Cellulosic gasoline might be here

[cdunn]

If it really is, and it is reputedly in fleet testing for use, what a triumph it would be. A potentially carbon negative energy supply, and one that will make the Middle Eastern, South American, and Russian oil deposits superfluous in terms of energy.

Ambitious, but hoping it's the real deal.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If it really is, and it is reputedly in fleet testing for use, what a triumph it would be. A potentially carbon negative energy supply, and one that will make the Middle Eastern, South American, and Russian oil deposits superfluous in terms of energy.

Ambitious, but hoping it's the real deal.

I think it's a very positive thing, but it's not going to be a game-changer overnight, if ever. Don't get me wrong, I like it.

First of all, expect the environmentalists to scream their heads off. It doesn't matter that it's carbon-negative, it allows the continuation of the our current car-culture versus forced mass-transportation and heavy urbanization, and they're very much against that. They do not want people driving cars. Understand that their goals are political; they want to change our culture, not solve our 'energy' problems.

Second, although these crops are not a food staple (such as corn, currently used as both food and for ethanol production) as such, arable land still competes for crops, by which I mean that a farmer is going to grow whatever is most profitable on his land. If it's corn, then corn. If it's Miscanthus giganteus, then that's what he'll grow. I would expect food prices to soar or gas based on Miscanthus giganteus to remain scarce and pricey, but I would not expect low corn and low biofuel prices. There is only so much arable land, and much of it is in use now.

I hope the research continues and I hope that we see progress in this area. However, I'm not over the moon about it; one will note that E-85 has not become a game-changer, and it was touted in the same way. All the new ethanol production plants? They're bankrupt now, just like the big electrical companies like Solyndra. This could end up being pretty much the same thing; but you never know, and we have to keep looking, that's for sure.

 

[cdunn]

I think it's a very positive thing, but it's not going to be a game-changer overnight, if ever. Don't get me wrong, I like it.

First of all, expect the environmentalists to scream their heads off. It doesn't matter that it's carbon-negative, it allows the continuation of the our current car-culture versus forced mass-transportation and heavy urbanization, and they're very much against that. They do not want people driving cars. Understand that their goals are political; they want to change our culture, not solve our 'energy' problems.

Second, although these crops are not a food staple (such as corn, currently used as both food and for ethanol production) as such, arable land still competes for crops, by which I mean that a farmer is going to grow whatever is most profitable on his land. If it's corn, then corn. If it's Miscanthus giganteus, then that's what he'll grow. I would expect food prices to soar or gas based on Miscanthus giganteus to remain scarce and pricey, but I would not expect low corn and low biofuel prices. There is only so much arable land, and much of it is in use now.

I hope the research continues and I hope that we see progress in this area. However, I'm not over the moon about it; one will note that E-85 has not become a game-changer, and it was touted in the same way. All the new ethanol production plants? They're bankrupt now, just like the big electrical companies like Solyndra. This could end up being pretty much the same thing; but you never know, and we have to keep looking, that's for sure.

It doesn't have to be incompatible with food growth. To maximize profit, a farmer can grow, say, corn or soybeans - He harvests the ears of corn, and then the rest of the plant can be rendered down into gasoline. If it can be made to run on algal matter, too, arable land may not be an issue, though the energy balances will change, due to the relative difficulty of collection.

 

[granfire]

well, let's leave the political sly out for a sec....

I have not read the whole thing yet. It's Monday morning and all sort of things have gone wrong already, and that was at 7AM...I hope the week is over soon...


A) 'food waste' - well, here is the thing, you take something off the field, it's gone from the soil. The stuff - does not matter if it's corn or grass - is nourished from the soil. When the plant dies of natural causes in place, the components are returning back to the soil.The plant is pulled up and removed, the elements are gone as well. That means while in the formula for fuel making the straw that is left behind from harvesting wheat is waste, in the practical application it is a small return to the field. (same with fall leaves, lawn clippings etc)

B) it takes energy to grow the stuff and harvest it and get it where it needs to be....I think the corn thing is not breaking even as far as energy goes (not to mention I have yet to find one person other than a corn growing farmer who likes it)

C) well, as far as agriculture goes, we are having a bit of a problem: We are incredibly lucky to be able to feed as many people as we do on a shrinking area.
However: large parts of the country have suffered from sever weather conditions. Parts of the South West are in drought conditions, might take years to get back up to normal....fuel corn production has cause food crops to be replaced.
It's a vicious cycle. Well, not actually a cycle. But it's all connected.
Farm land is being developed for housing, food crops are replaced with fuel corn, droughts, declining water tables, oh, and oversea countries buying hay....you can expect food prices to go up exponentially.

As far as I can remember though, that grass they propose is hardy and will grow in many spots were other crops don't thrive.
But to cover the demand...I see mono cultures in our future...and that has proven in the past to be troublesome.


Now, if you can tell me how I can get my cat out of the tree, too far up to reach it with a latter, and yeah, cat has proven to be a scaredy cat around strangers...do I have to rent a cherry picker? I am afraid of heights.....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It doesn't have to be incompatible with food growth. To maximize profit, a farmer can grow, say, corn or soybeans - He harvests the ears of corn, and then the rest of the plant can be rendered down into gasoline. If it can be made to run on algal matter, too, arable land may not be an issue, though the energy balances will change, due to the relative difficulty of collection.

The press release referred to miscanthus grass, which apparently has a much higher yield per acre than anything tried to date. There is a reason corn-based ethanol has not taken off. Again, I'm not suggesting we should not continue to investigate and study biofuels. But they are not yet ready to become the walk-on replacement for gasoline, nor are they without problems of their own.

