Bugs Could Be Key to Kicking Oil Addiction

[OldDude]

Since Bush supports this, I figure it is political.

Producing ethanol from cellulose (sometimes called woody and herbaceous biomass) instead of valuable grain has been the Holy Grail of alternative fuels. It has been done in the lab for years but the enzymes are prohibitively expensive. This is still in research stage, but may be a break-through, if it can match or beat grain fermentation for cost.

It adds a step in which the cellulose is broken down into fermentable sugar, but the raw material is much cheaper than grain so a cost advantage is possible if a cheap way to get the necessary enzymes can be found. Also, the residue can be burned for fuel for distilling the alcohol -- an advantage which is also true of the sugar cane process which makes Brazil's ethanol program much more energy efficient than ours.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/ap_on_bi_ge/bug_juice
Bugs Could Be Key to Kicking Oil Addiction
By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer
Sun Feb 12, 1:42 PM ET



SAN FRANCISCO - The key to kicking what President Bush calls the nation's oil addiction could very well lie in termite guts, canvas-eating jungle bugs and other microbes genetically engineered to spew enzymes that turn waste into fuel.

It may seem hard to believe that microscopic bugs usually viewed as destructive pests can be so productive. But scientists and several companies are working with the creatures to convert wood, corn stalks and other plant waste into sugars that are easily brewed into ethanol — essentially 199-proof moonshine that can be used to power automobiles.

Thanks to biotechnology breakthroughs, supporters of alternative energy sources say that after decades of unfulfilled promise and billions in government corn subsidies, energy companies may be able to produce ethanol easily and inexpensively.

"The process is like making grain alcohol, or brewing beer, but on a much bigger scale," said Nathanael Greene, an analyst with the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. "The technologies are out there to do this, but we need to convince the public this is real and not just a science project."

Using microbes may even solve a growing dilemma over the current ethanol manufacturing process, which relies almost exclusively on corn kernels and yielded only 4 billion gallons of ethanol last year (compared to the 140 billion gallons of gasoline used in the U.S.). There's growing concern throughout the Midwestern corn belt that the 95 U.S. ethanol plants are increasingly poaching corn meant for the dinner table or livestock feed.

The idea mentioned by Bush during his State of the Union speech — called "cellulosic ethanol" — skirts that problem because it makes fuel from farm waste such as straw, corn stalks and other inedible agricultural leftovers. Cellulose is the woody stuff found in branches and stems that makes plants hard.

Breaking cellulose into sugar to spin straw into ethanol has been studied for at least 50 years. But the technological hurdles and costs have been so daunting that most ethanol producers have relied on heavy government subsidies to squeeze fuel from corn.

Researchers are now exploring various ways to exploit microbes, the one-cell creatures that serve as the first link of life's food chain. One company uses the microbe itself to make ethanol. Others are taking the genes that make the waste-to-fuel enzymes and splicing them into common bacteria. What's more, a new breed of "synthetic biologists" are trying to produce the necessary enzymes by creating entirely new life forms through DNA.

Bush's endorsement of the waste-to-energy technology has renewed interest in actually supplanting fossil fuels as a dominant energy source — a goal long dismissed as pipe dream.

"We have been at this for 25 years and we had hoped to be in commercial production by now," said Jeff Passmore, an executive vice president at ethanol-maker Iogen Inc. "What the president has done is — perhaps — put some wind in the sails."

Ottawa-based Iogen is already producing ethanol by exploiting the destructive nature of the fungus Trichoderma reesei, which caused the "jungle rot" of tents and uniforms in the Pacific theater during World War II.

Through a genetic modification known as directed evolution, Iogen has souped up fungus microbes so they spew copious amounts of digestive enzymes to break down straw into sugars. From there, a simple fermentation — which brewers have been doing for centuries — turns sugar into alcohol.

Iogen opened a small, $40 million factory in 2004 to show it can produce cellulosic ethanol in commercial quantities. In the last two years, it has produced 65,000 gallons of ethanol that is blended with 85 percent gasoline to fuel about three dozen company and Canadian government vehicles. Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC has invested $40 million for a 30 percent ownership stake in Iogen; Petro-Canada and the Canadian government are also investors.

Now the company is ready to build a $350 million, commercial-scale factory in Canada or Idaho Falls, Idaho, next year if it can secure financing — long one of the biggest stumbling blocks to bringing the stuff to gas pumps.

While conventional lenders are wary of investing in a new technology, the company is banking on winning a loan from the U.S. Department of Energy. Even under a best-case scenario, Passmore said Iogen won't be producing commercial quantities until 2009.

Other significant hurdles include how to widely distribute the fuel; getting auto manufacturers to make engines that will use it; and persuading gas stations to install ethanol pumps. There's hope that funding shortfalls and the remaining technological problems such as how to ship large amounts of ethanol will be overcome in the next few years.

Despite the challenges, Bush's endorsement and advancements in the field have re-energized alternative energy types.

While no commercial interest has advanced as far as Iogen, other biotech companies are engineering bacteria to spit out similar sugar-converting enzymes, and academics are pursuing more far-out sources.

At the California Institute of Technology, Jared Leadbetter is mining the guts of termites for possible tools to turn wood chips into ethanol. Leadbetter said there are some 200 microbes that live in termite bellies that help the household pest convert wood to energy.

Those microbes or their genetic material can be used to produce ethanol-making enzymes. So scientists at the Energy Department's Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif., are now sequencing the microbe genes in hopes of finding a key to ethanol production.

"We have this idea that microbes are pests," said Leadbetter, who has been studying termite guts for 15 years. "But most microbes are beneficial."

[classicman2]

With the VP shooting somebody, do you think there's any real interest in this? :lol:

[nemein]

There should be... the consequences of this could be longer reaching and more important than the VP story.

[VinVega]

This is why we need more Americans interested in science. Thank God for you science geeks like OldDude. :up:

[classicman2]

There should be... the consequences of this could be longer reaching and more important than the VP story.

Since when has this forum been interested in topics with far reaching consequences?

[nemein]

Since when has this forum been interested in topics with far reaching consequences?

Looking over the list of topics in the forum here it seems that majority of them will have long reaching consequences (jobs/economy, race relations, the war, current scandals, etc). Granted some people seem to be here for the easy snipes/one-liners but I think the majority of people here are to seriously discuss (even if from a partisan POV) politics and world events.

What counts as a "topic w/ far reaching consequence" to you? Why don't you think people are here to seriously discuss these and if you don't why do you keep coming back?

[classicman2]

Why don't you think people are here to seriously discuss these and if you don't why do you keep coming back?

I guess I keep hoping.

[VinVega]

I guess I keep hoping.
Stop being so cranky. :D There's plenty of discussion going on, on a lot of topics. This thread might take off, but if it doesn't seem that controversial and everyone is agreeing on its merits, where is the discussion going to go? We like to argue in this forum and that's where most of the long threads come from, the disagreements.

We did have an awesome thread on the Turkey Guts - Oil topic. That was a multi pager on a far reaching topic.

[classicman2]

A little off-topic - what happened to bfrank? He hasn't posted in a long time. I thought he was starting up a new business - is that what happened?

A potential environmental issue made me think of bfrank. ;)

[wendersfan]

Since when has this forum been interested in topics with far reaching consequences?
I don't know enough about science to post much in threads like this. It's not that I'm disinterested, just ignorant. :)

[VinVega]

I don't know enough about science to post much in threads like this. It's not that I'm disinterested, just ignorant. :)
That's pretty much my take as well. OldDude is mucho smarter than me, but I do like reading the articles posted.

[RayChuang]

...there is one thing people forget about ethanol production: you need a HUGE amount of agricultural products grown just to make all that ethanol. That means using massive amounts of land to grow corn, peanuts, soybeans, sugar beets and sugar cane to make ethanol for American motor vehicle needs, which could cut into our supply of food. :down:

In Brazil, where land is widely available, they've turned many thousands of acres of arable land to produce sugar cane necessary for ethanol production; you try that in the USA and every environmental wacko would (literally!) come out of the woodwork complaining about such an idea. -rolleyes-

I suggest this better solution:

Algae--like a breath mint for smokestacks
Mark Clayton
Christian Science Monitor
January 11, 2006 issue

Read the full article here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0111/p01s03-sten.html)

BOSTON - Isaac Berzin is a big fan of algae. The tiny, single-celled plant, he says, could transform the world's energy needs and cut global warming.

Overshadowed by a multibillion-dollar push into other "clean-coal" technologies, a handful of tiny companies are racing to create an even cleaner, greener process using the same slimy stuff that thrives in the world's oceans.

Enter Dr. Berzin, a rocket scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. About three years ago, while working on an experiment for growing algae on the International Space Station, he came up with the idea for using it to clean up power-plant exhaust.

If he could find the right strain of algae, he figured he could turn the nation's greenhouse-gas-belching power plants into clean-green generators with an attached algae farm next door.

What Dr. Berzin proposes is to use the exhaust gas from powerplants such as carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen to "feed" vertical tanks of oil-laden algae, which would grow these algae at a spectacular rate. Indeed, one acre of these tanks could produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel fuel per year, compared to 60 gallons per year from an acre of plants. These oil-laden algae can be processed into diesel fuel, the closely-related heating oil, or refined further into possibly kerosene for gas turbine engines and gasoline for automobile engines. The "waste" from this processing can then be turned into animal feed, possibly plant fertilizer or even turned into ethanol fuel! http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/agree/8.gif

This is no longer a far-fetched idea; several companies are already working on similar technologies here in the USA, and there is interest in Europe and Asia for this idea, too. :)

[OldDude]

With the VP shooting somebody, do you think there's any real interest in this? :lol:

Hey, if you don't like my thread, you can just :crap: on it. Oh,..., wait. :)

[OldDude]

spectacular rate[/i]. Indeed, one acre of these tanks could produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel fuel per year, compared to 60 gallons per year from an acre of plants.

I don't think ANY living things enjoy oxides of nitrogen, most are quite sensitive (in a bad way). However, carbon dioxide clearly accelerates the growth rate of ALL plants. It is frequently pumped into greenhouses to accelerate plants, it needs to be kept under 4% (OSHA limit) if humans are in there.

There may be ways to react the nitrogen oxide gases into nitrogen bearing fertilizers acceptable to plants. I don't know the reaction offhand. Nitrogen oxide and sunlight yields ozone, which plants HATE, so something would have to be done.

[al_bundy]

Craig Venter is on a research project that is going to have a huge effect on this

[X]

Instead of helping us kick our oil addiction wouldn't these bugs be considered "enablers"?

[natesfortune]

What do you make of this proposal, Old Dude?

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976/article_detail.asp

An Energy Revolution
By Robert Zubrin

The world economy is currently running on a resource that is controlled by our enemies. This threatens to leave us prostrate. It must change—and the good news is that it can change, quickly.

Using portions of the hundreds of billions of petrodollars they are annually draining from our economy, Middle Easterners have established training centers for terrorists, paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers, and funded the purchase of weapons and explosives. Oil revenues underwrite new media outlets that propagandize hatefully against the United States and the West. They pay for more than 10,000 radical madrassahs set up around the world to indoctrinate young boys with the idea that the way to paradise is to murder Christians, Jews, and Hindus. It was men energized by oil-revenue resources who killed 3,000 American civilians on September 11, 2001, and who have continued to kill large numbers of Westerners in Iraq and elsewhere. We are thus subsidizing acts of war against ourselves.

And we have not yet reached the culmination of the process. Iran and other states are now using petroleum lucre to underwrite the development of nuclear weapons, and insulate themselves from the economic sanctions that could result. Once produced, these nuclear weapons could be used directly or made available to terrorists to attack U.S., European, or Israeli cities and military forces. This is one of the gravest threats to the next generation—and, again, we are paying for it ourselves with oil revenue.

Our responses to these provocations have been muted and hapless. Why? Because any forceful action on our part against nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia could result in the disruption of oil supplies that the world economy is completely dependent upon. We can’t stand up to our enemies because we rely upon them for the fuel that is our own lifeblood.

And the situation is even worse below the surface. In addition to financing terror directly and indirectly, oil exporters are using their wealth to corrupt our political system. Important Washington, D.C. law firms and lobbying organizations have been put on the payroll of Arab nations to blunt any attempts at retaliation for their promotion of terrorism. Arab investors have made enormous buys in media organizations that could allow them to influence U.S. public opinion.

All this, however, is mere prologue. China and India are rapidly industrializing, and within a decade or two the number of cars in the world will double or triple. If the world remains on the oil standard, the income streams of many noxious oil exporters will soar. We will be impoverished to the same degree they are enriched. The vast sums transferred will not only finance global jihad and dangerous weapons development in the Middle East, but also increase potential for manipulation of the U.S. and Western economies. At currently projected rates of consumption, by the year 2020 over 90 percent of the world’s remaining petroleum reserves will be in the Middle East, controlled by people whose religion obligates them to subjugate us.

In light of these realities, current U.S. energy policy is a scandal. There is no reason the United States should remain helpless, allowing itself to be looted by people who are using the proceeds to undermine us. A much higher degree of energy independence is possible, even apparent, yet victory is not being pursued. To see how insane our national energy policies have been, let’s review recent failures. Then I’ll describe a starkly better alternative.

CONSERVATION AND ALTERNATIVE-FUEL DAYDREAMS

Ritualistic calls by utopians, moralists, and environmental absolutists for energy conservation are utterly inadequate and doomed to failure. To see this, simply run the numbers. Every year, about 17 million cars are sold in the U.S.—roughly 10 percent of the worldwide total. Even if Americans were to buy only hybrid cars offering a 30 percent fuel saving over existing models, and none of them drove more, and there was no expansion in the U.S. vehicle fleet, this effort would result in only a 3 percent annual reduction in global gasoline use.

Conservation, however, offers no prospect of being even this effective. Most industry analysts predict a hybrid market share of less than 1 percent. At the same time, the total number of cars is increasing. Under any realistic conservation scenario, total gasoline consumption will continue to rise and the looting of our economy by oil producers will continue. Conservation through gasoline efficiency is, quite simply, a losing strategy. It is like trying to survive in a gas chamber by holding your breath. We need to break out of the gas chamber.

Today’s favorite alternatives to oil are wind, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear power. They each have strengths and weaknesses, but the bottom line is that these are all methods of generating electricity—and electricity is far from the central issue of energy independence. The United States has plenty of coal, and if necessary could easily generate all of its electric power that way.

The key to energy independence, rather, is liquid fuel to power cars, trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes. These vehicles are not mere conveniences; they are the sinews of our economy and the fundamental instruments of our military strength. Our civilization cannot be sustained without efficient liquid fuels, and there is no foreseeable prospect whatsoever of cost effective, large-scale generation of liquid fuels from wind, solar, hydroelectric, or nuclear sources.

The energy panacea of the moment is a concept called the “hydrogen economy.” Theorists propose to transition U.S. energy usage to hydrogen—a common element which, when combined with oxygen, releases energy with only water as a waste product. With hydrogen, it is claimed, we can achieve not only energy independence but also an end to pollution and global warming at the same time. The concept is entirely fraudulent.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy. In order to be obtained, it must be made—either through the electrolysis of water, or through the breakdown of petroleum, natural gas, or coal. Either process necessarily consumes more energy than the hydrogen it produces.

