I think you still do not understand the technology. To put it very briefly, the basic slurry is what is projected to cost maybe $15 a barrel. That basic slurry has limited uses, such as for powering turbines in electricity producing plants. There is a new process developed by Texaco, sold by G.E., that uses the slurry in high pressure liquid fed gasifiers to refine the slurry into a product called synthesis gas. This synthesis gas can then be refined by a number of Fischer Tropsch processes to produce automobile gas, diesel, fertilizer, and many other petrochemical products. Silverado's product is a high quality particulate matter that can be shipped dry for economy, then later mixed with water to produce the stable slurry that can either be used directly for electricity generating, or refined into various products such as auto gasoline. It is something like refining crude oil into various products.
Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
How, if at all, does this differ from what the Germans did in WWII to make liquid fuel? Starting with coal to make liquid fuel with the Fischer Tropsch processes is both expensive and makes twice as much CO2 compared to just using oil - how can they call that "environmentally friendly"?
FROM search of wiki (on "Fischer-Tropsch" ):
"... gasification of coal or biomass:
C + H2O → H2 + CO
The energy needed for this endothermic reaction of coal or biomass and steam is usually provided by (exothermic) combustion with air or oxygen. This leads to the following reaction:
2C + O2 → 2CO
The mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen is called synthesis gas or syngas. The resulting hydrocarbon products are refined to produce the desired synthetic fuel.
The carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is generated by partial oxidation of coal and wood-based fuels. The utility of the process is primarily in its role in producing fluid hydrocarbons from a solid feedstock, such as coal or solid carbon-containing wastes of various types.
...
Syntroleum, a publicly traded US company (Nasdaq: SYNM) has produced over 400,000 gallons of diesel and jet fuel from the Fischer-Tropsch process at its demonstration plant near Tulsa, Oklahoma. Syntroleum is working to commercialize its proprietary* Fischer-Tropsch technology via coal-to-liquid plants in the US, China, and Germany,
...
large-scale development of synthetic fuels is the increase in primary energy use and carbon emissions inherent in conversion of gaseous and solid carbon sources to a usable liquid form, assuming the energy used to drive the process comes from burning coal or hydrocarbon fuels. Recent work by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions for coal-based synfuels are nearly twice as high as their petroleum-based equivalent. ... "
-----------------------
*I am sure that Silverado has some minor twist (probably patentable) as Syntroleum no doubt does on the basic Fischer-Tropsch process, but given the long period since it was invented and the essentially unlimited funds and high skills of German WWII chemists, it is very hard to believe they have any thing significantly improving it. - I.e. still a greater contributor to green house gases than just using petroleum for liquid fuel. This is in contrast to sugar cane based alcohol which significantly reduces the GHGs the more it is used to displace oil and is at least "caron neutral" or slightly negative CO2 source as some that was in the air is sequestered in various storage systems (every thing from ocean tankers to your car's fuel tank.) plus the cane stocks and roots plowed into the soil.
If we want to reduce CO2 release to the atmosphere, we need to let green plants of today (not their residue, now coal and oil, safely sequested) be the solar energy we use. All energy is from the stars, if you go back far enough. Releasing the safely stored energy in coal and oil is the problem, not the solution.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T,
You seem to overlook the enviromental pollution caused by sugarcane growing and harvesting. In addition to the NO given off during growing, burning the sugarcane crops to get rid of the leaves before harvesting is very polluting. The cane cutters have many serious lung diseases from the ash and many others suffer because of the ash released into the atmosphere.
Pay attention Billy T. Silverado does not use the Fischer Tropsch process at all. They use hydrothermal treatment of low-rank coals to produce the particles for the slurry. They capture the CO2 that is produced rather than letting it escape into the atmosphere. The product they produce is free of heavy metals and sulfur, and burns cleanly unlike bituminous CWF when it is later used for liquid fuel production in the Fischer Tropsch process. The product produced by Silverado is both cheaper and cleaner than the natural gas or conventional CWF slurry used in most current Fischer Tropsch processes. The greenhouse gasses that are produced during the FT process can be captured, much like Silverado does in their initial processing.
You seem to overlook the enviromental pollution caused by sugarcane growing and harvesting. In addition to the NO given off during growing, burning the sugarcane crops to get rid of the leaves before harvesting is very polluting. The cane cutters have many serious lung diseases from the ash and many others suffer because of the ash released into the atmosphere.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aYPvjBb8QWi8
The new lithium/polymer batteries are very light, but expensive.
OK. how do they "capture" the CO2? and where is the carbon that was once in the low quality coal?
Also how is the heat generated for the "hydrothermal" process?
It would help me undestand if there was at least some indication of the chemical reactions used, together with brief text. For example, something like:
C + O2 + 4N2--> CO2 & heat +4N2
I.e. part of the crushed coal carbon is burnt with oxygen of the air to supply the heat that drives contaminates like sulpher from another part of the crushed coal...
BTW, buring fields is very common in Brazil's agriculture, especially pastures. There are no bug killing freezes, so fire is used. The burning of cane, a one time per year event, is decreasing. Less than half of the fields now, I think, as not done when mechanical havest is done. The company I have a stock interest in, San Martino, has already reached about 85% mechanical harvesting. -It is more economical with machines being amortized. Thus, machines are replacing the cutters. Next year there will be a social problem, but re-training of some for other jobs has started. more machines being used is reason why number of cutter is about same (slightly more) as in last harvest despite much greater increase in the acres in cane. Cities on annual average are dozens of times more polluted than the fields growing cane.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly, and it costs next to nothing to set up to make hempseed oil.
Billy T,
It was all explained at my link, which you obviously didn't read after asking me for specifics of the processing. Here it is again:
http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/ourfuel/process/
Here is a more in-depth explaination as the Silverado fuel is delivered to electric plants for use and for being converted by the Texaco technology into synthetic gas for further refining into auto gasoline and other petrochemical products:
http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/ourfuel/technology/
Billy T,
I have just encountered some website problems at one of my links, although the other seems to work fine. I suppose it is just temporary.
I only learned of this process a short while ago. I would imagine they 'capture' the CO2 by similar methods that it is captured in other industrial processes for later use in enhanced oil recovery or sequestering, wouldn't you? The carbon is in the 'C' in CO2.
It was all explained at my link, which you obviously didn't read after asking me for specifics of the processing. Here it is again:http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/ourfuel/process/
Through the use of energy. I don't think they use open fires by burning sugarcane stalks like they use in producing Brazil's moonshine, though.
Here is a more in-depth explaination as the Silverado fuel is delivered to electric plants for use and for being converted by the Texaco technology into synthetic gas for further refining into auto gasoline and other petrochemical products:
http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/ourfuel/technology/
Billy T,
It has already been explained that this new process with low-rank coals produces a virtually sulpher-free product. The low rank coals themselves have a much lower sulpher content than high rank coals. You keep confusing the new process with what you have read of the old German process on wiki.
I have just encountered some website problems at one of my links, although the other seems to work fine. I suppose it is just temporary.
To 2inqusitive:
neither of the last posts links is working for me just now, but i read the first earlier (or at leas one of them, quite extensively and quoted parts of it in my reply. - I visited at least 5 sub pages, inaddition to the home page, looking for some facts, rather than claims. As I complained before not one chemical formulae to be found, not one line of non vague text explaning the process.
Even you do not seem to know how the carbon removed from the Earth (coal)is sequestered, or where the heat for the "hydrothermic process" comes from. Your answer that it comes from "energy" is at best amusing, but as vague as their "information."
I am not, despite what it may seem, hostile -I only want some specifics, not just claims that this process is "enviromentally freindly" economic, heavy metal free, sulpher free, etc.
I have no reason to believe that low grade coal is more free of contaminates than high grade coal -Do you? if not and the dig it up where do they go? It is "low grade" as it has less carbon per ton - ergo - it has more of some other things per ton, and I doubt that water is the only "other thing."
neither of the last posts links is working for me just now, but i read the first earlier (or at leas one of them, quite extensively and quoted parts of it in my reply. - I visited at least 5 sub pages, inaddition to the home page, looking for some facts, rather than claims. As I complained before not one chemical formulae to be found, not one line of non vague text explaning the process.
Even you do not seem to know how the carbon removed from the Earth (coal)is sequestered, or where the heat for the "hydrothermic process" comes from. Your answer that it comes from "energy" is at best amusing, but as vague as their "information."
I am not, despite what it may seem, hostile -I only want some specifics, not just claims that this process is "enviromentally freindly" economic, heavy metal free, sulpher free, etc.
I have no reason to believe that low grade coal is more free of contaminates than high grade coal -Do you? if not and the dig it up where do they go? It is "low grade" as it has less carbon per ton - ergo - it has more of some other things per ton, and I doubt that water is the only "other thing."
Billy T, it took me about 15 seconds to find the information to dispell your speculation about the sulfur content of some of the low rank coals. This paper is an older one before the current production methods were discovered to eliminate most all the moisture through hydrothermic processing.
Billy T, I thought it should be clear that the energy to heat the slurry can come in many different forms, from burning bio-mass () to using a part of the slurry itself. Remember, they are not using energy to make new energy, but to enhance the removal of the energy already stored in the low rank coals.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/293400-v4U7Zf/webviewable/293400.PDF
Billy T, I thought it should be clear that the energy to heat the slurry can come in many different forms, from burning bio-mass (
) to using a part of the slurry itself. Remember, they are not using energy to make new energy, but to enhance the removal of the energy already stored in the low rank coals.
I never "speculated about sulfer" - I ILLUSTRATED WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION I WAS HOPING TO SEE (a chemical formulae and some related text). In my illustration I mentioned sulpher as that is a common contaminate in most fossel fuels. I only made an illustration as you were being dense - not understanding that I wanted some facts, not claims. I was reduced to illustrating the nature of the facts I sought - I was not giving any. I only was illustrating what they might look like.Billy T, it took me about 15 seconds to find the information to dispell your speculation about the sulfur content of some of the low rank coals. ....Billy T, I thought it should be clear that the energy to heat the slurry can come in many different forms, from burning bio-mass (
I know there are many sources of energy. I have been asking for specifics, complaining that the silverado paper is vague on specifice and long on claims. You are being equally vague, telling me heat comes from energy.
Only solar energy (including wind, water and nuclear energy forms of it) and "tidal" energy do not release CO2. They claim not to release CO2. Are they using any of these non CO2 releasing forms in their "hydrothermal process" ? - I think not.
When I ask for where the heat for the hydroTHERMAL process comes from (with out releasing CO2) it is silly to tell me "energy." You are not so dense that you do not understand what I am questioning in their "enviromentally friendly" claim when I specifically ask where the heat comes from.
If you can not give any of the specifics I am seeking either, then lets drop it. You can blindly accept their claims and I can continue to doubt them, until I have some specific information.
Technically, the "release" of CO2 is not determined by the source. Sources other than the ones you listed *produce* CO2, but whether it's actually released into the atmosphere or not depends on what's done with it after that. It seems clear from the Silverado website that they plan to capture the CO2, not that they don't produce any CO2 in the first place. Whether that is really feasible on a large scale will depend on the development of large scale methods for storing/sequestering the CO2. But there's nothing inherently problematic about the fuel process they're suggesting.
I agree, but would just like to know more specifically as they are making some very attractive claims. I.e. I want to know if there is any reason to believe those claims.
