Startup Claims to Make $1/Gallon Ethanol

gnick writes to mention Wired is reporting that an Illinois startup is claiming they can make ethanol from most any organic material for around $1/gallon. Coskata, backed by General Motors and several other investors, uses a process that is bacteria based instead of some of the other available methods. The bacteria processes organic material that is fed into the reactor and secretes ethanol as a waste product.

the memories

[caffeinemessiah]

secretes ethanol as a waste product.

aaah...reminds me of college.

Re:the memories

[Harl_Delos]

Seems to me that the Metropolitan Sewer District already uses bacteria on organic matter, without getting any ethanol. Milwaukee is selling their organic matter as Milorganite, but most other cities just *waste* human waste. Of course, there's always the possibility that your E85-ready vehicle will run like merde. And if your neighbor's RV running biodiesel smells like french fries, what will your E85 car smell like?

Re:

[edittard]

To think that I once thought pay-to-use restrooms were a good idea. Instead, those restrooms should be paying me!

Ever been to Soviet Russia?

Re:Better idea

[daeg]

Actually, yes. With a generic biomass to fuel process, nearly any biomass could be used, including human corpses.

With the rising cost of funerals and cremation services, maybe the burial method of choice in the future will be in the gas tank of your grandchildren.

Re:Better idea

[rrkap]

Soylent Gas is people!!!!! Farewell Karma!

Re:Better idea

[edittard]

His diesel has returned to the tribe. Hail the Muad'Dib!

Mr Fusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

First thought was Marty's "Mr Fusion" on the back of his DeLorean. (Dump in a few banana peels -- 1.21 gigawatts!)

Re:

[0100010001010011]

Doc: "Mr. Fusion powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor, but the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline. It always has. There's not gonna be a gas station around here until sometime in the next century. Without gasoline, we can't get the DeLorean up to 88 miles per hour."

Whoo hoo!

[biased_estimator]

Moonshine all around, its on me tonight!

Only one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The bacteria used in the process only grow in the middle east.

Re:

[mqduck]

The bacteria used in the process only grow in the middle east.

Yeah, what're all OUR fuel sources doing on/under THEIR soil?

Great, but

[Hellad]

it seems that this is the cost of production, not the cost to the consumer. If we are selling it a buck a gallon from the pump after the inclusion of taxes, then I am interested. Until then, please use my corn for good uses such as the syrup in my Mt. Dew like God intended.

Re:

[ximenes]

It says 'most any organic matter'. Maybe they'll use people instead of corn.

Re:

[Hellad]

hmm, but what will that do to the prices of soilent green?

Re:Great, but

[mixmatch]

That is a modest proposal if I may say so myself.

Re:

[Bombula]

This is an excellent point. As someone whole lived in the middle east for nearly 20 years, I can assure you that the crap in the media about oil production costs is complete nonsense. Production costs per barrel - not per gallon - in Saudi are under 50 cents. All they have to do is turn the taps. And there is enough oil there fore decades. Everything we hear to contrary is nonsense spewed by oil companies and governments who are making out like bandits with oil at $100/barrel.

Re:

[T-Bone-T]

No one is debating how much oil there is(maybe a little), all I've heard for the last couple years is how the refineries can't refine the oil fast enough. The environmentalists must be rich because they keep trying to shut down any plans to build more refineries to keep up with demand.

Re:

[Bryan Ischo]

Sounds good to me. I'm all for artificially limiting the supply of gasoline to force people to improve their efficiency and seek out alternative fuels. I hope they don't build anymore oil refineries, ever.

Re:

[T-Bone-T]

There's just one problem with that thinking. It assumes that all oil gets turned into gasoline. It is only one of many products that are all more expensive because of rising oil costs.

Re:Great, but

[Bryan Ischo]

Just so you know, as soon as I read the first five words or so of your rant and saw the ad hominem attacks coming, I stopped reading. If you want to make a point, try to do it without resorting to insults. Obviously you cared enough about what you wrote to wrote a large diatribe, and if you want your time to be used effectively, you shouldn't hurl insults, because it just means you will have wasted your time in writing it.

Re:

[mcrbids]

Such a long rant, so lacking in substance. Whine whine whine whine.... But then there's something!

I figure it's not about all these bullshit reasons you guys spout off. It's all about control. You and your do what you do to control people, for nothing more than the satisfaction, because you have to live by the same restrictions you put on the rest of us. Your lust for power makes that all worth it, I guess.

