LS9 promises 'renewable petroleum'
New company says it can make better, cheaper biofuels 40
-
Posted 3:20 AM on 30 Jul 2007
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Related Stories
Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
JohnCaley Posted 7:40 pm
29 Jul 2007
That would solve the "transportation fuels".
Next of course is electricity storage and generation.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:47 pm
29 Jul 2007
Whether this LS9 process could, (let alone should, given its unknown waste streams)
be scaled up sufficiently rapidly to offset both a probable post-peak 8%p.a. decline of oil supply
plus a 2.5% p.a. demand growth, remains a speculation -
as does the issue of just how many years this Agri-petrol growth rate could be maintained before it generated untenably extreme reactions to the resulting genocides by famine.
I suggest that, in view of current and projected intensification of climate hits on global food supply,
any energy supply option that competes with food production is unlikely to get off the ground.
To the extent that LS9 at best robs the soil of inputs such as corn stover,
it thus seems unlikely to gain significant market share in coming years.
Maybe, rather than the "emotive" terms of genocide, and of famine (with its black African connotation),
I should rather ask just how many white American children should be allowed to starve to death each year in the effort of trying to keep the Great Car Economy trundling along ?
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:10 pm
29 Jul 2007
But I have heard the "we can produce this cheaply without subsidies" claim time and again, and it never seems to pan out.
Seven years ago I was invited to a lunch with a guy from Iogen. They, too, were using designer bugs, and in 2000 were boasting that ethanol cheaper than gasoline was imminent -- and that was at a time when the price of gasoline was much lower than it is now. Today they still have that one pilot plant in Canada, and they've required an $80 million grant from the DOE to build their first demonstration-scale plant in the USA.
Also, no matter how efficient is the processing of cellulosic feedstock, that feedstock is still going to have to be grown, probably in monocultures (and, yes, miscanthus is a monoculture), and harvested from over a large area. There will be a trade-off: either this biomass will have to be grown on land currently used for crops or to graze animals, or it will be grown on "idle" (a.k.a. CRP) land, which is more dispersed, adding to harvesting costs.
Wood chips might be able to be used as a feedstock in some areas, but the ethanol industry is not the only one with designs on wood for energy: there is a fast-growing wood-fired electric generation industry that will be competing for that feedstock.
Finally, I'm confused by this statement:
As far as greenhouse-gas emissions, the news is mixed. In terms of pure combustion -- i.e., what comes out of the tailpipe -- LS9's fuels are about the same as gasoline. (By comparison, E85 -- 15% gas, 85% ethanol -- is about an 80% emissions reduction from gasoline.) However, the company claims that on a life-cycle basis, its products represent a reduction in GHG emission from both gas and ethanol.
I'd like to know where you got that 80%-reduction figure for tailpipe emissions of CO2 when using E85 instead of gasoline. My understanding is that there is little difference in tailpipe emissions. In any case, tail-pipe CO2 emission comparisons are irrelevant. What matters is life-cycle emissions.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 11:14 pm
29 Jul 2007
http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/ForestMarketing/documents/Fore ...
Vinod Khosla is competing for wood in Georgia with
Choren Industries of Germany.
The University of Florida's Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)is deliberating over which plant to use for their designer cellulosic ethanol bug. The Fanjul's sugar plant in South Florida or the Buckeye pulp mill in Taylor County which has been using unsustainable forestry practices and polluting the Fenholloway River for years?
Subsidies, subsidies, subsidies.
Pulpwood prices are rising with competition for it.
per/ton
Pine pulpwood prices $7.89 up 11% from 2006
Pine Sawtimber $38.64 down 5.8% from 2006
HardwoodPulpwood $6.51 down 1.1% from 2006
Hardwood Sawtimber $21.50 down .6% from 2006
With slower housing starts, the biomass, biofuel industry
is replacing the lost revenues niche.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:01 am
30 Jul 2007
Energy in decreased by 65%.
Energy out increased by 50%.
Carbon neutral and emits fewer harmful pollutants.
Can be fed into existing infrastructure, so it could go "online" quite soon and actually start reducing net CO2 emissions.
The reaction...