Billy T, Silverado works with the Department of Energy (DOE), has met with energy subcommittees in the US Congress, works with the Univ. of Miss., and already has one demonstration plant operating in Alaska. The demonstration plant they are building in Mississippi is located in a area that has a large concentration of a type coal they can use. What they are doing is also being done worldwide by different companies, including in China and Australia. It is not a scam, but a developing technology that is not yet mature. The demonstration plant they are building in Miss. is to further refine their particular technique and to get a more accurate knowledge of how to price their product before large-scale plants are built. I can give links to meetings and press coverage, but not the specifics of exactly how their plant is to be built. The hydrothermal processing of the low-rank coal is also being done by other companies, but I would assume each company may have their own proprietary technology as to the exact methods they use.
Silverado is not the only company building plants to process synthetic gas in the US, or even in the state of Mississippi. Rentech is planning the construction of a coal-to-liqiuds (CTL) plant to produce clean diesel scheduled to open in 2011. A cut & paste:
https://www.zeusdevelopment.com/secure/images/SGR070101.pdf
Silverado is not the only company building plants to process synthetic gas in the US, or even in the state of Mississippi. Rentech is planning the construction of a coal-to-liqiuds (CTL) plant to produce clean diesel scheduled to open in 2011. A cut & paste:
Here is a link to a .pdf by SYNGAS Refiner, a publication dedicated to "Market and Technology Analysis for Syngas-derived Products from Any Hydrocarbon Source".
https://www.zeusdevelopment.com/secure/images/SGR070101.pdf
Thanks, but I knew that.
I never said it WAS a "scam" and when learned a little about it clearly said it was not:
From my post 238:
From my post 242:
Last edited by a moderator:
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Yet another reason to dispense with corn as a viable crop for ethanol production:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016101454.htm
"When University of Illinois crop scientist Fred Below began growing tropical maize, the form of corn grown in the tropics, he was looking for novel genes for the utilization of nitrogen fertilizer and was hoping to discover information that could be useful to American corn producers.
Now, however, it appears that maize itself may prove to be the ultimate U.S. biofuels crop.
Early research results show that tropical maize, when grown in the Midwest, requires few crop inputs such as nitrogen fertilizer, chiefly because it does not produce any ears. It also is easier for farmers to integrate into their current operations than some other dedicated energy crops because it can be easily rotated with corn or soybeans, and can be planted, cultivated and harvested with the same equipment U.S. farmers already have. Finally, tropical maize stalks are believed to require less processing than corn grain, corn stover, switchgrass, Miscanthus giganteus and the scores of other plants now being studied for biofuel production.
What it does produce, straight from the field with no processing, is 25 percent or more sugar -- mostly sucrose, fructose and glucose.
"Corn is a short-day plant, so when we grow tropical maize here in the Midwest the long summer days delay flowering, which causes the plant to grow very tall and produce few or no ears," says Below. Without ears, these plants concentrate sugars in their stalks, he adds. Those sugars could have a dramatic affect on Midwestern production of ethanol and other biofuels.
According to Below, "Midwestern-grown tropical maize easily grows 14 or 15 feet tall compared to the 7-1/2 feet height that is average for conventional hybrid corn. It is all in these tall stalks," Below explains. "In our early trials, we are finding that these plants build up to a level of 25 percent or higher of sugar in their stalks.
This differs from conventional corn and other crops being grown for biofuels in that the starch found in corn grain and the cellulose in switchgrass, corn stover and other biofuel crops must be treated with enzymes to convert them into sugars that can be then fermented into alcohols such as ethanol.
Storing simple sugars also is more cost-effective for the plant, because it takes a lot of energy to make the complex starches, proteins, and oils present in corn grain. This energy savings per plant could result in more total energy per acre with topical maize, since it produces no grain.
"In terms of biofuel production, tropical maize could be considered the 'Sugarcane of the Midwest',"Below said. "The tropical maize we're growing here at the University of Illinois is very lush, very tall, and very full of sugar."
