The Immediate Fuel Supply - Thoughts for a New Administration
Posted by Heading Out on November 6, 2008 - 9:50am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: algae, coal, electricity, ethanol, natural gas, original, wood pellets [list all tags]
One of the considerable differences between the ongoing financial problems of the world, and the coming energy crisis lies in the nature of the commodity of concern. In the first case the problem focuses around money, though not really the physical and tangible cash that one uses less and less to pay for groceries, the rent, or the occasional book. The US has already transitioned to a point that more than half the time we use credit and debit cards to pay the bill. (The quote is from a year ago)
As debit card and credit card purchases become increasingly popular, check and cash payments continue to lose out. These traditional payment methods now account for less than half of all transactions, and a recent rule change by the Federal Reserve Board should tilt the balance even further away from paper transactions and toward plastic payments.
As a result, for the vast majority of us who do not keep our money in the mattress, financial solvency and insolvency is defined by electronic statements about the nature of our accounts, without there being a pile of gold sitting in the bank to define it. And, when the banks and other companies holding such accounts get into trouble, loans can and have been arranged for them, that are similarly electronic transactions, without large trucks pulling up at either Fort Knox, where 147.3 million ounces currently sit, or to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, that holds about 216 million ounces. Rather the transactions occur electronically, and there is relatively little need for the physical presence of the cash.
Contrast that with the realities of an energy crisis. We cannot heat our homes with the promises of oil, or the electronic transfer of ownership of fragments of a tanker load making its way from Ras Tanura to the Gulf ports. We need the physical presence of the oil, natural gas or wood that we will consume. When we run out, we need to get some more.
If we are in Western Europe that means that though we buy, for the sake of example, natural gas from Turkmenistan, we have to pay the Russians to transport it through their gas lines, and the Ukrainians to allow its passage, before we can enjoy the fruits of our purchase. It is the nature of this physical reality that makes the energy problem that much more difficult to resolve, and in some cases to prepare for.
There was a poignant reminder of this in a story that Leanan caught on Sunday from the Buffalo News. I had mentioned last week the increased popularity of pellet stoves in the North East. But pellets are an easily storable commodity, and demand cannot keep up with supply. And thus we have:
At the same time that firewood supplies tighten, slowing lumber production for home building is reducing supplies of wood pellets, a sawdust-based fuel used in specialized furnaces.
Pellet seller Forest Products Firewood receives calls from people all over the state seeking a winter supply of the fuel, which has been sold out since Labor Day, Clay said.
“They say ‘what do you mean you’re out — I heat my house with them,’ ” she said.
If wood pellets are the only fuel that you can use to heat your house and there aren’t any to be had, then life gets complicated.
I have previously cited the problems that New England has seen in the supply of natural gas. In the book Cape Wind by Williams and Whitcomb, the authors describe a situation that occurred when there was a cold snap in 2004. Natural gas supplies to New England are fairly limited, and the companies that supply natural gas to homeowners and to power plants use natural gas from the same pipelines. At the beginning of the cold snap, homeowners and businesses suddenly started drawing more natural gas for heat. This usage drained all the available natural gas away from the power stations that planned on using it to provide electric power for the region.
The loss of natural gas supply was a surprise to the utility relying on natural gas, not too different from the lack of pellets in the example above. If one is heating with wood, one can tell by the lack of a stack of wood in the yard that one has an upcoming problem in getting through the winter warmly. The sudden lack of electricity in the middle of a cold spell, when the power fails, is something else again.
The incoming Administration is likely to be faced with an Energy problem sooner, rather than later. These problems will likely divide into two partially distinct parts, the need for a reliable source of heat and electricity, and a source of liquid fuel for transportation.
Within four years, there will be a need for more electric power generation capacity. Given the short time-frame, it is likely to be too late to rely on the addition of nuclear or coal power plants to provide an immediate answer, since they take too long to be permitted and constructed. There are a large number of coal-fired plants that have been planned but are currently on hold because of uncertainty regarding the treatment of future carbon emissions if a cap and trade program or other carbon legislation is passed. Some form of a decision on the future of coal power should be made fairly soon, so that plans can move forward, one way or another. In that regard, it is worth noting that as Senator, President-elect Obama did support the FutureGen project in Illinois. FutureGen is a plan for a near-zero emissions coal fired power plant in Illionois, including carbon capture and storage.
With respect to liquid fuel, the last Administration bet heavily on ethanol. While there has been considerable growth in ethanol production, there are increasing signs of local concerns with the plants and, as Leanan noted, the financial climate is worse.
VeraSun Energy Corp. (NYSE: VSE), a cash-strapped ethanol company that lost big in hedging corn prices, said late Friday it had filed for bankruptcy. . . . . .
VeraSun claims to be the largest ethanol producer in the world, citing data from the Renewable Fuel Association and its own estimates. As of Sept. 5, the company was running 14 ethanol plants that, combined, had the capacity to produce 1.4 billion gallons of ethanol per year, or about 14 percent of the U.S. ethanol production capacity. VeraSun was adding three more plants to bring its total capacity to 1.64 billion gallons per year by the end of 2008.
This has some relevance to future liquid sources of fuel, since corn-based ethanol is easier to produce than cellulosic-based fuel, and already in production. If current producers are having difficulty surviving in the marketplace, then plans for producing other biofuels (pdf) must be considered more difficult and longer term.
It has been suggested that the search for biofuels should take the form of an Apollo-type of program, and as you may have picked up from earlier posts, I am not sure that this single focus type of effort is necessarily a good thing. For example the Department of Energy is planning an Algal Fuels Workshop(pdf) to plan out the Agency program, in Washington in December. However it is “by invitation only,” so I fear that among other things, you won’t be able to read about what they are planning here. I have, in the past, commented that I favor a more comprehensive approach where there is initially a broader search for ideas, rather than the focus on single larger efforts such as that favored by DARPA. Again, however, this will continue, for around a decade, to be more of a research program, rather than a solution.
We are stuck with the uncomfortable reality that we need fuel within the next four years, for both vehicles and for our electric switches. In that short-term, the immediate shortage of an adequate supply of fuel and energy to warm houses, fuel power stations and power vehicles will become more evident. Debating points will have to be turned into reality, and the physical presence of an adequate fuel must be provided. It will be interesting to see where it comes from. Most likely a considerable portion will have to come from conservation, but that is not, in itself, going to be adequate.



Good article, pertinent points, though I would like to explore your concluding statement;
For each energy source, this depends upon its current and imminent availability in the short run. If pellets simply are not available, and that is the only source of heat for a home, then yes, that will not be adequate.
If natural gas becomes unavailable or in very low supply, then building heat, peak electricity consumption, and industrial needs will be at risk. Wearing warmer clothing, reducing electricity consumption can help to mitigate such shortages.
And if we are talking about oil, then there are any number of conservation measures that can be taken depending upon the incentives and pain associated with each. If gas prices climb too high, people can ride more bikes, carpool, telecommute, etc. Incentives include tax credits for high mpg vehicles, lowered fares for mass transit, and any number of incentives/disincentives to halt sprawl development, while stiff carbon taxes, lowered funding for roads, etc can be the 'pain' that discourages oil consumption.
With electricity consumption, time of use and real time pricing combined with progress rates based on consumption (i.e., 0-100 kWhr/mth has the lowest rate, 100-300 kWhr/mth a higher rate, 300-600 kWhr/mth an even higher rate, etc), incentives and disincentives can be combined to encourage much lower electricity consumption. Also, the net zero carbon building initiative in the UK and in the US AIA can ensure that the replacing of building stock is performed in a manner that continues to reduce energy demand.
I believe you may be referring to cultural inertia where some percentage of the population believes that "progress and civilization" mean we deserve high energy consumptive lifestyles as a birthright. I agree that this inertia will be a struggle for many who see a lower energy consumption lifestyle as somehow beneath them. For example, Ford is still on track to sell 500,000 F-150s, and as gas prices drop, the percentage of these vehicles sold is rising again.
I am thoroughly sceptical that a planned or forced program of building replacements or upgrades really have net energy efficiency gains once you take into consideration the manufactured inputs. These inputs are often glass, steel, concrete, plastics, copper etc as well as the direct onsite fuel costs and all associated transport. Unless the building actually captures and sequesters more carbon over its lifetime than was released by its construction, then I fail to see how anyone can claim that a building has zero net carbon emissions. To date I have not seen a building that does CCS while performing the otehr useful functions that buildings usually do.
It is difficult to see how net energy demand will be reduced if a large scale building and construction program is aimed at replacement of the exisitng built capital with a a new sexier, green built environment. The danger is that the capitalists and socialists would both see this as an opportunity to expand the economy, which ultimately leads to more energy consumption, not less.
The definition normally means using as much energy as is generated onsite. There may be times when a building may produce more, or times when it produces less. Buildings will degrade over time and be replaced; any replacements should be as energy efficient as possible. Let's look at several variant terms and definitions;
Shred your credit & debit cards. Cash transactions only. Horde silver dollars, if you can find them. Don't leave an electronic trail of your transactions. Don't enrich financial parasites by participating in their scams. Don't borrow or lend. Do honest labor that does minimal harm, if any, to your local ecosystem & to the biosphere at large. Give up your computer & other electronic devices. Disdain the ICE. Learn manual skills. Eat low on the food chain. Lose weight. Give up your Joneses. Make yourself useful. Shut up... Otherwise, when the time comes, you won't even be any good as farm labor. You will starve.
Hmmm, having a little trouble giving up your computer I see. Help us out here unplug it.
I have unplugged it. I gave up the landline, DSL & the internet at home. Here at work they provide the damn thing for me. Killing frost came on Oct. 12. The irrigation water is off & the weeds are dead, so I have nothing better to do these days than sit here & read nonsense such as your mindless post. It sucks but for the time being I need the paycheck. I'd rather be home cutting firewood for next winter. Sorry if my truth-speaking makes you feel defensive.
"Do honest labor"
vs
"I have nothing better to do these days than sit here & read nonsense such as your mindless post. It sucks but for the time being I need the paycheck"
???
I agree. Number crunching doesn't constitute "honest labor." But it's what they pay me to do at this time of year. Don't blame me that we live in an insane society.
You are being paid to read and post on the Drum!!! How can I get in on the action?
Work for the government. ;)
1. Reduce our tax burden.
"Work for the government." So I take it you work for the guv?
You said you had nothing better to do but sit and read and post.
So reduce our debt. Quit.
I once contracted to the government. The civil servants did nothing but watch the contractors do all the work..including what the CS were supposed to be doing.
I learned the lesson well. I quit.
Airdale
I'll hire you, but you're on the same compensation plan I've got ... and you're free to read all the blogs you want :-)
How about using your experience, education, and analytical abilities to help others in exchange for a fee? That sounds like honest work to me. Maybe not Labor, but certainly Work that can be traded for goods and services under terms where everyone goes home happy.
Maybe that's just me, though.
I taught for many years, at several different levels and quite frankly, I burned out on it. The last thing I want to do at this point in my life is go back in the classroom. I discourage young people from seeking an academic education these days. My counsel to any teen or young adult is to apprentice him- or herself to a blacksmith or experienced farmer, and learn something useful rather than pursuing a diploma which will soon be good for nothing more than asswipe.
Ok, chuck the MBA diploma then but surely art, literature, history, music, philosophy, mathematics and science will still need to taught and someone will have to teach these subjects, along with basic survival skills such as farming, animal husbandry, carpentry, black smithing etc.. etc..
Why?....I find that most of our real honest culture has gone down the rabbit hole with Ipods,boomboxes and other noise makers. Hard to find good authors these days. A few are still around but few. Check the local theaters for some really sad noxious flicks.
Oh..say how about that last Chuckie movie or another Texas Chain Saw movie?
I used to go to the movies quite often. Haven't been in a couple months now. Its a wasteland. For music I have to go back to Bluegrass. Todays country is morphed into bimbos doing bumps and grinds and the Dixie Chicks. Real culture. Speaks to the inner man then!
When was there last a real philosopher? Only Robert Pirsig comes to mind.
Plenty of those who teach philosophy but no philosophers.
Airdale
Airdale;
Tend to agree.. but I gave myself a rare 'movie night' this week and went to see Angelina Jolie in 'Changeling'.. which I thought would be a wierd but tolerable Sci-Fi/Horror piece.. it's what I get for sometimes going in blind to a movie.. but it's a REAL FILM! By God, someone made a real movie (Clint Eastwood, as it happens), and nobody told me! Check it out if you get the hankering for some decent storytelling. It's not soft or light, by any means.. it's the guy who made 'Unforgiven', after all.
Bob
all week I've been muttering, 'A man's gotta know his limitations..'
Ahhh...we agree on this but there is a big problem here.
There aren't that many blacksmiths. I know for I am one.
I am also a farmer and they don't usually take apprentices and also they are farming in a different mode than the survival mode. In fact they are creating much of the situation that is happening.
Most farmers don't know how to raise table food. You won't get anywhere learning to drive a combine or a planter. Most farmers deplete the soil instead of building it up. yada yada yada...
Also you may notice that massive amounts of our scrap iron and other metals seem to be going to China. Now that scrap iron has fell to $60/ton is might slow down however this is what a lot of blacksmiths utilize,scrap metals. Scavengers are making it hard for smithys.
I have to go scrounge and find that its disappearing rapidly. Old farm implements as well. Stuff we really need to stay here.
Airdale
Airdale
My sat modem and laptop draw a combined total of 20 watts. Not to hard to generate right here. No wired infrastructure to fail. It's there if you look for it. So many here complain, yet want BAU, there is a different way and it's not really all that hard.
Don in Maine
I recently read a post that stated that we may have hit 'Peak Demand' in that the financial crisis has effectively put the breaks on all sorts of activity that consumes energy resources. The article above rightly points out that PO is initially a liquid fuels crisis that is likely to do the same but much more severely.
Now admitted we will at some point have to replace the natural gas component of the electrical supply as it falls away but probably not until a while after PO. So won't all the wind and solar projects just end up getting canned as the economy falls into an even deeper recession than the one we are seeing now, demand falls of a cliff and finances tighten even further?
It will be a real shocker for all those people expecting renewables to somehow 'come to the rescue' once PO 'hits'...
Regards, Nick.
'people expecting renewables to somehow 'come to the rescue' ..'
It then becomes a question of us coming to the rescue of the renewables, doesn't it?
I just put a homebuilt solar hot-air collector on the roof on Halloween, complete with 'concentrator barndoors' that shade it in warm weather, and scoop a bit more sun into it when open and operating. Still hooking up fans and ducting, but I'm getting there.
I also have an experimental Vertical (Savonius Style) Wind Turbine, waiting to feel it's first gusts.. it's on hold until the Hot Air is running.. (Fan directly driven by PV) It's silver BB's, but ones that many people can build from silver scraps found near home. Keep some glass, mirrors and building materials handy if you can..
Bob
Your going to love this -I'm not a DIYer but it made me want to get my drill out:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Projects.htm
-Enjoy!
Nick.
Thanks, Nick. It's a great resource.
I've linked this site to TOD a few times, actually. It's just a MOUNTAIN of ideas and designs! In fact, here's the basis of the one that I'm installing, while I've added and changed a number of details.. if I'd just followed his design, I'd have several of these running by now.. but it's my nature, I have to experiment and make my own customizations.
Here it is.. search the page for "Kreamer" Wall mounted Air Collector
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SpaceHeating/Space_Heating.htm
and here's the PDF of the plan..
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/SpaceHeating/Homebuilt%20Solar%20Co...
Bob
In college, I had built a solar window box like this one for my folks' house; simple to build, and the materials included a dual pane sliding glass door that had been replaced (free), mostly salvage lumber (mostly free), layers of cardboard for insulation (free), and a sheet of scrap metal for the absorber (free). About all I paid for was the flat black paint for the absorber, a tube of caulk, and some nails. It was easy to put together, a little bulky to mount due to its size, and after 9am provided substantial heat input to the room (6'x3'collector surface). When the sun goes down, the cool air stays trapped at the bottom of the unit, halting the thermosiphon effect. Putting one of these on each south facing window will do wonders to one's heating expenses (and it works whether there is a grid outage or not).

Thanks, Will!
Great and Simple Design! (I'm printing a copy right now)
Why am I not surprised that this came from Maine? Why am I glad that I chose Maine as a robust, hearty and creative place to invest my future in?
I want to build them ALL~!
Bob
However, does it capture particulate matter, mercury and radiation? Coal power plants emit 100 times more radiation per Megawatt than nuclear ones after all...
This article mentioned FutureGen project. I thought that was canceled a long time ago.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/futuregen-clean.html
The links in the article seem to imply otherwise.
One more item from the above links, it lists the cost at 1.5 billion to generate 275 megawatts of power. That seems like it would cost more than solar PV even at todays cost.
The project has been canceled, but not all that long ago. The monstrosity was to be built near Mattoon, Illinois, the town I was born & grew up in. When reading about the project I couldn't help but wonder where they were going to find sufficiently intelligent local people to operate the powerplant. Anyone with any brains left that hellhole decades ago.
Champaign? Urbana?
I just moved to Urbana, and I must say I've been really impressed with the sheer number of smart people that UIUC has educated and attracted to the area. And Mattoon is only about 40 miles down the Interstate from here.
I'm a reasonably smart guy and I moved to this island in the middle of the corn, because of the opportunities here.
Yeah, there are some smart people at the UofI & the Beckman Institute. Why any of them would care to commute down to Mattoon is beyond me, altho my dad commuted the other way around back in the day. Gas was cheap then. Anyway, it's a moot point. The carbon capture plant isn't going to be built.
The only good thing out of that area is Alison Krauss. And she left.....
At some stage someone is going to have to build one of these plants to demonstrate/validate that "clean coal" technology works as the integrated whole that it is claimed to achieve. While the original project was cancelled it may be, with the change in Administration, that it might acquire a new life. Though even if it does, it will not be constructed any time soon.
"There is no clean coal technology. There is cleaner coal technology, but there is no clean coal technology.”
From looking at the different options I think the only useful way to use coal is gasified and co-fired with natural gas in a combined cycle (with solar assist if practical)
Or micronised and used as fuel in slow speed stationary diesel engines.
In both cases using the waste heat for large scale fish farming and/or the heating of bio-digesters.
Ideally though we would leave it in the ground holding all that carbon. It might be a good future feedstock.
Can we make coal worth more in the ground by assuming they will eventually invent a way to turn it into diamonds?
SIU at the Carbondale Campus does work in this area.
Lots of coal in S. Illinois.
Airdsale
On the biofuel issue, I notice that Drumbeat has an article
Obama to Back Ailing Ethanol Makers, Follow Failed Bush Policy
It is difficult for a new administration to make a very big change on an issue such as this.
Corn ethanol makes no sense economically, ecologically, or morally. Barak Obama probably realizes this. But he is currently from Illinois and is no doubt beholden to the Illinois political machine. Throwing agroindustry a bone apparently placates those who helped him achieve the power or status he sought. I voted for Obama but I suffer under no illusions of his independence of mind or moral purity.
Corn isn't the best feedstock but it's what we can handle today. I get the feeling this is all going to go sideways pretty rapidly during Obama's first term. We may treasure what ethanol we can make because it'll supplement our domestic oil production, keeping more of the fleet moving while we figure out what we can do next.
There's also the issue of ethanol as a necessary alternative oxygenator in present gasoline mixes. I fully support corn ethanol to the level that it allows replacement of more environmentally damaging alternatives such as MTBE, even if it is a serious negative EROEI, which I suspect it may be. That lasts until a more rational alternative arrives, such as cellulose ethanol, diesel or whatever.
