Archives

As the primaries near, the presidential candidates are calling for similar, ambitious growth in ethanol biofuel. (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19831/)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Wood_Pellets_as_Biomass_to_fuel.jpgKevin Bullis - Technology Review - Dec. 7, 2007

Non-food stocks like switch grass and woodchips to Ethanol are a bit more expensive but far more CO2 friendly vs. Corn. -- Ed.

As the Iowa caucuses near, Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are advocating energy plans that would mandate the use of more biofuel. While support for ethanol may be politically expedient in a state that produces about a third of the ethanol in the United States--more than any other state--many experts warn that mandates for ethanol could lead to higher fuel and food prices without doing much to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and improve energy security.

Although leading candidates from both parties support ethanol, only the Democratic contenders have produced detailed energy plans. These plans, which are surprisingly similar, call for requiring the production of 60 billion gallons of biofuels or more by 2030. (Current production of ethanol is expected to reach 6.4 billion gallons in 2007.) For example, Barack Obama is calling for a requirement of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, and 60 billion gallons by 2030. Hillary Clinton's plan is nearly identical. John Edwards has proposed a more ambitious goal of 65 billion gallons of ethanol by 2025.

While these mandates would be much bigger than the current federal requirements of 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012, they are in line with more recent proposals by Congress and the current administration. A bill before Congress would require 36 billion gallons by 2022. President Bush has proposed a mandate of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017.

Reaching these goals will require using new sources for ethanol in addition to the corn used today. Corn-based ethanol does little to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, says John Reilly, the associate director for research at MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. It takes a lot of energy to both grow corn and convert it into biofuels. As a result, corn ethanol only saves about 15 to 20 percent of the carbon emitted from burning gasoline, Reilly says… http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19831/

News Extras

One type of Biomass to Fuel - Wood chips and pellets - roughly a quarter inch in diameter and six-tenths of an inch long - are heated in the absence of oxygen at a high temperature, a process known as pyrolysis. Up to a third of the dry weight of the wood becomes charcoal, while the rest becomes a gas. Most of this gas is condensed into a liquid bio-oil and chemically treated. When the process is complete, about 34 percent of the bio-oil (or 15 to 17 percent of the dry weight of the wood) can be used to power engines. The researchers are currently working to improve the process to derive even more oil from the wood.

We already have a problem with deforestation. I'm not sure trying to find a new use for wood chips is such a good idea?

This is where I have a problem with some environmental groups. They make people think that we're in the middle of a deforestation crisis, when in fact we have more forests now than we did 100 years ago.

In any case, for this type of process, you could do what paper manufacturers have done, and create tree farms. Net result: no impact to the forest.

While true I could see demand way outstripping supply in this case if the technique caught on -- particularly as the yield seems pretty low...

This is where I have a problem with some environmental groups. They make people think that we're in the middle of a deforestation crisis, when in fact we have more forests now than we did 100 years ago.

In any case, for this type of process, you could do what paper manufacturers have done, and create tree farms. Net result: no impact to the forest.

It might not have any impact on total number of trees but it certainly does have an impact. What was the land used for before it was farmed for trees? What about the wildlife that lived there before. Old growth trees produce more oxygen than new growth trees. We in the US might not be in a deforestation crisis, but the countries that could really care less about replanting what they cut down, it certainly is an issue. Cutting down acre's of rainforests and replanting them with small trees or palm oil is not ideal. Its better than nothing but it certainly isn't responsible. I could live without a large percentage of paper I'm using (I'm hardly using any at this point), but I admit its not completely replaceable.

I was under the impression that there was so much waste and leftovers from the industries that currently use wood products, that there wouldn't be any near term need to harvest additional trees for the purpose of making fuel.
Use the leftover wood scraps, dust, shavings etc. that are already available, and harvest switchgrass and other easily replaceable plants as needed to make up any shortages.

*IF* they are using waste wood, then I think its an excellent way to produce ethanol. Otherwise it would just end up being burned or filling up a landfill.

This is where I have a problem with some environmental groups. They make people think that we're in the middle of a deforestation crisis, when in fact we have more forests now than we did 100 years ago.

In any case, for this type of process, you could do what paper manufacturers have done, and create tree farms. Net result: no impact to the forest.

This is where I have a problem with people that have problems with environmental groups. If it wasn't for those pesky, yet noticeably unnamed, environmental groups, we probably wouldn't have any forests left. Or perhaps we have the logging industry to thank for all those "new" forests? Give me a break...

I don't know what it's like in Kansas, but what is left of the "forests" around New England looks to me to be all very young trees - hardly a forest. It looks like it's still recovering from being clear-cut, I think. I've never seen anything resembling old growth; more like tree-kindergarten. Yes, one can go for walks in the woods, and it's beautiful, but I don't think it's quite as it should be.

Traveling thru Ireland recently it struck me how devoid of trees that land is. And how bad things can get, if there are no pesky environmental groups, or if people aren't bright enough to listen to them. I did see one giant tree farm tho - and they are fugly.

-Gren

I'll probably get bashed for saying this, but in its current form and use in the market, I think ethanol is mostly a sham.

The biggest problem I have is the flex fuel vehicles. They're designed to run both e85 and gasoline. Yes I understand why that is. E85 contains less energy, so you automatically get a 20-25% less mpg. The only engergy benefit you could see from e85 is its higher octane level that would allow for more compression, and possibly increase power levels to the same point as gasoline. But flex fuel vehicles don't have increased compression, because they have to run gasoline.

I don't see the point of buying ethanol gas from subsidized corn farmers (who btw are already subsidized heavily),or logging companies with my tax money, so I can pay more money for fuel, and net lower mpg.

I would much rather see ethanol injection in regular gasoline engines, to allow for increased compression and higher mpg. Also more talk about biodiesel, and diesel engines, especailly the diesel hybrids.

Koreberg, I doubt you'll get bashed for this viewpoint as it is shared by several on this board -- yours truly included.

Ethanol could be a good thing, but I tend to be of the opinion that we need to get away from burning things to harness energy. I also fail to see a clear path to sustainable production that would make widespread use of ethanol as a fuel a viable alternative to the dying standard of gasoline/diesel/petroleum products. Flex fuel vehicles are a poor compromise (as you pointed out) and seem to be rarely used for anything other than gasoline anyway... partly because of a lack of infrastructure in many places.

I am so impatient for the advent of full scale conversion of road travel to electric transportation. It can't come quickly enough!!

@Right Lane Cruiser

I agree with you on the infrastructure. I would much rather see that money that they want to give to oil companies and farmers, to go to development of more gas/diesel electric plugin hybrid technologies and to see laws that make certain that the batteries are recycled properly.

The infrastructure required for recycling these batteries, should be much less than required for full ethanol distribution. As is evident with the prius and civic hybrid technologies would provide atleaset a 25-50% increase in mpg and probably similar co2 reductions.

Another, maybe simpler step would be implementing automated engine shutdown at all full stops(with some type of override for varius reasons). That would help eliminate a good portion of the car based polution.