And as I said, one cannot count on the environmentalists to go along with the gag; they won't. They do not want cheap, safe, 'green' energy that allows us to keep our car-based culture as it is. They want radical change to our way of life, which can only be brought about by making energy use impossible for such things as private transportation. This is a political issue for them, not a solution-based issue.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now, if you can tell me how I can get my cat out of the tree, too far up to reach it with a latter, and yeah, cat has proven to be a scaredy cat around strangers...do I have to rent a cherry picker? I am afraid of heights.....

1) cut down tree.
2) slingshot.
3) wait; cat will come down.

I have never in my life seen a cat skeleton in a tree, suggesting to me that they do come down eventually.

 

[granfire]

1) cut down tree.
2) slingshot.
3) wait; cat will come down.

I have never in my life seen a cat skeleton in a tree, suggesting to me that they do come down eventually.

:lfao:

Thanks I needed that this morning!
(I suggested the 22 to hubby, cutting down the tree had slipped my mind!)

 

[granfire]

In any case:

M. giganteus is a sterile hybrid, and therefore propagates vegetatively through its rhizomes.[SUP][3][/SUP] This quality makes it attractive for growth in areas foreign to M. giganteus – it is a completely non-invasive species

It still propagates, just not via seeds.

Now, if they found a way to use Kudzu....and why not use bamboo....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In any case:


It still propagates, just not via seeds.

Now, if they found a way to use Kudzu....and why not use bamboo....

It's often not the issue that we can't convert biomass to fuel, it's the issue that it is not cost-effective to do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/26/biofuel-feedstocks-latest_n_109520.html

New research published in Biomass and Bioenergy shows that kudzu could produce up to 270 gallons of ethanol per acre: Not very much when compared to rapeseed, jatropha or palm oil but easily as much as can be produced from corn.

The catch in this is that domesticating kudzu may not be possible, harvesting it in the wild would be difficult, and then there is the issue of invasiveness. Given how the plant spreads, do you really want to plant more of the stuff?

270 gallons per acre doesn't really compare to the claimed 2,700 gallons per acre of Miscanthus giganteus. And as stated above; you could maybe hire people to pull the stuff we have up; but that's a one time deal. Who wants to plant that crap or keep it going year on year?

I don't know what the return on bamboo would be. Here's some interesting information on cellulosic gasoline / ethanol and also on Miscanthus giganteus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose_ethanol

http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/3334/miscanthus-versus-switchgrass/

 

[granfire]

Ah, I keep forgetting...not everybody lives in the land choked out by Kudzu.

(I was being a shade sarcastic....being that miscanthus is not native. You have to be careful when you bring such things into the environment. As some bamboos and Kudzu have proven. I mean, the stuff does a bang-up job controlling erosion, but my...it controls so much more!)

I applaud the efforts, but won't hold my breath in terms of counting on it to be the energy source of the future.
Which, by means of semantics brings me to the point: The focus is on alternative fuels when it should be energy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Which, by means of semantics brings me to the point: The focus is on alternative fuels when it should be energy.

And there comes the politics. Alternative fuels could bridges gaps to alternative energy; but ideally, the environmentalists don't want alternative fuels or really, alternative energy that allows our current culture to continue to exist. And FYI, alternative fuels can assist alternative energy (in the UK, apparently some power plants are partially biomass powered, so electricity is being produced from biomass in place of things like coal).

I'm serious. Let's say that somebody invents a synthetic gasoline that is a 100% analogue for gasoline; except it is renewable, cheap, carbon neutral, and does not increase pollution of any sort. Do you suppose for a moment that the environmentalists like, say, Al Gore would support it? I believe they would not, because it is NOT what they are after. Ultimately, environmentalists do not want us to be able to continue our current way of life (suburban, car-based culture, etc), and it's got nothing to do with the 'environment'. They want us living in urban environments, government-provided mass transportation, and the rest of the world either growing crops or returned to forest/grasslands/etc. Synthetic clean green cheap gasoline will not force that on us, so they do not want it. They'll find something wrong with it and squawk about it, trust me.

 

[granfire]

And there comes the politics. Alternative fuels could bridges gaps to alternative energy; but ideally, the environmentalists don't want alternative fuels or really, alternative energy that allows our current culture to continue to exist. And FYI, alternative fuels can assist alternative energy (in the UK, apparently some power plants are partially biomass powered, so electricity is being produced from biomass in place of things like coal).

I'm serious. Let's say that somebody invents a synthetic gasoline that is a 100% analogue for gasoline; except it is renewable, cheap, carbon neutral, and does not increase pollution of any sort. Do you suppose for a moment that the environmentalists like, say, Al Gore would support it? I believe they would not, because it is NOT what they are after. Ultimately, environmentalists do not want us to be able to continue our current way of life (suburban, car-based culture, etc), and it's got nothing to do with the 'environment'. They want us living in urban environments, government-provided mass transportation, and the rest of the world either growing crops or returned to forest/grasslands/etc. Synthetic clean green cheap gasoline will not force that on us, so they do not want it. They'll find something wrong with it and squawk about it, trust me.

Put the shoe on the other foot and we get a walking pair: In the race to produce a political solution to the fuel problem, actual problems that affect everybody even if they don't even ride a bus are overlooked or swept under the rug. Just as long as fuel is in the tanks.

I agree with you that the alternative fuel is part of the big picture though.

 

[billc]

Don't forget that a cheap fuel would allow the developing world to actually develop, which is another thing the environmentalists will fight against.