alt.energy.renewable

schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0da45e1d-bed4-486d-846f-c2d52d91c8a2@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> New study says ethanol from cellulose not likely affordable - ever!

This study is a nonsens.

This study goes with small increases of oil price
This study goes with ICE cars only
This study is crap.

Look on the oil price, $104,30 highest ever.

Look on the peak oil study of the energy watch group.

When oil demand is in 2018 at 103 million barrel a day,
oil delivery at 63, this 40 million barrel gap can only
be filled in 2 ways: $300 oil price or a huge effort to
built a huge photovoltaic world producition

The necessary effort could be compared with the USA
war economy 1942 to 1945.

http://live.pege.org/2008-energy/war-economy.htm

Cars have to be changed ASAP to plug-in hybrid,
so the demand for liquid fuel goes down by 80%.
80% electric
20% by an ICE generator

For the rest, it will be interesting to stretch biomass
by hydrogen from solar electric power

http://car.pege.org/2007-future/stretch-by-hydrogen.htm

Not Ethanol, Methanol is the target
Here a compare of plug-in hybrid
with hydrogen or methanol as range extender
http://car.pege.org/2008/fuel-cell.htm

By the method of stretching by hydrogen combined
with plug-in hybrid cars, the demand for biomass
decreases dramatic
http://car.pege.org/2007-future/biomass-efficiency.htm

That's a typical production figure
http://live.pege.org/2008-energy/biomass-wood.htm

Anything like this in the study?

The time of linear thinking is over! It's nonsens to make
a study where dramatic changes in the situation in several
connected sectors are not mentioned.


--
Roland Mösl
http://car.pege.org cars and traffic
http://live.pege.org building and live
http://www.pege.org








> 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 -
> http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html
>
> Christopher Calder
>