Sun Micro founder big on ethanol

[greenman3610]

http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/ethanol.html

Vinod Khosla explains why biofuels will benefit from
Moore's law, and how they are the bridge to a carbon
neutral energy system.
Describes closed loop feedlot to ethanol production
system

-----


It may look like a typical, if huge, cattle feedlot – but for the glittering white four-story structure below that resembles the Centre Pompidou in Paris. Indeed, until recently this operation just off Mead’s County Road 10 was not unlike any other finishing ground for Nebraska’s beef cattle: a last stop before the abattoir. But starting in November, Oscar Mayer will no longer be the marquee product here. A company called E3 Biofuels is about to fire up the most energy-efficient corn ethanol facility in the country: a $75 million state-of the-art biorefinery and feedlot capable of producing 25 million gallons of ethanol a year. What’s more, it will run on methane gas produced from cow manure. The super-efficient operation capitalizes on a closed loop of resources available here on the prairie – cattle (fed on corn), manure (from the cows), and corn (fed into the ethanol distiller). The output: a potential gusher of renewable, energy-efficient transportation fuel.

[elocs]

1. Riddle me this:

If we cannot grow enough food to feed the world, how do we grow enough food to fuel and feed the world?

[smtpgirl]

2. Not Even, Ethanol gets less mpg's per gallon than

regular gasoline, about 10-15% less. This was in the Consumer Reports Oct. 2006 issue

BIODIESEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


October 2006
The Ethanol Myth
Consumer Reports' E85 tests show that you’ll get cleaner emissions but poorer fuel economy ... if you can find it



The Bush administration has been pushing ethanol as a renewable, homegrown alternative to gasoline. Now, the auto industry is abuzz with the promise of its flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), which are designed to run on either gasoline or the blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline called E85.

GM’s advertising says, “Energy independence? The answer may be growing in our own backyard,” and has coined the slogan “Live green, go yellow,” referring to the corn from which most U.S. ethanol is made. DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and GM have said that they plan to double production of FFVs and other biofuel vehicles to 2 million by 2010.

A recent Harris Interactive study of vehicle owners found that more than half were interested in purchasing an FFV, mostly for reduced dependency on petroleum and improved fuel economy.

But after putting a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV through an array of fuel economy, acceleration, and emissions tests, and interviewing more than 50 experts on ethanol fuel, CR determined that E85 will cost consumers more money than gasoline and that there are concerns about whether the government’s support of FFVs is really helping the U.S. achieve energy independence. Among our findings:



The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85 compared with gasoline, from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10 mpg (rounded to the nearest mpg). This is the lowest fuel mileage we’ve gotten from any vehicle in recent years.


With the retail pump price of E85 averaging $2.91 per gallon in August, according to the Oil Price Information Service, which tracks petroleum and other fuel prices, a 27 percent fuel-economy penalty means drivers would have paid an average of $3.99 for the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.


When we calculated the Tahoe’s driving range, we found that it decreased to about 300 miles on a full tank of E85 compared with about 440 on gasoline. So you have to fill up more often with E85.


The majority of FFVs are large vehicles like the Tahoe that get relatively poor fuel economy even on gasoline. So they will cost you a lot at the pump, no matter which fuel you use.


Because E85 is primarily sold in the upper Midwest, most drivers in the country have no access to the fuel, even if they want it. For our Tahoe test, for example, we had to blend our own (see The great E85 fuel hunt).


The FFV surge is being motivated by generous fuel-economy credits that auto-makers get for every FFV they build, even if it never runs on E85. This allows them to pump out more gas-guzzling large SUVs and pickups, which is resulting in the consumption of many times more gallons of gasoline than E85 now replaces.

We put the Tahoe through our full series of fuel-economy and acceleration tests while running on each fuel (see our test results). When running on E85 there was no significant change in acceleration. Fuel economy, however, dropped across the board. In highway driving, gas mileage decreased from 21 to 15 mpg; in city driving, it dropped from 9 to 7 mpg.

You could expect a similar decrease in gas mileage in any current FFV. That’s because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline: 75,670 British thermal units per gallon instead of 115,400, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. So you have to burn more fuel to generate the same amount of energy. In addition, FFV engines are designed to run more efficiently on gasoline. E85 fuel economy could approach that of gasoline if manufacturers optimized engines for that fuel.

When we took our Tahoe to a state-certified emissions-test facility in Connecticut and had a standard emissions test performed, we found a significant decrease in smog-forming oxides of nitrogen when using E85. Ethanol, however, emits acetaldehyde, a probable carcinogen and something that standard emissions-testing equipment is not designed to measure. But that might be a relatively minor evil. “Acetaldehyde is bad,” says James Cannon, president of Energy Futures, an alternative-transportation publication, “but not nearly as bad as some of the emissions from gasoline.”


CR - Quick Take
Despite the avid support of the Bush administration and major American car companies, E85 is unlikely to fill more than a small percentage of U.S. energy needs. "E85, which is 85 percent ethanol, emits less smog-causing pollutants than gasoline, but provides fewer miles per gallon, costs more, and is hard to find outside the Midwest.· Government support for flexible-fuel vehicles, which can run on E85, is indirectly causing more gasoline consumption rather than less."


Most ethanol is being blended in a 10 percent mix to reduce smog-producing emissions and stretch gasoline supplies.

[elocs]

3. Biodiesel is a sham and a scam.

It is not "the" answer because there is not a "the" answer. There is a lot of pie in the sky predictions and little understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested). There is nothing, absolutely nothing that has the EROEI of oil and that will allow life to continue in any way, shape, or form as it has in this country as it has.

[MadHound]

7. No, actually there is sound science behind biodiesel,

Especially since biodiesel doesn't have to rely on land based crops, but can be made out of an algae feedstock.<http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html>. Let's be generous, let's say that you need 20,000 square miles of surface water to grow enough microalgae to fuel the country, a vast majority of it would be able to come from using wastewater treatment ponds as the growing medium, which has been done for decades now. Nice little tradeoff there, converting human waste to fuel and cleaning the water at the same time.

And frankly, once you have the algae grown, harvest, refining and distribution costs are low. And you are left with a fuel that burns 99% cleaner than gasoline, is better for diesel engines than regular dino diesel, and whose waste product is deoiled algae, useful as fertilizer or feedstock, glycerin, which can be used in soap or other such products, and water.

Hmmm, sounds like "the" answer to me.

[elocs]

10. I guess that everybody can stop their research now

in every other area since algae biodiesel is "the" answer. There is no "the" answer that will replace petroleum. The EROEI for oil is 10/1 and for biodiesel is 3/1, less than one third that of petroleum. Sorry, welcome to the real world. Clearly there is sound science behind all kinds of biodiesel, but the questions would be are they practical and do they have a EROEI to make them worthwhile? Another question would be does biodieselamerica.org have a vested interest or will make money from the promotion of biodiesel? Anybody who will make a buck from biodiesel will present the most rosy picture of it without looking at its negatives or shortcomings.

Check out the Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions.html

"Before we instantly accept alternative energy lifeboats that will let us keep our current lifestyles, don't you think it wise to see if they float?

Here are nine questions that you must ask of yourself, and anyone who claims that they have found a perfect alternative to oil. After answering these questions, you may have a better idea about whether you want to jump (or throw your family) into something that might sink in short order.

Deluding yourself that the energy problem has been solved only guarantees that the crisis will hit you and the planet much harder in the end.

The end of the Age of Oil is a life and death game. Can you afford to be cavalier about it? Do not think of prudent, but ultimately temporary, steps that should be taken to soften the blow as solutions."

[MadHound]

11. Well at least you're being honest, you actually state that biodiesel

Has a decent EROEI. I've run across other folks who are against biodiesel, and they've tried to claim that biodiesel has a negative EROEI. Nice to see that you're intellectually honest enough to recognize bioddiesel's positive EROEI.

Now, leaving behind the contreversy surrounding EROEI measurement behind<http://web.archive.org/web/20041019220802/http://www.oilanalytics.org/neten/neten.html#measure>, let's go to your criticism. Biodiesel America probably does have a vested interest in publishing articles favorable to biodiesel. However, the piece is a scholarly, peer reviewed work that they had permission to copy and use:shrug: What's the agenda of FTW? Much as I like the site, it is a bit sloppy on the scholastic side, and many of its articles are poorly referenced, or not referenced at all.
And I notice that you don't even decide to touch the UNH article, so I will take that as a given.

Back to your criticism, ie biodiesel has a low EROEI when compared with oil. Sure, I will grant you that. However all that simply means is that one has to grow more algae in order to get the same "bang for the buck" Big whoop, we grow more algae. What is the energy source coming into the biodiesel process? Solar, mainly. Free, clean solar. Other energy is coming from the human waste in the wastewater treatment ponds. Another free source of energy, and frankly, probably a net energy positive for algae, since it is energy expensive to break down human waste without algae, that's why many, if not most, have been using microalgae for decades now.

Another factor that you're not taking under consideration is the rising energy cost of pumping out ever more oil. We're starting up the ramp up Peak Oil right now, where the inexpensive, easily drilled oil is gone, and we're going to be going after the more inaccessible, more energy expensive oil. Thus, the EROEI costs of extracting this oil is going to continue to rise, while the energy costs of biodiesel derived from algae remains the same.

Thus we come back to the fact that we can grow enough feedstock for our fuel needs on a renewable basis, year in, year out, without a net rise in the energy costs like oil is experiencing, and which will only grow worse. However the energy that is put into biodiesel is relatively cheap when compared to that which goes into oil. The refining process of both requires a lot of energy, but it is relatively the same amount. This energy costs could be defrayed a bit by fitting refineries with wind and solar units, or using generators running biodiesel. But whereas oil takes energy that has to be paid for, ie gasoline, in order to drill for it, the energy required to produce the alage feedstock is free solar.

And frankly, who gives a rats ass that we have to grow algae in 20,000 sq miles of water instead of 6,300 sq. miles? This simply means more human waste will efficiently and cleanly be disposed of, whereas before it took even more energy to render it clean. All using the free energy of the sun.

And let's look at something else, what about the energy needed to clean up after oil? Both while it is being pumped and refined, and after it has been burned as gas. This is a huge energy costs, and one of the criticisms of EROEI measurement, ie that it doesn't measure all of the energy costs. You and I and millions of our fellow citizens are paying a huge health costs to burn gas. Yet biodiesel, as I said earlier, burns with 99% less of the pollutants than gas. Less pollutants, cleaner air, better health, billions in health care costs(and energy) saved. This is just one example of how EROEI isn't a cut and dried number as the people at FTW would like to think. Oh, and the wastes from biodiesel are minimal. Glycerin that can be used in soap and other products, and water. Hell, biodiesel is so clean that you can drink the stuff and have no ill effects(I have). Yet refining of oil has many by products that are unhealthy and require even more energy to clean up and dispose of, again, something that isn't mentioned in EROEI reports, which are only concerned with front load costs, and don't take into account the full picture.

But again, it comes back to the simply fact that even with a smaller EROEI, we have enough capability to grow an algae feedstock, and refine that down to a usable fuel, cheaply, easily and cleanly. This has been shown time and again. Don't you think that it's high time we started using this fuel? Or do you want to continue down the path of Peak Oil, trying to extract ever smaller and more expensive supplies of oil out of the ground, at an ever greater expense to our wallets, enviroment, health and economy. Sorry, but I find that path to be a recipe for societal suicide, a path that we have got to abandon now.

[greenman3610]

4. Khosla makes the point,

that it is a mistake to assume that the productivity of
today's biofuel production is the upper limit - and equally
a mistake to believe that current average gas mileage is set in stone,
-- it will change with the adoption of higher mileage
engines, or hybrids, properly tuned for the new
biofuels.
The new plant he describes is much more efficient
than the boneheaded business as usual ethanol
plants that have previously been the norm.

In regards to food production, it is my understanding
that food is more an issue of distribution than
production.

[elocs]

6. There is nothing efficient about making ethanol from corn.

It's a nice moneymaker for corn farmers and ADM as well as being subsidized by the government. You could take our entire present corn crop and make ethanol with it and it would only replace maybe 15% of our current fuel consumption. Corn is a prima donna plant. It requires a lot of petroleum based fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and water and it depletes the topsoil. Ethanol plants in western Minnesota have lowered the water table faster than it can be replenished. ADM ethanol plants in Iowa burn tonnes of coal to convert corn into ethanol. If you believe that ethanol will be our energy savior, then you are in for a rude awakening and big reality check if you actually study the facts rather than somebody's attempt to make lots of money with hopelessly optimistic predictions.

[Nikia]

8. They should be using hemp, rapeseed, or mustard seed

For land crops. Perhaps they could be bred to get even higher energy outputs. As suggested, algae. Garbage and waste could be converted as well.

[papau]

9. I thought the energy in oil used in growing corn was about the same as

the energy obtained from corn ethanol

so it does little or nothing to our dependence on oil.

[Vox Acerbus]

5. As Someone Who Has Worked for SEVERAL Khosla Startups

The man's a visionary, but he's not perfect. I worked for one of his startups that shat the bed, and it was terrible.

I hope he's right. I do have faith in him. If so, that would be fantastic.