Comments on: Next Generation Ethanol is Years Behind Schedule Due to a Lack of Funding

By: MJKTech

MJKTech — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:23:27 +0000

Biofuels could result in a significant reduction in CO2 if it is made from almost anything but food crops. Alternative fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol and BTL all require much less resources than corn/food ethanol. If the plants are sited close to the source and include a biorefinery there could be a significant reduction in CO2. If I remember the National Lab numbers – if the U.S. displaces 40% of petroleum transportation fuel with bio-based fuel then the U.S. will have have met its CO2 targets. I think the reason the federal funding for these 2nd gen fuels is drying up is a little more nefarious. The enviro-wackos don’t want a CO2 neutral fuel. They don’t want an internal combustion engine of any sort. And the sad part is that this Administration is driven by the extremist special interest groups – Earth First, Earth Liberation Front and the like. EV’s and fuel cells are not the panacea that people have been led to believe.

By: Shines

Shines — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:19:09 +0000

Growing crops to produce fuel for the ICEs in today’s automobiles is a waste of resources. First of all you would never produce a significant quantity based on current usage. Secondly the ICEs in today’s autos are too inefficient especially with the lower energy capacity of ethanol. A better use would be to generate electricity for a local grid. The excess heat generated could be used more efficiently to generate additional power via steam instead of being ‘radiated’ away as in the auto’s radiator.

By: Alan Anderson

Alan Anderson — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:55:57 +0000

Let’s not forget about the Sugar Beet. Now Europe is jumping ahead of the US and Brazil in Ethanol production. This is why: Sugar is the key to ethanol.
The RFS2 establishes four different classes of renewable fuels, each with its own respective volume mandate and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirement. Ethanol produced from sugarcane and sugar beets is uniquely positioned to meet one of these four requirements, the advanced biofuel requirement, which mandates a 50 percent reduction in life-cycle GHG emissions when compared to a baseline fuel. Sugar beet has a 60-70% reduction and its cheaper to make and no research money needed or subsidies..

By: Russ Finley

Russ Finley — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 14:38:01 +0000

One could argue that corn ethanol has stifled its competition (cellulosic) by hoovering up 3/4 of renewable energy funds:

http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img28.gif

The argument that corn ethanol is blazing a trail so its competitors can crush it has always been a stupid one.

On the other hand, who gets hung if we do increase funding for cellulosic and ten years from now it is still uneconomical?

By: JamesDavis

JamesDavis — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:30:08 +0000

“Next Generation Ethanol is Years Behind Schedule Due to a Lack of Funding” Good! Lets keep it there and put that funding into electric vehicles.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 02:50:09 +0000

"This next generation of ethanol, known as cellulosic ethanol, is a far cry from the highly controversial (and environmentally questionable) corn ethanol that has become so pervasive."

it's too bad the previous funding has largely been concentrated in corn based ethanol rather than cellulosic ethanol... it's hard to get people back on board once you put a bad taste in their mouths.