When hydrogen is made by electrolysis, the process yields 85 units of hydrogen energy for every 100 units of electrical energy used to break down the water. That is 85 percent efficiency. If the hydrogen is then used in a fuel cell in an electric car, only about 55 percent of its energy value will be used; the rest is wasted to heat and so forth. The net result of these two processes: the amount of useable energy yielded by the hydrogen will be only about 47 percent as much as went into producing it in the first place. And if the hydrogen is burned in an internal combustion engine to avoid the high production costs of fuel cells, the net efficiency of this vehicle will be closer to 25 percent.

Hydrogen produced from hydrocarbons instead of water also throws away 40 to 60 percent of the total energy in the feedstock. This method actually increases the nation’s need for fossil fuels, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. While hydrogen could also be produced by nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, or wind power, the process would continue to be dragged down by the fundamental inefficiency of hydrogen production. Such power supplies could always do more to reduce fossil fuel requirements simply by sending their electric power directly to the grid.

The bottom line is that hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a carrier of energy, and one of the least practical carriers we know of.

Consider: A standard molecular weight (or mole) of hydrogen gas, when reacted with oxygen, yields 66 watt-hours of energy. Meanwhile, a mole of methane (the primary component of natural gas) produces 218 watt-hours of energy. An equal number of moles of both can be stored in a tank of equal size and strength. Thus, a car that runs on compressed methane will be able to store more than three times the energy, and travel three times as far, as the same car running on hydrogen. In addition, the methane would be cheaper.

In short, from the point of view of production, distribution, environmental impact, and ease of use, the hydrogen economy makes no sense. Its fundamental premise is at variance with the most basic laws of physics. The charlatans who are promoting hydrogen as a solution to our energy woes are doing the nation an immense disservice.

THE ALCOHOL SOLUTION

To liberate ourselves from the threat of foreign economic domination, undercut the financiers of terror, and give ourselves the free hand necessary to deal with Middle Eastern extremists, we must devalue their resources and increase the value of our own. We can do this by taking the world off the petroleum standard and putting it on an alcohol standard.

This may sound like a huge and impossible task, but with gasoline prices well over $2 per gallon, the means to accomplish it are now at hand. Congress could make an enormous step toward American energy independence within a decade or so if it would simply pass a law stating that all new cars sold in the U.S.A. must be flexible-fuel vehicles capable of burning any combination of gasoline and alcohol. The alcohols so employed could be either methanol or ethanol.

The largest producers of both ethanol and methanol are all in the western hemisphere, with the United States having by far the greatest production potential for both. Ethanol is made from agricultural products. Methanol can also be made from biomass, as well as from natural gas or coal. American coal reserves alone are sufficient to power every car in the country on methanol for more than 500 years.

Ethanol can currently be produced for about $1.50 per gallon, and methanol is selling for $0.90 per gallon. With gasoline having roughly doubled in price recently, and with little likelihood of a substantial price retreat in the future, high alcohol-to-gasoline fuel mixtures are suddenly practical. Cars capable of burning such fuel are no futuristic dream. This year, Detroit will offer some two dozen models of standard cars with a flex-fuel option available for purchase. The engineering difference is in one sensor and a computer chip that controls the fuel-air mixture, and the employment of a corrosion-resistant fuel system. The difference in price from standard units ranges from $100 to $800.

Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs) offer consumers little advantage right now, because the high-alcohol fuels which they could employ are not generally available for purchase. This is because there are so few such vehicles that it doesn’t pay gas station owners to dedicate a pump to cater to them. Were FFVs made the standard, however, the fuel they need would quickly be made available everywhere.

If all cars sold in the U.S. had to be flexible-fueled, foreign manufacturers would also mass-produce such units, creating a large market in Europe and Asia as well as the U.S. for methanol and ethanol—much of which would be produced in America. Instead of being the world’s largest fuel importer, the United
States could become the world’s largest fuel exporter. A large portion of the money now going to Arabs and Iranians would instead go to the U.S.A. and Canada, with much of the rest going to Brazil and other tropical agricultural nations. This would reverse our trade deficit, improve conditions in the Third World, and cause a global shift in world economic power in favor of the West.

By promoting agriculture, FFVs also act as global cooling agents. Plants draw CO2 out of the atmosphere. They increase water evaporation, and the water vapor thus produced transports heat from the Earth’s surface to the upper atmosphere, where most of it is released to space.

The use of alcohol also reduces air pollution. In fact, environmental advantages were the motivation for the initial development of the first FFVs in California in the 1980s. During the era of $1.50 per gallon gasoline, gasohol pleased ecological activists, but it was economically disadvantageous. Recently, however, the comparative economics of alcohol fuels and gasoline have changed radically.

Methanol can also be used as the raw material to produce dimethyl ether, a completely clean-burning diesel fuel which could be used by trucks, locomotives, and ships. Many cars could also eventually use diesel. Diesel engines are substantially more efficient than traditional internal combustion engines, and equal to anything realistically possible from far more expensive, and as yet impractical, fuel cells.