OMG! They are going to mine the soil of every last nutrient! It is the end of the world! It is going to make biofuels practical! We are all going to starve!
How about...
Good news! We can produce biofuel using less land than we thought. We won't have decide whether we should grow food or biofuel. Let's hope they work the bugs out. Combined with conservation, efficiency, and other forms of alternative energy, we might actually free ourselves from fossil fuel.
Once again, evidence that "environmentalists" would prefer to cling to a crisis and run around like their hair is on fire rather than actually see people solve problems.
Forward!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:14 am
30 Jul 2007
Permalink
ngreene Posted 1:26 am
30 Jul 2007
The place where the LS9 technology could make a difference on energy balance is in the process energy. Not having to distill out ethanol from water does save a lot of energy and that's energy that we can use somewhere else. The energy for conversion of cellulosic biofuels is generally assumed to come from the lignin part of the plant. (Cellulose is almost always chemically bound up with lignin in lignocellulose, so when we talk about cellulosic biofuels, we should really be talking about biofuels from ligoncellulose.) If less of the lignin has to be used to drive the conversion of the cellulose, then more can be used to make electricity or Fischer Tropsch fuels.
Similarly in terms of carbon accounting, we have to be careful. Lower carbon content final fuels do not necessarily translate into lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. The biomass carbon that doesn't end up in ethanol is generally released as CO2 during the fermentation process. So if more carbon ends up in LS9's fuel that just means that less is released during conversion. Again the real potential difference is in the process energy used to drive the conversion--less energy used doing this, less fossil fuel carbon released or more biomass carbon that can be used elsewhere to replace other forms of carbon.
The benefits of greater infrastructure compatibility are mostly economic, but they're also important for consumer acceptance, which is important in determining how fast we can move away from petroleum to lower carbon alternatives.
Fortunately, LS9 is not the only company pursuing different ways of converting lignocellulosic biomass into different liquid fuel molecules. One other company that I've heard of is called Virent (http://www.virent.com). I'm not making any claims about their technology's viability, but they are trying to take an entirely different, non-microbial approach. The important lesson here is not to get wed to specific conversion processes or even specific fuel molecules (or even molecules at all to keep the door open for electric power), but rather to focus on the environmental, economic, and end-use performance characteristics we want from low-carbon alternatives to petroleum.
Of course, as you point out, starting with vehicle efficiency is the first, cheapest, fastest, best option, but we need to shift our biofuels policies away from ethanol gallon mandates to performance requirements. California has taken the first step in this direction with its plan to implement a low-carbon fuel standard that requires a reduction in average fuel lifecycle carbon intensity rather than requiring a specific number of gallons.
I discuss all of these issues, including the GMO issues and land availability for biofuels regularly on my blog: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/ I hope that's helpful.
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:39 am
30 Jul 2007
Wiscidea: "Good news. We can starve slightly fewer people than we thought to maintain the essential happy motoring Blockbusters and Applebee's paradise that rings every town like brown around a collar." Why would it be good news if carburbia could continue?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:43 am
30 Jul 2007
Regarding the California regulations, my understanding is that they still, nonetheless, focus on the performance of fuels (including electricity), rather than overall emissions. So conservation, through efficiency improvements, driving less, bicycling and walking more earns no credit towards achievement of the standard.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:03 am
30 Jul 2007
Ah... killing the cancerous growth by cutting off its blood supply.
Might work for getting rid of tumors, but is it really appropriate to solve cultural problems by using a similar technique?
By the way, we might be able to engineer a microbe or plant to produce an inexpensive enzyme for taking care of that "brown around a collar" for you... fewer chemicals and lower temperature, reduces harm to the environment.
: )
Forward!
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 2:51 am
30 Jul 2007
David, have you figured out how many hectares it'll take to run your average vehicle on this stuff?
Whiskerfish
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:13 am
30 Jul 2007
WSJ did a piece on this today.
grist.org
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:27 am
30 Jul 2007
"He [Vinod Khosla] also said the current government ethanol subsidy of 50 cents a gallon [sic] should be based on a sliding scale corresponding to the price of oil: 25 cents a gallon if oil is at $75 a barrel ranging up to 75 cents a gallon if oil falls to $25 a barrel." -- From CNN, 22 September 2006, reporting on an address Mr. Khosla (founder of Khosla Ventures) made to the Cleantech Venture Forum conference in New York City.
"Being a Republican, I don't like subsidies," he [Vinod Khosla] said. "I like level, free markets." From Red Herring, September 26, 2006, reporting on interview with Mr. Khosla in the margins of the California Clean Tech Open.
And Wiscidea wonders why some of us are so skeptical.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:42 am
30 Jul 2007
http://photos.mongabay.com/06/0509ethanol.jpg
http://photos.mongabay.com/06/0509net_energy.jpg
http://photos.mongabay.com/06/0509biodiesel.jpg
If it takes more acres to produce the same net energy as sugarcane or palm then those two sources may still be cheaper. If so, rainforests will continue to fall.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:48 am
30 Jul 2007
Problem is, the root cause is addictive behavior. The new fuel is like methadone - a somewhat less self-destructive way for us to continue our addiction. Or one could call it an "ennabler."
Techno-fixes like LS9 appear frequently in the news. What they have in common: The promise that "maybe, just maybe" we have the solution to energy problems. No change in lifestyle or behavior is necessary. Fits very nicely into the capitalist, consumerist system. Occasionally, mention is made of efficiency and conservation -- but this is quickly forgotten.
What is left out: The increasing demand as consumerism and car culture spreads (for example, the hundreds of millions of cars to be built in China) Jevons Paradox (Rebound Effect), whereby increased efficiency is offset to some extent by increased demand. The environmental effects which are transferred elsewhere, out of sight (to the degradation of farmland and appropriation of wildlands). Thought about the scale of production required to feed a huge and increasing demand for transport fuel. Could this process continue for decades?
If you've ever deal with an addicted person, you know how they impulsively grab at anything that promises them more of the drug. They are constitutionally incapable of thinking long-term. That's what we've got going on here.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
justlou Posted 4:11 am
30 Jul 2007
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15635751/ethan ...
The article refers to an ongoing debate between Robert Rapier and Khosla about the future of biofuels.
Be interesting to read Rapier's take on LS9 in his R-Squared Energy Blog.
Permalink
wayneluke Posted 5:19 am
30 Jul 2007
What's to make sure that life doesn't imitate art here? The better course I believe would be to reduce consumption but I also understand that the average Joe doesn't care until it severely impacts his lifestyle.
Permalink
gpal Posted 5:40 am
30 Jul 2007
First off, we do not view ourselves as a "silver bullet" with respect to addressing global warming and the energy challenges that our world faces (now and in the future). As others have pointed out, one of the most important things we all need to do is change our consumption patterns. Conservation - whether in the form of increased fuel efficiency, public transportation, telecommuting, etc - is absolutely critical. I have two little kids at home and fully recognize that, even if LS9 does its part, a number of other tough challenges need to be overcome to ensure my kids inherit a planet that is the same or better than I did. That was my motivation for moving out of the high-tech world and joining LS9. I'm trying to make a difference on my kids' behalf and LS9 (and others working in this space) are just one piece of the larger puzzle.
Second, the concerns expressed around land-use and food vs fuel are very important. Access to large amounts of cellulosic biomass will be critical in this regard. We have no interest in displacing food production or destroying our precious rainforests. Also, getting the most energy out of those feedstocks will also be critical. That's why we are utilizing fatty acid metabolism to make our products. As some of you may be aware, fatty acid metabolism has evolved over millions of years to be "nature's energy storage mechanism" and is >90% energetically efficient. What that means is that >90% of the BTUs contained in the fermentable sugars of biomass would be conserved in the biofuels we produce. As rightfully pointed out in an earlier comment, a given ton of biomass will have a fixed number of BTUs of energy. The important thing is to conserve as much of that energy as possible in the final product - and also minimize the additional energy required to run the production process and distribute the fuels.
Finally, skepticism of any new claims like these is justified. I completely agree. We are still a relatively young company and we have more work to do to bring these products to market. As David mentioned in his article, we have a pilot facility planned next year on our way to commercial production. We're not "done" yet but we're working very hard and making very rapid progress both scientifically and commercially.
