For a while, I've been wishing I had time to write a feature on cellulosic ethanol, the allegedly "green" biofuel that's been "five years away" from commercial viability for about, oh, two decades.
Government mandates -- backed by a plethora of tax breaks, grants, and other goodies -- require production of 16 billions of the stuff by 2022. Today's production, rounding off, amounts to about zero.
Every once in a while, I catch hints of official skepticism poking through a veneer of mindless optimism regarding cellulosic ethanol. In January, Colin Peterson -- chair of the House Ag Committee and a nearly tireless champion of Big Ag interests -- averred that cellulosic could well never "get off the ground." Earlier, analysts from the USDA -- which has been plowing cash into cellulosic for decades -- expressed similar concerns.
Since then, save for occasional news of some techno breakthrough that never seems to bring commercial viability any closer than five years away, things have been pretty quiet on the cellulosic front.
Until this week, that is. Associated Press has come out with an article on why the government's mandates look increasingly unattainable.
The article opens by pointing to a few obvious problems with the cellulosic mandates:
No commercial-scale refineries exist, researchers have yet to agree on the best technology for fuel conversion and there is no distribution network to handle fuel once it is made.
The article claims that an "estimated 200-plus large-scale facilities are needed" to crank out enough volume to meet the mandates. No mention of converting existing conventional ethanol plants -- a prospect that the industry has held out for years.
It points out another obvious problem with cellulosic ethanol: cellulose tends to be bulky and not very dense. Shipping it from field to refinery will require much more truck or train capacity than, say, moving corn from silo to ethanol plant.
Moreover, unlike corn, "Some of the material, such as switchgrass, deteriorates more quickly."
The most hopeful bit in the article focuses on a new facility owned by ethanol giant Poet, specially designed to churn out both conventional and cellulosic ethanol. The company says the facility will initially make conventional corn ethanol, but hopes one day it can also utilize cellulose from corn plants: stalks, cobs, etc. Poet official told AP that:
We can use the same farmers, the same fields, the same infrastructure to get cellulose to the plants ... We don't have to reinvent the wheel.
That's awesome, except for one thing -- by turning so-called "crop waste" into car fuel, you're robbing soil of vital organic matter. I fear for the soils of the Midwest if cellulosic ethanol ends up sucking up all the corn stover, which currently rots in fields and slows erosion.
I see two immediate fundamental problems with cellulose as an ethanol source: 1) There just isn't a whole lot of energy in stuff like grass and corn stalks, and concentrating what energy is there requires lots of energy; and 2) most cellulose is extremely bulky and not very dense; transporting it from field to refinery will be an inefficient, energy-intensive process.
Researchers, many on them funded with government cash, have been working diligently for years to solve the first problem. No one seems to be thinking much about the second one -- beyond the dodgy idea of using existing corn infrastructure to grab corn husks and whatnot.
Then there's another, more fundamental problem. Even cellulosic ethanol requires feedstocks that have been grown in soil. Growing one thing means not growing another. Cellulosic ethanol could well end up leading to expanded monocultures and less agro-biodiversity -- and more deforestation and clearing of carbon sinks and wildlife habitat.
Or, if they never sort out the first problem I mentioned above, it could never happen at commercial scale at all. That, along with a concerted effort to rebuild local food systems, re-solarize agriculture, and reinvest in dense cities and public transportation, might just be the best-case scenario.
Shame that the government is dumping billions of dollars per year into ethanol when so much else needs to be done.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
Billhook Posted 9:06 am
17 Oct 2008
It has for many years swamped any commercial effort to advance wood alcohol production, aka the brilliantly clean-burning fuel, methanol.
The formal planning in the 'late '70s/early '80s by International Harvester Corp. of a small modular wood-to-methanol plant reduced the capital cost per "annual gallon" produced by more than an order of magnitude.
The corporation was then dismembered before the plans were enacted.
We now have even greater need of sustainable coppice reforestation globally for a broad spectrum of reasons. These include, IMHO, the provision of charcoal for Terra Preta and of liquid fuels for primary transport.
Pyrolysing wood yields twice the carbon per unit of hydrogen that is required for methanol production [CH3OH], so a synergystic dual-yield production regime is entirely feasible.
