×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
9

Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

(OP)
Back to cellulose ethanol discussion:

Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans

As more and more corn grain is diverted to make ethanol, there have been public concerns about food shortages. However, ethanol made from cellulose materials instead of corn grain, renders the food vs. fuel debate moot.

On the other way unexploited categories of cellulose material that will be removed from forests will also reduce the risk of forest fires during the warm season as it happened recently in California.

Cellulose ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulose biomass feedstock including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, and sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switch grass.

The "woodchips and stalks" represent resources that are currently available from forestry and agriculture, though very underutilized. One of the largest unexploited categories is wood that needs to be removed from forests to reduce the risk of forest fires. Well over 8 billion dry tons of biomass has been identified by the U.S. Forest Service as needing fuel treatment removal. The amount of this biomass potentially available for bio energy uses is estimated to be about 60 million dry tons annually

In times of fuel shortages, fermentation ethanol has been commercially manufactured in the US from cellulose biomass feedstock using acid hydrolysis techniques. Currently, some countries in locations with higher ethanol and fuel prices are producing ethanol from cellulose feedstock. However, it is only recently that cost-effective technologies for producing ethanol-from-cellulose (EFC) in the US have started to emerge.
There are three basic types of EFC processes—acid hydrolysis, enzymatic hydrolysis, and thermo chemical—with variations for each. The most common is acid hydrolysis. Virtually any acid can be used; however, sulphuric acid is most commonly used since it is usually the least expensive.

There are no commercial plants producing ethanol from cellulose biomass in the world, although cellulose ethanol has been produced during war time by processes featuring acid hydrolysis. Several commercial ventures have been proposed involving selling ethanol produced from cellulose biomass into existing chemical or fuels markets, suggesting that cost-competitive production of ethanol from cellulose biomass in these markets, although not bulk fuel markets, is within reach today. Funding for such ventures has however not been secured to date.


With the actual oil barrel prices it is time to clean “our gardens” and start to produce cellulose ethanol.

Luis marques

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Which is better, burning the biomas in electrical power plants etc or turning it into a liquid fuel that more or less fits into the existing system?



KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

(OP)
It is another possibility

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Sorry had to run.

I guess the advantage of ethanol is that it's close to being a drop in replacement for gasoline/petroleum.  There are a few problems but certainly Brazil seems to have managed it more or less from what I've read/seen.

The disadvantage is that I suspect it will be less efficient to 'harvest' the biomass (some more than others as some is already effectively harvested and then discarded but a major factor with say brush from forests etc), transport it to the facility, process/ferment it, transport/distribute it to end users and dispoose of waste etc; than it would be to just take it to a power plant, burn it, generate electricity, distribute the electricity, use the electricity.

Having written that down, I wouldn't mind seeing numbers as it may be closer than I first thought.  Assuming you're using both in vehicles then the efficiency of the vehicle batteries or using the electricty to generate hydrogen or whatever would have to be taken into account.

What might be better is using the biomass to supplant the use of natural gas in fixed power generation and diverting the natural gas to vehicles.

So many other options and factors too.  Using the biomass directly to heat/cook might even be an option.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

I think burning biomass (wood) is going to be a lot dirtier in terms of air pollution than converting it to ethanol.  May or may not be "true" for large-scale boilers, but wood stoves and heaters get banned regularly here around Seattle in the winter, when inversion layers form and smoke/smog levels rise.

Energy density of alcohol is still a lot higher than natural gas, and thus it makes better sense as a vehicle fuel.  Also, the conversion cost (gasoline to ethanol vs. gasoline to CNG) is lower for ethanol.  If the energy economics make sense, alcohol will win.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

There are ways you can burn bio mass that make it cleaner.  If I recall correctly you could burn it in a way similar to coal gasification (at least the 'wood') although I think you'd end up with a lot of charcoal!  Also on large power plants filter would be an option.  There are even more efficient stoves etc than the classical open fire.

However, I should have said "would burning the biomass in fixed power generation and diverting natural gas to vehicles be a better idea/more efficient?" I meant it more as a question than a suggestion.

Also, how does bio gas rank, effectively rotting the biomass to produce methane, compared to making ethanol?

Another part of the pie, though not directly related to cellulose ethanol, and something I've brought up before.  Currently gas/electric hybrid technology is more expensive than regular power train.  Given this wouldn't it make sense to try and concentrate hybrids into sectors that would make the most of regenerative breaking?  Vehicles that make frequent stops and/or operate in heavy traffic conditions.  Vehicles such as Post office delivery vans, other delivery vehicles (UPS etc), taxis, Buses etc. rather than private vehicles which may spend a lot of time on the open road etc.

Also from a 'soot' emission point of view I believe bio diesel is better.  Let's use it in areas where it would make a difference.  Perhaps convert all public transport that runs on diesel in major cities to run on near pure (or at least high %) bio diesel.  Likewise rather than just adding 5% bio diesel to all diesel maybe have a higher concentration on that sold in city centers.  There’d be distribution issues but maybe it’s worth considering.

I suspect both of my last points wont happen as such though because it would probably take strong government intervention.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

At a well known tractor plant many years ago there was a debate about whether to fill the windscreen wash bottles with ethanol or methanol solution. The fire safety officer declared he could handle any fire risks but the medical safety officer could not guarantee that the workforce would not drink it, and hence for safety's sake they chose the non-poisonous solution.

So let's just say that this should be a dual purpose fuel and should be safe for drinking and driving!
clown

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

As I recal, that's why they added the purple die and nasty taste to methanol in the UK.

On the other hand, for someonly looking to get really drunk at state expense, turn up at the hospital claiming to have drunk methanol.  The treatment is supposedly to get you completely wasted on ethanol since this stops your liver absorbing the toxins in the methanol (it's too busy with the ethanol).

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Gasoline is usually added to fuel-grade ethanol in order to denature it. i.e. make it bad tasting so it goes into the fuel tank and not into the employees.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

4
There are no commercial cellulose ethanol plants operating in the world right now, and it's not for lack of trying.

Harvesting and transportation of the raw biomass are significant secondary hurdles, even if the processing technology should take a sudden and gigantic leap forward.  Harvesting deadfall from forests would probably take more energy than was in the feedstock, and there are other uses for this material (ie. pulp and paper production, sawdust and woodchips for building materials etc.). Then there's the tendency of any 'waste material' to instantly become a 'commodity' the second someone starts using it to make money.

The energy wasted in turning waste biomass materials into ethanol to make it into a transportation fuel is not trivial.  The same goes for producing liquid fuels from biomass by pyrolysis.  Burning these materials as fuels suffers from none of these drawbacks.

As far as concerns about pollution from the combustion of biomass, comparing a household wood-burning stove to a properly engineered power plant is disingenuous.

The best thing to do with these waste cellulosic materials, if they cannot be composted and used to renew the organic content of the (largely) agricultural soils from which they were produced, would be to combust them in power plants to produce heat and electricity locally.  Electricity is relatively cheap to transport, relative to straw or switchgrass bales!

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Having worked for the Forest Service under the fire plan developing uses for underutilized biomass, I can point out that industry will not necessarily use the cellulose source you'd like them to, but rather the most economically viable one.  This means that if ethanol production becomes economically viable, it is likely that the idealistic sources will be overlooked in favor of the most efficient sources.  I have a feeling that the woodchips and stalks may not represent the most efficient sources for cellulosic ethanol, and we may see another form of destructive agriculture or forestry result from commercial production of cellulosic ethanol.

That being said I am optimistic for the prospects of ethanol.  From a global warming perspective, any biomass fuel with a net energy gain is preferable to fossil fuel.  I see the current ethanol industry (in the US) as a pilot industry, building infrastructure for the future of localized high volume ethanol production.  Cellulose may or may not be the the answer in some places.  The future of ethanol may come from anywhere, even elephant dung!

As I keep telling skeptical friends here in the midwest, I'm interested in any technology which makes our farmers the oil princes of this century!

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

I just took a 2,500 mile road trip.  The traffic on the interstate (to say nothing of the near-gridlock I saw at morning rush hour in Ft Worth, TX) is a really clear indication that liquid hydrocarbons are WAY too inexpensive for any of the above to be viable.  I don't know what the number is, but I would expect that West Texas Intermediate (WTI) would have to get well above $500/bbl and stay there for a couple of years before any of the ideas above would be economic.

At $15/US Gallon for gasoline, you would start to see home biomass kits to turn underbrush into bio diesel at a retail level (the only way that that resource can be used is if you don't have to transport it long distances).  You'd see city planners thinking about neighborhood shopping instead of mega-malls and super markets.  You'd see the demise of the SUV.  You'd see effective processes to utilize organic wastes that we mostly can't imagine today.  From the looks of the highways last week I'd say that $3.00/gallon is absolutely not an incentive for any of this to happen.

A government policy that adds taxes to the retail price of fuel to force conservation is really painful, but many European governments have stepped up to the plate and imposed those taxes--the result is that the portion of GDP that goes to OPEC is significantly less than it is in the US.  Our government will never have the spine to implement something that painful, so we are going to be nattering about feed stocks for ethanol plants which produce fewer BTU's of energy than it took to plant, grow, harvest, transport, and process the corn or cane.  Today we have "boutique engineering" as a sop to the masses.  One of these days we'll be able to come up with a viable set of technologies to replace oil, but not at today's prices.

David

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

2
America is one of the richest countries in the world with one of the cheapest gasoline prices.

Australian gasoline is around 50% more even though we have our own oil sources.

UK gasoline is twice as much as the US (as is most of europe).

It is no coincidence that the US has many very large vehicles that are seen nowhere else in the world.

The tax on gasoline in the US is too low and does not cover the environmental consequences of its consumption.

Enough of my unrelated spiel..


At the moment many sources of biofuel actually give off more carbon than gasoline, until that changes it is only an economical solution and not an environmental one.

csd

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

It is disappointing to see the level of pessimism entering a discussion about a potential solution to one of the most significant problems facing the world.  If all the negative information about ethanol were fact, why would it be necessary for anyone to spend money to publicize the information?  Wouldn't economics prove enough of a deterrent to the industry (the invisible hand, anyone?)?

csd, since the carbon emitted by biofuels must first be absorbed from the atmosphere, the net carbon effect is neutral (assuming you've used other biofuels in lieu of fossil fuels in the production cycle).

David, I don't think your numbers are correct, though I agree the fuel must be produced locally.  Here in the midwest, E85 is cheaper than gasoline.  I know you get less mileage, but by my calculations true cost (to the consumber) is approaching the break even point.  And remember, this is from a fledgling technology.

A star to 0707 for his optimistic and thorough intro to the topic. Aren't national security and enviromental responsibility good enough reasons to at least explore the potential of ethanol?

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

(OP)


Vegetal biomass can be reused with benefits for the mankind. When oil prices reach actual rates it is time to believe in the technology and go through it.
It is required political will and courageous investors

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

YoungTurk,
Where are my numbers wrong?  As CSD72 mentions above, motor fuel prices in the US are half of the price for similar fuels in Europe.  Since the US GDP is very high by world standards, a price around 5 times greater than today's prices would be needed to drive innovation towards changes in behaviour and new technologies.

The simple reason that E85 is cheaper (in a very few markets) than gasoline is horrible government policy.  The US government is providing incredible tax incentives to anyone that can demonstrate the appearance of developing a technical solution to our dependency on foreign oil.  These tax incentives mask the fact that for 1 BTU of usable energy, more than 1 BTU is expended in the energy chain that got it from fallow fields to the pump.  I've seen numbers as bad as 1.36 gallons of fossil fuel being consumed producing 1 gallon of (lower energy content) ethanol.  The most optimistic numbers I've seen are 0.96 gallons of fossil fuel for 1 gallon of ethanol (which has 76% of the energy content of gasoline).
 
My comments are not meant to be negative, I firmly believe that we will run out of fossil fuel sometime and we will either revert to a subsistence economy (with a much smaller population, starvation isn't pretty) or some clever engineer will come up with a solution that is both energy and cost conservative.  I despair of the government funded research ever finding that conservative technology--some geek will work it out in his basement and become the successor to Bill Gates among the richest people in the world.

David

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Youngturk,

I am not against biofuels, I just think that they are currently far from the ideal that they aim to be.

I agree with the fact that the carbon is first absorbed from the atmosphere, but I think this is more than offset by emmisions of current production methods.

The government should be subsidising more research into this, not subsidising oil companies.

Here is an interesting spiel:

http://laughingwolf.net/archives/002553.html

csd

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

"As far as concerns about pollution from the combustion of biomass, comparing a household wood-burning stove to a properly engineered power plant is disingenuous."

Sorry, but I read and was responding to Kenat's post as suggesting that household burning of wood/biomass to be a better alternative than using natural gas for home heating.  From this quote of his:

"Using the biomass directly to heat/cook might even be an option"

But, to take the case a bit further, do you think a wood-fired power plant, using the best available scrubbing, etc., could be "cleaner" than a natural-gas turbine?  Cheaper?

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

zdas04

0.96 gallons of fossil fuel for every gallon of ethanol certainly isn't the most optimistic estimate that has been made by a reliable source.  Without wanting to get into it too much, the work of Pimentel and Patzek (and others) is really incredible sloppy stuff.  Of course, it's equally true that the pro-ethanol groups also dispense a ton of garbage (in terms of data) as well.

That said, there are quite a few reputable studies out there that seem to come to a general agreement that (using current best practices for farming and processing) ethanol is certainly energy positive, albeit only in the range of 1-2 times energy input.  That doesn't mean, of course, that ethanol is a viable energy option, that remains to be seen.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

zdas04, as said before me, most recent reputable research shows a net energy gain, albeit not a great one.  I have no idea where you get the 5x figure, and I don't follow your logic, which is why I disagree.  I do see long lines at the E85 station everytime gas prices spike, which is anecdotal evidence that the threshold is much lower.

Keep in mind:

- the oil industry recieves tremendous tax incentives as well, not the least of which is allowing oil companies to drill offshore without paying anything

- ethanol subsidies cover not only production but the building of an infrastructure which will improve national security and reduce the trade deficit

- farm subsidies encourage large tracts of land to be left fallow, which also artificially increases corn prices - why not spend the tax money on ethanol instead?

- bio fuels can be produced using bio fuel and bio mass, which would drive up the cost, but the net energy gain would then be 100% and the net carbon emission goes to zero

See the wonderful rant link csd72 posted, I won't repeat the substance of it here.  I am skeptical of the war for oil angle, but if you google "energy task force" you may  begin to wonder.  

Regardless, national security (military as well as financial) and environmental responsibility are sufficient reasons for me to support the industry

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."



RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Youngturk,

RE:'I am skeptical of the war for oil angle...'

There are atrocities going on every day in central africa by dictators that make Saddam Hussein look like a pussycat. There was no Coalition invasion to save the people there, amazingly enough there is no oil in these countries either.

You do not honestly still believe the WMD story?

csd

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Well, hate to hijack the OP, but I never believed it (WMD hype) in the first place.  In fact, that was the greatist wag the dog instance in American politics ever.  There were other factors, though... family history, religion, political ideology, Al Qaeda war games, AND the oil!  I'm not sure which, if any, was the deciding/driving factor.

Back the OP... some links for discussion:
Current State
Under Construction and
Government Support.

And dont forget the elephant dung above!  Saved by elephant dung...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

I suggest we end the politcal stuff there guys, and continue along the direction of the OP.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

That was accomplished in my post, but thanks for the suggestion, and I agree.

But; ethanol, oil, politics, it is all connected.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Why not put a cellulose to ethanol plant at each landfill. The garbage guys have to take the newspapers and garbage peels there any way. Therefore the cost of collection and transportation is covered by the garbage hauling contract.

There are estimates that one can get about 50 gallons of ethanol from a ton of typical municipal solid waste (MSW). That's where the development should be.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Aside from the BTU-in vs BTU-out angle, all biofuels suffer from the same limitation, they are solar energy, and solar energy is very diffuse and weak. It will require huge areas of land for any (or all) biofuel(s) to make a serious dent in only our transportation needs, and we still need to grow food. According to the book "The Solar Fraud", ethanol from corn yields a gross of 0.195 W/m^2 of land area under the best scenarios, or considering the energy input to produce the ethanol, 0.047 W/m^2 net. Compared to 200 W/m^2 in the sunlight itself (North America year round average). The most valuable contribution of this book is to place all energy sources on the same basis, namely W/m^2. Certainly clarifies things. According to the author (physicist Howard Hayden), if we were to replace all the energy needs of the US with corn-based ethanol we would need land area equal to seven times the area of the US.

Note that I AM NOT anti-biofuels, but the economics are everything.

I would like to see everybody's subsidies withdrawn, and let them fight it out in the marketplace. Never happen.

Regards,

Mike

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

I'm not against biofuels either:  in fact I'm strongly FOR them.

What I AM against is two things: wasting food to produce fuel for SUVs, and wasting energy converting one fuel into another needlessly.  Ethanol from corn AND biodiesel do BOTH, so I have no love of either.  While we continue to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity, there is no point in attemping to use biomass as a means to replace transportation fuels.  To do so is to throw away a significant fraction of the solar energy inherent in these fuels.

Clearly, burning natural gas is less complex and cleaner than burning biomass in terms of pollution emissions- but not in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.  I'd suggest that biomass is a cleaner fuel than coal on BOTH fronts.  And until we STOP burning coal to make heat and power, eliminating IT should be our target.  Gasoline can wait until all our stationary power needs are met via renewables like biomass, wind etc. and perhaps nuclear.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Unfortunately, since nice Mr Chavez has stopped orimulsion production, and left China in the lurch, they are using more coal again.

Coal is one of the cheapest fuels available. Cheaper than Heavy fuel oil, itself based on refinery waste products. This is especially true in countries where Health and Safety executives do not appear to exist. Possibly they have no HR either (every cloud...).

So it does not take much of an excuse to see coal in resurgence at regular intervals.

In Europe there are also significant coal reserves. Germany has substantial open cast mining of brown coal and Greece, until it accessed the natural gas pipelines was committed to continued use of Lignite. Gas pipeline are, we know, all too vulnerable and gas prices are going up significantly.
In the end the sort of compromises between environment and cost are going to continue.

The losers will be.........?
and in what order will they lose?

Everything has a price, including the environment. Even "Green" fuels and "Green" initiatives. Not all Bio-Fuels are environmentally friendly... unless you think lower CO2 is a fair exchange for the Asian elephant and people getting their food each day.

There would appear to be no holy grail of energy within site.
What we do instead is just juggle the balls in the air. Mineral oils Vs Bio-fuels Vs Wind energy Vs Tidal Power Vs etc. Each has its own economic cost and its own environmental cost. Each has its adherents and opponents. Logic does not enter into it. It is politics, economics and eco-religion.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

JMV makes a very good point that even the "green" options have a negative impact on something.

In my opinion, the situation is fairly simple.  We have too many people consuming t0o much energy.  This results in problems (problems with pollution, extinction of species, food supply problems, etc).  We can either (A) deal with those problems (which will become more severe as the population and energy consumption continue to rise) or (B) we can deal with the root of the problem and use less energy.

I have a feeling the world will choose option A.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

The world will make comfort its mistress and choose option A.  Growing up in Suburbia, I honestly couldn't fathom a sigficant life style change.  Even switching from municipal water to well water is a big enough challenge, let alone not using electricity and getting my vegetables from a garden and taking up farming.  My narrow-minded opinion is the less energy we use, the less wealth our society will acquire.  Using less energy is comparable to a decrease in salary.  In either situation, one would have to work harder to make ends meet.  Using less energy = more manual work, and as the white collar American citizen that grew up in suburbia (and not knowing my butt from a hole in the ground if placed on a farm), I would not like to make the changes that the "using less energy" lifestyle would require of me because I don't think I can hack it.  I hope to see biofuels work, so the farmer can actually make the money that he is worth in society.    

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

What are the byproducts of cellulosic ethanol?  Can the nutrients be somehow returned to the soil?  Fertilizers are a major energy cost of biofuels.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

"Using less energy = more manual work"

Or it means wasting less energy and being smarter about energy use.  The average American could make significant reductions in their energy consumption without affecting their lifestyle.  In fact, reducing energy consumption will result in less expenses, so if anything it should help you grow your wealth.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Bruno,

You forgot option C)Ignore the issue for immediate prosperity until all the fuel is almost gone, live in a country that has a large military that will take control of all the remaining Fuel supplies in the event of a world war.  Meanwhile, leave the threat of global warming and world war in the hands of the next generations/kids.

Although I am with you on option B bigglasses

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Issues of burning biomass vs. coal vs. natural gas for stationary power are sideline issues, in my book, since all of these could be replaced by carbon-zero technologies (solar (includes wind), tidal, or <gasp> nuculur).  Money spent subsidizing these technologies is not wasted IMO.  Yes, let's work towards NOT burning coal, nor biomass, for stationary power generation.  Green building technologies are available now, and can be retrofit to exisiting buildings, with potential energy savings of 20% or more.  I work for a company that offers one such technology; most of our customers see a 1-2 year payback on retrofit costs.  You'd think we'd have our door being beaten down, but instead I have time to twiddle away here on this site.

But, back to the topic: until you have a viable portable energy storage system, our transportation system (and thus economy) grinds to a halt without fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel).  Ethanol is a viable candidate for the partial offset to even replacement of those fuels, whether derived from corn syrup (US), cane sugar (Brazil) or (hopefully, someday, maybe) switchgrass, forest floor debris, and creosote bushes from California hillsides.  Ethanol beats CNG on power density, and beats hydrogen by a factor of 5 or more.  Battery storage doesn't come close.  Spending money to subsidize ethanol makes sense to me for the same reasons as above.  Moltenmetal, you argue that we should focus in one area and ignore transportation; jmw argues, and I agree, we need to be looking in a lot of areas, basically every place that energy is produced or consumed, for possible savings or just ways to do it smarter and with less economic and environmental impact.

"if we were to replace all the energy needs of the US with corn-based ethanol we would need land area equal to seven times the area of the US"  -- ARGH!  Nobody is suggesting that _all_ of our energy needs would be replaced by ethanol, much less corn ethanol.  Ethanol's utility is as a transportation fuel, not for power generation or plastics feedstock, or any of the other uses for the current oil stream.  Point out a fuel, or transportation system power supply of any ilk, that beats it?

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Speaking of forest floor debris, there are 1000 tons of waste wood from forest floors that fall/decay/whatever each weekend in my home state.  Thats about 50 kilotons/year from one state.  I don't know if it would be economical to harvest the forests for deadwood and floor debris for raw material, but it is a good idea.  One would think that forests would be healthier if they were cleared of dead wood and debris every once in a while.

Switching gears, what if the waste wood went through some kind of pyrolisis and synthetic bio-oil was made from it, instead of ethanol?   

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

How does the soil get fertilised for the next generation of trees?

Picking up forest debris sounds like a very bad thing for the environment to me!

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

""if we were to replace all the energy needs of the US with corn-based ethanol we would need land area equal to seven times the area of the US"  -- ARGH!  Nobody is suggesting that _all_ of our energy needs would be replaced by ethanol, much less corn ethanol"

If we were to rely on photovoltaics for all of the world's (non-transportation) energy needs, assuming 10% efficient solar cells, we would require an area of roughly 200,000 square miles, or roughly 5% of the USA landmass.  It's big, but it's reasonable.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

The majority of the nutrients are in foliage, which is generally not collected.  The reason it is necessary to collect forest debris and thin forests is that fire suppression prevents the primary mode of natural clean up (small fires).  This leads to over-dense forests with insufficient light penetration and also lets the fuel load increase to a point where catastrophic fires can spread and decimate the (otherwise resistant) mature trees and organisms.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

here's an idea for ya... how about using the waste heat of a nuclear power plant to run your ethanol distillery, instead of making such big cooling towers?

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

ivymike,

Brilliant suggestion.

Nuclear (sorry george thats Nucular) technology has come a long way since the current batch of plants were put up. Even Australia, traditionally Nuclear free, is looking at the option of building some.

csd

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

"If we were to rely on photovoltaics for all of the world's (non-transportation) energy needs, assuming 10% efficient solar cells, we would require an area of roughly 200,000 square miles, or roughly 5% of the USA landmass.  It's big, but it's reasonable."

No arguement from me there.

But photovoltaics don't work well for transportation.  And there aren't any efficient methods to store excess electrical power in a portable, energy-dense fuel.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

btrueblood,

I was trying to agree with you.  Ethanol doesn't have to take care of all our energy needs, just our transportation fuel needs.  Combined that with good farming practices and higher efficiency vehicles (and smarter use of those vehicles) ethanol may very well be able to meet our needs without consuming all of our farmland.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

BPJ, and I agree right back.  Not trying to be argumentative here, I really would like to see some discussion of alternate fuel/energy storage systems for vehicles.  Is a natural gas to octane conversion plant competitive (with ethanol) at todays prices?  Can lithium cells compete with fuels?

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Er,
if we do away with mineral oil for fuel, we can also say goodbye to plastics and if the planet has a hard time to lose its dependence on petrol/gasoline, just think how hard it would be to get by without plastics.

Oh, It's OK, worry not, we just synthesise the feed stocks from our bio-fuels.....ironic, nes pas? But just think what doesn't use plastics today/
But heh, that's just another competing force for our bio-fuels. At least we can look forward to an end of persecuting fat people, there won't be enough food for people to over-indulge, not with rationing coming in and countries that now exercise population control insisting the rest of us do too just as we insist they stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere (they may be more right than the AGW people that it is population that is the problem not anthropogenic global warming).

But I think CD72 has the right answer. Nuclear (better yet, fusion) power.
In fact, if we think about it the paranoids amongst us who turned anti-nuclear into a religion and have left us far more dependent on fossil fuels than we ought otherwise to have been.

The UK is now poised to have no nuclear power just when we have the end of North Sea Oil and Gas, (at the moment some are down through faults in the external systems and some are down for maintenance. Some and some means nearly all because unlike France, we bowed to the anti-nuclear campaigners and now will be hostage to who ever has the oil fields, the palm forests, the sugar cane plantations or whoever. It is said that even if the UK decides to invest in nuclear it will take 50 years to make an impression. But heh, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl etc. Engineers have not moved beyond that have they? ...

Not exploiting nuclear due to the Frankenstein complex fostered on the population, means we have used fossil fuels for all power generation whereas, what Bruno suggest for ethanol, should have been true for crude oil... transportation only.
We wouldn't have an AGW anti-CO2 religion (top add to anti-nuclear), we wouldn't be forever worrying about running out of oil (we can put that off for a few more years) and we could be using bio-fuels as part of a balanced fuel/plastics production plan. As it is we may be forced into total dependence on bio-fuels whether we like it or not.

And food... Soylent Green anyone?
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

BrunoPuntzJones and others, neither the author nor myself was suggesting replacing all the US energy needs with corn-based ethanol, I just used that statement from the book because it was convenient, another way of saying I was too lazy last night to do the arithmetic:)

Well tonight I'm not. Using figures from the Energy Information Agency "Annual Energy Outlook 2002" the US used 103 EJ (103 x 10^18 J) of energy per year, 27.9% for transportation. At a year-round, round the clock average that figures to just under 1 TW per year (0.92*10^12 J/s). At the author's figure of 0.047 W/m^2 net (again a year-round, round the clock average) for ethanol from corn and a US "land only" area of 9.162*10^6 km^2, it only uses about 2.4 times the US land area for transportation energy.

What to do?

Regards,

Mike

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

So far as pV being no good for transportation, I can't help feeling that that is not true for a significant proportion of transport. Electric railways could at least perform long distance haulage, and of course some commuter transport, and, if push comes to shove, electric cars and buses may make some inroads.

In my opinion the really tricky ones are aircraft, tractors, and trucks.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Rail and trains, the most economical expenditure of fuel per pound mile.  The North American rail system isn't much better than Lower Bulgaria, and in fact, I'd probably give the nod to Lower Bulgaria due to the ability to get from city to city, downtown to downtown, by walking and taking a train.  North America is in lust with the car and highway culture, and when fossil fuels become scarce and expensive enough to be used for "essential" products like your plastics and other products, then the happy motoring public will have to look towards other ways of getting around.  I wonder why Warren Buffet is making large investments in railways these days?

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Hmmmm.  When beer is made, what happens to the grain when the fermentation is finished? It should be higher in protein as a percentage of mass than the un-malted grain, right? Does that mean that the grain can be now used as a high(er) protein food stuff? (for Humans?) Truely, does the process of making ethanol commercially harm the grain in some way that would make it unfit for human consumption?

In the process of converting cellulose to ethanol is there a residue and if there is can it be burned to assist in the production of the ethanol?

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

rjeffery:  yes, the brewer's mash from corn ethanol production is used to feed CATTLE which are used to feed humans, and their dogs and cats etc.  Some new ethanol units are being co-located with huge beef feedlot operations for this reason.  Forgetting about the energy benefit of the byproducts is how people end up calculating that grain-derived ethanol is fossil fuel replacement negative rather than modestly positive.  Mind you, eating animals is incredibly energy-inefficient relative to eating their feed grains!  The true dyed-in-the-hemp greenies are vegetarians for this reason amongst others...

But what you don't get back is the ENORMOUS energy it takes to distill and then de-hydrate a weak ethanol solution in fermenation broth to produce an ethanol stream dry enough for fuels use.  This energy is WASTED and it's gone forever, regardless what you burn to produce it.

Sure, you could burn the lignin and other crap that's left over after you've made as much sugar from the cellulose as you can- but the same problem is there- this material is now saturated with water and needs to be dried before it's burned, resulting in yet more energy wasted.  And your product is still ethanol in dilute solution in water- yet more energy wasted.  Burning the feedstock outright eliminates this energy waste entirely.

If you believe the stat given earlier, transportation is only ~28% of US energy use.  Why then do we try to jam every other kind of fuel into something we can dump into our gastanks, throwing away half its energy content or more in the process, when it could be used to replace the remaining 72% of our energy needs instead with ZERO losses?  Is this good engineering?  Is it good public policy?  And isn't the market that rewards such behaviour entirely screwed up?

There ultimately is only one solution to this problem:  fuels need to be taxed to make them expensive enough that people will find it worthwhile to conserve them.  Even at $100/barrel, oil prices in North America are not sufficient deterrent from excessive consumption.  Even if the tax revenue is "wasted" on schools and hospitals and the like rather than being used to fund energy efficiency initiatives and public transit etc., it will still influence the market in the correct direction.  Market forces will then permit EXISTING technologies to help people wean themselves from their fuels addiction.  People's behaviours and expectations and purchasing decisions will change based on the new reality.  The market will reward development of alternative energy technologies that are truly source energy efficient, rather than those which have the right political backing and public relations hype associated with them.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Moltenmetal,

Bravo, A high five for that one.

It is about time that modern economies take into account the true cost of any given resource, not just the monetary cost. The health of the population and the environment needs to be taken into account in any cost comparison between fuels.

This cost to society needs to be reflected by taxes on the consumption.

csd

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Moltenmetal,
That's my argument--motor fuels are outrageously cheep and the US needs a real energy policy that raises the price high enough to be a driver in changing behaviour.  A major side benefit of this is that the trade deficit with the Middle East becomes less of a blood letting than it is today.

Yeah, there will be real short-term hardships.  The cost of everything will go up.  People stuck with gas guzzler vehicles will not be able to sell them.  Maybe local governments would be forced to develop/improve mass transit.

But this is just a pipe dream.  If the elected idiots had started working a real energy policy in 1974 (with the Arab Oil Embargo) and increased the fuel taxes in increments then we would have fuel prices at least 2-3 times today's rates and a vastly different energy use profile.  Today the problem is so broken that the politician who can fix it doesn't exist.  It will require something awful like a supertanker sunk in the Straight of Hormuz that shuts down the Persion Gulf of a few months.

David

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Shortsightedness,

The typical American voter is so anti-tax that any raising of taxes is political suicide.

csd

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Greg, pV = photovoltaics?  I don't disagree about electric trains, and possibly short-distance commuter cars with decent batteries...but the Big 5 keep backing away from lithium-ion storage cells, and other candidates are still too heavy?  Here in rainland, pV won't get us very far, although it's still a possibility for fixed sources, if prices drop a bit more (at least relative to other sources).  It may get there, someday.

molten, "Why then do we try to jam every other kind of fuel into something we can dump into our gastanks, throwing away half its energy content or more in the process, when it could be used to replace the remaining 72% of our energy needs instead with ZERO losses?"

Uh, zero losses?  How are you going to convert biomass to energy (presumably electric) at zero loss?  Or even at less than 50% loss?  Or do you mean replace cornfields with photovoltaic power fields?

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

"The typical American voter is so anti-tax that any raising of taxes is political suicide."

True.  I'd rather have you, or moltenmetal, or jmw, pay for my fuel than me.  If the US economy keeps on the way it's going, moltenmetal's higher cost for oil solution will happen on its own anyway.

I think I'll go buy a horse, and invest in a buggy whip factory.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

zdas04, we in the US have had a "real" energy policy since way back before the embargo years, its called "cheap oil". Not everybody agrees with the policy though. I have said for years that cheap oil is the main barrier to alternative enegy.

csd72, you think raising taxes is political suicide, try raising gas prices. Why do you suppose the politicans investigate the oil companies for "price gouging" every time gas goes up? That way they can be seen to be doing something for Mr. Average American, but they haven't made it stick yet, and I doubt they ever will. Not really in their interest.

Frankly, the only thing I have against the "oil economy" it that these days we have to buy it all from people that hate us.

Regards,

Mike

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

I guess by "real" I mean "an explicitly stated" energy policy that moves the country toward a desirable and clearly defined goal.  Won't happen.  We'll have cheep oil until we have no oil, then Congress will jump into high gear to find someone to blame.  By then the railroads will be in total disrepair, no one will live close enough to their job to be able to commute, and it will get hungry in the cities.

I'm going to go consume some grain in the form of beer.

David

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Moltenmetal - I need time to figure out how many cows to place around a 100 million gallon per year ethanol plant to eat the mash. Then multiply that by 300 pounds of methane per cow. But fortunately there are ways to cut down all that cow belching. And if the cows were just moved in from somewhere else there could be a methane credit.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

SnTman,

Oil is only cheap in terms of monetary price, the true cost of oil is far greater.

I was referring to taxes on gasoline which obviously would raise gas prices.

csd

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

csd72, agreed, so is the cost of many other things as well.
If only there were some way to get it all out in the open.

zdas04, don't want to ruin your day, but I just read an article that says BEER PRICES are going to go up because of...ETHANOL. This is just intolerable:)

Regards,

Mike

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Luckily, I'm at the stage of life where I don't look at beer prices--the price isn't going to change my behaviour and knowing what it is is depressing.

David

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

btrueblood:  I know that heat engines waste energy.  But when you convert one type of FUEL to another type of FUEL before you put it into your heat engine, you've WASTED  energy on the fuel conversion process.  

Until our stationary uses for bulk fuels are satisfied (i.e such as for making electricity and space heating for cities), there is basically no point in chasing transportation fuels with these renewable fuel-conversion alternatives.  The automobile has arisen around the use of gasoline and diesel for a reason!  The fuels have an amazing energy density per unit mass and most importantly per unit volume etc.- they're ideal for portable power applications.  

If you're truly interested in improving the energy efficiency of transportation in general, the very best thing to do is to get the hundreds of thousands of single vehicle car trips daily from the outskirts of cities into the downtown core and vice versa out of their SUVs and onto public transit.  You can power the subways and light rail transit systems using renewable sources of electricity.  There's no easy technological fix to this problem, but there is a MARKET fix to it:  make fuels expensive enough and people will find it worthwhile to conserve them.  Don't do that and it's all just more hot air.

owg:  if you're feeding the cattle grain anyway, what difference does it make whether you're feeding them grain or feeding them what's left over after you've made ethanol from the grain?  The methane issues etc. are the same either way unless the beef consumption is somehow increased by what people put in their gastanks.  If you're worried about the implications of cattle farming on greenhouse gas emissions, then you're after beef eaters, not ethanol plants!

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

"Until our stationary uses for bulk fuels are satisfied (i.e such as for making electricity and space heating for cities), there is basically no point in chasing transportation fuels with these renewable fuel-conversion alternatives. "

While I tend to have leanings in your direction, though not as extreme, I think you're wrong this time.

From what is generally regarded as an 'environmental' point of view you are likely correct.

However, there are other reasons for reducing oil use.  Be it just balance of payments issues or the 'oil war' issue etc.  These reasons for reducing oil use are largely independant of direct environmental concerns.

One of the largest and most obvious uses of oil is as vehicle fuel...

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

"when you convert one type of FUEL to another type of FUEL before you put it into your heat engine, you've WASTED  energy on the fuel conversion process."

That is not a given.  It depends on how efficiently you can convert the fuels.  Go buy a car capable of running on corn, or heck, even corn syrup.  Tell me what the efficiency of that engine is.  Convert electricity to what?  If it's more efficient to use plant sugar, do so, if battery technology improves another close order of magnitude, it may compete or even win.  Do you propose to invest in neither?

Yes, mass transit is a solution to city transport.  But it doesn't help farmers plough their fields, or trucks haul the food to markets, or those of us who live in vast western spaces get around; you can't build trains everywhere, and we will always have a need for fuels.  They're voting on a mass transit system here in my neighborhood.  I say "they" because I apparently live just outside the boundary line -- I'll still pay the taxes, since the stores are inside the line, but I won't get a voice in it.  Most of the money is going to be spent on road improvements, and some of it for a light rail going to places that an existing diesel-electric system is already serving, at lower projected costs than the new system.  So we'll spend a few 100 million for a system that gets fewer drivers off the road, and probably nets out worse in greenhouse emissions, but hey it's green!

Again, I agree with you that increasing fuel costs will teach us to conserve better, and make wiser decisions re vehicles, trips, fuels used.  I'd even pay a higher tax if applied across (my) country.  I'd like it better if it only applied to your country and everyone elses'.  So would you.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

The laws of thermodynamics would say that the act of extracting a chemical from a substance requires energy input.  The number may be small, but it can't be zero.  In my youth as a true hillbilly, I saw exactly how much energy input was required to convert a bushel of corn to a form of ethanol that the USDA would say was not fit for human consumption and it is a bunch of energy (back then in the form of firewood).

If you do a rigorous energy balance on the energy input to the distillation process vs. the energy that can be extracted from the ethanol you'll find that the net is less than the energy that could have been extracted from the original feedstock by burning it directly.  The only reason for the distillation is to put the stored energy into a more compact and transportable form that can be used in more processes.  

Energy Out = Energy in + Energy used + Energy wasted

Minimizing the "wasted" term is the goal of most fluids problems, but you never get it to zero.

David

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Of course, we are talking about first generation bio-fuels.
Second Generation bio-fuels will be genetically engineered and that is a whole new ball game.... and I don't think I want to play. Not yet.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Quote:

Second Generation bio-fuels will be genetically engineered

Actually, it seems the thread keeps drifing back to current generation ethanol, which is almost exclusively from genetically engineered corn and sugar cane.  

As the OP is suggesting, the second generation may well be cellulosic ethanol, which would not necessarily be any more genetically engineered than the current generation (with the exception of the yeast/organism used in the fermentation).

With regard to use of biofuel for stationary power generation, I think we have a much wider set of "green" possibilities for stationary power generation than for transportation (nuclear, wind, solar, etc.), so some focus on mobile power is necessary for a balanced energy policy.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Here are some interesting numbers

Power plants are 30-50 percent efficient
Transmission is about 92% efficient
Electric Motors are 90%+ efficient

40%*92%*90%= 34% efficient in turning a plant joule into mechanical energy

ethanol production gets you about 30%
gasoline engines are about 20% efficient

130%*20% = 26%

So, with electicity it is about in the same ball park or better in terms of efficiency. You though don't have to create all the infrastructure you do with ethanol and you don't have to deal with rising cost of food.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Try here:
http://www.oilandgasonline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=d1bdeae9-0c56-4511-a0dc-bc68bfa785e0

I rather think that exchanging energy dependence on middle east oil for far east palm oil isn't going to help the situation so it must be an objective to become energy self-sufficient.

Genetic engineering will most certainly be directed not just at enhanced oil production but acclimatising the crops to particular environments.

There is another aspect to this, the control of genetically engineered crops.
We have already seen the moral debate over the impact of genetically engineered food crops on third world producers and this might seem an opportunity to intensify the debate.
This is not going to be a simple solution and I may well further disadvantage economies already suffering a range of other barriers to global markets.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

jeebusmn:  your order of magnitude calculation shows a 30% energy waste in converting the fuel, even if that 30% efficiency for ethanol conversion is correct (seems way high to me given the dehydration energy requirement).  If you're talking about burning the whole corn plant- stover, cobs and all- not just the dried kernels- your calculation looks a fair bit different!  Ain't no way that you'd be able to get 30% of the fuel value of the whole corn plant into product ethanol even with best imaginable cellulose ethanol production technology.  Use a better source plant like switchgrass (since you no longer need starch) and the efficiency would go higher still.

The focus on replacing gasoline by any means possible except the obvious (conservation!) is a political one, not one that makes engineering or environmental sense. Sure, I'll admit as a non-US resident that it's a reasonable preoccupation of the US:  I'd hate to see as much of my treasury ending up in the hands of the Saudis and others as yours does, and I'd want to do whatever I could to eliminate that.  But the elephant in the middle of the room is that the obvious solution to the US dependance on Middle East oil is to stop wasting so damned much of it on the personal vehicle!  If you completely eliminate city commuter trips with one person to a huge 6+ person vehicle, I bet there'd be enough continental North American oil (and natural gas) to fuel the tractors and the transport trucks etc. (those that you couldn't replace with electric trains!).  

Let's face reality:  the car is the source of the gasoline problem, and replacing gasoline with ethanol is NOT the solution.  It's agricultural subsidy in the guise of energy policy.  Not that the farmers aren't deserving of a break from the ridiculously low grain prices they've had for the past three decades- but I'd rather they get that break for producing food to feed the world rather than fuel to stuff into the tank of some dolt's Escalade!

As to who must pay for the alternatives, the answer is simple: we all must.  The only question is how we'll generate the revenue.  Since conservation is the desired end result, the thing that makes the best sense is a consumption tax on the FUEL and the ROADS, not on the transit system that will replace them.  The more you waste, the more you pay.  If the tax is used DIRECTLY to fund the alternatives, you get the social/behavioural change the planet needs by the action of market forces.  Ignore the market and let politics dictate and focus on the technology only and you WILL get failure.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

moltenmetal,
Talk about quotable quotes:

Quote:

It's agricultural subsidy in the guise of energy policy

and

Quote:

Ignore the market and let politics dictate and focus on the technology only and you WILL get failure

Thanks for enlightening our morning.

David

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Thomas Friedman, Foreign Affairs Columnist for the New York Times on CNN recently: "Ethanol from corn is welfare for farmers."

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Molten,

great read for the morning! within the engineering community, people are assumed to have a relatively higher then average understanding of cars.  

The problem is that the majority of people (out side this forum) that may not have technical aptitude are brain washed by various propaganda schemes into thinking they need an ungodly large vehicle for child safety, the adventure within, bling bling, other BS...

Currently many of the major highways (in my region) charge tolls to pay for the usage, the problem is that even with >$3 gas prices and thruway tolls, in many cases its still less expensive to drive then take a bus (which runs once or twice a day), flying and trains are not even an option unless your flying to major areas and have the money to do so.  Until reasonable options are available, people almost have to drive.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

A star for you moltenmetal very succinctly put.

Gymmeh,

$3 is still too low, In Australia it is currently about $4US a gallon, and in the UK I think it is about $5 to $6. Australian salaries are generally less than the US, and UK salaries are generally about the same.

Perhaps if a tax was imposed to increase these prices there could also be a refund policy for essential commercial use.

csd

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

In $US it's more like $8+ these days in the UK.  But even that's not enough to stop the 4x4 school run with one kid and one mum in a huge car stuck in the congestion of other mums doing the same.

Personally I bicycled into the local town today for lunch and used an old bus ticket for a bookmark as I read my book.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Yes, I agree with you all! I have driven around Europe...and paid the price and totally agree it could be worse in the US...

SomptingGuy, hit the nail on the head..."mums" driving around with one kid... because their kid cant walk/bike two blocks to school.  Brain washed "soccer moms" are the worst!

soccer mom = 30-40yr old women with 4x4 SUV that does not understand driving, which uses the vehicle for transportation of their "1.5" kids around the block while talking on a cell phone (usually angry).  

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

They have decided to buy the vehicle in which they can do the most damage!

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Many people justify the large vehicle by saying they are safer in a crash, and eschew small vehicles because they think in a collision with a large 4x4/SUV they'll come of a lot worse.  Given some of Newton’s laws of motion one suspects they may have a point.

There are rules/tests about how 'safe' a vehicle must be in a collision.  If I understand correctly these concentrate on protecting the inhabitants of the vehicle.  There are also some rules for protecting Pedestrians if they get hit by that vehicle as I recall.

However, are there any rules for how much damage a vehicle can do to another vehicle in a collision?  

Would introducing such rules be of benefit in increasing the (perceived) safety of small vehicles?

For instance a rule along the lines of "A large SUV should not do significantly more damage to a Super Mini/Sub compact in a given crash scenario than a typical mid size car would".  Obviously, they'd need a lot more definition but hopefully you see my principle.

Just an idea, I'm wondering if more knowledgeable folks can shoot down.

Then we could have small cars burning the mystical/magical cellulose ethanol and save the planet!

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

That would eliminate trucks altogether!

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

No, they'd just have to drive around with massive shock absorbing fendors/bumperswinky smile.

Maybe covered in bubble wrap like that car commercial.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

I just filled up in the UK; $2.10 a litre.
In the UK motorist pays more than enough tax to pay for the entire road system and probably one other country's as well.
However, we still have bridge tolls and road tolls (Birmingham M6 toll which is damned pricey).
Of course, tolls are an excellent way to top up funding and provide employment if you pay less tax on your fuel. In the UK it is supposed to be about road use and they are contemplating satellite tolling all vehicles for all roads on a pay as you go scheme.  
This proved to be the single biggest (by a long long way) no no as voted by the public on No 10's web site referenda (but Tony said he's going ahead anyway, and I guess that goes for Gordon as well).
OK, what has this to do with environment? Great, you'll say. That will encourage people to use their cars less.
Wrong.
If a punitive toll were imposed it would. Punitive tolls are great for everyone else to pay but not for you personally and it could prove, as already suggested, a great voter turn off. It is always the other guy that is the polluter, bad driver, etc.
Most importantly, governments are usually great judges of how high they can pitch charges without turning off users.
Gordon Brown inflated taxes on petrol, booze and cigs to the point where stealing fuel became almost epidemic, cigarette smuggling replaced dope smuggling as more profitable and less penalised, indeed, almost acknowledged by the populace as a sort of Robin Hood activity.
This is one outcome, and what it resulted in was an extra 1000 customs and excise staff. But would he or any politico  actually increase taxation to the point where it did discourage use and, as a consequence, see a drop in tax revenue? No. These guys are tax junkies. They will never tax so much as to reduce tax revenue and will invest in measures to sustain that revenue.
Lastly, taxation is elitest when applied thus. The people who are most affected are the poorest and they may depend to a far greater extent on their cars, not 4x4s but old wrecks which get fuel but not insurance and not proper maintenance. Higher taxes just reduces the maintenance money spent. We get more uninsured drivers driving less safe vehicles.
Let's face it there is no simpe,l solution and anyone applying simple solutions is guaranteeing failure and messy failure at that.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21670502/

Sorry if anyone already posted it.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

good one!

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Yeah, taxes are only popular if they affect people other than us.  The corrolory is that the only time we care about the poor is when they can be used as an excuse to avoid a tax we'd have to pay ourselves!

You don't fix poverty by subsidizing fuels any more than you can fix hunger by subsidizing food.  Rather, you put money into the hands of the poor, or better still, take less of it away in the form of income taxes and claw-backs of the social program money we already give them.  Then we let them decide what's more important:  food on the table and time spent on (properly funded) public transit, or gas and road tolls for their wreck.

Like it or not, the higher fuel prices (due entirely to taxes) in the UK and Europe DO have an effect on consumption:  their automobile fleets are something like 25% more fuel efficient than those in the US.  There's also a great deal more and properly serviced and funded public transit alternatives in Europe.  Contrary to popular belief, that's not ALL the result of higher population density.

Holding out hope of the great technological fix gets us nowhere.  It merely gives politicians an excuse to do nothing.  THAT'S why we, as engineers, need to de-bunk this crap when we come across it.  Without the market forces to drive improvements in energy efficiency and consumption taxes to fund the alternatives, there will be no reason to buy hybrid cars, upgrade appliances or homes etc., and no viable alternative to the car for most people.  We'll merely get more of the same.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

moltenmetal,

I am sure that the Ford Focus that I have in the US is not as fuel efficient as those in the UK.

They are cheaper though.

csd

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

I blame all the civil engineers that work on those out of town malls (including those for grocery stores) that you have to drive too.winky smile

Or you can spend all day on the bus, sometimes one leg of the journey is even subsidized by the mall.

Then again the poor have nothing better to do so we'll let them sit on the bus all day, it's their fault for not making more money.

While it would be somewhat painful for me now, I'm not fundamentally opposed to increasing taxes on gas so long as there was some hope it was going to be spent on worthwhile stuff, preferably transport related.  I got used to it in the UK.

However, I do have concerns for the less well off, not just so I can avoid taxes.  The infrastructure has been built up around cars, some are now deciding cars are bad.

I grew  up without a car until the late 80s, we walked, cycled & when necessary trained or bussed everywhere.  Trouble is the infrastructure got set up for having cars and it got harder and harder to do, and the bus & train got expensive.  So we finally got a car.

I think it would take a lot of time to get back to a situation where most people can do with out a car.  I am a beliiver/supporter of public transport but it doesn't answer all the questions.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

I just bought a really nice bike for $20...to had to the three I already have smile

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

If governments had even a chance to be as efficient with funds as vehicles are with fuel consumption, I might support tax increases for alternative fuel research/infrastructure funding.  Decent charitable organizations can at least give you what percentage of your contribution actually makes it past the administrative expenses.  Governments have a habit of appropriating funds for uses other than originally intended.

For me it is good to see alternatives coming into the marketplace not necessarily as a result of governmental initiatives.  As the price of petroleum rises, perhaps some entreprenurial types will be able to bring additional alternatives successfully into the marketplace.  In the US it will be quite a challenge as much of the culture and infrastructure is based around the automobile as primary transport.

Regards,

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

PSE, I an very interested to see what will happen in the US when the price of gas at the pump actually cuts into the lives of the "middle class American". When driving becomes a have or have not, ultimately separating people into classes.

I wonder if anyone from the Gov't is reading the thread, there are a lot of good educated solutions to the energy problems.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

The European driving experience shows you what will happen when gas reaches 10 dollars per gallon

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

The cost of running a new car is so dominated by financing that rational people will still buy whatever suits them, by and large.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Greg:  not quite true, as evident from the significantly greater fuel efficiency of the European auto fleet compared to the North American one.  But you're absolutely right that even in Europe, the price of fuel isn't high enough to become the #1 determinant in regard to what sort of vehicle a person chooses.

