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
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
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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
So let's just say that this should be a dual purpose fuel and should be safe for drinking and driving!
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
But; ethanol, oil, politics, it is all connected.
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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
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
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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 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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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
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
The typical American voter is so anti-tax that any raising of taxes is political suicide.
csd
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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'm going to go consume some grain in the form of beer.
David
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
David
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. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
http://w
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
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
Talk about quotable quotes:
and
Thanks for enlightening our morning.
David
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
Sorry if anyone already posted it.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
htt
Interesting analysis of US tax breaks/subsidies on ethanol
htt
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
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
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
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
source: http:/
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
Thats another reason why fuel taxes should increase.
RE: Back to cellulose ethanol discussion
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"