I think it's well-documented, from your previous posts, that you don't like ethanol. And I'm not sure citing a 3-year-old study is entirely accurate, as other more recent studies have shown the opposite. Really, I think it comes down to the academics worldview when doing the studies.

We are only in the beginning of the whole biomass generated fuel learning curve. To make a linear conclusion about the efficacy of the technology so early in the game is, IMHO, beyond premature.

To declare that flying around the world impossible right after the flight of the Kittyhawk would have been jumping the gun too.

 

Eric I kind of feel the economics of ethanol are weak till you factor in the subsidies.
And to be honest I'd discount a study done by any liberal university, there is just "to much at stake".

Of course I am bound to be wrong, after all I also believe wind power is another BIG subsidy driven boondoggle. I'd guess the foundation alone for a windmill used more energy in making and placing than the mill will generate before it needs a rebuild.

OK, so what, as a limited addition to gasoline there is no reason not to enjoy ethanol.

Its just that from what I have heard there isn't enough farm land in the US to farm a replacement for oil.

 

I certainly agree that there is room for improvement with ethanol. And, I don;t think corn is a longterm viable source. However, there's sugar cane, algae, and plenty of other options we don't even realize yet.

I just don't want to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water, if you know what I mean.

 

According to the video, it would only take the acreage of 1/10th the state of New Mexico to produce enough ethanol from algae to equal our total gasoline use.

Whether that is true or not is debatable. Whether that is taking into account how much energy it would take to PRODUCE that ethanol is questionable . . .

I, for one, HOPE it's true. . .

 

One thing I'll point out here (that I mentioned in the other thread) is that there's more involved here than just pure economics. We import an unbelievable amount of petroleum product from some rather unstable, and occasionally unfriendly, countries, which is a major strategic blunder on our part. There's a win to be had here that can't be counted with just dollars and cents, and that's a benefit we realize with even a 50% shift.

You're right, the economics are about a wash without heavy subsidies, and it would be quite a bit more expensive at the pump without them.

Drilling domestically is a good non-sustainable stop-gap measure. But that won't last forever, and the cost of retrieving that petroleum is going to increase dramatically as we move from one source to another.

This is an interesting one, and something that recent numbers show to be a bit on the far-fetched side. We significantly over-produced in the last year, to the tune of 1.62 billion bushels (USDA source).

With that kind of unmovable product, we're certainly not running out of room, and we're obviously subsidizing the wrong thing. Giving corn growers a break doesn't fund the thing we're really after: a domestic fuel source.

We should be getting a better return on our (subsidy) investment; corn just isn't the smart way to bring ethanol to market, it was just expedient when we needed a proof of concept. We have that now. It worked. Let's move on to more efficient methods of production.

 

logic, I must admit your post is a valuable point.

I may be way overboard about the land needed, and no one is talking about replacing gasoline 100% anyway.

 

Another important number is the amount of fallow farmland. That's farmland that is currently not used for growing, for one reason or another. This is not referring to land that could potentially be used for farming if needed, which would be a MUCH, MUCH larger number.

A billion acres of fallow farmland around the world.

Just to illustrate how much fallow farmland this is...the state of Ohio is 26,449,920 acres. So, a Billion acres would be 38 times the total size of the state of Ohio. That is a LOT of un-used farmland.

I was trying to find a USA fallow farmland number, without luck, but I'll keep looking.

The point is - corn production for ethanol is not reducing farmland available for food production. So, if your not getting enough flax in your diet, you are simply not planting enough flax in your fallow farmland.

Of course, direct land use - meaning farming - is not the highest and best use for ethanol production anyway, so this whole line of discussion is purely that - a discussion.

The two most exciting avenues for ethanol, IMO, are landfills, which helps solve yet another environmental problem, and, vertical algae production, which solves the perceived but untrue problems of (a) dwindling farmland and (b) corn-used-for-ethanol-is-causing-world-starvation.

See this very interesting post

and this one as well.

 

From my hometown paper today!

Looks like a swamp? Sort of. Could be powering your Jetta TDI soon.



From Algae to BioDiesel

Not sure about this. Could be just an ill-informed journalist; we certainly have plenty of those these days. The author keeps using the term "biodiesel", when I think they mean biofuel, or in this case ethanol.

However, maybe they can make diesel out of algae? Anyone know for sure?
EDIT: It is so. Swamp to TDI.

I think we need to figure out how to make ethanol out the of millions of dollars worth of political advertising over the past, and the next, few weeks!

 

Yes, Valcent mentioned they can make BioDiesel out of algae....different strains of algae produce different kinds of fuel.

 

slightly OT

forget corn, forget it all, make it from blackberry vines. nothing grows faster or hardier.

 

How long, or short, is a growing cycle for blackberry vines? IIRC, algae is 22 days. Of course, the vertical algae growing system is continuously producing oil, so it has no growing cycle limitations.

Here is a Blackberry vine in person.

Well, it is not actually a person, but you know what I mean.

I tried a Google search for blackberry-to-ethanol, but came up empty. However, with much diligent searching I did track down a photo of this very top-secret process:

Can you say limited carbon foot print?

 

I like reading these articles and posts. I wish we could speed up the process for the mass market. OT, but down here in FL we have a to of Brazilian pepper trees that cause nothing but problems. Lets see if we can use those as well

 

Look familiar? This is in Tampa Bay.


Description of the invasion.

 

More movement on algae-based production. The Brits are taking the lead here, it looks like.

More information directly from Carbon Trust.