I am told that we really don't need oxygenators with modern cars. The cars burn the fuel so cleanly that the need for MTBE or a substitute went away. I learned this from the API folks--someplace I have a reference also. ( i don't think the laws requiring an oxygenator went away, though.)
One beneficial thing ethanol does do is increase octane. There are other ways octane cam be increased as well, but they cost more money. So I think this is ethanol's big plus.
Ethanol as a liquid fuel is a good alternative source to fossil fuel. Why would you want the new administration to change on this issue?
Ethanol isn't an alternative to fossil fuel. Most ethanol production is just fossil fuel that has been recycled. Consider your typical ethanol plant. You invest 1 BTU of fossil fuels and get back maybe 1.1 BTUs of ethanol and maybe half a BTU of DDGS. Most of the ethanol BTUs are derived from the fossil fuels.
I know, I know. It doesn't have to be that way, you might argue. But it is that way. You won't flip a switch and change it, and you can't change it on paper or with wishful thinking. There will be gradual improvements over time, but today's ethanol is recycled fossil fuel. There are no guarantees that tomorrow's ethanol won't be the same.
As long as you get more BTUs than from fossil fuel inputs, it is an alternative. As to how much "you get back" that's open to improvement yes.
I haven't seen much better immediately applicable alternatives for liquid fuel needs. Have you?
The best immediately applicable alternative is the one we saw take place as prices soared: Demand destruction as people cut back.
Of course we won't (willingly) conserve down to zero, but the problem would be more manageable if the scale wasn't so great. As I see it there are no immediately (or even short term) applicable alternatives to more than a fraction of our liquid fuel usage. A little longer term, if thin film solar pans out as promised, and storage technology continues to improve, then we might have a PHEV alternative that looks a lot better than ethanol. But not at today's usage rates.
Conservation is not alternative energy. I fully agree that it is very much needed. But I don't think that conserving "down to zero" is realistic at all.
Electric vehicles and solar require a storage solution that is still far out. The combination alone of solar (daytime generation) and vehicles (nighttime charging) is pretty difficult too. You almost need double the storage.
Ethanol can still be produced and improved in relatively short term. Give me the money today and I'll get you ethanol a year from now, maybe earlier. Think of present values (investments against time) and such financial considerations: you won't get anywhere close with the other alternatives.
But I don't think that conserving "down to zero" is realistic at all.
Isn't that what I said?
Ethanol can still be produced and improved in relatively short term. Give me the money today and I'll get you ethanol a year from now, maybe earlier.
I don't think this is sinking in. Of course ethanol is dependent on fossil fuels, but we are reaching the limits of what can be produced with corn (and far surpassed what can sustainably be produced). So to reach the levels you have been talking about will require economical, sustainable cellulosic ethanol. That does not exist, and I submit that we will see lots of PHEVs on the road before it does exist.
"I don't think this is sinking in. Of course ethanol is dependent on fossil fuels, but we are reaching the limits of what can be produced with corn (and far surpassed what can sustainably be produced). So to reach the levels you have been talking about will require economical, sustainable cellulosic ethanol. That does not exist, and I submit that we will see lots of PHEVs on the road before it does exist."
Define "what can sustainably be produced". I believe we can produce 12 - 15 billion gallons from corn. We can produce as much from sugarcane and sweet sorghum. And none of this would require cellulosic. Ethanol can be readily used in our current type vehicles, whereas PHEV (and other technologies) requires new vehicles. For massive Plug-ins use the grid might not be able to handle it and upgrading the grid won't happen so fast either.
I'll tell you what: we'll give you half a billion for your PHEV project (or any other of your choice) and I get half a billion for my ethanol project. Let's see who wins in terms of replacing barrels of oil.
By the way, I am not sold yet on cellulosic. I think we might as well burn the stuff and use it for heating. The economics of that look better than trying to get enzymes to convert the stuff into ethanol at low concentrations.
