A good summary on biofuels
May 3rd 2008 10:45
Fortune magazine had a great article last month on the biofuel industry. The article talks about a number of sources for biofuel, but it focuses a great deal on the use of algae (something I've written about in previous posts). It also speaks pretty favorably about the use of cellulosic ethanol. Especially useful was a section listing the pros and cons of the potential sources for biofuel. Below are the details on the use of cellulosic ethanol and algae:
Cellulosic ethanol:
Algae:
Either source makes sense to me. Those raw materials don't seem to have any other critical uses. Both seem to be drawing research and venture capital dollars as well. The original article discusses financial support for algae and I just read that GM is putting money into cellulosic ethanol. Also, the DOE has recently started funding three cellulosic ethanol plants. As we continue to struggle with record high oil and gas prices, I'm encouraged by the attention this nascent industry is getting. They say that necessity is the mother of invention, and we need this field to succeed. Let's hope this particular need results in lots and lots of children.
Cellulosic ethanol:
Pluses: Made by breaking down wood chips, farm waste, and nonfood crops like grasses, cellulosic ethanol wouldn't require diverting the use of cropland. Scientists are making progress at breaking down plants' tough cellulose and lignin molecules, the key to turning nonfood biomass into fuel.
Minuses: Still costly and difficult to make, ethanol produced from nonfood plants is more energy intensive than that made from corn and sugar cane. By one estimate, putting all the grassland in the U.S. into fuel production could replace only about 10% of petroleum.
Minuses: Still costly and difficult to make, ethanol produced from nonfood plants is more energy intensive than that made from corn and sugar cane. By one estimate, putting all the grassland in the U.S. into fuel production could replace only about 10% of petroleum.
Algae:
Pluses: The fastest-growing plants, algae theoretically can produce 30 times more energy per acre than other biofuel options. A particularly rich mix of byproducts can be made in algal-biofuels operations (everything from nutraceuticals to feedstocks for making plastics), potentially abetting their cost-effectiveness. This is the biofuels' dark horse.
Minuses: Unlike cellulosic ethanol, the biomass for making a lot of fuel from algae doesn't yet exist; it has to be grown from scratch. Harvesting is still expensive. Cost-effectively producing algal biofuels on a large scale may be many years away.
Minuses: Unlike cellulosic ethanol, the biomass for making a lot of fuel from algae doesn't yet exist; it has to be grown from scratch. Harvesting is still expensive. Cost-effectively producing algal biofuels on a large scale may be many years away.
Either source makes sense to me. Those raw materials don't seem to have any other critical uses. Both seem to be drawing research and venture capital dollars as well. The original article discusses financial support for algae and I just read that GM is putting money into cellulosic ethanol. Also, the DOE has recently started funding three cellulosic ethanol plants. As we continue to struggle with record high oil and gas prices, I'm encouraged by the attention this nascent industry is getting. They say that necessity is the mother of invention, and we need this field to succeed. Let's hope this particular need results in lots and lots of children.
| 54 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I don't know much about industrial hemp. I do know that it has some other uses (like clothing). Whatever we choose, though, will have to use something in great abundance and that wouldn't impact other markets.
Ten years from now? I suspect that we'll still be in transition from regular oil to some type of ethanol. This is part of the reason the war in Iraq bothers me so much at this point. We're spending about $2 or $3 billion per WEEK over there. If we invested just a couple of week's worth of that money in one of these technologies, we could probably move the process along greatly and reach some real breakthroughs. We need to start spending money wisely and look at the costs and benefits of our expenditures.