<DrumBeat: August 9, 2006The Oil DrumDrumBeat: August 10, 2006>

329 comments on Khosla Responds: "Imagining the Future of Gasoline: Reality or Blue-sky Dreaming?"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Mike Hearn on August 9, 2006 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, I think so yes. There are cellulosic plants in production today, but they don't operate at commercial scales. They're tests. The tests have worked and now several companies are building large scale plants that should hopefully be profitable, touch wood.

So this is not exactly Star Trek technology.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Syntec on August 9, 2006 - 3:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
EXACTLY!
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on August 9, 2006 - 3:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Exactly" to "[no] commercial scales. They're tests." or to "not exactly Star Trek technology?"

I believe in counting chickens when they are hatched.  In this case, I think a commercial plant, esp. with open books, would be "hatched."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jim burke on August 10, 2006 - 11:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Food to Fuels"

You can guarantee that some variation of this will become known as the new, worse version of Monsanto's "Frankenfoods" or "terminator seeds."

Just as the petrochemical driven Green Revolution morphed into the reviled slogans above, so too with FTF (food to fuels). Right now biofuels are the darling of the sustainable development crowd, but that will change in short order when masses of economically marginal "consumers" begin to starve and die.

As you point out, "Trajectory" is what counts. And the Trajectory is to gradually convert food staples and cropland to motor fuels.

Imagine the bumpersticker

".....turns OUR food into gas...."

The first part might contain the name of a company, country, or even individual (if they become too closely identified with FTF). The last part might contain a motive or result, "so SUVs can drive, while people starve." etc.

If you dive into this, you and your companies will risk becoming the new Monsantos.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Vintermann on August 11, 2006 - 4:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
So it's mostly scaling up and increasing efficiency that is needed, rather than new breakthroughs in enzymes and stuff? If so, that is good news.

One thing I wonder about is his belief that cellulosic ethanol will outcompete biodiesel in gallons per acre. Currently, that is so not the case. Putting aside the ecological problems with palm oil, it's 5000 kg per hectare, far better than any currently producing ethanol crop. And what about biodiesel from algae? That's the fair point of comparison with cellulosic, which isn't quite there yet either.

Unless the problems of biodiesel from algae are more than efficiency and scaling...

But I think his rejection of EROEI is weird. What ultimately matters is how much energy we can use in total.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.