alt.energy.renewable

On Apr 5, 10:51=A0am, "calderh...@yahoo.com"
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.
> 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. =A0The
> current cost of making ethanol from cellulose is the same as making
> gasoline from crude oil that costs $305. a barrel. =A0As ethanol has 30%
> less energy than gasoline and thus delivers poor gas mileage, this
> product is currently economically dead. =A0If 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.

Before I start, let me make the following statements.

1. I don't believe bio-fuels are necessarily the right answer.
2. I'm going to simply assume that all your numbers are accurate.

That said, bio-fuels are a good stopgap answer to gasoline. They are
also a POTENTIALLY decent long-term solution if many of the issues
you bring up are dealt with.

Price: This one is really a non-starter. If we don't have any oil or
no
access to oil, the price of gasoline doesn't matter. Therefore we have
to look at alternatives. Even the rosiest of views does have oil
running
out sooner or later. Why wait until then to pursue alternatives? The
price will come down.

Cellulose: This one is harder. It has been reasonable assumed that
switchgrass or one of the other various sources of cellulose will
replace
corn as the basis for ethanol. Okay, that's fine. The land area and
gasoline
needed to harvest these sources may not be a huge problem, if we also
assume that since we will need new equipment, we will also need a new
infrastructure for it. There is no particular reason to grow the stuff
in the
heartland of the US, where it takes up vast acres of land and uses up
valuable
petrochemicals to fertilize and harvest. We have lots of other
alternatives, from
air-based growing (thing aero-grow on a vast scale) to farming in the
ocean.
Most cellulose sources require only sun and water, ground is nice but
not
necessary.

Infrastructure: As mentioned above, there is a substantial cost in
switching
over to bio-fuels. I don't know anyone that isn't accepting this one,
except perhaps
rose colored glass wearing politicians. There is a cost in any change.
Whether
that cost is worthwhile is a separate discussion. I believe there is
the need to
change to something, what that something is is not yet clear. Nuclear
might be
the right choice, but doesn't answer the problem of, say, cars.

You bring up valid points, but none of them are dead ends. All can be
dealt with,
they just have to be considered and paid for.

Matt