He added that his early trials also show that tropical maize requires much less nitrogen fertilizer than conventional corn, and that the stalks actually accumulate more sugar when less nitrogen is available. Nitrogen fertilizer is one of major costs of growing corn.
He explained that sugarcane used in Brazil to make ethanol is desirable for the same reason: it produces lots of sugar without a high requirement for nitrogen fertilizer, and this sugar can be fermented to alcohol without the middle steps required by high-starch and cellulosic crops. But sugarcane canít be grown in the Midwest.
The tall stalks of tropical maize are so full of sugar that producers growing it for biofuel production will be able to supply a raw material at least one step closer to being turned into fuel than are ears of corn."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016101454.htm
"When University of Illinois crop scientist Fred Below began growing tropical maize, the form of corn grown in the tropics, he was looking for novel genes for the utilization of nitrogen fertilizer and was hoping to discover information that could be useful to American corn producers.
Now, however, it appears that maize itself may prove to be the ultimate U.S. biofuels crop.
Early research results show that tropical maize, when grown in the Midwest, requires few crop inputs such as nitrogen fertilizer, chiefly because it does not produce any ears. It also is easier for farmers to integrate into their current operations than some other dedicated energy crops because it can be easily rotated with corn or soybeans, and can be planted, cultivated and harvested with the same equipment U.S. farmers already have. Finally, tropical maize stalks are believed to require less processing than corn grain, corn stover, switchgrass, Miscanthus giganteus and the scores of other plants now being studied for biofuel production.
What it does produce, straight from the field with no processing, is 25 percent or more sugar -- mostly sucrose, fructose and glucose.
"Corn is a short-day plant, so when we grow tropical maize here in the Midwest the long summer days delay flowering, which causes the plant to grow very tall and produce few or no ears," says Below. Without ears, these plants concentrate sugars in their stalks, he adds. Those sugars could have a dramatic affect on Midwestern production of ethanol and other biofuels.
According to Below, "Midwestern-grown tropical maize easily grows 14 or 15 feet tall compared to the 7-1/2 feet height that is average for conventional hybrid corn. It is all in these tall stalks," Below explains. "In our early trials, we are finding that these plants build up to a level of 25 percent or higher of sugar in their stalks.
This differs from conventional corn and other crops being grown for biofuels in that the starch found in corn grain and the cellulose in switchgrass, corn stover and other biofuel crops must be treated with enzymes to convert them into sugars that can be then fermented into alcohols such as ethanol.
Storing simple sugars also is more cost-effective for the plant, because it takes a lot of energy to make the complex starches, proteins, and oils present in corn grain. This energy savings per plant could result in more total energy per acre with topical maize, since it produces no grain.
"In terms of biofuel production, tropical maize could be considered the 'Sugarcane of the Midwest',"Below said. "The tropical maize we're growing here at the University of Illinois is very lush, very tall, and very full of sugar."
He added that his early trials also show that tropical maize requires much less nitrogen fertilizer than conventional corn, and that the stalks actually accumulate more sugar when less nitrogen is available. Nitrogen fertilizer is one of major costs of growing corn.
He explained that sugarcane used in Brazil to make ethanol is desirable for the same reason: it produces lots of sugar without a high requirement for nitrogen fertilizer, and this sugar can be fermented to alcohol without the middle steps required by high-starch and cellulosic crops. But sugarcane canít be grown in the Midwest.
The tall stalks of tropical maize are so full of sugar that producers growing it for biofuel production will be able to supply a raw material at least one step closer to being turned into fuel than are ears of corn."
Billy T,
Originally Posted by Billy T
Yes, and that is the focus of Silverado's 'Green Fuel'. Silverado's green fuel is a thick, oily liquid supeficially like crude oil. The green fuel can then easily be refined into synthetic auto gasoline, or any other product that is made from crude oil.
