backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by tygrus.. on Nov 22 at 5:45 PM


POET's ethanol is currently produced from waste corn cobs. The company produced 20,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol last year.  (Source: AG Week)

The company has cut cost at its pilot plant from $4.13/gallon to $2.35/gallon in only a year. The company will soon launch a commercial-scale 25 million-gallon-per-year cellulosic ethanol plant in Emmetsburg, IA.  (Source: Biofuel STP)
Company is working on commercial plant and targeting $2/gallon production costs

While GM's partner Coskata may be stealing the most glory in the cellulosic ethanol industry, claiming that it will soon be offering ethanol at a production cost of $1/gallon, other companies are quietly making impressive gains of their own with different approaches. 

POET ethanol is among those whose future is looking particularly bright.  The company recently built a pilot-scale plant in Scotland, SD which opened just over a year ago on November 18, 2008.  In the year since, the plant produced 20,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol from plant waste (corn cobs).

When the plant first started production, its per-gallon costs were $4.13 per gallon -- decent, but hardly something to write home about.  Now, its costs are $2.35 per gallon, and the company is determined to reach $2 per gallon by the time it opens its first commercial scale plant.  In other words, the company is finally set to start raking in profits by offering a relatively affordable non-food source-derive alternative fuel on a broad scale. 

The company will soon open a 25 million-gallon-per-year cellulosic ethanol plant in Emmetsburg, IA.  The project, dubbed Project Liberty, will likely make POET among the nation's largest suppliers of the new biofuel.  Describes Jeff Broin, CEO of POET, "POET has been working on cellulosic ethanol for close to a decade and there were some days that I wasn’t sure we’d be successful. While we still have some challenges ahead, I can say unequivocally that Project LIBERTY will be commercially viable by the time we start up the plant."

The pilot plant cut its costs drastically in many ways.  First it used alternative energy (wind/solar) to provide all of its electricity and the energy used to produce the fuel was cut in half over the year.  Second, it cut its chemical raw materials costs, reducing the cost per gallon by $0.20.  Finally, the biggest cuts came from reducing the cost of the enzymes that POET uses.  The cost of enzymes has already been cut in half, and POET expects that number to drop lower.

Dr. Mark Stowers, Senior Vice President of Science and Technology for POET, says his company isn't done cutting costs. He states, "There are still several opportunities to make the process more efficient, particularly in fermentation. Additionally our enzyme partners have committed to significant additional cost reductions. But significant gains can also be made once we start up the commercial facility and POET uses its 20+ year history in biorefining to drive cost reductions and efficiency improvements in the process."

While there's significant doubts about the economic and social impact of adopting some alternative energy technologies or alternative fuels, cellulosic ethanol certainly seems a smart pick.  First, it does not use any food sources, limiting any economic impact.  Secondly, it promises to put to use energy stored by plants that typically goes to waste in the form of wood waste, landscaping waste, and farm waste.  Third, it provides the opportunity to harvest fuel from fast growing renewable sources such as switchgrass.  In this respect, the effort parallels the efforts to produce biofuel from algae

Despite its promise, the cellulosic ethanol industry won't launch without effort -- its success will require innovation like that demonstrated by POET.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By therealnickdanger on 11/20/2009 8:12:46 AM , Rating: 4
The State of Minnesota has many, many E85 vehicles in its fleet and they all get considerably WORSE fuel economy than the gasoline equivalents. That's great and all that cellulose is cheaper, but anyone with half a brain knows that the government will put enough taxes on it to make it cost as much as gasoline in the first place. So if it doesn't burn as efficiently than gasoline, it will end up costing us all more money because its efficiency will be lower.

That's why I ask.




RE: But does it perform just as poorly as corn-ethanol?
By Gnarr on 11/20/09, Rating: -1
By invidious on 11/20/2009 12:25:19 PM , Rating: 4
Would you mind using your crystal ball to tell me next week's lottery numbers?


By Ringold on 11/20/2009 3:39:44 PM , Rating: 3
Peak Oil sucks in all the paranoid types, but read a bit more recently about the idea of "peak consumption" hitting before "peak supply". The idea being that the oil industry, especially if it works at some structural reforms (state-owned oil companies tend towards inefficiency and corruption compared to private ones like Exxon), can continue to increase production for a little ways off in to the future. Meanwhile, the world may be moving towards cars like the Volt (eventually). Before supply falls off a cliff, demand may start to taper off first.

Actually seems likely, if one only looks at the developed world. China and India are what may derail it. Its possible, though. I'm not losing sleep either way.


By mcnabney on 11/21/2009 10:30:20 AM , Rating: 3
All Peak Oil really means is that we are no longer discovering new recoverable oil at a rate that is keeping up with consumption. So every year there seems to be less oil in the world. Combine that with a number of oil-states starting to hint that their reserves are really smaller than they have 'hinted' at in the past is going to eventually lead to the perception of shortage. Remember, oil is just a commodity. And unlike orange juice and pork bellies, there is a finite supply. Oil production will slowly start to shrink, actually it already has, and as demand continues to increase oil prices will severely spike. They already did once, and many say that the $150/barrel oil kicked off the behavior that caused the current global recession. Fortunately, the recession lowered demand which has brought down the price of oil. This is only temporary. The global economy is currently addicted, as in 'must have' at any price. The petroleum economy can't just switch over to electricity overnight. It will take decades, and we spent the last decade fiddling around.
This really is an issue that BOTH political sides can agree on. Republicans should be horrified at the prospect of most of wealth of this country being sent to oil producing nations. There are plenty of alternative energy sources, both clean and dirty, that can be produced right here domestically. Ethanol is like the Methadone of oil. It is a short-term (decades) substitute that can help fight our foreign-oil addiction. I am very pleased we are finally getting to cost-effective cellulosic production. The idea of turning food into fuel just seems wrong.


By Suomynona on 11/20/2009 8:29:21 AM , Rating: 5
Ethanol is ethanol, no? So yes, cellulosic ethanol is less energy-dense than gasoline. You can come to your own conclusion on whether or not the cost and the fact that it's not imported makes up for its energy density.


By Kuroyama on 11/20/2009 8:52:41 AM , Rating: 4
If it takes the energy from 1 barrel of oil to make an energy equivalent amount of ethanol, then ethanol is effectively an imported product. People argue over the exact conversion rate, but at best it's close to breaking even, so to pick a random number ethanol is perhaps "over 75% imported".

A few months ago the American Scientist magazine had an interesting article on how the chemistry of plants governs the amounts of resources (sunlight, land, nitrogen, etc) required for photosynthesis, and this limit the amount of energy we can produce by ALL forms of ethanol to only a small fraction of our energy use. In other words, ethanol will never wean us off foreign oil.


By Kuroyama on 11/20/2009 8:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
Oops, I forgot to post a link to the article. If you're at a university then you can probably view this for free:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/20...


By nafhan on 11/20/2009 10:12:44 AM , Rating: 5
Corn ethanol is stupid (basically, we're burning food) and your argument applies to it.
However, that's not what this article is about. This article is about turning waste products into fuel that can be used in most current vehicles at prices that are quickly approaching those of gasoline. Advances in cellulosic ethanol or algae derived fuels can benefit all of us.


RE: But does it perform just as poorly as corn-ethanol?
By werfu on 11/20/2009 11:41:16 AM , Rating: 3
And mostly what is important with cellulosic ethanol is the ability to produce it without oil use. I explain. Corn based ethanol need lots of oil to get grown, harvested and transformed. The cellulosic ethanol use byproducts of human activity to produce ethanol. The energy used to harvest the source is already spent elsewhere (like lawn mowing or tree chopping). The transformation is the only part that require energy on its own. Using renewable energy source enable us to remove a great part of the electricity coming from oil. This is the only way ethanol will be viable. Converting ethanol using coal-produced electricity is also stupid. The energy would be better spent converting that coal directly into fuel.


By invidious on 11/20/2009 12:30:59 PM , Rating: 3
Yes but you are still using energy to turn garbage into fuel , in this case that energy is solar and wind.

So why not just take that solar and wind energy you started with and use it for something more productive like heating a house? This frees up the fossil fuels that you used to be using to heat the house and there is no wasted energy.

Sure it would be nice to replace everything with solar and wind, but that isnt practical right now (perhaps ever). So why not start with the easy ways like heating and lighting?


By SAnderson on 11/20/2009 3:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
Fuels for heating and lighting such as Coal and NG come from the US. The Solar/Wind energies used to run this plant are using to make a fuel used to run vehicles, NOT to heat and light a house. Bad argument

Ethanol is still put in 10% of all the Gas in VA where I am at. If its cheaper than the 90% gas its good for me. Its using what would normally be waste. Win/Win.


By mdogs444 on 11/20/2009 3:12:24 PM , Rating: 3
Not necessarily true. We're importing coal now, and it has increased over 230% since 1999 due to environmental regulations. So our own government wont allow us to use our own resources to make our own energy...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0710/p02s01-usec.htm...


By mindless1 on 11/20/2009 4:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
A wise move if it weren't for the national debt, once reasonably accessible coal reserves worldwide are mined out then ours will be all the more precious to still have.


By Mint on 11/21/2009 4:33:10 PM , Rating: 3
If it costs less than gasoline per mile (which it looks like it will very soon), then it IS the most productive use of the energy.

Not only is there no loss of energy in the grid due to the energy being used on site, but homes require energy on demand and often wind/solar is wasted (wind, for example, can only displace the natural gas used in peaker plants, an will barely increase generation capacity). In industrial processes, often you can ramp up and down the production with the availability of energy.


By Kuroyama on 11/20/2009 10:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's true that we may as well use waste products for something useful. The American Scientist article is however making the point that plant biology prevents plant based energy sources from ever being able to ever make a substantial substitute for oil. I don't know about algae since they are talking about C3 and C4 photosynthesis, which encompasses most land plants. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can, but it's also a useful exercise to determine the theoretical limits of what ethanol can do.


By JasonMick (blog) on 11/20/2009 8:38:36 AM , Rating: 4
As one of the commenters said ethanol is ethanol. And ethanol, by its chemical nature, holds less energy than gasoline per gallon. So yes performance will be worse.

The key, then is to drop prices below gasoline. If cellulosic ethanol can be produced at say $1.00 or $1.50 in 10 years that will be a great thing as it will offer a source approximately as affordable or cheaper than gas on a by-energy basis, but from a renewable source (quick growing plants and waste).

I agree that taxes are a harmful to consumers in the short term. Unfortunately many are already in place. Cellulosic ethanol as it stands now is the equivalent of a long investment on the stock market, in terms of consumer spending. In the short term the outlook may be rocky, but there seems a clear route to affordability and renewability, though challenges remain.

For that reason I support cellulosic ethanol firms like this one, though I would like to see the artificial taxes on gasoline removed so that the playing field is level. I think it'd be better if the government provided more direct funding in terms of research grants, rather than placing the tax burden at the pump. Probably too much to hope for though.


By R6Raven on 11/20/2009 8:54:36 AM , Rating: 2
It may be slightly more expensive now, but I'm for just about anything that keeps us from having to send our hard-earned money to that area of the world personally...


By therealnickdanger on 11/20/2009 10:50:08 AM , Rating: 4
What have you got against Canada and Mexico?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_o...


By MozeeToby on 11/20/2009 11:17:43 AM , Rating: 3
Oil is a fungible resource, meaning that one barrel can be easily substituted for another. In other words, buying any one barrel of oil increases the demand for all oil everywhere. In other, other words, buying oil from Canada and Mexico still supports countries in the Middle East, especially as they are the largest suppliers.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/20/2009 11:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
US demand is a part of global demand in oil. The more US demand there is, the higher the price of oil from any oil producing country. Even if we only buy oil from Canada and Mexico, we are still driving up prices with our demand for other oil producing countries. So even if we don't buy oil from Venezuela (Citgo) or the middle east, we still keep their prices high. If we can reduce our consumption of ANY oil and rely on this sort of process, we drive prices down worldwide. So you see...


By mdogs444 on 11/20/2009 11:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
The only way to counter demand is to increase and have a portion of control on the supply end. Something our legislators refuse to allow. If OPEC can adjust their supply downward in order to penalize the world and get more money, than we should start mass producing oil and shale oil to the point that we can just increase the supply to offset their cuts. It's not rocket science, and neither is shale oil production. We already know we can do it.


By FITCamaro on 11/20/2009 12:53:14 PM , Rating: 4
Yup. The only thing stopping the US from being free of dependence on foreign oil is our own government. Every nation in the world is looking to utilize its oil reserves. Except the United States. And we have more oil than every other country in the world.

So instead Canada has been drilling oil out of ANWAR for the past 15 years from their side of the border and China is drilling out out of the Gulf of Mexico from Cuba's waters. All while our liberal politicians spout off against the evils of "big oil" and how greedy everyone else is (despite needing to take a long look in the mirror considering it makes 25x more money off the sale of a gallon of gas(25 cents) than the oil companies(around 1 cent)).


RE: But does it perform just as poorly as corn-ethanol?
By Spuke on 11/20/2009 12:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we can reduce our consumption of ANY oil and rely on this sort of process, we drive prices down worldwide.
That's how it's supposed to work but do you really think the Middle Eastern oil cartels will take a massive cut in profits? We'll reduce our demand, they'll reduce their supply enough to keep prices high. The real benefit to reducing oil consumption from the global market is simply not to give ANY portion of our money to the oil cartels.

I also have another question, would cellulosic ethanol be sold on the world market? Or would these companies limit their sales to say, North America.


By Zoomer on 11/20/2009 5:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
Increase excise taxes to further inhibit demand! And actually repair these roads. I think I'm giving up on new roads, just make sure the ones we have are in good shape!


By dagamer34 on 11/21/2009 12:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
Except it's unsustainable for the Middle East to go raising prices beyond what the market is capable of. You have to remember that the ONLY thing the Middle East has is oil. If American EVER moves to something else (something self-sustaining), the Middle East is F$()ed. Which is why they are stupid enough to price oil high enough to kill all demand.


By mcnabney on 11/20/2009 9:47:16 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with you on most of that, except the taxes part.

How many trillions of dollars have we dumped into the Middle East to help secure the world's primary gas station? That is an enormous hidden cost of using petroleum because if we didn't need the oil we surely wouldn't be fighting wars and building so many bases over there. I have no problem adding a tax to a product that we a) Need to import less of on a trade basis alone b) Allow Americans to experience the real costs of a petroleum-dependant economy c) To help balance the damn budget.
I would suggest a $1.50 per gallon petroleum tax (possibly paid by wholesalers instead of consumers so that they will make the decisions about inclusion of an untaxed ethanol product) AND the elimination of the ethanol subsidy. The ethanol industry can compete fairly that way, without any giveaways and against a product that has its true cost included.


By mdogs444 on 11/20/2009 10:05:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
How many trillions of dollars have we dumped into the Middle East to help secure the world's primary gas station?

You do know we get most of our oil not from the middle east, right? Not to mention, why can't we just secure our own gas station? Its not a matter of not enough oil, or oil shale, or anything else. Its pure politics, and the people who make the decisions could care less if gas was $10/gallon because they've already made their millions.
quote:
have no problem adding a tax to a product that we a) Need to import less of on a trade basis alone b) Allow Americans to experience the real costs of a petroleum-dependant economy c) To help balance the damn budget.

Thats a problem right there. Never met a tax you didnt like to help fund more worthless social causes. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
quote:
I would suggest a $1.50 per gallon petroleum tax (possibly paid by wholesalers instead of consumers so that they will make the decisions about inclusion of an untaxed ethanol product) AND the elimination of the ethanol subsidy.