I support rising fuel costs, with taxes if necessary. You know why? Because I want control. Not of you

Re:

[ranton]

He wasnt referring to your wanting to live the way you choose. He was referring to the attitude that you should be able to do what ever you want regardless of how it hurts others. Just because killing off 100,000 caribou doesnt hurt you, that does not mean that it doesnt hurt others. There are people in this world that live off of caribou meat. Caribou meat makes up 75% of the diet of the Gwich'in tribe for instance. How does your desire for cheaper oil trump their desire to eat? Because the people in

Re:

[dgatwood]

Just to be pedantic, they could pinch a lot more than 50% gasoline out of a barrel if necessary, with the caveat that the more gasoline you extract, the more it costs to do so. These days, depolymerization/repolymerization are the norm, particularly since some Mid-East oil can be as much as half heavy residuum, and thus, your straight run gasoline would be nowhere near half of a barrel without cracking those heavy complex polymers into short chains and reassembling them....

But otherwise, yeah.

What! GM backing cheap fuel!

[NotQuiteReal]

Whatever happened to the conspiracy theorists from my childhood, you know, the ones who always claimed "the car makers and big old buried that 100 mpg carburetor design", and the like!

I don't know the merits of this particular deal, but it never made sense to me that "car makers" really cared one way or the other about the fuel costs (and the SUV craze has borne that out...)

Re:

[CajunArson]

Car makers like to sell.... wait for it..... cars. Despite the Illuminati Trilateral Bush 9/11 conspiracy theories that are popular on Slashdot, GM really doesn't make out that well when oil is expensive and people don't buy their cars. Case in point: Look at the profits oil companies are making right now vs. the insane losses GM is making right now.
Now unlike the John Edwards types who look at profits as always being "evil" they are instead incredibly useful. GM would not be putting a dim

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Belial6]

As much as I appreciate your goal, you have the wrong answer. If they do that, you can bet that alcohol is going to cost huge amounts of money as well. Your not going to be able to pour beer in the tank after all. And, there is no way that people will be able to produce enough at home (if that would even be legal) to supply the fuel necessary for their car.

If we are going to have the government mandate a solution, lets just solve the problem once and for all. Have them mandate that the entire car must

Re:

[DECS]

Actually the government plays a huge role in making GM's business decisions. Carter drafted laws that mandated the CAFE MPG regulations that pushed carmakers to be more aggressive and innovative in their engineering, and mandated catalytic converters so that society wouldn't be enshrouded in a perpetual cancerous smog. The result was less dependence on foreign oil, cleaner air, and more efficient use of resources.

Reagan scribbled out regulations, pushing carmakers to dial back the amount of effort they put

Re:

[blind biker]

Put this into the equation: petrol is highly subsidized in the US: nobody in the world (eccept maybe Venezuelans and Nigerians) pay as little for gas as US citizens. So basically, whether you use public transportation, your bicycle or an SUV, you support, with your taxes, the subsidized gas. I'm sure the american car manufacturers wouldn't be able to move as many SUVs as they do today, if americans paid unsubsidized prices for the gas.

Re:

[a_nonamiss]

I'm afraid you have it backwards. Gasoline is not directly subsidized in the US, but it is very heavily taxed in other markets, especially Europe. Now, there ARE subsidies for oil companies, thanks to the lobbyists in Washington, but those are intended strictly to further profits^H^H^H^H^H^H^H research and executive bonuses^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H discovery for the oil companies, NOT to reduce the cost of gasoline. In the US, you can pretty much follow the cost of oil, refinement, tax and profit t

Re:What! GM backing cheap fuel!

[jawtheshark]

with cars lasting longer these days, people will sell their old one just because the new one gets like double the gas mileage

Which would be a quite dumb thing to do. Okay, it depends a bit on the car and how long your commute is per day. Let's see an example:

• I have an 8 year old car which does 10l/100km (23.5mpg [google.com]), and as such it's a gas guzzler for European standards. It still is in prime condition though.
• I do 15000km per year (9320miles [google.com])
• My current car, new cost 35000€ (± 51000$ [google.com])in 2000, and is currently valued about 10000€ (± 14500$ [google.com]) on the second hand market.
• A new, smaller, more fuel efficient car, like the one my wife has, does 5l/100km(47mpg [google.com])
• My wifes car cost 23000€ (± 33500$ [google.com]) in 2006.
• Gas currently costs 1.2€/l (6.66USD/gallon [google.com]). While one car uses less gas, the prices will soar in the same way and as such the evolution of said price doesn't really matter. It shortens the final calculation, which I admit.
• One gas tank in both cars is 50l (13.2gallon [google.com]). Coupled with the above information, one gas tank costs 60€ (88$ [google.com])

Now look what happens: I sell my car for 10000€, and buy a new fuel efficient one for 23000€. I now have 13000€ spend, that I have to justify with future gas savings. That's the equivalent of 13000/60 = 217 fill ups! The equivalent of 217*50 = 10850 litres, which means I can drive 108500km with my old car, or 217000km with my new car. That's the equivalent of a bit more than 7 years for the old car and 14 years for the new car. Now look at those figures! In 7 years, my car will be 15 years old and have no value (10 years later it will be a vintage car though) That's a very long time to recoup costs.

Anyone saying the buy a new car "because it has better mileage" should first do this small calculation. If the cost is not recouped in a short time (which means you drive a lot), then it simply is not worth it. Sure, you might have other reasons, but "saving money" is not a valid one.

wrong metric?

[Erpo]

$1/gallon would be great if it were gasoline, but one gallon of ethanol doesn't store the same amount of energy as a gallon of gas.

How many joules per dollar does that work out to compared to gas?

Or, even better, how many miles per dollar does that work out to in today's ethanol-powered cars?

Ethanol 89 MJ/gallon, Gasoline 132 MJ/gallon

[MacDork]

According to the gubmint [ornl.gov] So that's $1.48 a gallon of gas. I haven't seen that price on gas in a loooooooong time.

Re:

[BitterOak]

But, as has been noted above, that is the cost to produce a gallon of ethanol. By the time it gets to the pump you'll be paying twice that. Is ~$3.00 a gallon really all that attractive?

Re:

[DieByWire]

$1/gallon would be great if it were gasoline, but one gallon of ethanol doesn't store the same amount of energy as a gallon of gas. How many joules per dollar does that work out to compared to gas?

From wikipedia...

Gasoline - 125000 BTU/gal

Ethanol - 84600 BTU/gal

... or about 67% of the energy content of gasoline. So you could compare it to a claim of $1.50/gallon gasoline.

Re:

[jeremiahbell]

From wikipedia...

Gasoline - 125000 BTU/gal

Ethanol - 84600 BTU/gal

... or about 67% of the energy content of gasoline. So you could compare it to a claim of $1.50/gallon gasoline.

Pure ethanol can offset the smaller BTU with more efficient combustion. An alcohol engine be ran safely at 12-14 to 1 compression raising efficiency whereas gasoline's upper limit is 10 to 1 in a production vehicle that has to be warrantied.

Re:

[DieByWire]

Pure ethanol can offset the smaller BTU with more efficient combustion. An alcohol engine be ran safely at 12-14 to 1 compression raising efficiency whereas gasoline's upper limit is 10 to 1 in a production vehicle that has to be warrantied.

I didn't know that.

Do any of the flex fuel cars vary valve timing or use some other trick to raise compression? Or are they stuck with the pure gasoline compression ratio?

Re:

[XorNand]

Not to mention that $1.00 is the cost to the producer (as mentioned downthread), not the consumer. According to the State or Oregon, it currently costs $1.10 to make a gallon of corn-based ethanol [oregon.gov]. Suddenly I am underwhelmed. :-\

Re:

[ChangeOnInstall]

$1/gallon would be great if it were gasoline, but one gallon of ethanol doesn't store the same amount of energy as a gallon of gas.

How many joules per dollar does that work out to compared to gas?

Or, even better, how many miles per dollar does that work out to in today's ethanol-powered cars?

E85=83263 BTUs
gasoline=114000 BTUs
So 73%

Chevrolet Silverado 4WD FlexFuel (5000lb pickup truck) MPG, from fueleconomy.gov:

Gas
city 14
hwy 19
annual fuel cost: $2878

E85
city 11
hwy 14
annual fuel cost: $2999

I think that'll make a difference. Heck even if it's the same price, it's less greenhouse gas, more stability, and less (or no) dependence on you-know-where for our fuel.

Re:

[T-Bone-T]

Hmm...I wonder why no one really wants to actually use E85. You get worse mileage and spend even more on fuel. Who wants that?

Re:

[Firethorn]

A critical question here would be how many city/highway miles and what fueleconomy.gov is assuming for gasoline vs E85 prices...

Digging into the website, that seems to be $3.07 for gasoline and $2.40 for ethanol.

At those prices, it would be 937.5 gallons of gas, 1249.6 E85.

Figuring on 16.5 combined mpg for gasoline, that's about 15.5k miles for gas, 12.5 for E85 gives 15.6k miles.

Close enough to me. So if E85 drops to $2/gallon and Gasoline rises to $3.50, it'd flip and E85 would become substantially cheap

Re:

[bigdavex]

Here's a comment that answers that question.

http://wwia.org/sgroup/biofuel/42730/1 [wwia.org]

Apparently ethanol has 68% of the energy content of gasoline by volume
(8.9x10^7 J/gal vs. 1.3x10^8 J/gal). Therefore gasoline has 146% of the
energy content of ethanol by volume. This translates to 1 liter of gasoline
= 1.46 liters of ethanol. 46% more ethanol to equal a volume of gasoline.

Need to make Butanol, not Ethanol

[Nick Driver]

Ethanol [wikipedia.org] has about 84K BTU/gallon of energy for use in a piston engine. Butanol [wikipedia.org] has about 110K BTU/gallon, compared to an average of 115K BTU/gallon for unleaded gasoline. Butanol also does not absorb water out of the air like ethanol does readily. Butanol can be made by via bacteria fermentation of biomass similar to like ethanol can. Butanol does have a problem with not vaporizing good enough for cold starts in very low temperatures, but that could be overcome with electric heater incorporated in a vehicle's fuel injector system for operation in cold weather.

More on Butanol...

[Nick Driver]

I guess I might as well karma-whore some more...I completely missed the Wiki page for Butanol Fuel [wikipedia.org]. I also think that Wiki article is wrong about butanol's melting point being 25.5 deg C, that is for pure "tertiary-Butanol", not "n-Butanol" which is the isomer that is preferred for fuel.

Re:

[Firethorn]

Actually, you can increase the efficiency of the engine by increasing the compression ratio; ethanol has a relatively high octane rating, actually higher than most premium gasoline in the E85 form.

This won't make up 100% of the milage difference, but the fact that most ethanol vehicles are 'flex-fuel' capable of running on standard gasoline limits the compression ratio they can run at. This costs them mileage when running on ethanol. There are a number of tricks, yes, but most companies don't exploit them

get-ready-to-fight-the-lobbies

[John Hasler]

Which lobbies, precisely?

Solves one of the main problems I had

[FlatEric521]

Besides cutting production costs to fire sale prices, the process avoids some key drawbacks of making ethanol from corn, company officials said. It wouldn't impact the food supply, and its net energy balance is high because the technique works almost anywhere using almost anything with great efficiency.

If it can do all that, then lets go for it. I always had reservations about corn ethanol's impact on the food supply and prices, but by using the garbage/waste products they describe, that problem goes away. Corn is central to our food economy, from sweetener (corn syrup) to feed for livestock. Little price hikes due to burning corn in our cars means bigger price hikes in so much of the rest of the food we buy. Let take ideas like these and stop burning usable food in our cars.

Startup hits "paydirt"

[smittyoneeach]

process that is bacteria based instead of some of the other available methods. The bacteria processes organic material that is fed into the reactor and secretes ethanol as a waste product.

The Illinois startup patentd "a process for using bacteria to transform something into stuff" and promptly sued everyone in posession of compost.
"Hey, since they beat us to the smartphone, the only thing we could do in response was test the outer limits of stupidity," said Joey, the CIO.
Time could be running out for ambitious entremanures wanting to cash in on the USPTO, however, Joey continued:
"The USPTO asked us a question, which was 'What time is it?' They hadn't ever asked any questions previously. We fear that this question could herald an unprecedented era of consciousness at the USPTO."

OPEC Screwing Themselves

[codepunk]

Thats right keep dropping production to drive the oil prices up. That will work
for a while yet, but now everyone is gunning for them. They drove the oil prices
up too high creating the incentives to start driving innovation to help eliminate
them from our lives.

Re:

[JackieBrown]

I hope you don't get modded troll since it's true.

Of course this is being done to keep prices down so more cars can be sold or to shift money to different players.

The OPEC's actions has made this more widely embraced then any eviromental benifits have.

Re:

[The One and Only]

You don't get the feeling they're waiting for a critical point and then planning to release oil faster than ever for another 5 years, bankrupting everyone who invested in alternative energy, before lowering production again and repeating the cycle?

Re:

[actionbastard]

...but now everyone is gunning for them.

You must be new around here.

We've been gunning for them since 1974.

Re:

[SEE]

The Athabasca oilsands are recoverable for $36 a fully-converted barrel. Nobody expects the long-term average price of oil will drop far enough to make that long-term unprofitable, but that's substantially different than expecting we've reached the oil production peak.

Drop the dumb tags already

[Just Some Guy]

"inthishouseweobeythelawsofthermodynamics" is cute when someone's bragging about their perpetual motion machine. It makes you look ignorant when the story is about someone converting one form of energy to another in an incrementally more efficient way than before. News flash: it's obvious that current production methods can be improved upon. What part of that smacks of breaking the laws of physics?

Re:Drop the dumb tags already

[glwtta]

Oh man, Story Tag Nazi has got to be the most thankless job ever.

Brazilian Ethanol

[gustgr]

Here in Brazil I've seen Ethanol being sold by $0.35/liter (~ $1.32/gallon) to the final consumer. I guess the ethanol industries can produce it by far less than $1/gallon. Here about 80% of our fleet of automobiles are powered by Ethanol (including my car), which is produced using sugar cane.

Nevertheless, the mass cultivation of sugar cane is destroying several other agricultures, mainly in Brazil's South and Southeast regions, besides the fact that the producers and farmers usually burn the unused bagasse

Re:

[jmauro]

Subsidies may account for much of the price. At least it does in the United States, where it may only cost the end consumer $2-$3 dollars/gallon, but costs every taxpayer $2-$3 dollars/gallon on top of that price. I blame Iowa, but that's just me.

