Study Ethanol from Switchgrass: $.55-$.62/gallon

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/scientists-determine-farm-costs-producing-switchgrass-ethanol-15626.html

Scientists Determine Farm Costs of Producing Switchgrass for Ethanol
Submitted by BJS on Thu, 2008-03-06 09:22. Topic:

* energy and environment

Following up on a net-energy study published in the January Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a team of Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) scientists today reports the on-farm economic costs of producing switchgrass for cellulosic ethanol.

In their PNAS energy-analysis paper, the team reported that switchgrass, when used for cellulosic ethanol, yielded over five times more energy than required to produce the fuel. In this month's edition of the journal BioEnergy Research, the team describes their study's second part, which examined the farm-scale production costs of switchgrass. Richard Perrin of UNL and Ken Vogel, Marty Schmer and Rob Mitchell--all in the ARS Grain, Forage and Bioenergy Research Unit at Lincoln--conducted the studies.

According to Perrin and Vogel, this study is the most comprehensive one completed to date assessing the economic costs of producing switchgrass biomass on commercial fields. The team contracted with 10 farmers in Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to commercially grow switchgrass for five years, starting in 2000 and 2001. Throughout the study, the farmers recorded all costs for producing switchgrass biomass, from seed and fertilizer expenses to equipment and labor costs. Total baled biomass yields were recorded for each farm.

On average, switchgrass production costs were $60 per ton. Two farmers with previous experience growing switchgrass were able to limit production costs to $39 a ton. They were among a group of five farmers whose production costs were $50 or less per ton. That's something farmers elsewhere could probably achieve as they, too, gain production experience with switchgrass, the researchers suggest. Based on the $50-per-ton figure, and assuming a conversion efficiency of 80 to 90 gallons per ton, the farmgate production cost of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass would be about $0.55 to $0.62 per gallon.

Perrin and the ARS agronomists expect production costs will also decline as new, "ethanol-friendly" cultivars are developed.

ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.


Discuss.

Would make ethanol a viable alternative to gasoline while not as negativly effecting food prices. I like it!

Good news. With oil being so damn volatile as it is, I hope this really does sound as sweet as is stated and is something we can really use as an alternative fuel. As usual, I am sure there is another side to this story with the disadvantages and drawbacks though such as the amount of space required to harvest the switchgrass...etc.

But anyway, this is a breathe of fresh air to say the least. I cannot wait until we have to stop buying OPEC oil.

Cellulosic ethanol can't get here fast enough. Once that shows up, you really don't have to worry about the mileage lost associated with ethanol. Then, if it was somehow mandated that all car be able to run off E85, you basically have a competition product with gas and they should, in theory, keep each other in check somewhat.

I can't wait for cellulosic ethanol my only concern is how many tons of switchgrass would we need to put a dent into oil? That's a lot of grow areas....

I'm all for the development of alternative fuels, and ethanol may at some point be viable.

The $.55- $.62 per gallon, is only the cost of producing the switchgrass. It doesn't factor any of the costs of making that switchgrass into ethanol or the distribution or the taxes...

Given that a barrell of oil is selling for over $100 and they get about 28 gallons of gas out of a barrell, the cited switchgrass material costs are still much lower than the current cost of crude oil.

Maybe this will eventually turn into a economical fuel source...

The $.55- $.62 per gallon, is only the cost of producing the switchgrass. It doesn't factor any of the costs of making that switchgrass into ethanol or the distribution or the taxes...


Exactly. The costs to convert the biomass into ethanol are substantial and can't be ignored. All that this study has proven is that we can grow switchgrass cheaply. That's a good start, but the costs of the hydrolysis/fermentation/distillation process are still unclear.

I'm all for the development of alternative fuels, and ethanol may at some point be viable.

The $.55- $.62 per gallon, is only the cost of producing the switchgrass. It doesn't factor any of the costs of making that switchgrass into ethanol or the distribution or the taxes...

Given that a barrell of oil is selling for over $100 and they get about 28 gallons of gas out of a barrell, the cited switchgrass material costs are still much lower than the current cost of crude oil.

Maybe this will eventually turn into a economical fuel source...

Re-read the article, particularly this part:

Based on the $50-per-ton figure, and assuming a conversion efficiency of 80 to 90 gallons per ton, the farmgate production cost of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass would be about $0.55 to $0.62 per gallon

So is there a timeframe on when switchgrass would become viable? We talk about it a lot, but that seems to be it - just talk? I would love to use ethanol.

Re-read the article, particularly this part:

Based on the $50-per-ton figure, and assuming a conversion efficiency of 80 to 90 gallons per ton, the farmgate production cost of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass would be about $0.55 to $0.62 per gallon

I read the article very carefully... The key term here is "farmgate production cost" That isn't the cost of the finished ethanol...

Check the math...

$50 per ton of switchgrass
90 gallons of potential ethanol per ton of switchgrass

$50/90 gal = $0.555/gal

This is ONLY the cost of the switchgrass...

The article is written this way to deceive the reader.

I still hope the technology continues to develop and we can eventually work our way off of oil dependency...

Switchgrass is really the best source for ethanol since it's not competing for food crops like corn or sugar.

Switchgrass is really the best source for ethanol since it's not competing for food crops like corn or sugar.

wrong, if it could bring more profit, or maybe less effort, then it will compete for sure.

Switchgrass is really the best source for ethanol since it's not competing for food crops like corn or sugar.

What about Hemp?

Switch grass grows w/ little or no attention. You don't have to buy seed & fertilizer for it. Hence, dirt cheap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass

I can't wait for cellulosic ethanol my only concern is how many tons of switchgrass would we need to put a dent into oil? That's a lot of grow areas....

I read somewhere that if we converted every cornfield in the country to switchgrass, it would cover some ridiculously small percentage (like 3%) of our total fuel usage. I'll see if I can find the source and get the real number.

6-8 tons per acre.

assuming a conversion efficiency of 80 to 90 gallons per ton

In a year, therefore, the U.S. consumes about 146 billion gallons (about 550 billion liters) of gasoline!

***Assuming one planting/harvesting cycle per year***

146,000,000,000 / 90(gallons) = 1,622,222,222 tons required / 8(ton/acre) = 202,777,777 acres = 316,840 square miles required producing 100% ethanol to fuel the US year round for gasoline alone (not including diesel and other products).

Texas = 268,820 sq miles.

There ya go.

edit:
And I couldnt find how much total landmass is used for Corn, but Iowa produces Corn on 13,000,000 acres - 8% of the total landmass needed for switchgrass. Its not 3%, but its still just drops in the bucket.

There ya go.

Thanks. You missed one factor, though -- a gallon of ethanol doesn't completely replace a gallon of gasoline. You need to increase the number of gallons by about 34%.

BTW, I'm all for replacing everything in Texas with one giant switchgrass field. ;) :p

This is an important piece of the puzzle, but the overall answer will have to include a variety of sources. The GM/Coskata venture is extremely efficient and can use garbage and old tires as well as other feedstock for ethanol production. A great many side benefits would also be realized from that process. We can do this (and really must do it), it will just require a sustained drive toward getting the job done.

From Wikipedia's article on Ethanol Fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel):

"Engines using fuel with from 30% to 100% ethanol also need a cold-starting system. For E85 fuel at temperatures below 11 °C (52 °F) a cold-starting system is required for reliable starting and to meet EPA emissions standards."

I didn't realize this. 52 °F for E85? That's crazy.

Wikipedia is NOT a good source. I could go on there and say that Ethanol causes herpes and somebody would believe it...

Wikipedia is NOT a good source. I could go on there and say that Ethanol causes herpes and somebody would believe it...

Fine, but there's lots of good information on Wikipedia. I know it's questionable; that's why I specified the source. Can you prove/disprove the figures, or are you just assuming that they're wrong because it's on Wikipedia?

EDIT: Nevermind, I did it myself. Wikipedia provides this PDF of a study done by the State of Michigan (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_coldstart_AF-E-62_87914_7.pdf) as the source for those figures. Within the PDF itself, it appears that the actual figure is 32F, not 52F.

Still, that's not good enough.

I was under the impression that one of the advantages of switchgrass was that it grows very fast and would basically be mowed and collected... Not harvested like corn... The benefit would be MANY times the gross output per acre...

BTW, I'm all for replacing everything in Texas with one giant switchgrass field. ;) :p

:think:







:lol:

I was under the impression that one of the advantages of switchgrass was that it grows very fast and would basically be mowed and collected... Not harvested like corn... The benefit would be MANY times the gross output per acre...

Would be interesting to see how many times a year you could harvest switchgrass. That could take the number of acres required down significantly.

Besides, what will happen with this and other technologies is that it will only need to lessen and not replace our dependence on foreign oil. When we start using significantly less oil, the price will drop. E85 can be part of the solution, but hybrids (especially plug in), fuel cell cars, natural gas cars, and others will make this work. Good thing about E85 is that there are many cars out there today that can run it.

and would basically be mowed and collected...

Thats the impression I was given too - but after some searching I couldnt find the length of time taken to grow and regrow. Even two cycles a growing season would cut the amount of land required in half - which is HUGE.

You need to increase the number of gallons by about 34%.

I knew I was forgetting something :lol:

Either way the fact remains that its a *lot* of land thats needed.

extremely efficient and can use garbage and old tires as well as other feedstock for ethanol production.

Not to go and say "Mr Fusion!" a thousand times, but there was also the work done by Startech Environmental in regards to using plasma to recycle trash. Either solution is something we really really need to look into, as the footprint of such a facility wouldnt be too incredibly large and it would (obviously) reduce landfill and garbage dump requirements.

As the saying goes, we're not out of the woods yet - but I swear there's daylight out there.

Thanks. You missed one factor, though -- a gallon of ethanol doesn't completely replace a gallon of gasoline. You need to increase the number of gallons by about 34%.

BTW, I'm all for replacing everything in Texas with one giant switchgrass field. ;) :p

A gallon of E100 replaces a gallon of gasoline. Guess who has showed off a number of E100 concepts? GM's SAAB division w/ the AeroX concept using a TT E100 V6 producing like 400 hp.

Besides, what will happen with this and other technologies is that it will only need to lessen and not replace our dependence on foreign oil. When we start using significantly less oil, the price will drop. E85 can be part of the solution, but hybrids (especially plug in), fuel cell cars, natural gas cars, and others will make this work.

This is important to keep in mind. There will not be just one single source or method by which we replace gasoline. And who knows, gasoline may never be completely phased out as an energy source. But I could see a combination of ethanols derived from different sources and hybrid technologies putting a big enough dent in oil.

A gallon of E100 replaces a gallon of gasoline

Not in terms of energy output, which is what I think he was getting at. A car gets worse fuel mileage running on current E85 than it does on gasoline. So, we'd need to grow even more switchgrass and make more ethanol than gasoline we currently demand to make up the difference.

This is important to keep in mind. There will not be just one single source or method by which we replace gasoline. And who knows, gasoline may never be completely phased out as an energy source. But I could see a combination of ethanols derived from different sources and hybrid technologies putting a big enough dent in oil.



Not in terms of energy output, which is what I think he was getting at. A car gets worse fuel mileage running on current E85 than it does on gasoline. So, we'd need to grow even more switchgrass and make more ethanol than gasoline we currently demand to make up the difference.

The current E85 vehicles aren't optimized for E85, make some changes to timing and compression and then you will get closer to the same output.

Thats the impression I was given too - but after some searching I couldnt find the length of time taken to grow and regrow. Even two cycles a growing season would cut the amount of land required in half - which is HUGE.



I knew I was forgetting something :lol:

Either way the fact remains that its a *lot* of land thats needed.



Not to go and say "Mr Fusion!" a thousand times, but there was also the work done by Startech Environmental in regards to using plasma to recycle trash. Either solution is something we really really need to look into, as the footprint of such a facility wouldnt be too incredibly large and it would (obviously) reduce landfill and garbage dump requirements.

As the saying goes, we're not out of the woods yet - but I swear there's daylight out there.


The grass is a perennial, so it gets planted once and harvested many times over the years from that single planting. Far more sustainable than an annual crop such as corn. Add to that, the reduced need to cultivate the soil and fertilize and you have additional environmental benefits on the supply side. Fertilizer runoff and soil erosion have been major concerns for a very long time.

The trash to fuel approach is great for similar reasons. But one added benefit I see to it is the ability for such production to be handled locally. The side benefits to this are huge. Elimination of much of the need for landfill space, a major reduction in the cost of disposal, hopefully the elimination of the need to ship waste long distances, elimination of the need for centralized refineries, no need for pipelines or shipping the fuel over long distances...

The list goes on.

Add to that, the reduced need to cultivate the soil and fertilize and you have additional environmental benefits on the supply side.

You'll still need to fertilize over the long run, since you'll still be depleting soil nutrients by harvesting the entire plant.

The trash to fuel approach is great for similar reasons.

Trash-to-fuel is nearly worthless in the long run. Assume that you get efficiencies in the 80-90 gallon/ton range. Well, my wife and I throw out maybe a hundred pounds of trash each week - that's enough to get ~5 gallons of fuel. And as oil gets more expensive, we'll throw out even less stuff. Sure, we can mine the landfills and get a short-term surge of available fuel, but it's not sustainable.

A gallon of E100 replaces a gallon of gasoline.
Per unit energy, that is not true.

The current E85 vehicles aren't optimized for E85, make some changes to timing and compression and then you will get closer to the same output.
E100 has 34% less energy in it than gasoline, per unit volume. Current ethanol vehicles suffer even more than that due to the timing and compression compromises to make them gasoline compatible.

The fact is that if we the United States were to suddenly, magically replace gasoline with E100, we would need at least 34% more E100 than gasoline (by volume) to continue consuming energy at our current rate.

Disclaimer: I am using Wikipedia for a source again, and I'm not 100% sure of the accuracy of the 34% figure. It is close. In particular, the article makes it unclear whether a gallon of ethanol has 34% less energy than a gallon of gasoline, or whether a gallon of gasoline has 34% more energy than a gallon of ethanol. Nonetheless, it's widely known that ethanol has significantly less energy per unit volume than gasoline.

Would make ethanol a viable alternative to gasoline while not as negativly effecting food prices. I like it!

That would be wrong as well.

It really depends on the price they could get per ton. if switchgrass yields more profit, more farmers will do it instead of grains, IE leaving you right where we are today with corn and wheat with low consumer supply because they are growing corn for ethanol for the better pay price. Which makes feeds go up, which makes meats go up.... No matter what is grown it will effect the grains. it is that simple. The only way to get around that is to have a product for ethanol that can be grown in areas that previously were not farmable. Or to have multiple crop types. Switch grass is better and cheaper than corn ethanol all the way around. However, I think Sugar cane (what brazil uses) would be viable as well in the southern states where there is not alot of grain farming going on.

No matter what happens with Ethanol we as a nation are going to have to cut back by about 50% on liquid fuel consumption over the next decade. We just won't have enough to go around at current rates.

You'll still need to fertilize over the long run, since you'll still be depleting soil nutrients by harvesting the entire plant.



Trash-to-fuel is nearly worthless in the long run. Assume that you get efficiencies in the 80-90 gallon/ton range. Well, my wife and I throw out maybe a hundred pounds of trash each week - that's enough to get ~5 gallons of fuel. And as oil gets more expensive, we'll throw out even less stuff. Sure, we can mine the landfills and get a short-term surge of available fuel, but it's not sustainable.


Nope.

The entire plant is not harvested, that's the beauty of it (and an advantage over corn).

Combine this source with the trash to energy and other sources and we can have a real impact in the near future.

That would be wrong as well.

It really depends on the price they could get per ton. if switchgrass yields more profit, more farmers will do it instead of grains, IE leaving you right where we are today with corn and wheat with low consumer supply because they are growing corn for ethanol for the better pay price. Which makes feeds go up, which makes meats go up.... No matter what is grown it will effect the grains. it is that simple. The only way to get around that is to have a product for ethanol that can be grown in areas that previously were not farmable. Or to have multiple crop types. Switch grass is better and cheaper than corn ethanol all the way around. However, I think Sugar cane (what brazil uses) would be viable as well in the southern states where there is not alot of grain farming going on.

Another advantage of switchgrass (and grasses in general) is that they can be grown in marginal soil not suitable for food crops.

We are talking weeds here.

You are right about sugarcane though.

Nope.

The entire plant is not harvested, that's the beauty of it (and an advantage over corn).

Combine this source with the trash to energy and other sources and we can have a real impact in the near future.


The grass is better most definitely in that way. do it in southern warm climate states and you have a year round source, rather than the seasonal of the corn and soybean crops used for ethanol and biodesiel right now. Not only that, but it probably grows much faster. So instead of harvesting once a year, maybe 4 times a year.

i still like the sugar cane idea though lol.. it's proven to work well.

That would be wrong as well.

It really depends on the price they could get per ton. if switchgrass yields more profit, more farmers will do it instead of grains, IE leaving you right where we are today with corn and wheat with low consumer supply because they are growing corn for ethanol for the better pay price. Which makes feeds go up, which makes meats go up.... No matter what is grown it will effect the grains. it is that simple. The only way to get around that is to have a product for ethanol that can be grown in areas that previously were not farmable. Or to have multiple crop types. Switch grass is better and cheaper than corn ethanol all the way around. However, I think Sugar cane (what brazil uses) would be viable as well in the southern states where there is not alot of grain farming going on.

I was thinking I saw a study that said that the only state in the union that could possibly grow sugar cane was Hawaii.

That would be wrong as well.

It really depends on the price they could get per ton. if switchgrass yields more profit, more farmers will do it instead of grains, IE leaving you right where we are today with corn and wheat with low consumer supply because they are growing corn for ethanol for the better pay price. Which makes feeds go up, which makes meats go up.... No matter what is grown it will effect the grains. it is that simple. The only way to get around that is to have a product for ethanol that can be grown in areas that previously were not farmable. Or to have multiple crop types. Switch grass is better and cheaper than corn ethanol all the way around. However, I think Sugar cane (what brazil uses) would be viable as well in the southern states where there is not alot of grain farming going on.

I said AS much. It will still have an effect, but if we can swap big rigs over to this stuff too, then there is a whole new level of savings...

I mentioned the first study in several threads a few months ago and it didn't elicit much response. Is it the $103/barrel oil now that has everyone talking about the switchgrass? :lol:

I was under the impression that one of the advantages of switchgrass was that it grows very fast and would basically be mowed and collected... Not harvested like corn... The benefit would be MANY times the gross output per acre...

Yes, you are right. Probably once a month I would imagine, maybe once every other month at the most.

I still think we should go to like an E50. Why do we have to go to 85%?

Yes, you are right. Probably once a month I would imagine, maybe once every other month at the most.

I still think we should go to like an E50. Why do we have to go to 85%?


Why not just go e100. Point is to reduce the fuel consumption as much as possible.

As for trucks running ethanol. I don't know. The run biodesiel, which is soybean based... at least those that are set up for it. however, if they get less fuel mileage with ethanol.. it would really be crappy, like talking 3mpg... they are only averaging 5.8-6.5mpg now.... I think the biggest reason that trucks run on deseil is simply the torque they can produce and the lifespan of the engines (when you can turn 120,000 to 240,000 miles a year on a single truck, that is something that they look for)

Richard Branson (virgin dude) was like, crying for some reason over investing in ethanol, corn based, when he "knew" or soemthign that switchgrass is better.

However, if it is such an easy plant to (let) grow, wouldn't it be cool if large cities had it growing on rooftops? cut down on co2 and make some money for yourself.

by the way, where can i get info for growing switchgrass?>

.

However, if it is such an easy plant to (let) grow, wouldn't it be cool if large cities had it growing on rooftops? cut down on co2 and make some money for yourself.

by the way, where can i get info for growing switchgrass?>

Cool idea.

Do a search, and you should find lots of information on the topic. Grasses are generally very easy to grow and don't require much care. I'd love to have a huge piece of ground to use as a wind farm with swtchgrass growing under the windmills.

I would think once transportation costs and taxes are figured in; those numbers (price/gal) will go up substancially.

I would think once transportation costs and taxes are figured in; those numbers (price/gal) will go up substancially.


Taxes will be there without a doubt, but transportation should be less of an issue as plants producing ethanol from a variety of sources can and should be very local.

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switchgrass-profile.html

Partly because of the small size of the seed, switchgrass seedlings tend to be slow to develop, and are susceptible to weed competition. Unfortunately, there are no herbicides approved by government for weed control during establishment of switchgrass. However, it can still be successfully established by no-till planting and other strategic approaches

So, we have to worry about other weeds and can't use normal herbicides, wow. That's alot to take in. Also...

Switchgrass reaches full yield only in the third year after planting; it produces a quarter to a third of full yield in the first year, and about two thirds of full yield in the second year. When managed for energy production it can be cut once or twice a year with regular hay or silage equipment.

About twice a year is better than once a year, so maybe it won't be half as much land, but more like 75% as much land, still better than nothing.

The best way to propogate grasses is by division, not by seed. This is especially true when using cultivars (cultivated varieties) because they will not come true to form from seed. I would not use seed to grow switchgrass as an energy crop. The green industry will respond to this need with plugs of cultivars developed for the purpose and the tech for machine planting of these plugs already exists. Look for a flood of plant patents for new switchgrass cultivars as the industry responds to this market.

edit: In fact, look for some of these new cultivars to be sterile as seed production could ruin the yeild from the fields.

Why not just go e100. Point is to reduce the fuel consumption as much as possible.

;) Because then people could drink it....THAT wouldn't go over well....:lol:

As we discuss this, I think it's important to keep other factors in mind, as well.

1) Our increasing efficiency in general. Don't think for one second that this is it, that we'll have to replace ALL gasoline we use now with Ethanol. Imagine that gasoline use gets cut down to 80%, just by virtue of....:shrug: Something :p Then we'd need LESS ethanol to replace a smaller amount of gasoline.

2) Ethanol is NOT the only alternative fuel. If vehicles like the Volt become more widely used (just sayin'! ;)) Then fuel consumption will be FURTHER decreased. Plus, they could run of hydrogen, biodiesel, etc.

3) Switchgrass/garbage/whatever harvesting and turning into Ethanol will only become MORE efficient, as it goes with any new technology. Perfection takes time, and ethanol is but a baby in the grand scheme of things.

I just wanted to put that out there. Make sure when you think of Ethanol's place, that you don't get hung up into thinking that the environment (auto industry, etc) will stay the same as it is now.

That is all. :D

;) Because then people could drink it....THAT wouldn't go over well....:lol:

As we discuss this, I think it's important to keep other factors in mind, as well.

1) Our increasing efficiency in general. Don't think for one second that this is it, that we'll have to replace ALL gasoline we use now with Ethanol. Imagine that gasoline use gets cut down to 80%, just by virtue of....:shrug: Something :p Then we'd need LESS ethanol to replace a smaller amount of gasoline.

2) Ethanol is NOT the only alternative fuel. If vehicles like the Volt become more widely used (just sayin'! ;)) Then fuel consumption will be FURTHER decreased. Plus, they could run of hydrogen, biodiesel, etc.

3) Switchgrass/garbage/whatever harvesting and turning into Ethanol will only become MORE efficient, as it goes with any new technology. Perfection takes time, and ethanol is but a baby in the grand scheme of things.

I just wanted to put that out there. Make sure when you think of Ethanol's place, that you don't get hung up into thinking that the environment (auto industry, etc) will stay the same as it is now.

That is all. :D

All true.

We will only solve this problem through diversified sources of energy. The magic bullet doesn't exist and shouldn't be used if it did. Having our economy depend on any one source leads to ruin, and abuse, and weakness.

All true.

We will only solve this problem through diversified sources of energy. The magic bullet doesn't exist and shouldn't be used if it did. Having our economy depend on any one source leads to ruin, and abuse, and weakness.

aka......wait for it.....OIL! :p

Why not just go e100. Point is to reduce the fuel consumption as much as possible.


Because we are going to have to rely on a multitude of different energy formats to solve this problem.

Anybody that thinks we can just dump gasoline and be able to produce enough ethanol to replace it (E100) is just being unrealistic and giving into the "green" camp.

But on the flip side, anybody that says it can't help is siding with the oil camp.

A lot of states already use up to 10% ethanol. Lets try to increase ethanol production as much as we possibly can (switchgrass, corn, sugercane, trash, etc...).

If we could somehow manage to get enough ethanol to run E50 across the nation we have just replaced 50% of gasoline consumption (and reduced oil usage as well). This will inherently drive down the cost of oil/gasoline which should help.

Add to this more efficient hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, and hopefully a more fuel conservative population and things could look promising.

But if we sit here and argue and fight over we need 100% ethanol, or 100% electric, whatever; we will never get to a point of suceeding at anything!

We don't need to replace all of our foreign oil dependency with switchgrass and it doesn't all have to be harvested in the US. Just replacing 1/4 to 1/3 of oil use would be a major improvement. There can't be just one answer to foreign oil or oil consumption period. It will take all the alternative energy ideas to replace what we have now.

Is it me, or do I see a consensus forming here?

Is it me, or do I see a consensus forming here?

I'm not seeing it... What consensus are you seeing?

I'm not seeing it... What consensus are you seeing?

That we as a nation need to diversify our energy sources.

Richard Branson (virgin dude) was like, crying for some reason over investing in ethanol, corn based, when he "knew" or soemthign that switchgrass is better.

However, if it is such an easy plant to (let) grow, wouldn't it be cool if large cities had it growing on rooftops? cut down on co2 and make some money for yourself.

by the way, where can i get info for growing switchgrass?>

Heh I was thinking that everyone in suberbia should sacrifice their back yard or a part of it for switch grass growing if this kicks off. Have the switch grass truck come around once and a while and pick up the freshly cut grass and take it off to a processing center. If it doesn't need to be tended and is basically a weed...seems to go hand and hand.

Taxes will be there without a doubt, but transportation should be less of an issue as plants producing ethanol from a variety of sources can and should be very local.Actually the effect is the opposite. I live less than 10 miles from six refineries and we pay some of the highest gas prices in the state. Whereas my son lives miles from any refineries and they pay 30-40 cents less per gallon. Over a greater distance transportation costs can be spread out more.

That we as a nation need to diversify our energy sources.

You think that's just forming now?

All the smart people have been saying that for nearly ten years now. :p

;)

That we as a nation need to diversify our energy sources.


Ahh yes! I'm good with that....

Also, generally being conservation minded is a good thing.

You think that's just forming now?

All the smart people have been saying that for nearly ten years now. :p

;)

Actually, most of the smart people have been saying that since the 1970's oil crisis when we realized oil really has us by the balls.

Actually, most of the smart people have been saying that since the 1970's oil crisis when we realized oil really has us by the balls.

Heck, even a sheik-like positioned person from one of those nations was saying that!

Ahh yes! I'm good with that....

Also, generally being conservation minded is a good thing.

Following the Outdoor Code is cool.

You think that's just forming now?

All the smart people have been saying that for nearly ten years now. :p

;)

Are these the same "smart" people on Gore's side?

Actually the effect is the opposite. I live less than 10 miles from six refineries and we pay some of the highest gas prices in the state. Whereas my son lives miles from any refineries and they pay 30-40 cents less per gallon. Over a greater distance transportation costs can be spread out more.

The difference is that the whole nation now depends on a reltively small number of oil refineries controled by a small number of huge companies. With ethanol, the plants are much smaller, would be controled by many different businesses (and other organizations). No expensive pipelines, or oil tankers, or drilling rigs, or searching for new deposits, or international trade issues, and best of all - no cartels.

Small,local, plants will satbilize the supply in a way oil never could, reducing costs at every step. The added benefits of local employment and reduced expense in waste disposal make ethanol a very attractive enterprise for local and state governments. It is a new, and positive economic paradigm with the only losers being big oil and foreign unfriendly governments.

The difference is that the whole nation now depends on a reltively small number of oil refineries controled by a small number of huge companies. With ethanol, the plants are much smaller, would be controled by many different businesses (and other organizations). No expensive pipelines, or oil tankers, or drilling rigs, or searching for new deposits, or international trade issues, and best of all - no cartels.

Small,local, plants will satbilize the supply in a way oil never could, reducing costs at every step. The added benefits of local employment and reduced expense in waste disposal make ethanol a very attractive enterprise for local and state governments. It is a new, and positive economic paradigm with the only losers being big oil and foreign unfriendly governments.

Which is exactly why I think it'll never happen. It makes too much common sense to gain popularity in america.

(Yep, I'm being very negative and cynical)

The difference is that the whole nation now depends on a reltively small number of oil refineries controled by a small number of huge companies. With ethanol, the plants are much smaller, would be controled by many different businesses (and other organizations). No expensive pipelines, or oil tankers, or drilling rigs, or searching for new deposits, or international trade issues, and best of all - no cartels.

Small,local, plants will satbilize the supply in a way oil never could, reducing costs at every step. The added benefits of local employment and reduced expense in waste disposal make ethanol a very attractive enterprise for local and state governments. It is a new, and positive economic paradigm with the only losers being big oil and foreign unfriendly governments.till the cartels buy them all out.

till the cartels buy them all out.

That certainly wouldn't be the best outcome, but at least it would mean that the shift would happen. The cartels either have to dive into the market, or face the consequences. The decentralized nature of ethanol production means that there will be too many separate entities for the cartels to squash the overall shift to new fuels. The most effective thing they could do to slow this progress would be to dramatically drop the price of gasoline and diesel so we get lazy about the alternatives again.

But I think the writing is on the wall this time, and the oil companies will bleed us as much as possible until we have enough availability of alternative fuels to flip them the bird. They will greed themselves out of business eventually. See, I can be cynical too.:D

Are these the same "smart" people on Gore's side?

Some of them might be. I, for one, think Gore's approach to the global warming issue is all wrong, although I do see some value in the attention he brought to it.

What about Methanol? Butonal? Propane/Liquid/Compressed Natural Gas? Gasified/Liquified Coal? Hydrogen? Why only talk of Ethanol and Biodiesel?

What about Methanol? Butonal? Propane/Liquid/Compressed Natural Gas? Gasified/Liquified Coal? Hydrogen? Why only talk of Ethanol and Biodiesel?

Setting up a massive distribution structure for one additional fuel will be difficult enough in itself, much less doing it for 10 alternatives...

and one other thread in the lounge said that Ethanol was bad for the enviroment? Even worse than gas?


But the thing is we should be putting our resources into the E85 fuels for more control of our own wellfare..

Think OPEC cars how much we have going for ourselves?
Nope Chinas right on the horizon with a billion more people to buy new cars and power by gas..

and one other thread in the lounge said that Ethanol was bad for the enviroment? Even worse than gas?


:think:.........:irk:............:lol:

till the cartels buy them all out.

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/15/hydro.jpg
http://www.global-hydrogen-bus-platform.com/images/refuel1.jpg
http://www.evworld.com/images/aschwarzenegger_h2refueling.jpg
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/51551255.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939847EC77F5F8D1CE0F9E21CAFDE17ABB A40A659CEC4C8CB6

The oil companies are buying up ethanol/biofuel resources as fast as they can. They are *not* dumb. They've been buying and working it for years now.

Trash-to-fuel is nearly worthless in the long run. Assume that you get efficiencies in the 80-90 gallon/ton range. Well, my wife and I throw out maybe a hundred pounds of trash each week - that's enough to get ~5 gallons of fuel. And as oil gets more expensive, we'll throw out even less stuff. Sure, we can mine the landfills and get a short-term surge of available fuel, but it's not sustainable.

One of the points with the trash-to-ethanol process is helping out our increasing trash problems while helping produce ethanol. It would be real nice to no longer have landfills but to instead have a ethanol plant, running off of some clean source of energy making fuel for us.

It would be real nice to no longer have landfills but to instead have a ethanol plant, running off of some clean source of energy making fuel for us.

As oil gets more expensive, you'll be throwing a lot less stuff in the landfill - and as it is, you already don't throw away enough stuff to run your car.

till the cartels buy them all out.

Yep everything is for sale in this country, we're such money whores for the short term, with no regard for the long term effect.

States are now soliciting offers from foreign interest to buy out our road infrastructure. The states get one lump sum from the foreign investor, toll booths go up, and more money starts to bleed from this country.

This screams misappropriation of tax funds. All those millions of tax dollars on gas, going somewhere else instead of road infrastructure, now we're going to be "taxed" again at the toll booth. Essentially taxed twice

Our governments are some of the poorest examples making good financial decisions and staying out of debit and credit hardship.

Why not just go e100. Point is to reduce the fuel consumption as much as possible.

As for trucks running ethanol. I don't know. The run biodesiel, which is soybean based... at least those that are set up for it. however, if they get less fuel mileage with ethanol.. it would really be crappy, like talking 3mpg... they are only averaging 5.8-6.5mpg now.... I think the biggest reason that trucks run on deseil is simply the torque they can produce and the lifespan of the engines (when you can turn 120,000 to 240,000 miles a year on a single truck, that is something that they look for)

e100 is not possible in the us. It works fine for Brazil becuase of the temps down there.

e100 is not possible in the us. It works fine for Brazil becuase of the temps down there.

By law, they have to add gasoline to make it undrinkable.

By law, they have to add gasoline to make it undrinkable.

"E100" already contains 4% gasoline, which is more than enough to make it undrinkable... but not enough to allow for cold starts in sub-freezing temps.

"E100" already contains 4% gasoline, which is more than enough to make it undrinkable... but not enough to allow for cold starts in sub-freezing temps.

Wouldn't that be E96 then?

What's the point of adding the gasoline?

Wouldn't that be E96 then?

What's the point of adding the gasoline?

The gasoline "denatures" (makes toxic) the ethanol. The Feds force this upon the manufacturers - otherwise, the ethanol would technically be drinkable (although it'd probably taste horrible). So, "E100" isn't 100% ethanol, and "E85" is actually only 81.5% ethanol. That's OK, since the gasoline is also needed for cold starts.

The gasoline "denatures" (makes toxic) the ethanol. The Feds force this upon the manufacturers - otherwise, the ethanol would technically be drinkable (although it'd probably taste horrible). So, "E100" isn't 100% ethanol, and "E85" is actually only 81.5% ethanol.
Interesting. Why bother adding more gas to E85? Going from 15% gasoline to 18.5 doesn't make it any less drinkable.

That's OK, since the gasoline is also needed for cold starts.

An engine can't start reliably using E85 below freezing temperatures (source (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_coldstart_AF-E-62_87914_7.pdf), page 4). It needs a heat source. Given the range of climates most American cars are likely to see during the course of any given year, that heat source is going to be mandatory if you want your car to be reliable year-round. Even if you lived in Florida or Southern California, would you really want a car that you couldn't take on a trip up north during the winter months?

Since E85 cars pretty much require a heater, it seems to me that you could pretty much ignore the cold start issue.

Interesting. Why bother adding more gas to E85? Going from 15% gasoline to 18.5 doesn't make it any less drinkable.

The E100 has to be shipped between the ethanol "refinery" and the gasoline refinery, and the Feds (as well as several state governments) aren't open to the idea of shipping pure ethanol. Blame post-Prohibition liquor laws.

As a side note, a friend of mine worked for ADM at an ethanol plant, and after hearing some stories, I definitely wouldn't be using motor-vehicle ethanol as an Everclear substitute even if it wasn't denatured :)


Since E85 cars pretty much require a heater, it seems to me that you could pretty much ignore the cold start issue.

As bad as E85 might be, E100 would be worse. In the wintertime, that 18.5% of "gasoline" can be blended to yield a rather high vapor pressure, and thus at least marginally improves cold starts.

The E100 has to be shipped between the ethanol "refinery" and the gasoline refinery, and the Feds (as well as several state governments) aren't open to the idea of shipping pure ethanol. Blame post-Prohibition liquor laws.

As a side note, a friend of mine worked for ADM at an ethanol plant, and after hearing some stories, I definitely wouldn't be using motor-vehicle ethanol as an Everclear substitute even if it wasn't denatured :)

As bad as E85 might be, E100 would be worse. In the wintertime, that 18.5% of "gasoline" can be blended to yield a rather high vapor pressure, and thus at least marginally improves cold starts.

I'm not totally sure, but I think you missed my point on both counts. :)

I'm not totally sure, but I think you missed my point on both counts. :)

I'm not totally sure that I did miss your points, but regardless of whatever you're trying to say, I'm telling you that this is the way that industry blends fuel.

:think:.........:irk:............:lol:


Did you read the topic in the lounge?

here put this in a Google this:

"E85 Emissions worse than gasoline"

Then get back to me on your comment.
And just to let you know many of the links Google comes up with are reputalbe reporting sources.