By the concerted sales of these two products from village scale refineries (that minimize feedstock transport costs) the reforestation projects could become very attractive for investment, meaning that one of the major carbon recovery options could become self-funding in any country where deciduous trees grow well.
That bears rephrasing - a major self-funding carbon recovery option, that offers a means of liquid fuel production, while enhancing food production, can be established wherever in the world deciduous trees grow well.
Who could object to that ?
But no, the shills say, let's just carry on waiting for the modern high tech option of cellulosic ethanol - which someday could process all that wasted corn stover - oh and maybe some "forest residues" too !
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 1:08 pm
17 Oct 2008
Cellulosic ethanol is alive, well and growing rapidly. If anyone wants to review the many dozens of commercial efforts underway, they're all covered at my web site: http://www.thecesite.com
Please note that I share the concerns of Billhook. There may be better uses of biomass than cellulosic ethanol, and I'm all for a careful evaluation of this matter. But a reasonable case can be made that CE might be an important bridge fuel from oil-based transport fuels to electric vehicles. Also, CE would be an critical factor in replacing oil used to make plastics and chemicals.
As far as answering the second key point you raise, it's important to understand that most folks in the CE universe are NOT focused on using crop land to grow the feedstock for CE. So your points are not really valid. The feedstock for CE will come from existing forests (in the near term) and energy plantations down the road a bit. Both of these will be located very near the CE facilities. Transport will not be a big concern.
In fact, IF this is done correctly, one could argue a very strong case to dramatically increase the use of biomass for cellulosic ethanol, pyrolysis or other wood energy production technologies. That case is that we need to create vast new forested areas to act as sequestration sources for GHG's. We know how to do this... we've been doing it for at least 100 years throughout the US. Water is not a limiting factor. Land availability is not a limiting factor. We just need to do it sustainably and pay careful attention to biodiversity and soil quality. But this is all doable.
Richard
Permalink
Charlie Peters Posted 6:13 pm
17 Oct 2008
Carbon tax can pay for the corporate and NGO welfare for the game.
A few $trillion should get a start
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Permalink
Jonas Posted 10:45 pm
17 Oct 2008
You're not going to get there with li-ion batteries and solar power. That's at least 20 years away.
So give it some slack. Of all the renewables, cellulosic ethanol is closest to providing a low carbon solution.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 11:00 pm
17 Oct 2008
As for RD Miller -- who so tirelessly champions all things ethanol that I sometimes wonder if he isn;t quaffing the stuff -- I checked out his CE Web page.
There's lots of stuff like this:
Cellulosic ethanol start-up Mascoma Corp. won $50 million in federal and state funding Tuesday for a new Michigan biofuel plant, after ending plans to build in Tennessee.
Mascoma Corp. said it had permission to shift $26 million in U.S. Department of Energy funding that had been announced for a plant in Tennessee to a plant to be built in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Michigan matched that award with a $23.5 million grant. The grants will speed the building and production of the factory, Mascoma said.
"This is the next generation of ethanol, using wood wastes from our sustainable forests," Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Tuesday. "It's really a home run for Michigan."
Mascoma's factory will make wood-cellulose ethanol, a renewable alternative to corn-based ethanol. The plant is to be built on state land near Kinross, south of Sault Ste. Marie in the eastern Upper Peninsula. The facility is expected to cost $250 million and eventually produce up to 40 million gallons of biofuel annually.
I'll let Backcut and that crew hash out whether "sustainable forestry" is going to supply significant fuel for our cars. I will note that the above-mentioned AP article claims that to satisfy mandates, we'll need "200-plus large-scale facilities are needed to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's standards -- each capable of producing about 100 million gallons a year."
This particular taxpayer-funded facility, if it ever works out, will crank out just 40 million gallons.
And where, RD, do you propose to place the "energy plantations" to which you refer?
Victual Reality
Permalink
Billhook Posted 11:27 pm
17 Oct 2008
you may be quite right with regard to the possibility of methanol being used as a hydrogen storage material - It avoids a clutch of hydrogen's major problems in distribution, retailing and storage in transit.
Yet it extends the basic nonsense of conventional hydrogen-fuel production, that high grade energy (electricity) is generated only to be converted (with heavy losses) to a low grade chemical energy-store (hydrogen) before being reprocessed (with further losses) to a final chemical energy store, methanol.
