U.S. DOE to Invest in Ethanol through Gasification

[JohnWxy]

This involves producing cellulosic ethanol without using enzymatic processes!


http://www.worldfuels.com/TRIAL/MARKETING/Gasification_News/gn_VolX_Issue3__20070315_Print.html

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said on February 28 that it plans to invest $385 million in six biorefineries, three of which produce cellulosic ethanol using a gasification process.


~~
BRI describes the process this way: "The gasification step produces no air emissions. The synthesis gas exits the gasifier at temperatures of up to 2,350°F, and must be cooled to about 98°F before being fed to the microorganisms. This cooling process generates an immense amount of waste heat that can be used to create high temperature steam to drive electric turbines," the company's website said.

The process will normally convert more than 90% of the organic material it receives and the remaining ash is landfilled or could be recycled in products like cement blocks or paving, the company said.

"As the process uses waste products that otherwise would have been placed in landfills and BRI’s plants will generate an excess of electricity beyond their parasitic needs, they can produce liquid and electric energy while consuming zero new BTUs in the process. This makes the current discourse about the energy efficiency of ethanol obsolete," it claims.

[eppur_se_muova]

1. Uh...why? If you're going to use gasification, why not use it ...

to make something with a better energy density than ethanol?

[NNadir]

2. Mostly because people aren't too bright.

They hear what they want to hear.

[razzleberry]

3. you would prefer uranium?

or maybe anti-hydrogen,
or pentaborane?

...................
I fail to understand why people opppose
renewable fuel.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. A hydrocarbon, perchance? Energy density is considerably higher.

It's not opposition to renewable fuel that's the point -- if they're going to make fuel via synthesis gas as an intermediate, they can pick and choose among the possible products. May as well pick the best of those available -- higher energy density means cheaper to transport, burns hotter, etc. Of course there may be other criteria, but EtOH's ONLY real advantage is that it can be made by fermentation. If you're not going to use fermentation, why go with ethanol?

The thing that makes this process renewable is the source of the synthesis gas -- biomass. That doesn't tie it to any particular fuel as the final product.

[razzleberry]

9. what's wrong with DME ?

BTW, ethanol's other advantage is its
extremely high octane rating,
making it very efficient in
purpose built spark-ignition engines

[eppur_se_muova]

10. Nothing, if you can handle gases. But that's another possible choice.

My point was that if they can make whatever fuel they want from syngas, why choose ethanol? Certainly Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of hydrocarbons would give high-octane fuels, essentially gasoline, or its plug-and-play equivalent. And it's easier to transport by pipeline, since it doesn't absorb water.

I *suspect* the emphasis on ethanol was largely politically motivated, and they're probably keeping their options open -- just not listing them all. These guys want to make money like anybody else.

[NNadir]

7. Well uranium is safer.

Uranium provides about 30 exajoules of energy and has killed no one in years.

Ethanol produces less than half an exajoule, and blew 28 sailors to hell not so long ago.

Some other ethanol accidents and explosions tell us what the ethanol future - not that it will really ever come to pass - will hold:

http://www.c4aqe.org/dangers_ethanol_plants/fears_of_ethanol_explosion_force_100_to_leave_their_homes_wichita_eagle_9.01.05.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1033490.htm

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=70452

...and so on.

Ethanol is about as dangerous as gasoline. Gasoline is unacceptably dangerous.

[4dsc]

4. Get your own personal Cellulose Reactor

Personal Cellulose Reactor



Another good read by MR Rapier..

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/10/cellulosic-ethanol-vs-biomass.html

And there you have an example of how technical terminology and buzzwords can be used to confuse people. This is currently happening with cellulosic ethanol, so I thought I would write this essay to talk about the differences between cellulosic ethanol and biomass gasification.

Compared to cellulosic ethanol, there are few technical challenges to solve with biomass gasification. The problems with biomass gasification aren't technical, they are economic. According to the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2006, capital costs are $15,000-20,000 per installed barrel for a conventional oil refinery, $20,000-$30,000 for an ethanol plant, around $40,000 for gas-to-liquids (GTL), around $60,000 for coal-to-liquids, and around $120,000-$140,000 for biomass-to-liquids.

[NickB79]

6. Nice website

I had to scroll past about a dozen coal-pimping articles before I found the ethanol-related one.

[GliderGuider]

8. The home page proudly proclaims:

"WORLDFUELS.COM: The Network for the Refining and Motor Fuels Industries"

Now there's an unbiased source for alternative energy news.