I get your 3*15 billion gallons (per year, right) to 3 mbpd of ethanol.
In order to produce your stated max. expectation, in the possible future:
would require also about 2 mbpd of fossil fuel in order to produce. Net
benefit:
your best "expectation", "sometime in the future", net gain: 1 mbpd ethanol.
Are you saying that will make a difference? Are my calculations/estimates
correct?
Cheers
I don't follow your calculations/estimates. 15 from corn and 15 from sugarcane/sweet sorghum =30. that translates to 82 million gal per day. There are 19.5 gallons of gasoline in a barrel of oil. So on a volume basis, the 82 mgal translate to 4.2 mbpd oil.
Also, I don't understand how you get to "net gain: 1 mbpd ethanol".
Ok no problem, we can hope for a max 4,2123 mbpd sometime in the future.
The net gain I estimate, with approx 0,6 barrels of oil used
for each barrel of ethanol, to be
net gain: 1,68492 mbpd ethanol
I repeat my question: Do you really think that will make a difference for the US???
Or if it is 2 (or hypothetically magically max 3 mbpd the year 2028).
Cheers
Of course it makes a difference: $36,500,000,000 per year (at $100 oil)
( 1 mbpd x 365 x $100)
Segeltamp, it takes 8 gal, or less, to grow an acre of corn. After allowing for DDGS an average yield is 720 gallons of ethanol. That's about the only petroleum in the process.
Most of the newer plants still use nat gas for process energy. And nat gas is used in the manufacture of fertilizer. Maybe this is what you're thinking of. The trend, however (see Chippewa Valley Ethanol, and Corn Plus ethanol,) is toward using biomass.
Corn Plus, for example, uses approx. 17,000 BTUs of nat gas, which, when added to the 6,000, or so, BTUS imbedded in the fertilizer and seed brings their nat gas usage up to about 23,000 btus of nat gas/gal (76,000 btus.)
Poet, of course, is confident they will get all of their process energy from corn cobs. That would leave their 76,000 btu gallon of ethanol with 6,000 btus of nat gas imbedded. BTW, Poet is a "serious" player with about 26 operating ethanol plants and over a Billion Gal/yr production.
Oh, and Monsanto's new "preferred processor" seed adds another 1/10 of a gallon to everyone that utilizes it.
Define "what can sustainably be produced".
If something uses large amounts of fossil fuels in its production, it isn't sustainable. Throw in the fact that soil is being depleted (the only way this thing works is by massive inputs of fossil-fuel derived fertilizers) and you add to the unsustainability. Again, I have to say that I think your grasp of the issue is tenuous.
I believe we can produce 12 - 15 billion gallons from corn.
And what are the consequences?
We can produce as much from sugarcane and sweet sorghum.
Why do you think this? Why do you think we don't produce it today in quantities from sugarcane or sweet sorghum?
I'll tell you what: we'll give you half a billion for your PHEV project (or any other of your choice) and I get half a billion for my ethanol project. Let's see who wins in terms of replacing barrels of oil.
As soon as oil and gas prices rise again, your half a billion will disappear pretty quickly. Ethanol is far too reliant on fossil fuels. Until it is largely divorced from fossil fuels, it won't replace them and you won't ever be sustainable.
"If something uses large amounts of fossil fuels in its production, it isn't sustainable. Throw in the fact that soil is being depleted (the only way this thing works is by massive inputs of fossil-fuel derived fertilizers) and you add to the unsustainability."
Then define "large amounts". Define "soil depletion". Is continuing to use crude oil "sustainable"?
"Again, I have to say that I think your grasp of the issue is tenuous." Always attacking the person I see....
"Why do you think this? Why do you think we don't produce it today in quantities from sugarcane or sweet sorghum?"
I think it is starting to happen.
"Ethanol is far too reliant on fossil fuels." I suppose you must have a much better solution that isn't? Let's hear it.
"I suppose you must have a much better solution that isn't?"
You haven't supported any of your assertions, so your "solution" is vaporware at the moment.
