alt.energy.renewable

On Mar 5, 5:04=A0pm, "calderh...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
> New study says ethanol from cellulose not likely affordable - ever!
> That means no ethanol from switchgrass, wood chips, and "crop waste"
> is ever likely to be affordable!
>
> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746
>
> Cellulosic ethanol: not likely to be viable
>
> New study from mainstream ag economists at Iowa State
>
> Posted by Tom Philpott at 3:45 PM on 03 Mar 2008
>
> Cellulosic ethanol represents a beacon on the horizon -- the
> justification cited by wiseguys like Vinod Khosla for dropping
> billions per year in public cash to prop up corn ethanol production.
>
> Corn ethanol, you see, is a bridge to a bright cellulosic future.
>
> But the beacon is looking more and more like a mirage, a ghost, a
> specter; the bridge we're hurtling down may well lead to a chasm. A
> quiet consensus seems to be forming among people you'd think would
> know the facts on the ground: cellulosic ethanol, touted as five years
> away from viability for decades now, may never be viable.
>
> Last fall, a researcher from the USDA -- an agency that has lavished
> ethanol with research cash since the '70s -- declared that while
> cellulosic has 'some long-term promise' (some?), we shouldn't expect
> it to contribute significantly to fuel supplies before 2013.
>
> Then in January, Colin Peterson -- chair of the House Ag Committee and
> a long-time friend of agribiz -- let slip that 'I'm not sure
> cellulosic ethanol will ever get off the ground.' He muttered
> something about 'a lot bigger problem to overcome here than people
> realize in terms of the feedstocks.'
>
> Now we get a new study (PDF) from a trio of ag economists at Iowa
> State University. For the record, the authors are conventional ag
> scholars firmly entrenched within the corporate-dominated research
> world described so well by Nancy Scola in her recent 'Monsanto U.'
> post.
>
> Indeed, one of the authors holds the Pioneer Hi-Bred International
> Chair in Agribusiness. (Pioneer is the genetically modified seed arm
> of the chemical giant Dupont.) The researchers' patrons -- i.e., the
> agribiz giants -- benefit from the corn-as-bridge-to-cellulosic myth;
> it keeps those highly profitable government goodies coming.
>
> So it's surprising to see these mainstream economists deliver such a
> dismal forecast for cellulosic ethanol.
>
> To come up with their forecasts, the authors do their economists'
> trick of creating a model and plugging in various assumptions.
>
> They start by calculating that without the latest round of goodies --
> i.e., the fat 'Renewable Fuel Standard' of the 2007 Energy Act --
> cellulosic ethanol (and biodiesel, too) would have withered away. In
> that scenario, corn ethanol would keep ramping up from the current
> level of about 7 billion gallons, pushed by high oil prices and the
> $0.51/gallon tax credit that's existed for years.
> Here's what they say would have happened by 2022, if the 2007 Act had
> never happened (economists lay out their conditional, speculative
> scenarios in the simple present tense):
>
> The corn ethanol sector expands until total production exceeds 18
> billion gallons per year. Biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol from
> switchgrass are not viable in this scenario. Cellulosic ethanol never
> expands, and the biodiesel sector contracts so that there are no
> biodiesel plants operating in the long run.
> They add a bit that I found particularly devastating: 'These results
> suggest that [without the 2007 Energy Act], once the opportunity cost
> of land is taken into account, rational farmers will not grow
> switchgrass or soybeans for biofuel production, and rational investors
> will not build these plants.'
> Believe me, that thing about 'rational' farmers and investors is
> strong stuff, coming from conventional economists.
>
> Now, what happens when we account for the 2007 Act's hefty mandate?
> Current production, almost all from corn, stands at about 7 billion
> gallons. The act demands 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022, of
> which 15 billion comes from corn, and the other 21 billion gallons
> comes from cellulosic (and to a much less extent biodiesel).
>
> The authors seriously doubt the cellulosic target can even come close
> to being met. They reckon that the mandate can inspire 'rational'
> farmers and investors to churn out 4.5 billion gallons of cellulosic
> ethanol by 2022 -- but there's a catch. In order to reach even that
> level, the government will have to significantly jack up the tax
> credit awarded to mixers -- from the current 51 cents to $1.55.
> The message is this: Even with the fat 2007 Act mandate, cellulosic
> ethanol can only offset a tiny amount of petroleum use -- and then
> only if it's borne aloft by titanic amounts of public cash.
> --------------------------------
> The biofuel disaster just keeps getting worse, and at an ever
> accelerating rate!
>
> SEE 10 good reasons to oppose biofuels - =A0http://home.att.net/~meditatio=
n/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> Christopher Calder

speaking as a foreigner: you americans are doing it wrong. the
brazilians produce ethanol about 4 times more efficiently they'd sell
it to you if it weren't for a huge import tarriff. and they're doing
it by feremntation, which IMHO is not th best way forward in terms of
fuel from biomass.

this is what happens, I guess, when you hand out big subsidies to
interest groups: inefficiency and poor solutions.