In North America, there's virtually no motivation to buy more fuel efficient vehicles based on market forces.  The smaller vehicles barely consume their original capital cost in fuel over their entire useable lifetime.  That needs to change or we will get more of the same.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

I've said it before here that the ONLY reason North Americans would buy a fuel efficient vehicle it to minimise the minutes spent freezing on the forecourts when refuelling during winter times.  Cost is not a problem; comfort is.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Gymmeh,

I have already been considering the impact fuel prices have on my lifestyle.  From less vacation travel to changing the hours I work so that my commute is less stop and go.  My schedule is not compatible enough to carpool with others living nearby.  One or two days a week is not fair to them.  Am I in danger of not being able to afford to drive, not in the forseeable future.  I'd contemplate a motorcycle but commuting around the city would at times be tantamount to attempting suicide.

SomptingGuy,

You might have something there.  Keep putting smaller tanks in vehicles forcing people to stop to refuel more often.  They might get tired of that and demand/look at more efficient vehicles.

Regards,

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

SomptingGuy, the problem is people do the opposite where I live, they get the biggest SUV they can find in the winter, because its "safe" in winter driving conditions. From my experience, the safest part of winter driving is good tires and common sense. ex: don’t drive 70mph w/ 2inch of snow on the road (thats not a joke).

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

PSE, I have also even watched my budget for gas and changed my life around it.

I know the prices have changed people, but what will be intersting is when people actually cant afford to drive at all, having 2 cars becomes a luxury!  Driving is such a part of US culture that when this effects the middle class (majority of people). I am sure their will be alot of changes!

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Sompting guy,
comfort may be a factor for the driver but for the gas station it is turn-around times.
Modern gas pumps deliver fuel faster and all the companies that make this equipment are geared up to introducing new technologies that will speed up filling up cars significantly.
Fatser turnarounds is just one way to increase revenues for gas stations. In the Uk of the £1.02 per litre perhaps 2p is the gas stations profit, 25P the oil companies. Most of the rest is tax.
In the UK we are promised that truckers will stage another go slow. They will thus attempt to demonstrate their annoyance to the government. In the UK, government hasn't had to worry about the peasants revolting since the corn riots, I'd guess. The truckers are about the only exception. The last time they did this was to protest a tax rise. The chancellor postponed the rise until they'd gone home for their teas. He learned this from the French approach to disturbances (they have a lot to teach the Brits about starting a protest and ending one).

It would be a mistake to think that tax increases will work and will forever be accepted. At the moment much of the difference increased tax makes in expenditure for the poorer elements is at the expense of other things like car maintenance and insurance. When I was  lad not having insurance was unheard of. Today it is fairly common. So too is driving a car when uninsured and without a tax disc. The goevernment is very strong on computers (despite the huge problems they have with them) so they think that by computerising everything they have closed the door on these activities. So sure, if you have a car in the system with you as the registered keeper and it is insured and taxed and has a valid MOT, all that info is on the system. Let one or the other lapse and you get a penalty notice through the post.
Change addresses, don't get on the system and you are free and clear.
So there is a limit approaching when the real extent of the problem will become apparent.

High fuel tax, unilaterally applied means UK businesses operate at a disadvantage to those in other countries.

Any system has to be fair, equable and uniform. It has to produce results.
Taxation disadvantages the poor. This highlights the rich/poor divide unnecessarily and leads to more social unrest.

Perhaps a better system would be to introduce some form of rationing.

However, any system that leaves any sizeable portion of the population with an unsatisfied demand will ultimately lead to that demand being satisfied via a black market. Whatever the system adopted the law abiding will suffer and the rest will evade.
It already happens in the Uk that fuel thefts are on the increase. Farms are targeted for their red diesel (is it still red?. Fuel smuggling is possible even if perhaps not so easy as cigarette smuggling.

All in all many of the measures are actually bad for society even if they are well intentioned for the environment.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

rather than convert your 10,000 lb SUV to burn lawn clippings, it might be easier and smarter to just trade in the SUV.

The US fleet averge fuel economy is only 19.8 mpg . Today, in Europe, you can buy a Toyota Yaris diesel that gets 75 mpg highway. For city drivers, the hybrids have similar high MPG city ratings. Thats better than a 3:1 reduction in fuel consumption, without the benefit of  carpooling, bus riding, or telecommuting.  You may have some trouble towing the 24 ft 350 HP boat with the Yaris, though.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

JMW, rationing - I believe I raised that point in a previous thread and no one really caught on.  I did see an article about 'carbon rationing' a while back.  Basically everyone got a certain allotment, I think there may have been trading if you had excess and I can't remember if they literally cut you off if you exceeded it or if you paid more tax, I suspect the latter.

davefitz, the US has slightly different emissions laws than europe.  Many of the most efficient small European/Japanese cars don't meet them, especially for particulates with diesal.

if I recall correctly often nominally the same model in the US has slightly lower mpg, I assume from adjustments made to meed emissions standards.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

The new diesel technology, which makes use of ultra low 15 ppm sulphur diesel, can meet the particulate requirements, but they require either a rich/lean  burnoff of catalyst deposits or urea additive to a scr type catalyst. At least in the prototype stage.

If push came to shove and we had to reduce fuel consumption ( due to loss of access to mideast oil) the gov't waiver for particulates would be just a signature away.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

KENAT, I think there are also different additives in the fuel which make in burn differently, and different octane requirements.  

There are no diesel cars allowed in my state at this time…what is better 30mpg gas and low admission, or 55/75mpg diesel and high sulfides?  

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

starting in 2007, the US diesel rules mandate less than 15 ppm sulphur in on-the -road diesel. Gasoline is 30 ppm sulphur, so you would actually get less sulphur emissions with modern diesel than with gasoline. ( prior to 2007, diesel was 500 ppm sulphur).

The economic problem with allowing everyone to drive a 75 mpg diesel car is that there would be a 66% reduction in highway fuel use taxes, which throws a monkey wrench in the way the highways are financed.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

But dave, you simply increase the tax per gallon to make up the difference, plus this encourages people to use the more efficient vehicles and everyones a winner, right?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

large diesel rig owners are already howling about fuel taxes. A rig that gets 6 mpg will be paying 10 times per mile as an economy car. Probably fair insofar as damage to the roadbed for large rigs at 10 tons per axle ( which determines road damage and mainteneance costs), but it might not be fair as far as balancing road access and initial road costs go.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

Davefitz,

Thats another reason why fuel taxes should increase.

RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion

You know, I cannot place all the blame on the Consumer. I WANT to find a reasonably priced high MPG car that you can stand to be in for more than an hour. ( Lets not forget I could traverse Europe faster than I can go lengthwise in my State )

You know what? There isn't any! Oh sure, I could lay out 50K for a Mercedes 320, but I cannot justify that. I could also find a used Jetta TDI that is just a bit too small, or I could buy any one of a cadre of 30 Hwy. MPH cars such as the Impala, but they do poorly in city MPG.

Just why is it we do not have a decent sized either Gasoline, or Diesel car that returns good mileage?

Conventional wisdom says the consumer will not buy it, but if it is not offered for sale, just how do you make such a statement? Just TRY and find a decent TDI Volkswagen and see what you pay for a car that the "consumer will not buy".

I have friends in GM who tire of me screaming at them for a competent, high MPG truck and car, and I have started firing off messages to Chrysler goading them to put the C220 4 cylinder Bluetec/ 6 speed combo together for the Charger.

God forbid that GM would actually bring some of its Diesels over here from Europe.

In the end, for the 2009 MY, Honda will deliver the Diesel Accord, and I will end up owning my first Foreign car...... And the big 3 will decry the "unfair competition"

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources