific value does not necessarily equate to lower engine efficiency.

I've been working with propane fuel for years and it's well known in my circles that an engine built to run most efficiently on propane will have better fuel economy than it's gasoline equivalent.

Add in the dismal fuel efficiency reductions that emissions compliance puts on gasoline engines and on a direct 1:1 miles per gallon measurement propane will come up it equal to a bit ahead as my 99 Ford F250 pickup that is set up with dual fuel and on the go switchover capability has shown over the last 5- 6 years I have had it.

Highway driving 10 -12 MPG on gasoline and 10 - 13 on propane. Heavy towing is around 6 - 8 on gasoline and the same on propane. As for cost present costs $2.45 a gallon for gasoline and 95 cents for propane which even if there was a substantial decrease in MPG number the propane wins hands down the cost per mile.

Someone started this thread up. Back in the late 80's or 90's, I built a ram jet that ran on propane, made a fixture out of parts from the farm. Based off a farm implement spindle from the wheel.

It was fun, dam thing ran like a top, but ram jets aren't very efficient. Added a fuel preheated, because the propane was dropping out the exhaust because it was frozen and combustion was about 3 feet out from the exhaust.

Then my brother and I built a still for fuel and make good use of 200 acres of corn. I was going to use it as jet fuel, my brother had other ideas. :-)

A friend of mine out in the country (he is a multiculturalism farmer - translation he is a farmer with a lot of acres of wine grapes) also has made a ramjet but I think he used a different valving arrangement. He is presently reverse engineering a RATO pod to use it on a GO-Kart, in spite of my warnings to him that "strapping a rocket to your butt can be hazardous". He also has a "potato" gun that uses propane, but this thing will not shoot a potato very far because it converts it to hash browns (which have extremely poor aerodynamics).

In my case, I did a lot of research at the library. One name (can't recall the name) kept on coming up in articles and books.

Once, I saw a picture of him standing next to Wernher von Braun. As I read through the articles, I can across his name, then an actually phone number.

I called, turned out, he was a Russian Jew. he had got tied into working with the NAZI's in WWII. He came over under Operation Paper clip. He worked at NASA under project pin wheel. And at the time retire and was living in California and was in his 80's. (This was in the 90's).

We talked quite a bit, and his wife said he just enjoyed talking to "the nice boy from Wisconsin". I think he just had difficulty remembering my name.

Sometimes, I'd call, and we talk for 2 hours, we'd hang up, and I'd have to call him back, because I forgot to ask his my original question that was the reason for calling him in the first place and then we'd talk for anther hour.

Yes, strange who all the Nazis came to depend upon for the their war machines and materiel.

When was researching Operation Paperclip a few minutes ago, I ran across another name, Kurt Tank, whose aeronautical research led to the development of the Fw-190 series fighters and the Ta-152 (higher altitude version of 190 with very long wingspan), perhaps a planform precursor to the U-2. Kurt Tank's biography, however, does not appear to mention his participation with NASA, but rather shows him heading off to Argentina, Post World War II, later to India, then back to Germany.

But we don't need it.

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Gasoline-Sales.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel_in_Australia

The main problem lis in the fact that using the stover means to deprive it from the soil, which means that there will be a need to compensate it with more fertilizes!

Well many studies have been done on this, there are pro's and con's to everything, this is no exception....but remember this is a stepping stone technology to green waste to ethanol....perfection takes much time and effort....

http://www.iowacorn.org/documents/filelibrary/research/research_reports/IowaCornResearchBrochureExtended_EBC92457EA83D.pdf

New enzyme,,,,.

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/press/new_enzyme_cuts_chemical_use_ethanol_plants_more_70

Farmers claim ethanol is a good thing...

http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/agriculture/3868738-sd-farm-bureau-farmers-union-agree-ethanol

Of course they would, they are finally able to make a substance living off of it because of the demand.... which drove the price too high to for it to be economical viable.....

But,.... this year may be different because of the projected corn yields. Its lower, but not too bad

not only fertilizer but bulk materials

One thing some of the thinking minds today have forgot is Henry Ford designed his cars and trucks to run on alcohol. That is until Rockefeller convinced him to convert to gasoline so he could sell more oil.

"When Henry Ford told a New York Times reporter that ethyl alcohol was "the fuel of the future" in 1925, he was expressing an opinion that was widely shared in the automotive industry. "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust -- almost anything," he said. "There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years."

Ford recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely cultivated.

Ford's optimistic appraisal of cellulose and crop based ethyl alcohol fuel can be read in several ways. First, it can be seen as an oblique jab at a competitor. General Motors had come to considerable grief that summer of 1925 over another octane boosting fuel called tetra-ethyl lead, and government officials had been quietly in touch with Ford engineers about alternatives to leaded gasoline additives. Secondly, by 1925 the American farms that Ford loved were facing an economic crisis that would later intensify with the depression. Although the causes of the crisis were complex, one possible solution was seen in creating new markets for farm products. With Ford's financial and political backing, the idea of opening up industrial markets for farmers would be translated into a broad movement for scientific research in agriculture that would be labelled "Farm Chemurgy." 2"

http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml

....If only....

Interesting link.

Hemp is possibly one of the most versatile and eco-friendly crops.....Too bad one of it's uses was deemed morally wrong....

https://www.morningagclips.com/hemp-rebirth-sprouts-across-nation/

http://www.hempcar.org/hempfacts.shtml

http://www.hempcar.org/hemplaw.shtml

Hemp and marijuana are two different plants. And the active ingredient THC varies between the two.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090915113538.htm

I beleive Canada grows hemp commercially, and there is a push to grow it commercial here in the states.

A few years ago, my girlfriend brought home some dog chew toys made from hemp, and it's surprising soft material.

What, did I see Hemp? You say?

In spite of pleadings by some that aquaculture (algal culture) can out produce land crops by a factor of 10 (or so), no one really seems to have picked up on that, and now it is possible to thermally converted whole, un-dried algae to a variety of hydrocarbon products in a quick, thermally clean manner with high yield, it sort of makes the whole alcohol economy obsolete by miles.

How so does it make the alcohol obsolete. I would think it would help relieve the cost to a point lower, and make it a more viable energy source. I have worked on a algae manufacturing facility and their response to me was that they offered their product for sale and people would not pay the price for their product. So now they use their breeder systems to sell to medical companies. We are located in the Midwest, so it may just be a Midwest thing. Out west the greenies will pay the price, even when they can't afford it. And I am not a nay sayer I do try to practice respect for the environment when it makes sense. Just some times it don't make sense environmentally or economically. Now I will get slammed by the Greenies on the site.

LockDuke: Since the production capacity is ~10 times what corn or any other land based agricultural product outputs on a yearly basis per acre of land taken up, why bother with corn at all? If people realized that the entire transportation fleet can be fueled from a land mass the size of about 1/6 of Colorado, would not the price of algae come way down as production increased en total?

Not only that, I suspect that the protein in algae is probably better for animals than that in corn, just a hunch.

With having talked with the operations people at the local algae growing operation their only complaint is that they just could not sell it as cheaply as alcohol made from corn. That being said most of the alcohol made here is subsidized by big brother, so I understand why they could not be competitive.Their comment was that at some point the price point would become equal enough to be competitively priced in the near future. Then they would try the market again.

Well, obviously, the government always missed the choice. For example, back before ethanol was the big deal, they had a choice to make between ethanol and butanol.

Butanol was formerly a by-product of the production of acetone from the A-B-E process, wherein bacteria (a rather nasty one, but safely handled even back in WWI by the Brits). At the time, the butanol was not a particularly high part of the yield, but a significant by-product nonetheless. It was known that by "tweaking" the conditions, the acetone yield could be lowered (along with the ethanol yield), and the butanol yield majorly increased to become the major product, and since WWI, the process was further improved upon if and when butanol was the desired product.

Butanol: 100 octane, practically insoluble in water (above a fraction of 1%), thus no requirement to distill the product, as it simply floats up to the top. Bacteria were selected for butanol tolerance, etc. Butanol has a very similar heat content per gallon to gasoline, still slightly less, but close. Butanol is remarkably non-corrosive to metal tanks, as it not particularly hygroscopic, and not harmful to diaphragms and gaskets.

Out "all-knowing" government quashed the whole idea of butanol plants in favor of ethanol, what a stupid, moronic, wasteful, and meddling idea. This sort of ham-handed meddling with science and technology is just one more example of why big government is the worst possible idea for our and our children's and grand-children's futures.

I hate to dig up this dead thread, but someone also recently informed me that taking all the stover off to the fermentation plant (or pyrolysis plant) robs the soil of the cellulose that needs to be plowed under to help maintain (1) soil gums that are the result of decaying plant matter with healthy bacteria, and in so doing (2) maintains soil tilthe.

IDK what you do with this added important information. Maybe they could just go halfsies.