Ok now you've lost it. Do you not realize that any tax - yes ANY TAX - that is placed on a wholesaler or business is ultimately passed onto the consumer. No matter how much you tax them, they still have bottom line profits to make, and will pass it on as a more expensive product with increased costs. All you've really done is add $2.00 to the price of gasoline that you would pay at the pump, while they all still make the same money.
quote:
The ethanol industry can compete fairly that way, without any giveaways and against a product that has its true cost included.

How is artificially taxing product A to make product B more appealing competing fairly? If you actually try to make up some bs to justify that, then this conversation is done.
quote:
without any giveaways and against a product that has its true cost included.

A "true cost" is not a price that you want it to be, and not the price that it costs to make. The "true cost" of a product is how much it takes to produce - and in terms of oil, Saudia Arabia extracts a full barrel of oil for only $2.00. Nothing near the $80/barrel that the market is paying. So if you want us to experience the "true cost" of oil, then our gasoline should be roughly $0.50/gallon after factoring in refining and shipping.


By kattanna on 11/20/2009 11:38:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ok now you've lost it. Do you not realize that any tax - yes ANY TAX - that is placed on a wholesaler or business is ultimately passed onto the consumer. No matter how much you tax them, they still have bottom line profits to make, and will pass it on as a more expensive product with increased costs. All you've really done is add $2.00 to the price of gasoline that you would pay at the pump, while they all still make the same money.


hush now.. in the land of pretty ponies and unicorns, of course its possible

;>)


By Denigrate on 11/20/2009 10:40:54 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but your statement of the Wholesaler paying a tax, but not the consumer is stupid, and you can't fix stupid.


By FITCamaro on 11/20/2009 12:48:17 PM , Rating: 3
There are many performance cars running on E85 tunes out there. Most are supercharged/turbocharged cars though. You just need a sh*t ton more fuel than with gas. Most guys with GTOs doing it are running larger than factory fuel pumps and like 85 pph injectors.


By FITCamaro on 11/20/2009 9:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you that ethanol's fuel economy is worse. However, if the fuel economy is 20% worse but the cost is 1/2 that of gas, its still not bad. Yeah ethanol will never be as good as gas. But if we start building engines with like 13:1 compression ratios or higher, we can minimize the losses.

In the end we need to choose. Completely switch away from gas, create a biofuel that's its equivalent, or keep using it. I favor biodiesel or a gasoline equivalent biofuel (which have already been created but aren't economically viable). Algae can completely solve our dependence on foreign oil and not piss off the hippies. Except the true idiots who won't stop until mankind is living in caves.

Of course our current government would never go along with it either since to them high fuel prices are a form of control.


By ninus3d on 11/20/2009 9:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course our current government would never go along with it either since to them high fuel prices are a form of control.


Form of controll for what?


By mdogs444 on 11/20/2009 10:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
Taxation, dependence, and being able to socially manipulate the masses in the form of less driving, what kind of cars to buy, etc as a part of their global warming bs.


By Spivonious on 11/20/2009 9:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, I've lost about 3 mpg just with E10 fuel (becoming standard in PA, it seems). If the cost of E85 made up for its lack of energy content, then bring it on. If not, then I'll stick with good old gasoline.


By Hiawa23 on 11/20/2009 10:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
but both my cars run on gasoline only. How do you get gasoline prices down cause for most of us there are no other options & won't be for many years to come.


By mdogs444 on 11/20/2009 10:18:45 AM , Rating: 4
Its really quite easy - control the supply. By opening up all forms of drilling domestically, starting shale oil production, and increasing the refining capacity, we would own a much larger portion of oil on the market. If the government really wanted to, they could form some regulations requiring the domestic production to only be sold to/used domestically. The other countries are not going to refuse to sell us their oil because they need it to balance their budgets. Instead of them strangle holding us because they own the supply, we can then leverage and make them realize that their supply is not as important to us as it once was and remove some leverage from them.

Not only will that help from a gasoline price standpoint, but the fact that huge expansion in domestic oil production would greatly increase the number of jobs and help our GDP. So really, outside of people crying for environmental causes, what is there not to like?

And no, I am not going to listen to any of this global warming, or the need to get off oil all together, or any of that emotional crap.


By Hiawa23 on 11/20/2009 11:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
Its really quite easy - control the supply. By opening up all forms of drilling domestically, starting shale oil production, and increasing the refining capacity, we would own a much larger portion of oil on the market. If the government really wanted to, they could form some regulations requiring the domestic production to only be sold to/used domestically.

If it's as easy as you say why haven't our govt done this already? They have had decades to do this & they still refuse, as this would absolutely help the economy, absolutely help the outragious energy bills our electric companies charge us with. Why have our govt failed so many of it's citizens all these years? The triangle is setup & it really isn't going to change. You are going to have the top 1-10% on top & the rest in the middle or at the bottom. I guess it's just the way it's going to be for most. Get what can, cause that's all you can do...


By mdogs444 on 11/20/2009 11:03:21 AM , Rating: 2
Well, with all things, its not as easy as just saying it. But the idea behind is something that everyone knows is true. The problem is you have special interest groups, environmental groups, and emotional political figures (like Pelosi, Boxer, Waxman, etc) that care more about the San Fransisco field mouse than they do our energy prices. I think they truly believe that the American people are willing to have energy prices 3-5x the current price for the sake of "being green" or being "environmentally friendly" or whatever other emotional card they can play to make the people feel guilty.

The government, and decision makers in the house and senate often do NOT make decisions based upon pure logic. Rather they make policy based on their emotions for causes like social justice. I mean, how else can you possible reason and show logic in a law that requires banks to give out home loans to people with shitty credit and no money in savings? Where is the logic in that?


By kattanna on 11/20/2009 11:46:47 AM , Rating: 2
there is also a HUGE new possible solar energy plant on hold outside of the san bernardino area because..of 30 flippin turtles that moved into the area years ago after they built pipelines through it.

but now, those 30 turtles have put that "green energy" project on hold.


By FITCamaro on 11/20/2009 4:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta love the government and environmental regulations.


By Hiawa23 on 11/20/2009 11:14:58 AM , Rating: 2
only will that help from a gasoline price standpoint, but the fact that huge expansion in domestic oil production would greatly increase the number of jobs and help our GDP. So really, outside of people crying for environmental causes, what is there not to like?

And no, I am not going to listen to any of this global warming, or the need to get off oil all together, or any of that emotional crap.


I agree 100%, I don't buy the global warming nonsense, or any of the emotional crap like you said. I hear everyone get on our soapbox telling the wolrd just how great we the United States is, & we have so many problems, many of which we can't get a handle, won't get a handle on, & alot of our ills are fixable but the way things are setup, no wonder so many have given up or are losing faith in our leaders. Will things ever change?


While I think I can support...
By Motoman on 11/20/2009 1:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
...this, based on knowing nothing more really than what's in this article - using what would otherwise be a waste product to produce ethanol at a "reasonable" cost (does anyone know if there's significant agricultural value of leaving the cobs in the fields to decompose into dirt?), I feel compelled to point out one other thing...

The VAST majority of passenger vehicles are, of course, 4-stroke motors that can run on E85 and probably pure ethanol with some tuning. Loss of energy density and all that jazz, but it works.

What proportion of fuel consumed in the US is diesel though? And while I may personally be thinking about my diesel pickup and tractor, the big point here is OTR trucking. A diesel motor can't use alchohol, period. I'm pretty sure that a diesel motor + ethonal would = big explosion.

I still want my diesel fuel from leftover turkey parts dammit!




RE: While I think I can support...
By FITCamaro on 11/20/2009 1:25:42 PM , Rating: 1
One problem E10 is creating is that its f*cking up a lot of 2 strokes like leaf blowers, mowers, and the like. The ethanol is eating up the seals. That's why several Exxon stations here in town have started offering ethanol free gas. At a pretty decent cost premium of course. :(


RE: While I think I can support...
By Spuke on 11/20/2009 2:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's why several Exxon stations here in town have started offering ethanol free gas.
I'd pay the premium if they offered it here.


RE: While I think I can support...
By Motoman on 11/20/2009 3:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think E10 makes much of a difference to 4-stoke motors, but on a 2-stroke you have crank seals to worry about, and caged ball-type crank bearings exposed to the fuel.


RE: While I think I can support...
By croc on 11/20/2009 4:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Leaf blowers? LEAF BLOWERS? You mean those noisy, nasty smelling devices to move stuff from your yard to mine so I can come along and move it back? What's the matter, too lazy to use a garden rake? Too lazy to properly set up a compost bin? If they all died tomorrow it would still be a day late and a $ short.


RE: While I think I can support...
By Motoman on 11/20/2009 4:13:38 PM , Rating: 1
Sliced bread? SLICED BREAD? What's the matter, too lazy to grow your own grain? Too lazy to mill it into flour? Too lazy to grow your own yeast, your own sugar cane (and process it into sugar), your own olive orchard (to squeeze into oil)? Too lazy to mix it all together and bake it? Too lazy to slice that bread?

OMFG, no wonder everything's gone to hell in a handbasket since Donnie & Marie broke up. Everyone's too GD lazy.


RE: While I think I can support...
By croc on 11/20/2009 6:07:15 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I get my (pre-milled) grain from the local farmer's market, my olive oil from a neighbour, and my raw sugar from a property owner I know up in Queensland. Yeast is wild yeast, I tend to make sourdough type loaves. And I do cut them by hand. Any other snide comments?


RE: While I think I can support...
By Motoman on 11/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: While I think I can support...
By croc on 11/20/2009 10:36:35 PM , Rating: 3
I have a life... Get a passport.


By Alexstarfire on 11/21/2009 12:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, funniest comments in a little while. He had a really bad comparison too. It'd be more accurate to complain about getting sliced bread. Though most of the time it's harder to find NON-SLICED bread, like regular wheat and white anyway. We get a lot of other breads that aren't sliced. We also don't have something as idiotic as a leaf blower though.

Also, I have my passport. :P


You guys really hate it that much?
By Glaedrin on 11/20/2009 3:39:32 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't sift through ALL the comments but I'd like to add my 2 cents. Although Ethanol has less energy, it can be run at much higher compression ratios than gasoline and benefit from slightly more fuel economy. (I do not really know how much more) You could also use a turbocharger as well. I doubt it will become just as fuel efficient but I haven't read anyone suggest it hear.

The fact is that E85/Flex Fuel vehicles run at the same compression ration that is optimal for gasoline, it is impossible to make an engine that can change that on the fly. That is the reason that E85's performance is so horrible.

I know that it would never have as much fuel economy, and that at this point in time it would be impracticle to make an Ethanol only vehicle (although if you are a half-decent mechanic who lives in an area with many E85 fuel stations...) but I do think that you guys have gone off the deep end hating the Fuel, whatever technological enhancements that come from working with Ethanol just might cary over to such things as maybe making other things more efficient?




By tygrus on 11/22/2009 5:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
The USA want to use foriegn oil now so if they have World War III they still have some oil close to home. It would be uneconomical to drill and drain all local oil now and then run out.


Prices would go up
By twhittet on 11/20/2009 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
Sure - it's cheap now. What kind of competition do they have over getting corn cobs? Is the corn-cob pipe industry going to drive up prices? As soon as there are any other companies using these "waste" resources, then the price on those resources will skyrocket comparatively. I like the idea, but everyone who likes to make $ will like that idea more.




RE: Prices would go up
By menace on 11/20/2009 5:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
When they say $2 a gallon is that before or after subsidies?

Corncobs don't have much value as fodder so any price spike should be driven by demand for ethanol as fuel. There should be other competing methods converting other celluose waste sources so supply of corncobs shouldn't be a big factor driving the price once the price meets up with the competing methods.

I wonder what the rate of conversion is and if you process every corncob produced in a year how much a dent that would put in oil imports. Even as little as 1% could be very helpful.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki