Notable quotable

Posted by David Roberts at 3:04 PM on 15 Nov 2007

Read more about: quotables | energy | biofuels | ethanol | cellulosic ethanol

"It certainly appeared a year ago that we were going to have a national push on ethanol, and we wanted to have the vehicles ready. But we always knew that food-based ethanol would not be the answer. The shift to cellulosic ethanol has been slower than we were led to believe. If we don't end up with cellulosic ethanol quickly, we are going to hit the wall on ethanol."

-- William Clay Ford, Jr., chairman of Ford Motor Co.

For story: Notable quotable
8 Comments | Post a Comment

What are y'all's thoughts on cellulosic?

Based on the research i've read over the past few years i definitely believe economical cellulosic ethanol is on the cusp... there's no insurmountable barrier to it's mass-production; the current inefficiencies are all conquerable biological problems. For me it is a classic example of a lack of federal funding to give it that final push over the hump... (no i'm not advocating the government picking energy 'winners'...)

On the other hand, it's certainly not an end solution. Pimentel of Cornell has made a career of out of this but if you read his findings closely his criticisms are often due to rather irrelevant assumptions--i.e. he studies century time-scales assuming no reduction in energy demand via reduced demand or alternative technologies (i.e. batteries, which appear to me to be the end game in terms of personal transportation).

That certainly bothers me as he is often "the ethanol antagonist" in associated news articles, there to burst a non-existent bubble. (basically i don't consider his criticism as erroneous, but rather inconsequential and overhyped)

But given the widespread concerns re: ethanol production, I'm curious to hear other readers opinions about both the feasibility of economical cellulosic ethanol production as well as its sustainability and widespread applicability to various geographic regions. Detailed comments/criticisms regarding both the current and potential production pathways would be of most interest...

by greentiger at 12:37 AM on 16 Nov 2007

Greentiger:

Though there are those much better qualified than I to answer your points, as no-one else is jumping in I'll take a shot:

i definitely believe economical cellulosic ethanol is on the cusp...

Not my understanding. As a lab process, maybe. As an economically viable production process - not even close.

there's no insurmountable barrier to it's mass-production;

- apart from, say, the low energy density of the feedstock giving it a potentially negative EROEI just in haulage to the production plant, depending on the geography. And that the cellulosic material already has significant economic, biological and ecological value which is likely to always exceed the value of its maximum theoretical potential as fuel.

the current inefficiencies are all conquerable biological problems

Isn't viewing biology as a problem to be conquered what got us into this mess?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 6:54 AM on 16 Nov 2007

Greentiger

The following link is a pretty good summation. Be sure to follow the link to Philpott's article as well:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/09/usda-cellulosic-e ...

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 10:33 AM on 16 Nov 2007

Greentiger -

Spaceshaper posted a very important statement:

And that the cellulosic material already has significant economic, biological and ecological value which is likely to always exceed the value of its maximum theoretical potential as fuel.

Corn stover, wheat straw and other agricultural "waste" are a VERY important part of maintaining soil organic matter and reducing of soil erosion. I cannot effectively speak to the use of wood chips or slash piles, but switchgrass, the other highly touted feedstock of cellulosic ethanol production, comes with it's own set of concerns: That we will create another monoculture of a cash crop. That wildlife habitat created through Conservation Reserve Programs will be devastated.

It is not to say that effective production of cellulosic ethanol cannot be achieved. In fact, The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Minnesota Project, and the Great Plains Institute have all released pretty good reports on farming for energy through alternative crop production.

Panacea of the Plains
Residues are not waste - Where's the gold in corn stover?

LH

by HLisa744 at 11:03 AM on 16 Nov 2007

Ethanol compared... to what?

Obviously we need to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by starting with increased efficiency, because we'll get the most bang for the buck there. And, also obviously, we need to make biofuels as sustainably as possible, and there are a lot of issues there.

But I find it strange that so many comments on these and other pages evaluate the impacts and energy balances of various kinds of ethanol and other biofuels compared to zero impact, instead of to the impact of the oil and petroleum derived fuels (or worse, the coal-derived fuels) they are replacing.

Same thing with corn - I'm no lover of corn ethanol, but the idea that the real world trade off is between corn for fuel or corn to feed starving people in Africa is not reality-based. We use almost all of U.S. corn to make corn syrup for pop, and to feed to livestock (the byproduct of ethanol production from corn is livestock feed, btw). We subsidize exports of the rest to drive down prices for third world farmers.

The question isn't whether we are going to replace fossil fuel with plants. We have to, because we can't keep putting stored carbon into the atmosphere, and we are running out of fossil fuels anyway. The question is how we can make fuel and materials and food from plants, sustainably.

by bluerock at 12:13 PM on 16 Nov 2007

An orange a day helps keep corn ethanol away?

I've always been interested in the use of orange peels for cellulose ethanol production. That certainly does not pose the same issue as does use of cover crops.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/printstory; ...

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

by Greta at 11:07 AM on 18 Nov 2007

let's ask Al Gore!

Some time ago, like maybe a couple of years ago, or possibly in the context of W's State-of-the-Union speech in which he talked up hydrogen fuel, Gore was asked, "You are in favor of ethanol, aren't you?" And he carefully answered, "Yes, cellulosic ethanol." What does he have to say about it nowadays?

Spaceshaper's observation about the environmental damage that a viable manufacture-and-market system for cellulosic ethanol would cause makes sense. And it is a very sorry fact of life, regarding how business works, that it makes sense: once people can make and sell a product from cellulosic material, every scrap of dried leaf and stalk will inevitably be vacuumed out of a landscape; and its many biochemical functions on which the landscape's non-human inhabitants fundamentally depend will simply be left undone. Adios, Landscape!

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:32 PM on 18 Nov 2007

It will never end

This Dust Bowl mentality applies to everything -- overfishing, overfarming, overdevelopment. It is the American epidemic of greed and selfishness.

And, no matter the regulations in place, there will always be plenty of those with the "I'm going to get mine" agenda. Or the denial attitude that "this one little bit won't hurt".

I am doubtful that most people today would sacrifice and 'do their part', as did those during the WW-era.

So, the bigger (and fundamental) issue is how do we bring back integrity, respect, compassion? Working for the greater good?

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

by Greta at 9:22 AM on 19 Nov 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.