Thank you for taking these issues seriously and for sharing your views in this forum.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:25 am
30 Jul 2007
If your fuel is 65% better than switchgrass, it would have an EROI of about 6.6, which is about twice as high as soy agrodiesel (3.2). Palm produces ten times more oil per acre than soy. However, I doubt that its EROI is ten times higher. But, it only has to be 2 times higher than soy to match the EROI of your fuel.
In conclusion, if your fuel can't compete with cane or palm economically, it will lose the race for cheapest fuel and rain forests will fall. It does not look like it will have a higher EROI than either but it might use less land than palm. However, if tropical land in Africa, Indonesia, and South America is cheaper than land in the United States (what are the odds of that?) then your fuel is going to have a tough time competing with cane and palm without tariffs and subsidies.
Go for it and let's hope I'm wrong. I just hope you guys don't get caught up in the subsidy treadmill.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JohnCaley Posted 9:14 am
30 Jul 2007
If we have to metabolise the Earth to gain transient energy then this planet will fail.
Electricity generated from non-biological methods is the key to a sustainable future, both in industry and in transport, and domestic.
The electrical solution is the dream solution, all the rest are tangents and even though praiseworthy they are but distractions.
All distractions must be ignored and the focus should be fair and square on electricity.
It is possible, and the supply of salt is not biological and totally recyclable while leaving no footprint.
Until this is realised this planet is playing games.
Permalink
LucasJ Posted 1:27 pm
30 Jul 2007
I have long been a supporter of BioDiesel. Part of this support grew out of an awareness that it would be highly efficient to be able to use the existing transport and distribution infrastructure. I am well aware of the shortcomings of existing biodiesel. My hopes are that some of these problems will be overcome by research. Additives, like ethanol and DME (ether) offer some possibilities.
Comments here reveal an astute grasp of the problem. Electricity is just another energy source that presents some rather unique problems of generation, transport and storage. I certainly agree that its use will increase in the times to come, not necessarily totally separated from co-use of liquid propellants. While electric vehicles may not themselves generate much pollution, the generation of the electricity they must accumulate and store can be extremely polluting. Currently we can barely meet our infrastructural needs for electricity. When just the addition of computers and the internet placed a near fatal strain on the power grid, one has to wonder about the years ahead.
As many have said, we must take a multi-dimensional approach. Much attention must be give to creating more highly efficient forms of transport. Energy sources must be developed, along with ways of capturing and concentrating these sources and forms of energy.
Congratulations LS9! More power to you.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:38 pm
30 Jul 2007
Speak for yourself buddy -- oops, you already were.
It's remarkable how many people shift to the passive voice when discussing addiction to automobility --- it's never "I refuse to limit my emissions or use of resources if it comes at any inconvenience to myself" -- it's always "mankind this" and "mankind that."
What "mankind" wants and what "mankind" gets are likely to be very, very different things.
The more interesting question is what do people do when confronted with the knowledge that "individual, fast, and efficient" means of transport are basically just slow but efficient means to kill lots of individuals in poor countries (as is already happening now throughout much of Africa, as they are priced out of oil).
How many people should die to supply US drivers with a barrel of biodiesel? How many kids should starve to keep that ethanol going into gas tanks?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:09 am
31 Jul 2007
*
It's remarkable how many people shift to the passive voice when discussing addiction to automobility --- it's never "I refuse to limit my emissions or use of resources if it comes at any inconvenience to myself" -- it's always "mankind this" and "mankind that."
*
Okay. Good point. I stand corrected.
I enjoy having an automobile and support efforts to allow me to continue using such a device for personal transport while, at the same time, substantially reducing damage to the environment and reducing other human beings' quality of life. My entire life is constructed around personal transport and I'm not interested in looking for a very different lifestyle at this time. It is pure selfish desire to preserve what I have and appreciate.
Contrary to what was said, I do not REFUSE to limit my emissions, but hope we can find ways for everyone -- I mean... ways for ME -- to reduce emissions and reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources. The last time I selected an automobile, I considered fuel-efficiency, safety, durability, and exactly what I believed I wanted on for. For example, I did not require a Yukon, so did not purchase a Yukon. I voluntarily chose a vehicle to that would minimize emissions and resource consumption.
It appears, in my opinion, that there are a lot of other people who are also interested in personal transportation. It is possible, I suppose, that the automobile industry would collapse if I stopped driving tomorrow. I really should not assume that the majority of other people driving about have the same attachment to their vehicles.
I applaud the efforts of everyone who decides to live according to their own values, whether they enjoy using automobiles or not. And we should try to eliminate programs that force so many unwilling people to purchase and use personal transport.
Aside #1... The folks who first hopped onto the back of a horse or attached a cart to an animal are likely responsible for humankind's obsession with personal transportation. Cultures taking advantage of it were quite successful and I suspect it will be difficult to eradicate. But go ahead and try. I might be better off in the long run. Could you get rid of spectator sports and the fashion industry next? What a waste of resources.
Aside #2... I don't travel by jet. Someone else must be responsible for propping up that industry.
Forward!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:54 am
31 Jul 2007
An outfit called LS9 says it can create such a fuel, and that it can do so at a cost competitive with gasoline, without government subsidies. (my emphasis)
How is LS9 defining a subsidy? Would they count the 51-cents-per-gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit as a subsidy? (I hope so!) Or are they saying only that they would not require subsidies to build the manufacturing plants? If they truly mean no subsidies of any kind, what minimum price of crude oil are they assuming?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:30 am
31 Jul 2007
This is the problem with the subsidy treadmill, right? Once everybody else gets them, you're put in a position of either refusing them and being put at a huge disadvantage or accepting them and resigning yourself to forever fighting to preserve and increase them.
I'm curious: what would you advise LS9, or indeed any new entrant in the liquid fuel market?
grist.org
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 3:05 am
31 Jul 2007
When Greg says "we have no interest in displacing food production or destroying our precious rainforests" I can see that he hasn't understood this. Not displacing food production and not destroying rainforests means destroying what little grassland there is left (which usually survives only because it is agriculturally marginal), and wrecking the last remaining savannas on this planet - anyone who's been to Brazil or Mozambique lately will know what I mean.
Greg, you've yet to convince me that your product is not simply another major threat to biodiversity.
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:14 am
31 Jul 2007
I think we need to put the claims of "heavily subsidized gas[oline]" into perspective. As Doug Koplow has shown, in the report he wrote for us, on a per-gallon basis, ethanol and biodiesel are likely considerably more heavily subsidized than petroleum fuels. (And Doug is no shill for the oil industry: he wrote the authoritative study on subsidies to oil for Greenpeace.)
The other study that is frequently cited for its estimates of per-gallon subsidies to petroleum products is "The Real Price of Gasoline (PDF alert)." Look closely at the International Center for Technology Assessment's numbers, however, and you'll see that to arrive at their per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14 (of which $1.00/gallon is their assumed market price), they allocate all kinds of government expenditure to oil, including expenditure on: Transportation infrastructure
R&D
Army Corps of Engineers (for transporting fuel)
Regulatory oversight, cleanup, and liability
Subsidized parking
And then they count numerous externalized costs, such as those related to: The operation of emergency and municipal motor vehicles (e.g., policing)
Agricultural crop losses
Health costs associated with air pollution
Loss of visibility
Planet-wide effects, such as global warming
Roadway de-icing and runoff
Noise pollution (from the operation of vehicles)
Wastes associated with the disposal of motor vehicles
Direct costs of sprawl
The environmental impact of sprawl
Aesthetic degradation of cultural sites
Increased costs to municipalities from sprawl
Travel delays
Uncompensated damages from accidents
As you can see, many of these costs -- such as expenditure on roads -- are not particular to petroleum but to roads and the operation of vehicles, especially private vehicles running on liquid fuels. (An FFV is as noisy running on E85 as on gasoline, for example.) LS9's fuels may fare much better than gasoline on GHG emissions, but corn-based ethanol certainly doesn't.
So, let's not throw around the "gasoline is subsidized, too" charge lightly, especially as a justification for "matching" subsidies for biofuels.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:47 am
31 Jul 2007
There are two aspects to introducing a new technology such as LS9.
On the one hand, it could be an invaluable technology, no matter what happens. Even in the greenest of futures, there will still be a demand for fuel.
On the other hand, the technology is being introduced into a dysfunctional society, which acts like an addicted person. Whatever the technology, it will be used for dysfunctional purposes.
This explains, for example, why liquid fuels are all subsidized, as David points out. The subsidies aren't rational from an economic or environmental standpoint. They only make sense as ennablers of addiction.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 5:22 am
31 Jul 2007
Permalink
LucasJ Posted 12:04 pm
31 Jul 2007
My comment reflected reality. Wishing for something doesn't make it so.
I recycle.
I have the first six years of, "Mother Earth News".
I'm currently driving my second full Hybrid. Got 44.9 mpg on my last tank.
Google: William Lucas Jones Hybrid.
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:30 pm
31 Jul 2007
You say your comment reflects reality, I agree, with the caveat that anyone who presumes to speak for all mankind has to be ready for to explain the existence of so many alternative views.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:42 pm
31 Jul 2007
Lets also assume that their biomass feedstock is at maximum 3-6% solar efficient. (With a theoretical 11% maximum limit of photosynthesis)
http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar
Then lets also assume that solar thermal has demonstrated as high as 50% efficiency, where as solar panels get inbetween 8-41% efficiency.
That said, even if we used solar panels to create "biofuels", we'd still need more than double the current US electricity supply in solar panels.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2397
That really begins to beg the question.
Is biomass the correct way to be harvesting sunlight.
_
Especially when electric engines are around 90% effecient. And gasoline engines are only about 21%. (Diesel 43% tops, with HCCI 55%)
Either way, the sun-to-wheels efficiency isn't that great for biofuels.
Any biofuel.
_
That said, the 90% conversion process is commendable. But that wasn't the real issue with biofuels.
Changing our fuel isn't going to get us nearly as far as changing our cars.
Especially when one considers that Ozone may be a larger contribution to glacier melting than CO2.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/tr ...
The best fuel, is the fuel you don't need to use.
Permalink
cfordj Posted 10:47 am
01 Aug 2007
To my way of thinking, it's "which means they require AT LEAST the same amount of feedstock (and maybe up to twice as much)"
In the spirit of peace and justice!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:19 am
01 Aug 2007
That said, a Fischer Tropsch process is also twice as effecient as Cellulosic Ethanol.
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/inf_paper_2g-bfs.pdf
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf
If this process is only as good as F-T, then it's really not a breakthrough at all.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:22 am
01 Aug 2007
And thus not prone to contamination or slowed process speed.
_
You also have to consider that this process specifically needs sugar.
Where as F-T merely needs anything with carbon and hydrogen.
Permalink
yato Posted 12:13 pm
13 Aug 2008
mac dvd ripper
Permalink
nessus Posted 1:46 am
01 Sep 2008
-
canon dslr & nikon dslr
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:04 am
01 Sep 2008
We need to use the whole of the plant : the cellulose. This is why the land demands of cellulosic ethanol are much lesser than corn ethanol.
Ofcourse, biofuels in general are very low power density ( around 0.1 to 1.5 W/m^2). Their requirements for land, water (and federal dole) will be competing with several other issues. So, they should be used only in the least amount possible. And when we are picking amongst the biofuels, let's pick the ones which have the least requirements on land.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:23 am
01 Sep 2008
This excludes the BIG one for GHG climate change, namely CO2. With a lifecycle analysis ethanol doubles CO2 over oil. Companies touting biofuel often release misleading information.
This new fuel will be somewhere between a 50% and 100% increase in CO2, depending on the feedstock. With fertilized crops it can go well over double the GHG of oil based fuel.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:35 am
01 Sep 2008
Burning it a bit more efficiently because it skips the distillation process is not much of an improvement. All the carbon from the original biomass still ends up in the atmosphere.
Distillation done with solar or wind would acomplish the same thing. Without the inherent danger of GMO bacteria, which will escape in waste water. Testing is going to have to be done to find out how this will effect natural aquatic ecosystems.
That's another big problem with biofuel, the huge water use. How many gallons of water per gallon of fuel with this process? Is it 4 to 5 gallons as with other biofuel methods?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink