Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark Foster Everything I have ever read and learned about the production of ethanol clearly states that it takes MORE energy to produce it than is contained in the resulting product!! Its subsidized production is just another example of our nonsensical farm policies that ranks right along with paying subsidies to keep farmland OUT of production. I expect the same is true of bio-diesel production. With respect to cooking oil diesel, there wouldn't be enough fuel from the entire country's used cooking oil to run the locomotives of even a short line RR such as the WNY&P!! Bio and cooking oil diesel and ethanol make fun topics of discussion but are totally impractical. [/quote] For the most part I totally agree, but of course there are exceptions. If a biofuel is produced from agricultural residues after harvest rather than from a crop specifically grown for biofuels, then that changes the whole dynamic: 1. For crops grown specifically for biofuels, you are correct that you must count the entire energy spectrum from first tillage in preparing for planting to the eventual distribution to fuel sellers. For ag residues, you only count the energy used from the collection of the ag residues to distribution of the fuel, and you can subtract the opportunity costs of having to dispose of the ag residues otherwise, e.g. if you leave ag residues in the field, you may have to plow the residues under, while if you remove the residues you can simply disk the field - plowing takes more energy than residue removal, and in both cases the field would have to be disked in the second step. Furthermore, if a grower is using no-till methods, excess residues must be removed anyway (by baling or burning) before the no-till drills will work, so why not make a use for these residues? 2. For crops whose primary purpose is not the production of biofuels, but where biofuels is a secondary purpose, the same energy accounting should hold true as well, e.g. you only count energy consumption for biofuels from the point of having to process the secondary usage. That being said, in my opinion the only method of biofuel production that makes true economic sense is the production of higher chain alcohols from ag (and forestry) residues. The only process I have found that fits this model is the MixAlco process courtesy of a few bright minds at Texas A & M. The MixAlco process is multifunctional, in that more than just biofuels can be produced from the process. They can also make acetic acid, which often times is worth more than the fuel itself. And the higher chain alcohols that make up the MixAlco process (isopropanol, butanol, petanol) can be used in compression ignition engines as well as spark ignition engines, both at up to 15% blend with either diesel or gasollne. From a capital expenditure position, it certainly makes more sense to build one MixAlco plant to serve both diesel and gasoline customers, than it is to build one biodiesel plant and one ethanol plant.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag