Blackadde///

iTrader: (27)

I'm a ME major, and the alternative fuel convos have been ever so abundant in a lot of my classes as of late. Just thought I'd share news of something even more GREEN then corn ethanol. It seems to me that countries in the near future will be coming less co-dependent, and natural resources in ones own country will be the most popular fuel for our internal combustion engines. As most of you know our country is comprised of mostly farm lands, and cellulosic ethanol can be found in every plant form known. I feel like we're living in a time where new technology and new ideas feed eager young minds like myself, and I'm glad to be growing up in a era of new thinking ...... happy reading rotor heads.





"It is a type of biofuel produced from lignocellulose, a structural material that comprises much of the mass of plants."

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol



"Cellulosic ethanol, a fuel produced from the stalks and stems of plants (rather than only from sugars and starches, as with corn ethanol)"

"Cellulosic ethanol is attractive because the feedstock, which includes wheat straw, corn stover, grass, and wood chips, is cheap and abundant. Converting it into ethanol requires less fossil fuel, so it can have a bigger effect than corn ethanol on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions"

-http://www.technologyreview.com/read...ls&id=18227&a=

HAILERS

I've been hearing about cellulosis ethanol for YEARS, and, sorry, I've yet to see one single manufacturing plant producing it. There's never been a fuel more versatile than OIL.

It makes no sense using ALTERNATIVE fuels that cost more than oil, when your competitors are using the cheaper oil. There's no *addiction to oil* just common sense that tells one to use the cheaper more versatile fuel.

Carlos Iglesias

iTrader: (6)

I was talking to the cellulosic ethanol (ce) supplier for ALMS just last weekend at Laguna Seca. Four of the ALMS teams use it.

As mentioned above, it was quite expensive compared to pump E85, but there was a strong quality/consistency advantages over pump E85. I'm contemplating ordering a couple of drums.

I suspect it's only a matter of time before CE technology matures to the point of being competitive with existing dyno-based fuels. Definintely promising.

Blackadde///

iTrader: (27)

Exactly. Think about the the farming process, and the slash and burn type of agriculture that we would be using to produce all these corn fields, not saying this is the case for every farm, but as demand rises, people will ruin the ground to produce as much corn as possible.

Making some algae in a tube in some lab requires no use of land at all. Right now about 95% of the corn/grains produced in the U.S. is used to feed cattle, and in turn feed "phat" Americans. Creating a higher demand for E85 will only result in even more chemicals being sprayed on your foods, so that they mature faster. Most people want to solve the problem now, but never think about the future, or other problems we will face if we create such a high demand for corn based fuels. I won't even start on why I'm and have been a pescetarian for 4 years.

Anyway, like Carlos said, it's only a matter of time until the refining process becomes more efficient for CE. In the next ten years it will be a major competitor for alternative fuels.

astrochild7

iTrader: (3)

yep just waiting for them to realize what plant produces more cellulose in a given space and in a given time. worlds number 1 cash crop.. overgrow

Dane

So far there are dozens of them that are much better than corn, many producing many fold ethanol yield versus corn. However, the fact that we (in the US) have so much corn, read surpluses of it (even during the false reports of shortages this past summer) is why it is used for pump/blend ethanol. However, switch grass ethanol plants are currently being built around the US...for that matter there's one near here...so that will help E supplies if many states do actually go to E20 and E30 as is being proposed currently...and anyone with an IQ over 100 can make it legally with many "throw away" items at rates of 10-100 gallons per day with a small distiller.


Untrue, well, unless you read that on a oil company website, lol. At best that is a bent fact.

When corn is used for ethanol, the mash left from this process actually supplies feed stock much better (digestively speaking) than the starch filled variety they use now. So if you simply use the 95% of corn used for current feed stock to make ethanol, and then divert the by-product to livestock food, it doesn't change the overall demand for corn prodution one bit...and in theory would produce fatter cows, and a whole lot of additional moonshine, lol.
Also, look at this years surplus corn figures....meaning how much was thrown away. The surplus alone would have likely produced more ethanol than was even sold in that time period. Look it up.

But I am pretty sure I wasted time explaining that since you are rubber stamping things you read somewhere...but fwiw, those in the know realize there are dozens of plants that could be used with little or no pesticides necessary due to plant diversity. Most of them produce a much better ethanol yield than corn...for example algae, Jerusalem Artichokes, various beets, etc. But I am sure the oil companies aren't going to let that happen...and will keep putting out info like you said in the quote above. Apparently it's working for them. For every one of me that knows better, there are 10 others that quote what they heard at the barbershop or read on a website.

Blackadde///

iTrader: (27)

It's not being done, so your argument is pointless.


I didn't quote anyone, so I'll take that as a compliment.

I won't claim to be as smart as my girlfriend, but she goes to school at UCLA, and has studied trends in cancer cases over the last fews. In particular breast cancer trends from 2003-2005. Overall, compaines have reported using; not double, but almost that to produce cash crops like corn.

As demand rises production rises my friend. Have fun eating your cows full of fertilized corn. Let us know if you get cancer, not that I wish it upon you, but it'd be ironic.

Please ignore any spelling mistakes, I'm a M.E. major not a English major.

Dane

True, it isn't being done on a commercial scale, but if nothing else, my point showed that you didn't know what you were talking about (in quote 1, post #6). My original assumption that you got incorrect information from a website or via hearsay when you actually concocted it yourself is the furthest thing from a complement however. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt initally, thinking you were misinformed by an unreliable source at worst. My other assumption is that you had some general knowledge of permaculture or at least of general biology since you were making pretty bold statements, which is why I entertained the things you said at all.


1. I agree. I doubt she would use the old forum trick of bringing up a somewhat unrelated point to get the last word (good ole' "diversion from topic" trick). But I will oblige nonetheless. But any futher diversion from point will be ignored.

2. Read my post again: I never once said corn, admittedly in it's current genetically altered or highly sprayed form is healthy for anyone, human or otherwise - I never even went in that direction at all. But I will answer to that in a later pararaph...if you will read my whole post this time...or was it too long for you? Be prepared however, this one is even longer and more detailed, lol.
Anyway, in #6, I was primarily pointing out the advantage of making ethanol from corn that would be used for feed stock anyway, while the by-product nets more effective feed for the animals. Sure, this concept isn't perfect, but sure would solve many issues we have, and has been proven for decades in small scale use.

Such processes are what are called a "double dip" in permaculture. In other words, why feed 95% of the corn product in starch form to animals that will be mostly wasted in the form of methane when you can produce huge amounts of fuel and feed the animals...and do it better than is currently the case? Yep, that sounds like pure silliness. I am now expecting to hear about bird flu from corn, dead puppies, child abductions, etc....I have no idea where you would take it next to get off point.

FWIW, I too would prefer ethanol be produced from higher yielding, diverse sources, allowing the reduction or elimination of fertilizers all together. But wait, didn't you see that I already said that in my last post?
This alone totally shoots down your last point unintentionally. Read it again...it's there for the whole world to that you are grasping at straws or that you simply didn't read over my post very well - since my post occured chronologically before you said the above quoted statement.

Bottom line: corn is currently being grown for feed stock, ethanol production or not. Until this changes, making the best of current corn production including the surplus is just common sense. Cars don't get sick, and emissions from ethanol are up to 98% cleaner than gasoline, and don't contain all of the highly carcinogenic "zine" additives that gasoline needs to bring octane levels up from the 64 rating they have after refining. So if you really wanna pull the "cancer card", we can go there too, and bring her along. Heck, don't you drive an RX7 too? Put that exhaust in a cancer study, lol.


Take note that corn demand has not spiked since the previous E5-10 ethanol mandates, nor since E85 became available at over 2000 stations nationwide. So how you would unknowingly argue that E85 (or E98) would effect corn demand measurably other than possibly using more of the wasted bushels (which is in the billions this year, btw) is unfounded. Don't believe me...look up the actual numbers youself.

As also mentioned before, switchgrass ethanol plants are being built around the country primarily for ethanol fuel, and are set to come online in 09' and 10. That alone will actually drop the current "corn for ethanol" demand, which even today is only a couple percent of corn product, and in actuality would be zero right now if used in the double-dip form I spoke of since the amount used for feed is several times greater than ethanol demand. The net effect of the new switchgrass plants and/or double dipping of corn supplies would mean even more bushels would go to waste, if anything. What part of surplus do you not understand? FWIW, the unsold/unused corn alone in 08" exceeded what was used for corn ethanol production, even counting the 70% increase in E85 sales after Blume broke the story on splash blending on C2C in July.

But wait, I also mentioned the surplus in post #6 before you the last quote. The lesson is that cherry picking a post to get the last word is dangerous if you don't read it over really well (or understand parts of it). Next time at least study oil company funded studies and get back with some actual numbers, even if they are crooked as hell.