Re:

[rrkap]

Sugarcane is just about the perfect crop if you want to make ethanol. Unfortunately for those of us in the U.S. there are few places here that can grow sugarcane and fewer still that can do so economically (hence the U.S.'s high taxes on imported sugar and our use of high fructose corn syrup as a substitute). Our inability to produce sugarcane has led both to our current corn based ethanol production and to huge investments in research into methods of making ethanol from other feedstocks that are cheaper

Why are we wasting our time with this?

[IonOtter]

We can already turn everything based on carbon molecules into petroleum. [changingworldtech.com]

Why are we wasting our time and wasting food and alcohol?

Synthesis Gas

[Guppy]

I see the process uses Synthesis Gas (Syngas) as an intermediate, which is has long been produced on a bulk scale for industrial use (so it has been fairly well optimized for cost-efficiency) -- mostly from either coal or municipal waste. While various eco-friendly sources may make for good press and grant money, I would expect any widescale adoption of this technology to eventually migrate to the cheapest available syngas source.

Since Syngas production is a fairly mature technology, whether or not this be

Problem Solved

[mosb1000]

This sounds like it is the real deal. They'll have a pilot plant running next year. If things really fall into place, we'll see commercial plants by 2011 (a safer bet is 2015).

That means that I can buy the Jeep instead of the Rabbit, and I won't have to worry about fuel costs down the road. Now I just have to wait for the flex-fuel JEEP Wrangler to come out (the Cherokee and the Commander are flex-fuel, so it's only a matter of time, right?)

P.S. You should really RTFA on this one. When I read the headl

Good ol' boys in Appalachia do this all the time

[Derling Whirvish]

I know some good ol' boys in Eastern Tennessee who make ethanol from corn mash for less than $1 a gallon. Been doin' it for decades.

Re:Good ol' boys in Appalachia do this all the tim

[shiftless]

Once two strangers climbed ole Rocky Top,
Lookin' for a moon-shine still.
Strangers ain't come down from Rocky Top,
Reckon they never will.

Corn won't grow at all on Rocky Top,
Dirt's too rocky by far.
That's why all the folks on Rocky Top
Get their corn from a jar.

The stupidity of consumers

[Bryan Ischo]

From TA:

"Even if you produce it county by county, you still need an infrastructure," he said. "People aren't going to go to some remote location for fuel."

This has not been my experience. I have met countless stupid people who will drive 20 miles to save 2 cents per gallon on gas. People would probably drive 50 miles to save 5 cents per gallon of gas.

If this stuff was sufficiently cheap, I'll bet there are people who would drive for hours just to fill up and save themselves $20 at the pump.

Thanks for nothing.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

The push for ethanol is part of this whole green wacko thing, and as with most of the other plans currently being implemented, will eventually hurt us. The demand for crops to fuel ethanol manufacturing is already driving up the price of food. Now we have to compete with our cars for food! What good is it to be able to drive cheaply to the store if you can't afford to buy any food once you get there?

Re:

[calebt3]

Someone didn't read the comments. This process uses the corn husks and stalks rather than the ears themselves. Waste matter. No competition for food.

No way will it cost $1 per gallon

[GreatDrok]

Don't expect the price of any petrol replacement to be any less than petrol if widely deployed.

One of the reasons for the high taxes in the UK for fuel is that they want to keep traffic numbers down. Pushing the price up should discourage people from driving so much in theory. Of course, the government just becomes dependent on the taxes and so will want a big cut of any other fuel source. Certainly, in the UK if you drive a diesel fueled by used cooking oil, a waste product which would normally be dumped, the government expect you to pay tax on it. The justification is that the tax is used to maintain the roads although that is supposed to be what the road tax is for. Anyway, it is currently cheaper to use vegetable oil and pay the tax than to use fossil diesel but if it gets more popular to use such biofuels the price differential will go away. Sure, they will be largely carbon neutral but the government will still want the same amount of income from fuel sales, they're addicted. I think the US drivers will have to get used to similar things. Accept it, whether the fuel is from fossil or modern sources, the price is going to remain high. You'll never see $1 per gallon again.

What about the $1 solar panels from last week?

[heroine]

Still waiting for the $1/watt solar panels from last week. Would even take the silicon nanotube batteries from the week before.

Has anything really changed?

[gsgriffin]

So what we are all excited about is that we might be able to run our country on crap coming from single-cell, brainless, parasitic, life-forms... Isn't that by exactly how we have been running this country for 200 years. It's not called Ethanol. Its called Congress.

Not what people make it out to be

[Rinisari]

Ethanol is still not an alternative fuel. It's a supplemental alternative fuel. There's not enough corn grown in the US to switch entirely to it. Heck, there's not enough land in the US even to grow enough corn to satisfy our needs.

Re:logic

[AKAImBatman]

we could get 2% efficiency, but if we're getting it cheap, that's all that matters, right?

Yes.

The efficiency argument as it pertains to ethanol is related to the so-called "energy positive" problem. The concern is that if it takes more energy to create the ethanol than it does to farm it and convert it to fuel, then what exactly is powering all that farm equipment? It can't be the ethanol, or we'd eventually run out of energy.

On the other hand, grid power consolidates the power infrastructure and therefore is wonderfully inexpensive. If this machine did nothing more than take grid power and convert it straight into ethanol, it would be a miracle machine. It's almost as good as if you had a machine that converted uranium or plutonium directly into millions of barrels of ethanol. If you get a slight boost from the energy already stored in the corn, so much the better!

The key thing (economically) is to get off of oil. Oil is starting to weigh down our economy and gives far too much power to current and potential enemies. Making transportation cheap again would rebound the economy, bring food prices back in line, and generally improve things for the U.S. (and really, the rest of the world) all around. :-)

Re:logic

[TykeClone]

The worst estimates are that we're getting 124% energy out with ethanol with current technology - a net gain. And those numbers are based upon old data for crop and ethanol yields and equipment.

Re:logic

[AKAImBatman]

Correct. Unfortunately, the current refinement processes still result in a more costly product per unit of energy than petroleum. Gasoline prices are close to making ethanol affordable, but not quite. The advantage to this process is that it would make ethanol cheaply. A result that is far more desirable than pure efficiency. If it's highly efficient in the end, all the better. :-)

BTW, Pimentel still disagrees that ethanol is energy positive. He's really just being a jerk, pushing data that's nearly 30 years old. Not a single study that's independent of his numbers has shown the same results. The only problem is that there are enough gullible people who listen to him. :-/

Re:

[p0tat03]

The nice thing about ethanol is that continued research is almost guaranteed to drive down the price-per-energy cost by orders of magnitudes from what it is today, whereas oil will continue to rise simply by virtue of the fact that it is a limited supply.

So while ethanol is still too expensive to be worthwhile, it's only a matter of time (IMHO a short one!) before ethanol will be as cheap as gas was in the late 90! I still remember 25c per liter (here in Canada, about $0.95/gallon). Maybe then I can affor

Re:logic

[AKAImBatman]

The nice thing about ethanol is that continued research is almost guaranteed to drive down the price-per-energy cost by orders of magnitudes

That's true of most technologies. e.g. If we were to embrace hydrogen, I can guarantee that the price of hydrogen fuels would drop like a rock over time.

The real beauty of ethanol is that it is similar enough to gasoline to make it a viable alternative for powering existing engine designs. Which means that the massive investments made in the modern, overdesigned, otto-cycle piston engine can continue to be leveraged while new engine technologies are developed.

In short: Hydrogen would require an entirely new infrastructure. Ethanol would not. Which is a huge win for ethanol.

Re:

[danbert8]

You make some good points, however you are slightly misguided. First of all, hydrogen can be used in an existing otto cycle engine. Hydrogen combustion can easily run a modified engine since anything explosive and a gas could theoretically work (though random burning things are better suited for diesel engines). They actually did this on Mythbusters and fed hydrogen gas into the carburator of a car. It ran for a couple of seconds until it backfired and burning hydrogen came up in their faces, but that's

Re:logic

[AKAImBatman]

hydrogen has a different octane than gasoline (so does ethanol by the way), so both require a modified (more expensive) engine.

Hydrogen requires more significant changes to the engine. That's what drives up the price. Ethanol only requires shifts in the timing and better fuel lines to handle the corrosive effects of the Ethanol, thus making it a fairly inexpensive conversion. Flex vehicles are able to detect information about the fuel and adjust the timing of the engine.

As for your next point, both hydrogen and ethanol require new infrastructure if they are to replace oil.

That's a fair point, but I think you overestimate the amount of new infrastructure needed by ethanol vs. that needed by hydrogen. We have methods of building pipelines [usatoday.com] that can handle ethanol. What we DON'T have is a consensus on how to produce, store, transport, or even fuel hydrogen vehicles. Which leaves a rather massive infrastructure gap between ethanol and hydrogen. Ethanol requires some behind-the-scenes changes. No real biggie. Hydrogen requires brand new vehicles, brand new storage systems, brand new transportation methods*, and brand new production methods. We simply aren't ready to build this infrastructure, no matter how much I wish we were.

They only reason they haven't taken off is because ignorant Americans (yes, I'm an American too) have a stupid idea that diesel is dirty technology.

It's not a stupid idea. Up until 2006, the US allowed really crappy quality diesel to be sold on the fuel market. This reduced the pump cost of the fuel, but meant that it was extremely dirty and bad for the environment. There was no way that car makers could create cars that burned these fuels clean enough to meet emission standards. Thus the disappearance of diesel in small vehicles. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

In contrast, the United States has long had "dirtier" diesel, although more stringent emission standards have been adopted with the transition to ULSD starting in 2006 and becoming mandatory on June 1, 2010 (see also diesel exhaust). U.S. diesel fuel typically also has a lower cetane number (a measure of ignition quality) than European diesel, resulting in worse cold weather performance and some increase in emissions. This is one reason why U.S. drivers of large trucks idle their rigs all night rather than risking a cold-weather start.

In fact, the only reason why ethanol is taking off is because it's a fairly good additive to gasoline to increase the octane rating

That's been true for decades. As a former resident of Wisconsin, I can tell you that nearly all fuel sold in that state used Ethanol as an octane booster, with many pumping stations advertising as much as "10% Ethanol". What's changed is that ethanol is now being blended in at higher quantities while car makers rush to support these "new" fuels. For the first time in my life, I'm actually seeing E85 fuels pop up at your average, everyday gas station. So no, ethanol is not being driven by its use as an octane booster. Your information is out of date.

(* Hydrogen leaks out of nearly any container. That's one of the reasons why it's so hard to transport and store.)

Re:logic

[AKAImBatman]

I've looked at some recent studies by the US govt that show a net energy loss.

Such as? Every recent government study I've seen says the exact opposite.

e.g. The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update [anl.gov]:

Studies conducted since the late 1970s have estimated the net energy value (NEV)
of corn ethanol. However, variations in data and assumptions used among the
studies have resulted in a wide range of estimates. This study identifies the factors
causing this wide variation and develops a more consistent estimate. We conclude
that the NEV of corn ethanol has been rising over time due to technological
advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production. We
show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy output:input
ratio of 1.34. --July 2002

What you're probably thinking of is sensationalist headlines like this: Study says ethanol not worth the energy [usatoday.com]

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek.

Oh lookie. David Pimentel. What a shocker. :-/

I think you'll find that energy-negative studies not conducted by Pimentel himself invariably contain a "Special Thanks to David Pimentel for providing data." Nice, eh?

Re:

[zippthorne]

124%? That's a pretty slender margin. How many acres are we going to have to devote to ethanol feedstock to supplant oil, at a farm ratio of four times as much land just for running the process to make the fuel for everything else? And are you using fossil-derived fertilizer, or are you synthesizing the fertilizer as part of the energy cycle?

Re:

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

I think you could make fertiliser as a waste product of the biofuel process.

its a very valid point about farmland though. food prices will still go up, because of the increased cost of land, even if you could make it slightly cheaper to transport.

Re:logic

[Martin Blank]

How many acres are we going to have to devote to ethanol feedstock to supplant oil?

That depends on the feedstock. We can never do it with corn, as the math just doesn't bear out. Consider the following, based on the recently-published Crop Production 2007 Summary:

Planted area: 93.6 million acres
Average yield: 151.1 bushels per acre
Total production: 14.1 billion bushels

Ethanol production from corn usually nets about 9.5 liters of ethanol per bushel. A conversion of all of the corn to ethanol would net about 134 billion liters of ethanol. Ethanol has an energy density of 24 MJ/L, and gasoline's is 34.6 MJ/L, so E85 would come in at about 25.6 MJ/L. Daily average gasoline consumption in the US is about 1.47 billion liters per day, or about 50.9 billion MJ. To match that with E85 would require 1.99 billion liters of E85, which would require 1.69 billion liters of ethanol. Unfortunately, converting all of the corn production to ethanol would allow only 79 days of consumption of E85 at current energy use rates.

It's an extreme, unrealistic calculation, as we could never do a complete conversion, and it doesn't factor in energy used for the planting, care, or harvest. But it does help to drive home the point that it's infeasible to use standard plants for ethanol production. Even switching to sugarcane or sugarbeets isn't going to help because of the massive acreage required. The only mechanisms that will be able to reliably replace our reliance on fossil fuels are those that are able to take advantage of volume of organic materials, including excretion methods such as algae and bacteria, and possibly methods such as cellulosic conversion and thermal depolymerization (if they work out profitably).

Re:

[LWATCDR]

Well if would work with kudzu it would be wonderful.
The funny thing is that kudzu really is about a perfect plant. It is editable. The leaves can be eaten is a salad and the roots can be eaten as a starch like a potato. The Flowers can be made in to a jelly. It can also be used for animal feed. It is also a legume so it actually puts nitrogen back into the soil. Even more if you plow the waist back in. And it grows with no fertizer and needs no chemicals. The problem is that well it grows like a weed.

You might want to read the article.

[John Hasler]

But I forget: this is Slashdot.

Hint: the process does not use corn.

Re:

[christurkel]

I believe they are using corn glucose to feed the bacteria. Lots of sugars and starch to break down, Pretty good fuel but like you said, not the best. Something like sugar cane would be better.

Re:

[spikedvodka]

how about our good friend the potato? or even -gasp- sugar beet?

people are stuck on the whole "Corn" thing, and it's stupid

Re:stop the lies

[codepunk]

Did you consider the cost to plant, harvest and produce potatoes and beets, etc vs corn?

Potatoes cost $2017 per acre to produce.

Corn on the other hand $502 per acre to produce.

That is a rather large difference, corn production also requires next to no man power where
as the production of potatoes (root bound crops) is considerably higher.

Re:stop the lies

[shbazjinkens]

Corn on the other hand $502 per acre to produce.

How much without subsidies?

Re:stop the lies

[edittard]

Potatoes cost $2017 per acre to produce. Corn on the other hand $502 per acre to produce.

I fail to see the relevance, since they're usually sold by weight, not area.

Re:

[AKAImBatman]

as opposed to good candidates like sugar cane, which would require importation.

Yeah! Places like Florida, Hawaii, Lousiana, and Texas! Don't even get me started on the strange places that Sugar Beets come from! :-P

Re:

[mixmatch]

Well, the numbers may be inaccurate, but this is what I came up with from searching the net:
US corn production (2003/2004): 259.273m metric tons here [nationmaster.com]
US sugarcane production (forecast FY 08): 3.388m metric tons here [foodnavigator-usa.com]
US sugar beet production (forecast FY 08): 4.549m metric tons here [foodnavigator-usa.com]
I don't profess to know anything about economics and how supply and demand affect how much of each crop is produced/available for use in fuel, so draw your own conclusions, or provide an explanation if you are so inclined.

Re:

[russ1337]

I recall an article on NPR a while ago. IIRC they were saying that one current but inefficient way to make ethanol from plant matter uses two processes using enzymes. One to break the material down to sugars the other to turn those sugars into ethanol. They were saying the current research is in the direction of having one enzyme do all of this - at reasonable temperatures. They were genetically modifying the same enzymes used to 'stone wash' denim, and IIRC they were investigating enzymes that live in unde

Re:

[symbolic]

And even after that, when they actually used to post how much of the cost was paid as taxes. I used to see the tax charts on the pumps all the time, but for the past few years they have been conspicuously absent.

Re:

[John Hasler]

I remember when it was $.35/gallon. However, that was more than $1.00/gallon when adjusted for inflation.

Re:

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I remember filling up my 1979 Monte Carlo (305 cu. in. V8) at the pump for 78 cents a gallon. This was circa 1988 or 1989.

Of course, that's nothing compared to the stories my parents used to tell me. They got gas for about a quarter a gallon, and that was at a full service gas station. I'd wager a goodly portion of folks reading this today don't even know what a "full service" station is. Or do they still have that silly law in New Jersey where drivers aren't allowed to pump their own gas?

The real fun t

Re:

[xWeston]

Even living in a place where gas is notoriously expensive (Southern California), I remember seeing it at 91 cents in 2001. Compared to about $3.50/gallon now.... almost 4x as much.

Re:

[Bryan Ischo]

Better that "you" (i.e. whoever the "we" that you were referring to) should bend over, than the environment. Keep the gas prices going up, I say.

Re:

[cashman73]

Using everyday garbage to produce ethanol or not, the fact remains that ethanol will never produce the 1.21 Gigawatts of electricity required to power the flux capacitor. Sure, it'll get your car to work and home again, but a nuclear reaction (plutonium fission or MrFusion) will still be required to get you to work on time if you fall 20 minutes behind,... ;-)

Re:

[codepunk]

Actually no you pulled that figure out of your ass, the real difference in actual mileage is
about 30%. Also one thing you need to keep in mind that the cars produced today are flex fuel
vehicles (capable of burning gasoline and or alcohol). Now say I could go to any pump in the US
and get pure alcohol for my car. What would be the real difference if I had a car that
was specifically designed to only burn alcohol. This alcohol burning car could run a
considerably higher compression ratio, smaller cooling system

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

To turn research into a product, you need a lot of hype.

Technically, you need a lot of money to turn research into product, however, hype is a required intermediate process which extracts necessary funds from unwary investors.

Oh, right--papers.

[Grendel Drago]

Here are a few publications on the process. They're not all freely available.

The original patent by Paul Baskis. (1992) Thermal depolymerizing reforming process and apparatus [google.com].

A new patent (issues about two months ago, though it was filed more like three years back) by the folks currently working at Changing World Technologies. (2007) Process for conversion of organic, waste, or low-value materials into useful products [google.com].

A research report for the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research from the Univ