The sheer energy wastage of this process is surely untenable as a commercial process unless either :
a/. crude oil has reached say $250/bbl (at which point the economy is collapsing, thus nullifying high tech investments, including corporate welfare energy-scams) or
b/. sustainable power supply has grown to a scale that exceeds night-time base-load demand (perhaps via Offshore Wave Energy in severe weather), meaning that surplus power is available for hydrogen electrolysis at no cost.
Of these two scenarios, our arrival at the former terminal slump seems to me rather more likely than at the latter cornucopia.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Russ Posted 11:46 pm
17 Oct 2008
Received 26.5 mil federal $ based on a vague idea, even though it has produced zero anything so far. Hmm, remind anyone of a certain late-90s bubble? I wonder how big this new bubble already is.
Played off Tennessee and Michigan vs. one another to see which was willing to plunder itself more thoroughly and hand over the loot.
The "winner" - Michigan pumps another $23.5 mil into the bubble and privatizes god knows how much public land. (And what's on that land now, about to be destroyed?)
All to produce 40 mil gallons, .2% of what's needed to satisfy the federal mandate.
Which mandate is just another groan on the death march of trying to prop up this unsustainable "happy motoring" social model, when we should be doing all we can, and investing what resources we have left, to transform this model.
Sounds great. And who cares about forests and ecosystems anyway. Hack it all down and grow monotree plantations. So we can keep driving SUVs to Walmart. Cellulosic rocks.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:42 am
18 Oct 2008
The governor of Iowa said in a town meeting here recently that McCain opposing farm state ethanol subsidies was like dissing maple syrup in Vermont. Political suicide.
He did however recognize farm biogas as a potent energy source.
Our challenge as environmentalists is to grab the slim chance to steer farm policy away from ethanol and towards farm biogas in the first years of this green job wave.
With biogas powered farm equipment, to save farmers diesel fuel costs, organic fertilizer to save the cost of natural gas derived ammonmia fertilizer, and payments for backup for a renewable power grid, to farmers for their biogas based electricity; we have a powerful economic argument.
Millions of distributed solid oxide fuel cell/turbine cogeneration systems fed by farm biogas would take a lot of workers to manufacture, install, operate, and maintain. Lots of green jobs there.
And it could offset and help prevent (by backing up a mainly wind/solar powered grid) most GHG emissions.
Plugin hybrids could be charged from that grid, replacing the gas and biomass guzzling vehicles and resultant financial crisis we are now plagued with.
The governor reponded favorably to utility regulatory reform to get farm biogas electricity as a backup for wind/solar electricity. maybe with some careful, but well designed reason, pro-fuel farming politicians could be steered towards this much better policy.
Farm biogas from waste backing up a renewable smart grid, charging plugin hybrids. We have science on our side. And a climate and economy to save. So let's get going!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:16 am
18 Oct 2008
Sorry, Richard, there are too many rules, laws and policies in place to make many forests available for harvest. Sure, private forests will open their gates if the price is right but, National Forests are too "locked up" to provide enough raw materials. Owl circles, streambuffers, "potential habitat" and other protections will make it impossible to navigate any project through the legal wranglings of money-grubbing eco-lawyers.
Sure, I'd like nothing more to be thinning our forests to restore them to a more natural state but, there will be no massive CE projects in the National Forests for many, many years.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:13 am
18 Oct 2008
Eventually they are turned into biogas and organic fertilizer, going through 2 or 3 cycles.
That's a big market for waste cellulose that poses fire danger as slash out in the forests. Get a CCC harvesting and recycling that cellulose and every farm turning them into biogas to backup a renewable smart grid.
There's a path to profit. Now government needs to facilitate that. Forests suffering from a dangerous burden of flammable dead wood really could be a major backup power source for our national energy needs.
Proper subsidies and R and D could make that happen. Ethanol subsidies need to shift to this better path to make farmers, tree and food, the alternative to OPEC and fossil based energy corporations.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:46 am
18 Oct 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/17/12447/1102
Use it to displace coal! If you can move it to an ethanol refinery you can move it to a power plant.
http://gristmill.grist.org/images/admin/coal_rsgranne_danipt.JPG
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:39 am
18 Oct 2008
Combined power paper mill/power plant. How else can these plants compete, they will be moved to Brazil.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 6:53 am
18 Oct 2008
My cellulosic ethanol web site is designed only to cover who is doing what. It is information based only and sells nothing.
I built the site because I have many concerns myself about where this technology may be heading. CE could be very useful to bridge the gap from oil to electric and to offset the use of oil for plastics and base chemicals. But it could also be mishandled and become unsustainable, at least in terms of its impacts on forests and soils.
My interest is in the sustainable forestry area. Has been for 35 years. Anything that effects forests in a big way is something I take interest in. Anything that can allow for better forest management is something I get behind.
The potential to create markets for low-grade and over-crowded timber is a very important development, because it provides a mechanism to take pressure off of cutting mature timber, provides more money to landowners, allows for more sustainable management, creates options to improve soil and water quality, creates an opportunity to develop carbon negative systems, and on and on.
Cellulosic ethanol could create this kind of market. But other competing technologies exist which could provide this market as well (or perhaps in a much better way). The value of using one technology over another is a very complex subject, and frankly, no one has the answer to this yet. I'm NOT in favor of CE over any of these other technologies.
4. Tom... I've covered the land issue numerous times already. We have at least 750 million acres of non-food-producing land available in the US. To see a breakdown of all US land, go here:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB14/EIB14_reportsu ...
I've made the argument we could easily shoot for pulling 200 million acres out of the total 2 billion acres of land in the US and designate these to sustainable energy plantations. Water is not an issue. Fertilizer is not an issue. This land would be located throughout the US, as close as possible to CE facilities. The species of trees and grasses to grow on it already exist and have been rather thoroughly tested.
Based on current yields, this 200 million acres could produce a minimum of 10 tons per acre per year of biomass. That's 2 billion tons of biomass per year. At 100 gallons of cellulosic ethanol per ton (this is the current yield several companies are experiencing), this land could produce 200 billion gallons of ethanol per year. I think that's a sizable number.
Independent analyses of some CE technologies are already showing energy-in-to-energy-out balances of 8:1. Best guess is this number could go to 15:1 within 10 years. Also, best guess is that the yields of biomass per acre of land could go to 20 tons per year within 15-20 years. In other words, 400 billion gallons.
This is the reason so much money is chasing the CE sector... many hundreds of millions of dollars in the past few years.
In the short term, existing forests will provide the feedstock necessary to get the CE sector off the ground. At a minimum, current forests could withstand removals of around 50 tons per acre as a one time shot (we'd have to wait 15-20 years to do that again), but this would actually be a very good thinning and would help restore optimal forest health. So take half the total 750 million acres and multiply it by 50 tons to get some idea of the currently available volume of feedstock waiting for the CE sector. Remember, I can only support this if it's done according to FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) standards, but that is certainly doable.
AmazingDRX... your one track thinking gets so tiring. You keep talking about biogas when the discussion is on using biomass from forests and energy plantations. These two issues have nothing in common. Why can't you get this?
Biogas is fine. Great. I fully support it. Wonderful. Do it yesterday.
But that has nothing to do with sustainable forestry, and nothing to do with creating energy plantations (read "new forests") based on mixed species, sustainable rotations, and the use of no toxic chemicals and only the available water. Some folks really want to do this, OK? We understand it's not your thing. But unless you have a specific objection to this (based on the criteria I just mentioned), stop talking about biogas as a response. It's just silly and makes your thinking look incredibly rigid.
BioD.. I have no objection whatsoever to your statement. All this biomass may well be better used to offset coal. There's a lot of sense to this argument. But as I said earlier, the issue is complex... offset coal or offset oil. Different people are placing their bets in different places.
Richard
Permalink
Billhook Posted 8:27 am
18 Oct 2008
and so propose solutions that may be apt for the US,
but do so with no apparent interest in their outcomes for the ecosystems around the other 95% of humanity.
There are of course national nuances to any solution with global applicability, but essentially, if it lacks that overall relevance then,
as some dishonest thug once declared accurately,
"it ain't global and it won't work !"
Two such cases are advocated in posts above.
Cellulosic Ethanol, with its highly patented high-tech massive-scale processing,
and Biogas Fuel-cell Power, with its long proven dependence on intensive livestock agribusiness,
may perhaps function in the US for a while,
but the chances of them making any significantly useful impact in the rest of the world are negligible.
Another post above declares that wood should only be used to displace coal-fired power and not for making liquid fuels, and so overlooks a different weakness of global relevance -
Many poorer nations are near or already past the peak of oil supplies affordable by their populations. The ongoing basic supply of liquid fuels is crucial for these societies, which, due to their poverty, anyway tend to have low GHG emissions relative to wealthier states.
In these circs. it is entirely justified that sustainably produced wood be used for liquid fuel for primary transport, tractors, etc, rather than for power production.
Wealthy nations should of course know well their direct strategic interest in avoiding poor countries' falling into extremism and ungovernable chaos. To this end, R.D&D to encourage novel production of affordable liquid fuels is of more than just ecological & climate-stability interest: both humanitarian and security interests are also engaged.
So, meaning no disrespect, I'd urge Grist participants to apply the test of global relevance to proposals before advocating them in the discussions here.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:26 am
18 Oct 2008
I'm barely certain I understand the point of this post of yours. Regardless, it contains several incorrect statements.
Many CE facilities, to begin with, are being designed to be small and modular... not "massive scale" at all. They will be appropriate for most countries.
The most recent estimate I've seen is that there is around 1 billion acres of abandoned farmland around the world (much of it not very good for crops)... only a small portion of this in the US. A significant amount of this land would be perfect for the establishment of new, biodiverse forests, designed to produce biomass for energy. This is low tech, high employment work... perfect for most countries where the land is available.
So just what is your point?
Richard
Permalink
Billhook Posted 10:44 am
18 Oct 2008
the article by Tom Philpott makes clear far better than I can the general malfeasance of the Cellulosic Ethanol lobby. I merely add the fact that if it ever actually became commercially competitive within the US market (as opposed to subsidy-dependent), it would still face a huge leap to make any inroads into production in far less wealthy markets around the rest of the world.
As such, I think it lacks global relevance.
One aspect of this unfeasibility concerns the charges imposed for licences to utilize patented processes and, perhaps, patented organisms also.
Wood-to-Methanol production by comparison was viable even in Britain with its relatively high labour costs until the '70s, and, in using technologies that are mostly long out of patent, is becoming so again.
Your claims of global acreage of abandoned farmland seem to my information to be rather inflated, and the idea that a significant fraction is perfect for reforestation plainly ignores the superior need for that land's restoration for agricultural purposes.
However, as I made no mention at all of which land classes should best be utilized, your point is obscure.
I do gather that you choose, for reasons unstated, to publicize the progress of US CE businesses, rather than the conventional Wood-to-Methanol option.
You state plainly that CE has a potential to create markets for low-grade & overcrowded timber, and that this is an important development. We would agree on such an outcome's importance, but differ in that I'd view such an incentive as being a thoroughly malign development.
Finally, if I thought you actually had a problem seeing the point of this sentence:
"So, meaning no disrespect, I'd urge Grist participants to apply the test of global relevance to proposals before advocating them in the discussions here,"
I'd suggest you consult a dictionary.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
googoogaagaa Posted 11:21 am
18 Oct 2008
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 11:28 am
18 Oct 2008
around 1 billion acres of abandoned farmland around the world (much of it not very good for crops)
can produce 10 tons of biomass per acre per year, but zero tons of edible food.
By the way, that is just over 1/7 acre per person, 1.5 tons per person per year.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:38 am
18 Oct 2008
I understand you want to engage in a theoretical discussion about the potential relevance of cellulosic ethanol technology to the world outside the US. I'm much more concerned about reality.
My interest in CE has to do with what is actually taking place and where the money is going. Whether you think it's relevant or not doesn't make much difference. The fact is, it's coming... and it's coming all across the globe. Why? Because there's money to be made, resources to be used, and oil to be replaced.
I don't have much interest in debating the relevance of this technology. I'm far more interested in trying to steer it toward sustainability.
If you dig into the conventional wood-to-methanol technology that has been around quite a long while and compare it to what is expected from CE processes, you'll understand why hundreds of millions are being plowed into this. These people are hardly the type to be throwing their money at a needless technology.
That said, this doesn't mean I think CE is the best route to go. But my opinion... just like yours... won't change what's happening. I'd rather focus on reality and try to steer it in a healthy direction.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:45 am
18 Oct 2008
Sure... I'll give you that reference... just as soon as you point me to the paper that says we can produce unlimited quantities of safe, proven, low cost power from nuclear.
Come on, Bill... step it up, please.
I simply said I have read there is around one billion acres of non-forested, non crop land available in the world today. This land can grow trees. We know how to grow trees with a reliable production rate of 10 tons per acre per year, requiring little water and fertilizer. That's all I said.
Richard
Permalink
Billhook Posted 11:37 am
19 Oct 2008
To suggest that we should simply "Forget Global Relevance", and instead appease whatever lobby currently has the flighty interest of profiteers behind it,
is patently absurd, and antithetical to good environmental policy.
My interest is in advancing energy options that will serve the global reality, rather than merely in advancing some US shareholders' income of subsidy dollars, so we differ there.
Moreover, your effort to propagate apathy in claiming that our views can't change anything seems facile -
like many others on this site, I've been instrumental in instigating change, and aim to continue to be so.
So I wonder if it's occurred to you yet that your incompetent hyping of C Ethanol
is actually counter-productive.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 6:31 pm
19 Oct 2008
Clearly nuclear energy remains a viable resource on the Earth for a time scale of approximately five billion years - these nuclear fuels will not be consumed or depleted over a timeframe comparable to the life of the sun on the main sequence. Just as the finite hydrogen within the core of the Sun is a "renewable" energy resource, so too is the finite resource of terrestrial nuclear energy an equally renewable energy resource.
However, there is one final point we have overlooked. Even during its life in the main sequence, the Sun is evolving, as with all such stars. The Sun is gradually increasing in luminosity, by about 10% every one billion years, and its surface temperature is correspondingly slowly rising. This increase in the luminosity of the sun is such that in about one billion years, the surface temperature of the Earth will permanently have become too high for liquid water to exist, the oceans will evaporate and a catastrophe of the most immense proportions imaginable will overtake our planet.
http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/thermodynamic ...
Im looking forward to reading that paper RDM.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:00 pm
19 Oct 2008
Typical response... paying no attention to anything I say. Just in your own little world, making up words instead of reading mine.
I don't "hype" cellulosic ethanol. I've made it perfectly clear I have many concerns about it and believe it is only one of many possible uses of biomass. Don't you even bother to read what I write?
To say the development of CE is about lobbyists and profiteers, though, clearly indicates your interests lie somewhere other than history and fact.
Research into CE has been steadily ongoing since the early 70's when no one much cared about it. The large sums of money flowing into it more recently occurred when oil and gas prices spiked and concern grew over GHG's.
Fact is, CE represents the ONLY large-scale direct replacement for transport fuel which does not compete with food for cropland. I'd say this makes it far more than a "flighty interest to line the pockets of profiteers". What planet do you live on? It's very hard to take your comments seriously.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:03 pm
19 Oct 2008
Give me a break. This response of yours is so lame it is barely worth a response.
Where in this response of yours does it prove nuclear is affordable?
Where does it prove it is safe?
Where does it prove it is reliable?
Come on, Bill.
Richard
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 2:10 am
20 Oct 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 2:35 am
20 Oct 2008
Like I've said in every post I've made at Grist about nuclear, I take no position on it. It has great potential, but lots of questions remain.
However, if you are planning to go to another planet, I'd say a nuclear powered ship would definitely be preferable over one driven by cellulosic ethanol. Granted, the CE ship won't kill you on its own, but you'd be way too old by the time you got any place where you could put your feet on the ground (well, OK...other than the moon).
Richard
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:22 am
20 Oct 2008
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:39 am
20 Oct 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 3:48 am
20 Oct 2008
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 3:52 am
20 Oct 2008
I know Branson has some money in several cellulosic ethanol companies, hoping to find a way to power his jets. Almost as cool as this baby:
http://www.hybridcars.com/technology/silver-buckshot-appr ...
Richard
Permalink