THE ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY HAVE ARRIVED—NOW FOR THE POLITICS

Two developments make a rapid transfer to high-alcohol fuels possible. One is the recent rise of gasoline prices, making methanol and ethanol economically attractive. The other is a technological innovation: the development by the Netherlands
Research Institute for Road Vehicles of a sensor capable of continuously measuring the alcohol content in mixed alcohol/gasoline fuel, and using this information to regulate the engine.

With this breakthrough, some 4.1 million vehicles were produced between 1998 and 2004 capable of handling various alcohol/ gasoline combinations. That is already five times the number of gasoline/electric hybrids on the road, and vastly increased use of such vehicles could happen overnight, for just a few hundred dollars extra per vehicle (compared to many thousands more for hybrids).

The only sticking point is the non-availability of high alcohol fuel mixes at the pump. Filling stations don’t want to dedicate space to a fuel mix used only by 1 percent of all cars. And consumers are not interested in buying vehicles for which the preferred fuel mix is unavailable.

This chicken-and-egg problem can be readily resolved by legislation. One major country has already done so. In 2003, Brazilian lawmakers mandated a transition to FFVs, with some tax incentives included to move things along. As a result, the Brazilian divisions of Fiat, Volkswagen, Ford, Renault, and GM all came out with ethanol FFV models in 2004, which took 60 percent of the country’s new vehicle sales that year. By 2007, 80 percent of all new vehicles sold in Brazil are expected to be FFVs, producing significant fuel savings to consumers, a boost to local agriculture, and a massive benefit to the country’s foreign trade balance.

ETHANOL OR METHANOL?

To date, all FFVs have been either methanol/gasoline designs or ethanol/gasoline designs. Combined methanol/ethanol/gasoline FFVs have not yet been produced. Their development poses only modest challenges, however. The question is, which alcohol would be the best one upon which to base our future alcohol-fuel economy?

Methanol is cheaper than ethanol. It can also be made from a broader variety of biomass material, as well as from coal and natural gas. And methanol is the safest motor fuel, because it is much less flammable than gasoline (a fact that has led to its adoption by car racing leagues).

On the other hand, ethanol is less chemically toxic than methanol, and it carries more energy per gallon. Ethanol contains about 75 percent of the energy of gasoline per gallon, compared to 67 percent for methanol. Both thus achieve fewer miles per gallon than gasoline, but about as many miles per dollar at current prices, and probably many more miles per dollar at future prices.

Methanol is more corrosive than ethanol. This can be dealt with by using appropriate materials in the automobile fuel system. A fuel system made acceptable for methanol use will also be fine for ethanol or pure gasoline.

Both ethanol and methanol are water soluble and biodegradable in the environment. The consequences of a spill of either would be much less than that of petroleum products. If the Exxon Valdez had been carrying either of these fuels instead of oil, the environmental impact caused by its demise would have been negligible.

Ethanol is actually edible, whereas methanol is toxic when drunk. This difference, though, should not be overdrawn, since in an FFV economy, both would be mixed with gasoline. The breakdown products of both ethanol and methanol are much less noxious than those from petroleum, and both emit far fewer particulates when burned. Methanol, ethanol, and gasoline are about equal in the levels of nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide produced when they are burned. Since it is made exclusively from agricultural products, ethanol acts as counter to global warming. Methanol can as well, but only if its source is agricultural. Methanol produced from coal or natural gas has about the same impact on global warming as gasoline.

In short, either methanol or ethanol could be used very effectively, with roughly equal countervailing advantages. This has not stopped proponents of either fuel from vociferously arguing their unique advantage and pushing for FFVs based exclusively on their favored product. To date, the more effective faction in this debate has been the ethanol group, backed as it is by the powerful farm lobby.

Given this political support, and no decisive technical argument in favor of methanol, the question might well be asked: why not just go with the stronger side and implement an exclusively ethanol/ gasoline FFV economy? The answer has to do with the total resource base. If we want FFVs not merely to benefit farmers, but to make America energy independent, we need a larger production base than ethanol alone can deliver.

The United States uses 380 million gallons of gasoline a day. If we were to replace that entirely with ethanol we would have to harvest approximately four times as much agricultural output as we currently grow for food production. Now it is true that we don’t need to replace all of our gasoline, at least not in the short term. Replacing half would make us substantially energy independent. Furthermore, future processes might eventually wring out higher ethanol yields per acre. Surplus ethanol from Brazil or other tropical nations could also be imported. Nonetheless, relying on ethanol alone would require putting under fresh cultivation an amount of land greater than what we now use for food production. This would cause many strains.

So if we are to use alcohol fuels to achieve energy independence, a broader resource base is needed. This can be provided by methanol, which can come from both a broader array of biomass materials and also from coal and natural gas. Methanol production from coal is particularly important, since coal is America’s, and the world’s, cheapest and most prevalent energy resource. The United States could power its entire economy on coal for centuries, and large reserves also exist in allied countries. Current coal prices stand in the range of three cents a kilogram, much cheaper than agricultural products, so methanol can be made from coal at low cost. By mixing it at various rates with ethanol over time, we can increase supplies, reduce prices, maximize environmental benefits, and vastly increase the flexibility of our alcohol economy. Insisting that future vehicles have the capability to burn both alcohols is thus critical.

Even with methanol in the mix, the shifting of the world from a petroleum to an alcohol standard would remain a great boon to farmers. Third World farmers as much as American growers would enjoy the benefits—not only from a vastly increased market for their products, but also from the collapse of petroleum prices (which currently threaten crushing fertilizer and tractor fuel prices). This adds a strong humanitarian case for the transition to flexible fuels.

By providing Third World populations with an extensive source of income, the alcohol economy would also give them the wherewithal to buy manufactured products from developed nations. We would end up selling far more tractors, harvesters, and hybrid seeds to Africans, for instance. That would improve economic outcomes for all nations.

THE MEGA FIX FOR WHAT AILS US

Energy conservation offers only a strained strategy for enduring economic oppression with very slightly ameliorated pain. Today’s petroleum monopolists would still ultimately have us over a barrel. The ballyhooed hydrogen economy, meanwhile, is a hoax.

If we are to win the critical energy battle, there is only one way to do it. We must take ourselves, and the rest of the world, off the petroleum standard. Only by doing this can we destroy the economic power of our enemies at the very foundations. Only in this way can we transfer control of the future from those who take their wealth, pre-made, from the ground (and therefore have no need for education or freedom), to those who make their wealth through hard work, skill, and creativity (who thus must build free societies which maximize the human potential
of every citizen).

Our nation’s founders stipulated that the purpose of our government is to provide for our defense, promote our welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. In our current economic and military dilemma, decisive action for energy independence is one of the most dramatic steps we could take to achieve those ends. Congress should immediately require that all future vehicles sold in the U.S.A. be flexible-fueled, thereby launching us into an alcohol-energy future that holds promise like few other options within our grasp.

Dr. Robert Zubrin, president of the aerospace engineering and research firm Pioneer Astronautics, wrote The Case for Mars, and other books.

Long article, but very interesting and well-worth reading, in my opinion.

[VinVega]

What do you make of this proposal, Old Dude?

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976/article_detail.asp



Long article, but very interesting and well-worth reading, in my opinion.
So his answer is Ethanol? Hasn't that been debunked as not efficient or practical for our fuel needs in this very thread?

[natesfortune]

I don't know if it has been debunked or not. I wanted somebody knowledgable to read this guy's proposal and tell me what they think of it.

He's a very smart guy, and he certainly makes a strong case for it in the article.

[natesfortune]

So his answer is Ethanol? Hasn't that been debunked as not efficient or practical for our fuel needs in this very thread?

Okay, I read back over the thread. Ethanol was hardly "debunked" - somebody just mentioned it would take far more farms to produce it here:

Had you actually read the article, you would've seen that this guy answers that in there. ;)

The United States uses 380 million gallons of gasoline a day. If we were to replace that entirely with ethanol we would have to harvest approximately four times as much agricultural output as we currently grow for food production. Now it is true that we don’t need to replace all of our gasoline, at least not in the short term. Replacing half would make us substantially energy independent. Furthermore, future processes might eventually wring out higher ethanol yields per acre. Surplus ethanol from Brazil or other tropical nations could also be imported. Nonetheless, relying on ethanol alone would require putting under fresh cultivation an amount of land greater than what we now use for food production. This would cause many strains.

So if we are to use alcohol fuels to achieve energy independence, a broader resource base is needed. This can be provided by methanol, which can come from both a broader array of biomass materials and also from coal and natural gas. Methanol production from coal is particularly important, since coal is America’s, and the world’s, cheapest and most prevalent energy resource. The United States could power its entire economy on coal for centuries, and large reserves also exist in allied countries. Current coal prices stand in the range of three cents a kilogram, much cheaper than agricultural products, so methanol can be made from coal at low cost. By mixing it at various rates with ethanol over time, we can increase supplies, reduce prices, maximize environmental benefits, and vastly increase the flexibility of our alcohol economy. Insisting that future vehicles have the capability to burn both alcohols is thus critical.

Even with methanol in the mix, the shifting of the world from a petroleum to an alcohol standard would remain a great boon to farmers. Third World farmers as much as American growers would enjoy the benefits—not only from a vastly increased market for their products, but also from the collapse of petroleum prices (which currently threaten crushing fertilizer and tractor fuel prices). This adds a strong humanitarian case for the transition to flexible fuels.

By providing Third World populations with an extensive source of income, the alcohol economy would also give them the wherewithal to buy manufactured products from developed nations. We would end up selling far more tractors, harvesters, and hybrid seeds to Africans, for instance. That would improve economic outcomes for all nations.

[VinVega]

Okay, I read back over the thread. Ethanol was hardly "debunked" - somebody just mentioned it would take far more farms to produce it here:

Had you actually read the article, you would've seen that this guy answers that in there. ;)
If it was this easy, we'd already be doing it.

[natesfortune]

If it was this easy, we'd already be doing it.

Not necessarily - completely changing the method we use to fuel ourselves is a large act of will with many bits involved. Including overcoming the large oil lobby, for instance, in order for his proposed legislation to be passed - that's very tough. He provides examples of other countries who are already doing this, as well - if America takes the lead and helps create a worldwide market for this, it would make it all much easier.

But still wondering if there are any substantive holes in his argument. I've yet to find any in my research.

[VinVega]

Not necessarily - completely changing the method we use to fuel ourselves is a large act of will with many bits involved. Including overcoming the large oil lobby, for instance, in order for his proposed legislation to be passed - that's very tough. He provides examples of other countries who are already doing this, as well - if America takes the lead and helps create a worldwide market for this, it would make it all much easier.

But still wondering if there are any substantive holes in his argument. I've yet to find any in my research.
The question is whether we have the land to double as you say the farm production to make 50% of the liquid fuel we need from Ethanol? In reality, we'd probably have to produce more than 50% of our needs to sell a complete overhaul from oil drilling to Ethanol. Where does all the land come from?

[natesfortune]

The question is whether we have the land to double as you say the farm production to make 50% of the liquid fuel we need from Ethanol? In reality, we'd probably have to produce more than 50% of our needs to sell a complete overhaul from oil drilling to Ethanol. Where does all the land come from?

He answered that, Vin.

A few things - first of all, that's relating to ONLY using Ethanol, which is why he proposes using Methanol as well - the mixed fuel approach. That requires only coal, which we have plenty of, and it's clean. (Read his comparisons in the article of ethanol versus methanol and their pluses and minuses to each other)

That, combined with ethanol coming in from other countries that would be dying to supply us with some fuel(particularly third world countries), and we'd have plenty without having to worry about increasing our farm land.

Then, technology is likely to catch up before too long, especially if there's some great financial incentive such as the entire economy being based on alcohol fuel, and we'll likely get far more efficient at wringing out our fuel needs from smaller patches of land.

But until that technology gets here, we will get along fine mixing it with the readily available methanol.

[OldDude]

What do you make of this proposal, Old Dude?

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976/article_detail.asp



Long article, but very interesting and well-worth reading, in my opinion.

Very long winded. About 75% is pissing on other ideas (although mostly correctly). For transportation, the focus needs to be liquid fuels. (Electricity from nukes for stationary)

I broadly agree on ethanol. However, right now all US cars can burn E10 (10% ethanol). That would require 14 billion gallons of ethanol, of which we only make 4 billion. So the first step, is not "make all cars FFV." as we already have a market for a 2.5X expansion of ethanol production -- I doubt we have the grain. We need cellulosic ethanol as above, as step 1.

Quite a few cars are FFV. Almost all large cars and some large SUV (it's a dodge to gas guzzler tax and CAFE credit, most owners aren't even aware). I'm not sure it is as high as 10% of total sales but I think it is approaching that. That is probably higher than the percent of cars that REQUIRE premium, yet gas stations sell premium and not E85. What's up with that? We need availability of E85 for the existing FFV fleet as step 2.

Steps 3 and 4 would be to make all cars FFV, or least tolerate higher percentages of ethanol mix. Brazil requires all gas to be E29 (29% ethanol) and cars to run on it. They have ramped this up from lower figures over the years. And obviously we need to make enough ethanol to fuel the cars to their capability.

I disagree with him on methanol as a fuel. It is extremely poisonous, very miscible with water and any spills or leaks would be a major threat to the water supply. The "diesel fuel" made from it is great fuel, but is the Fischer-Tropp reaction used by Germany in World War II. It is inefficient and pricey and hasn't improved much in 50+ years (modest amounts are manufactured as a "reference fuel" for diesel engines, so it isn't completely ignored).

He largely ignores biodiesel made from soy and other oil-seed crops, or from used cooking oils. All diesels can use up to B20, and they can be modified to run on B100 (much like the ethanol story). There are other reasons for saying ALL diesel fuel should be a minimum of B2 (which requires more than we make now) before we worry about higher percentages, but a market exists up to B20. Biodiesel should receive at least the focus ethanol (/gas mixtures) get now, perhaps more. Corn farmers have better lobbyists, apparently.

So I think he is generally right but has a couple carts before the horse.

Also, without major scientific improvements, we can't grow the crops for present methods to yield enough convertible biomass. This requires scientific advancement and economic feasibility, not just "policy decisions."

(It's really too bad turkey guts-->oil turned out to be a crock. I had high hopes for it.)

[VinVega]

Cornell link (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html)
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy

By Susan S. Lang

Chris Hallman/University Photography

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.

"The United States desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."

Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.
Bolded for your pleasure. :)

Now this might be an educational pissing contest between Pimentel and Ethanol producers, but they claim to have figures to back their claims.

[natesfortune]

Thanks, Old Dude.

Insightful as usual.

[natesfortune]

Cornell link (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html)

Bolded for your pleasure. :)

Now this might be an educational pissing contest between Pimentel and Ethanol producers, but they claim to have figures to back their claims.

Nice find.

I wonder who's right about ths.

I'm about ready to be done with oil, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[VinVega]

Nice find.

I wonder who's right about ths.

I'm about ready to be done with oil, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Oh I totally agree. For the nation's long term security, we have to divest our energy interests away from the Middle East.

[OldDude]

Cornell link (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html)

Bolded for your pleasure. :)

Now this might be an educational pissing contest between Pimentel and Ethanol producers, but they claim to have figures to back their claims.

I recommend going to Argonne National Lab and reading the research by Wang (I think it is Michael Wang). He has done much more comprehensive studies of the life cycle analysis and net energy of ethanol. Pimenthal has been doing these for years and is widely discounted as a flake. (using out of date and inapplicable data are major issues cited.

Several other researchers have done work similar to Wang's and get comparable results.

Everyone agrees a gallon of ethanol is about 77000 BTU (vs gasoline about 117000 BTU, but varies summer/winter blend). Wang's work shows about 25000 BTU is "net energy" the rest is offset by energy expended in farming and processing. Not great, but at least it is positive. (Cellulosic and sugar-cane processes are MUCH better)

Since the press turned on anything Bush supports, only Pimenthal is quoted, but he's wrong.

I have read ALL the details of Wang's earlier reports. It seems very thorough, well documented, and peer review by people who understand farming should uncover any flaws. I personally don't know shit about farming, so that's about as much as I can defend it.

[VinVega]

I recommend going to Argonne National Lab and reading the research by Wang (I think it is Michael Wang). He has done much more comprehensive studies of the life cycle analysis and net energy of ethanol. Pimenthal has been doing these for years and is widely discounted as a flake. (using out of date and inapplicable data are major issues cited.

Several other researchers have done work similar to Wang's and get comparable results.

Everyone agrees a gallon of ethanol is about 77000 BTU (vs gasoline about 117000 BTU, but varies summer/winter blend). Wang's work shows about 25000 BTU is "net energy" the rest is offset by energy expended in farming and processing. Not great, but at least it is positive. (Cellulosic and sugar-cane processes are MUCH better)

Since the press turned on anything Bush supports, only Pimenthal is quoted, but he's wrong.

I have read ALL the details of Wang's earlier reports. It seems very thorough, well documented, and peer review by people who understand farming should uncover any flaws. I personally don't know shit about farming, so that's about as much as I can defend it.
So if I'm reading you correctly, it's not a net loss of energy?

[OldDude]

It is not, at least if you believe Wang over Pimenthal (and I do).

The net energy is about plus 33%. Not great, but the sign is right.

Cellulosic and sugar cane processes are said to be around 80%, nearly as good as refining crude oil into usable products.

[RayChuang]

I am not too thrilled about more use of ethanol and methanol because you would have to exponentially expand crop production just to keep up with the demand for both by motor vehicles; note how much land Brazil had to tie down in sugar cane production just to keep up with the ethanol fuel demand. I don't think environmentalists like the idea of tying down a large fraction for arable farmland in the USA just to make methanol and ethanol! -eek-

That's why what Dr. Berzin is developing has so much more potential, not to mention less demand on all that farmland! The fuels produced by these oil-laden algae (biodiesel fuel and heating oil, with further processing into kerosene and gasoline and the waste product further processed into animal feed, plant fertilizer and/or ethanol fuel) means full compatibility with current fuel distribution infrastructures, dramatically lowering the cost of the switchover. :up:

[mbs]

I don't think ANY living things enjoy oxides of nitrogen, most are quite sensitive (in a bad way).

Well, nitrate is an oxide of nitrogen that plants love.

And if you heat nitrogen dioxide (N20), you will make ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3), which is of course, fertilizer.

[Bushdog]

There should be... the consequences of this could be longer reaching and more important than the VP story.
I agree, and it'll be great if anything comes of it. That said, how many of these flights of fancy are scientists pursuing? One of these days they're gonna hit on a winner, but not yet.

[RayChuang]

Now this might be an educational pissing contest between Pimentel and Ethanol producers, but they claim to have figures to back their claims.

I'm not surprised the Cornell study came to this conclusion. If you just grow corn, soybeans, or peanuts to be processed into biodiesel fuel the yield rate is a depressing 60 gallons of biodiesel fuel per acre.

The method described in the Christian Science Monitor article can produce an astonishing 15,000 gallons of biodiesel fuel per acre of fermentation tanks--and probably far more than this on a per year basis since oil-laden algae grows so fast and can be harvested multiple times per year.

[DivxGuy]

(It's really too bad turkey guts-->oil turned out to be a crock. I had high hopes for it.)Crock? The process does work, albeit not as well as we'd hoped.

[jfoobar]

What about the "oil sands" of Canada that so many oil companies are pouring capital into?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03227069.htm

I saw a documentary about them a month or so ago. It looks promising.

[DivxGuy]

What about the "oil sands" of Canada that so many oil companies are pouring capital into?
The tar sands are a finite pool of fossil fuels that are very energy-intensive to process. In addition, that processing has a stiff environmental impact far in excess of that which would occur with the ANWR proposals (although since the environmental degradation occurs in Canada, gas-guzzling American "liberals" could care less).

[Shazam]

The tar sands are a finite pool of fossil fuelsDo you know any infinite pools of fossil fuels?

that are very energy-intensive to process.The costs are dwindling as technology progresses. Oil sands processing is going to hit the <$10/barrel mark very soon.

In addition, that processing has a stiff environmental impact far in excess of that which would occur with the ANWR proposalsWhat's the "far in excess" part?