Originally Posted by Billy T
This is not correct, and you are again missing the point. Syntroleum DOES NOT produce diesel and jet fuel from coal, let alone the cheap low-rank coal. They use vegetable oil, fats and grease to make synthetic diesel and jet fuel, something many private citizens do in their back yard. They do not, and do not plan to, make synthetic automoble gasoline. Many diesel engines will run on pure vegetable oil, but pure vegetable oil thickens too much in cold weather. Syntroleum has future plans to convert other bio-mass (not coal) into diesel and jet fuel, which is very similar to diesel.
No, you are incorrect again. Silverado does not use the Fischer-Tropsch process to make their 'green fuel'. The Fischer-Tropsch process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which iron and cobolt are usually used as the catalysts. Silverado uses a hydrothermal 'pressure cooker' (and no catalysts) to cook cheap low-rank coal to produce a thick, oily liquid which can be burned straight in boilers for production of electricity, or can be refined much like crude oil to produce a wide variety of petrochemicals, including fertilizer and automobile gasoline.
From my post 242:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch.
About one page down under the major section titled "USAF Certification" (The 400,000 gallons they have produced is not economical, but now certified for use in USAF jets etc. USAF wants a domestic supply of jet fuel, and as tax payers are picking up the tab, USAF is not too concerned with the economics yet.)
Thus, Don't tell me I am wrong, go correct wiki. (An apoligy might be appropriate, if you can not correct wiki.)
Do you know any more facts?
--------------------
*I often doubt what wiki states.
Your following comments on my text above, is what appear to be "wrong," not the above.
Perhaps not*, but it is a direct quote from wiki, nothing I created. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch.
About one page down under the major section titled "USAF Certification" (The 400,000 gallons they have produced is not economical, but now certified for use in USAF jets etc. USAF wants a domestic supply of jet fuel, and as tax payers are picking up the tab, USAF is not too concerned with the economics yet.)
Thus, Don't tell me I am wrong, go correct wiki. (An apoligy might be appropriate, if you can not correct wiki.)
Thanks, that is some real information, not just claims. If a "presure cooker" it is a sealed system and some of carbon may end up as CO instead of CO2 and be further processed as it is one component of syngas. (other being H2). There process seems to resemble the processing of oil sands, but in a sealed system - that would tend to make me think it is a patch process (open and close the presure chamber) and significantly more expensive than continuous flow processing of oil sands to end up with essentially the same "thick oily liquid" feed stock for refineries etc. (Perhaps the main advantage is it starts with low grad coal (which US has a lot of) instead of oil-tar sands (US also has a lot of them, but I think they are too deep to cheaply dig up.)
Do you know any more facts?
--------------------
*I often doubt what wiki states.
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T,
That 400,000 gallons of fuel was produced from natural gas, using Syntroleum's proprietary Fischer-Tropsch techonology. It is a gas-to-liquid technology (GTL). Wiki made it sound like it was produced by a coal-to-liquid process, which is incorrect. Syntroleum also produces smaller amounts of diesel from fats, etc. They have signed a contract with Tyson Products, which sells processed chicken, pork, etc. for fats for this other Fischer-Tropsch process. These processes only make diesel and jet fuel, not gasoline.
That last sentence in wiki makes it sound as if Syntroleum is already producing diesel from coal. Not true. What they have done is more or less leasing their FT technique to other corporations for future FT coal-to-liquid production. They signed an agreement with Sinopec, a Chinese coporation, to allow Sinopec to use their patented FT technology. Sinopec is planning to build a coal-to-liquid plant in China, using 100% of their own funds, and pay Syntroleum royalties for 5 years, plus Syntroleum is supposed to provide direct help setting up their proprietary Fischer-Tropsch technology. From what I have read, this planned plant will not make synthetic gasoline either, just diesel and jet fuel.
I got my information from Syntroleum's website. Wiki has some errors that you were quoting, which was why I said that was incorrect. Here is a cut & paste from Syntroleum's website, plus I will attempt to clarify some of the misinformation on wiki:
http://www.syntroleum.com/tech_specifications.aspx
That 400,000 gallons of fuel was produced from natural gas, using Syntroleum's proprietary Fischer-Tropsch techonology. It is a gas-to-liquid technology (GTL). Wiki made it sound like it was produced by a coal-to-liquid process, which is incorrect. Syntroleum also produces smaller amounts of diesel from fats, etc. They have signed a contract with Tyson Products, which sells processed chicken, pork, etc. for fats for this other Fischer-Tropsch process. These processes only make diesel and jet fuel, not gasoline.
That last sentence in wiki makes it sound as if Syntroleum is already producing diesel from coal. Not true. What they have done is more or less leasing their FT technique to other corporations for future FT coal-to-liquid production. They signed an agreement with Sinopec, a Chinese coporation, to allow Sinopec to use their patented FT technology. Sinopec is planning to build a coal-to-liquid plant in China, using 100% of their own funds, and pay Syntroleum royalties for 5 years, plus Syntroleum is supposed to provide direct help setting up their proprietary Fischer-Tropsch technology. From what I have read, this planned plant will not make synthetic gasoline either, just diesel and jet fuel.
I am just learning some of the specifics myself. This is new to me also. It is kind of funny how I came across Silverado green fuel to begin with. I had taken my truck to a Goodyear store for some maintenance and was looking through a stack of magazines in the waiting room when I saw the Mississippi Technology Alliance publication with several articles on synthetic fuels. After reading what I could while waiting, I came home and looked up their website and Silverado's website on my computer. So, everything started recently in a tire store. I have since been searching for more information and am trying to separate the facts from the abundant hype concerning anything to do with fuel. I will post more as I learn more, but I can make mistakes too, because of the hype and leading statements from some sources. I do like what I have learned so far about Silverado's process, but I know it will be several years before large-scale production begins, assuming they don't run into unanticipated problems that might increase the costs of their product.
To 2inqusitive:
Thanks for the clarification - I am not surprised wiki had parts of this wrong too. (I seldom go there for anything. Went there this time as could not remember the details of the FT process. - thought that sinced it is 60 or more years old, they might have it correct by now. )
BTW: keep your eyes open for "bio-butanol" that really is better in many aspects that ETOH, but I do not know if anyone has even got a 5% output on it yet (compared to just burning the feed stock).
Thanks for the clarification - I am not surprised wiki had parts of this wrong too. (I seldom go there for anything. Went there this time as could not remember the details of the FT process. - thought that sinced it is 60 or more years old, they might have it correct by now.
)BTW: keep your eyes open for "bio-butanol" that really is better in many aspects that ETOH, but I do not know if anyone has even got a 5% output on it yet (compared to just burning the feed stock).
Converting corn from food to fuel has, at best, dubious net energy benefits, but its impact on food prices, already significant, can only grow over time," says Jeff Rubin, Chief Economist and Chief Strategist at CIBC World Markets. "With food carrying more than twice the weight in the CPI than energy, the policy response to record oil prices may become more inflationary than oil prices themselves.
"In the last two years corn prices have jumped by 60 per cent. ...
Mr. Rubin notes that huge subsidies are needed to achieve these goals as corn-based ethanol production is simply not economically efficient - not even with $100 per barrel oil. The key reason is the huge amount of energy that is required in first growing and harvesting the corn, transporting it to the distiller, distilling the ground cornmeal into ethanol and then transporting it by truck and train to users across the country. These more costly transportation methods are required because ethanol cannot be transported in conventional pipelines.
These subsidies, worth some $8 billion in 2006, have stimulated the sector as ethanol production hit six billion gallons a year in mid-2007. At this rate of growth, CIBC World Markets expects the Administration's target will be reached by 2012, a full five years early.
However, the bank finds that this rapid conversion of food to fuel will put increased inflationary pressures on food prices. "By the end of next year we predict food inflation will be running well over five per cent," adds Mr. Rubin. "As ethanol production rises to nine billion gallons in 2009, food inflation will approach seven per cent, its highest level in more than 25 years."
...
When compared with the huge investments in subsidies and the impact of soaring food prices, Mr. Rubin states that the net energy benefits of a U.S. domestic ethanol policy are marginal. "Most recent studies suggest that corn- based ethanol in the U.S. provides only a 25 per cent net energy benefit compared to the energy required in its production. By comparison, Brazilian ethanol, made from sugar cane, provides a 90 per cent increase in energy - and a gallon of pure ethanol holds about 30 per cent less energy than a gallon of gasoline."
He adds that even if the Administration's 35 billion gallon target is met, it will have a negligible impact on U.S. energy independence. Corn for ethanol currently accounts for 13.5 per cent of all corn production in the U.S., yielding roughly 6.2 billion gallons of ethanol which is equivalent to only a one percentage point reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption. Even if the U.S. achieved President Bush's 2017 target of 35 billion gallons per year that would only reduce gasoline consumption by an estimated 6.5 per cent.
"Ethanol indeed has certain benefits, but only for those who grow corn and distill it into alcohol," says Mr. Rubin. "The cost of this endeavour is enormous and is rising with every gallon of ethanol produced. The only thing Bush's renewable energy policy will fuel is inflation."
The complete CIBC World Markets report is available at: http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/soct07.pdf.
Text above from:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/TO12622102007-1.htm
"In the last two years corn prices have jumped by 60 per cent. ...
Mr. Rubin notes that huge subsidies are needed to achieve these goals as corn-based ethanol production is simply not economically efficient - not even with $100 per barrel oil. The key reason is the huge amount of energy that is required in first growing and harvesting the corn, transporting it to the distiller, distilling the ground cornmeal into ethanol and then transporting it by truck and train to users across the country. These more costly transportation methods are required because ethanol cannot be transported in conventional pipelines.
These subsidies, worth some $8 billion in 2006, have stimulated the sector as ethanol production hit six billion gallons a year in mid-2007. At this rate of growth, CIBC World Markets expects the Administration's target will be reached by 2012, a full five years early.
However, the bank finds that this rapid conversion of food to fuel will put increased inflationary pressures on food prices. "By the end of next year we predict food inflation will be running well over five per cent," adds Mr. Rubin. "As ethanol production rises to nine billion gallons in 2009, food inflation will approach seven per cent, its highest level in more than 25 years."
...
When compared with the huge investments in subsidies and the impact of soaring food prices, Mr. Rubin states that the net energy benefits of a U.S. domestic ethanol policy are marginal. "Most recent studies suggest that corn- based ethanol in the U.S. provides only a 25 per cent net energy benefit compared to the energy required in its production. By comparison, Brazilian ethanol, made from sugar cane, provides a 90 per cent increase in energy - and a gallon of pure ethanol holds about 30 per cent less energy than a gallon of gasoline."
He adds that even if the Administration's 35 billion gallon target is met, it will have a negligible impact on U.S. energy independence. Corn for ethanol currently accounts for 13.5 per cent of all corn production in the U.S., yielding roughly 6.2 billion gallons of ethanol which is equivalent to only a one percentage point reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption. Even if the U.S. achieved President Bush's 2017 target of 35 billion gallons per year that would only reduce gasoline consumption by an estimated 6.5 per cent.
"Ethanol indeed has certain benefits, but only for those who grow corn and distill it into alcohol," says Mr. Rubin. "The cost of this endeavour is enormous and is rising with every gallon of ethanol produced. The only thing Bush's renewable energy policy will fuel is inflation."
The complete CIBC World Markets report is available at: http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/soct07.pdf.
Text above from:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/TO12622102007-1.htm