Other solutions, which you may have seen dozens of times here, include;
- Design vehicles with much higher energy efficiency
- Switch to electric (your assertion that batteries are not available is specious).
- Switch to greater use of carpooling/vanpooling
- Switch to greater use of biking
- Expand/improve mass transit networks
- Reduce unnecessary travel
- Grow more food locally
- Produce more goods locally
- Engage Smart Growth techniques
Ethanol is by no means a silver bullet as some proponents claim. High water, fertilizer, pesticide consumption have not been addressed by you, nor has soil erosion, impact on grain stockpiles, and a myriad of other ethanol issues.
Do you have any stake whatsoever in the ethanol market?
"You haven't supported any of your assertions, so your "solution" is vaporware at the moment." Well, then I would expect support for your assertions here below....
"Other solutions, which you may have seen dozens of times here, include;
- Design vehicles with much higher energy efficiency". Sure. And then ethanol would become even more efficient too.
"- Switch to electric (your assertion that batteries are not available is specious)." Pure misrepresentation. I never said such a thing.
"- Switch to greater use of carpooling/vanpooling" Sure. And then ethanol would become even more efficient too.
"- Switch to greater use of biking" Sure.
"- Expand/improve mass transit networks" When I had just moved to Houston, I waited several times for the last scheduled bus that never showed up. So, improvement is definitely needed. But this is not an easy or cheap issue either. And again, ethanol might help public transportation too.
"- Reduce unnecessary travel" Sure.
"- Grow more food locally" Sure.
"- Produce more goods locally" Sure.
"- Engage Smart Growth techniques" What is that now?
"Ethanol is by no means a silver bullet as some proponents claim. High water, fertilizer, pesticide consumption have not been addressed by you, nor has soil erosion, impact on grain stockpiles, and a myriad of other ethanol issues." Oh I never said it was a silver bullet. And all of your solutions except the "reduce unnecessary travel" have all their own drawback issues as well. So does continuing the current state of things.
"Do you have any stake whatsoever in the ethanol market?" No. And why would that be a problem anyway? Why these personal attacks?
"I never said such a thing" [i.e., batteries are not available for electric vehicles]
You had written "Electric vehicles and solar require a storage solution that is still far out." That's not true: NiMH batteries have been in use for 8 years. There are many solar battery solutions that have been in use for decades (I use AGM batteries). If you meant something else, you should have been more clear.
"And all of your solutions except the "reduce unnecessary travel" have all their own drawback issues as well."
You can believe that riding bikes, carpooling, mass transit, relocalization, etc have substantive drawbacks in comparison to BAU, but you'll be barking up the wrong tree trying to convince most people here.
And asking if you had a stake in the ethanol market was by no means a personal attack, but your insistence that you are under attack is a blatant ploy to draw sympathy to you, and a common internet debating trick used to cover a weak argument.
If you don't know what Smart Growth is, then look it up.
"You had written "Electric vehicles and solar require a storage solution that is still far out." That's not true: NiMH batteries have been in use for 8 years. There are many solar battery solutions that have been in use for decades (I use AGM batteries). If you meant something else, you should have been more clear."
So, thanks for confirming my point here: I didn't write that there were no batteries available.
But are you now trying to say that the electric storage issue for widespread PHEV application is resolved? Wonderful! But why is it then that we don't see a whole lot more of battery powered vehicles? You tell me.
"you'll be barking up the wrong tree trying to convince most people here." Are you (making yourself) the spokesperson of "most of the people here"? That would be good to know...
"And asking if you had a stake in the ethanol market was by no means a personal attack, but your insistence that you are under attack is a blatant ploy to draw sympathy to you, and a common internet debating trick used to cover a weak argument." What did you want to know then? Now I am REALLY curious why you asked that question.
Don't try to get smart with me.
Roll-out takes time, as the system has to be integrated and production of batteries ramped up.
Mitsubishi is due to bring out 2,000 EV's in Japan in 2009.
Many manufacturers are due to have really substantial numbers on the road by 2012.
Batteries can still be improved but are capable