Butanol production breakthrough at University of California

[D Tibbets]

Of course bio fuels are cost competitive- certainly at current prices it is much closer than solar power -vs- fossil fuel power. At ~ $3 / gallon bio ethanol is only slightly more costly, (after taxes and subsidies are accounted for) but at ~$4/ gallon for gasoline, ethanol is cheaper. As far as all bio fuels being net negative energy balances, I refer to the Wikipedia article which quotes multiple studies. Of course if you choose to only consider the study that reenforces your viewpoint then the debate is closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fu ... gy_balance

And the question is not only whether the processes are slightly energy balance negative or positive , but also availability. Fossil oil is limited. Bio fuels can supplement those supplies for the purposes of transportation.
If natural gas or coal needs to be used to make up the energy difference, it doesn't change the issue. And if a Polywell or other fusion scheme provides the excess energy (if needed) the issue becomes even more irrelevant.

Of course end use of crops must be apportioned appropriately. But in the US there is a huge excess corn growing capacity. And despite current corn fermentation, the grain elevators remain overstuffed with corn. Recent corn price elevations were not due to any real shortages but due to speculation and finical manipulation, much like spot oil prices. And, as often stated, switch grass, poplar trees, algae, etc are alternative feed stocks that have much less impact on livestock and human food requirements.

Again, it is noted that the shear magnitude of our fossil oil use precludes these bio fuels from completely replacing gasoline, but supplementing it by even a modest 10% makes a big difference.
Just as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, etc are not answers individually, but together they contribute much. Combined with nuclear fission (thorium) and possibly fusion for baseline needs (geothermal and hydroelectric can serve as baseline , but only in localized areas), they can keep us going for thousands of years.

The only real better solution is fusion- lasts forever, even at much increased demands. For transportation, either electrical (by battery or hot rails, or even broadcast power) or hydrocarbon generation from atmospheric CO2 are fully sustainable solutions. Hydrogen could be substituted for CO2 generated hydrocarbons, but that has its own very challenging issues.

Obtaining useful carbon compounds via plants is an intermediate step between fossil fuels and fusion powered CO2 conversion.* The differences are the potential scale of the production process that is possible. I suspect that advances may allow for significantly greater contributions from plants than the current ~ 10-20% maximum sustainable predictions.

* Actually, plant bio fuel, and for that matter fossil fuels are all a mixed bag of processes that are powered by fusion (the Sun). Some steps may be exothermic, some may be endothermic, but overall the energy came from the Sun. The only exception might be oil that is produced purely by geological processes- no plant or animal intermediate required. My understanding is that the adherents to this view have yet to validate their hypothesis. Of course even in this case fusion was involved in earlier stars.

Dan Tibbets

[GIThruster]

Of course bio fuels are cost competitive- certainly at current prices it is much closer than solar power -vs- fossil fuel power. At ~ $3 / gallon bio ethanol is only slightly more costly, (after taxes and subsidies are accounted for) but at ~$4/ gallon for gasoline, ethanol is cheaper.

Again, you are not looking at the real costs. I have only maintained that the cost of pulling crude out of the ground will always be cheaper than growing corn, though I will own that I did misstate recently and compare in more general terms. My point has been, and is, that apart from all market forces: taxes, subsidies and market speculations, the cost of producing energy by drilling will always be less than the cost of growing it. Of course you are correct, and not trivially so, that when the market drives crude high enough, that corn will be competitive. That does not make it a good energy choice. Corn is a bad choice. If we drill wells in our territorial waters rather than plant corn, gasoline will be much cheaper than it is today. Much, much, much cheaper!

As far as all bio fuels being net negative energy balances, I refer to the Wikipedia article which quotes multiple studies.

You refer to it but did you read it? "Over the years, however, many reports have been produced with contradicting energy balance estimates. A 2006 University of California Berkley study, after analyzing six separate studies, concluded that producing ethanol from corn uses marginally less petroleum than producing gasoline."

And the question is not only whether the processes are slightly energy balance negative or positive , but also availability. Fossil oil is limited.

It's not limited in any significant way. We can produce gasoline much more cheaply than ethanol, by drilling in our own waters. We have plenty of oil to be energy independent. You're here acting as if this is not an option. It is an option. It's specifically because people have been deceived into thinking we cannot have energy independence, that they cling blindly to bio-fuels, pretending they can mitigate or solve our energy dependence troubles, when the fact of the matter is, they cannot.

Of course end use of crops must be apportioned appropriately. But in the US there is a huge excess corn growing capacity. And despite current corn fermentation, the grain elevators remain overstuffed with corn. Recent corn price elevations were not due to any real shortages but due to speculation and finical manipulation, much like spot oil prices.

I don't know who painted the picture in your mind's eye of grain elevators crammed full of rotting corn but I assure you this could not be farther from the truth.

"Deficit hawks, environmentalists, and food processors are celebrating the expiration of the ethanol tax credit. This corporate handout gave $0.45 to ethanol producers for every gallon they produced and cost taxpayers $6 billion in 2011. So why did the powerful corn ethanol lobby let it expire without an apparent fight? The answer lies in legislation known as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which creates government-guaranteed demand that keeps corn prices high and generates massive farm profits. Removing the tax credit but keeping the RFS is like scraping a little frosting from the ethanol-boondoggle cake.

The RFS mandates that at least 37 percent of the 2011-12 corn crop be converted to ethanol and blended with the gasoline that powers our cars…[As a result] the current price of corn on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is about $6.50 per bushel—almost triple the pre-mandate level."

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/ ... tle-better

Again, it is noted that the shear magnitude of our fossil oil use precludes these bio fuels from completely replacing gasoline, but supplementing it by even a modest 10% makes a big difference.

No, it really doesn't.

Just as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, etc are not answers individually, but together they contribute much.

No, they really don't. We could easily get along fine without all of them. Hydro excluded. And this is the trouble, Dan; that even smart guys like you think these energy alternatives are worthwhile when in fact they are merely forcing the price of energy up. They are not worthwhile. The only instances where a sensible argument can be made for them are instances like farms and ranches that want to be self-sustaining, or planning for a zombie apocalypse.

[KitemanSA]

Food v. Fuel is always an important issue when you're looking at growing fuel. My "prejudice set" was formed when I was TA'ing a course in Environmental Ethics at PSU from 1993-1995.

Anytime someone decides to grow fuel instead of food, food prices will be impacted. While proponents of bio-fuels will always argue about this, the statistical evidence is pretty clear, as is the dictate of common sense.

So use some UNCOMMON sense. Please go back ane read what I wrote, not what you already think.

I proposed harvesting the yearly algae bloom that currently adversely impacts food production in the Gulf of Mexico. Also, because of this perceived adverse impact, farmers all up and down the Mississippi river and tributaries are being pressured to reduce their Nitrogen and Phosphorous fertilizer usage, reducing their output too.

If that algae bloom were harvested rather than dying and creating that huge dead zone, the algae would produce a MASSIVE amount of bio-mass. The fisher's sea harvest would increase due to reduction of the dead zone, and the farmers could still use the fertilizer they want to use. A win-win-win situation. Not fuel OR food... fuel AND food. Try reading without prejudice from now on.

[KitemanSA]

There are lots of complex processes like this, but none of them make bio-fuels cost competitive with fossil fuels.

Yet. Maybe never, if something better comes along. But if we want energy dense fuels, we need a source of carbon, and HTC processed algae may be the best, taking all factrors into account.

One more time, HTC does not produce transportation fuel. At best, it produces a slurry that is much like powdered coal and water. In order for the product of HTC to be used as a fuel, it then requires more energy to convert it to something like butanol, than is released by the butanol itself.

One more time, read what I wrote, not a single fluff piece document. The feed stock for the HTC in that document was exclusively ligno-cellulosic. There are VERY few lipids in wood or corn stover or...
ALGAE on the other hand can contain a lot of lipid which is not harmed by the HTC process. THAT lipid can be simply extracted from the "slurry" you mentioned and used to make bio-diesel.
Try this one. http://apps.aiche.org/Proceedings/Abstr ... rID=231473

If you read the linked paper you'll get this. HTC is not intended to create bio-fuel. It's intended to sequester carbon. There is no benefit to creating the coal slurry that is the product of HTC as an intermediary step in creating things like butanol. No benefit. The only exception to this, is to use a fuel cell that directly converts the coal like slurry product of HTC into heat, but this would require completely new engineering for all vehicles, because HTC DOES NOT PRODUCE TRANSPORTATION FUEL.

YES IT DOES! (Hey, if you can shout...)

Are we clear? HTC does not produce useful biofuels. It produces powdered coal slurry.

Only if you put in dry ligno-cellulosic material. Put in materials with significant lipid content and you get significant free lipid results.

ARE WE CLEAR?

[GIThruster]

Dan, I like the idea of harvesting rather than growing algae. I think though, you still don't understand what HTC is nor what it's used for. There is no reason to carbonize algae and then turn the slurry into butanol. You can just squish the algae and turn the oils therein into butanol.

Turning an existing algal bloom into butanol sounds like a commercially viable thing to do. I don't think you'll provide even 1% of the nation's motoring needs with it, but still, you are talking about a very large mass--enough to turn quite a profit. If your idea has the merit as you obviously think it does; then why not pursue it? Of course, first thing you need to do is start crunching numbers concerning what it would actually cost to harvest all that algae. Until you do that, you're just guessing what you have is viable. You'll also have to do an environmental impact study to see what you have when the algae goes missing.

My point is however, from start to finish, that it is much more cost effective, to drill than it is to grow food for fuel. There's nothing in this thread that contradicts that position. And please note--I'm an environmentalist. I'm for what works best to supply all our energy needs and at the same time, does minimum damage to the environment.

[KitemanSA]

Dan, I like the idea of harvesting rather than growing algae. I think though, you still don't understand what HTC is nor what it's used for. There is no reason to carbonize algae and then turn the slurry into butanol. You can just squish the algae and turn the oils therein into butanol.

First, my name ain't Dan. My signature line is an exhortation TO Dan to do the math and think Hydrogen.

I am glad I am starting to get thru. Let us work on the next phrase.

"What HTC is" is a physio-chemical process to de-oxygenate carbohydrates. What it is USED for is whatever anyone can figure out to use it for.

The reason to apply the HTC process to algae is because the other processes to extract the oil require that you FIRST dry the algae (energy intensive) THEN breach the cell wall (energy intensive) and only THEN can you dissolve the oils out of the mashed up cells.

HTC doesn't need dry algae and it opens the cell walls. HTC can be used to accomplish the first two ENERGY INTENSIVE steps of oil extraction in an energy productive way. {Yes, I will admit that the energy produced is of low quality, but...}

THAT is what HTC is for in MY mind. Note I never say that the coal is converted to oil. HTC is merely used as a path to the oil.

I did say in a prior post that if the butanol bug could be made to eat SYNGAS like the Coskata bugs do for ethanol, then ANY biomass would do, including the solid char part that results from HTC of algae; but you could just burn the charcoal in a coal fired power plant to get that energy too.

MY desire is to CHEAPLY get to the oil in the algae. HTC can pave that road.

Turning an existing algal bloom into butanol sounds like a commercially viable thing to do. I don't think you'll provide even 1% of the nation's motoring needs with it, but still, you are talking about a very large mass--enough to turn quite a profit.

If you check the liturature, you will find that the area needed to provide all the fuel for the US takes up a certain area (using corn would use up the entire food production area of the US, not good). It is an interesting happenstance that the area needed for algae growth is just about exactly that area shown as the GoM dead zone. Neat confluence, no?

If your idea has the merit as you obviously think it does; then why not pursue it?

What makes you think that I am not? Since I have a full time job (actually, more than full time) I can't put as much time into it as I would like, but progress is being made.

Of course, first thing you need to do is start crunching numbers concerning what it would actually cost to harvest all that algae. Until you do that, you're just guessing what you have is viable.

Yup.

You'll also have to do an environmental impact study to see what you have when the algae goes missing.

A cleaner environment? No harvesting scheme can take ALL the algae. I'll be happy with just the excess algae.

My point is however, from start to finish, that it is much more cost effective, to drill than it is to grow food for fuel. There's nothing in this thread that contradicts that position. And please note--I'm an environmentalist. I'm for what works best to supply all our energy needs and at the same time, does minimum damage to the environment.

No-one is arguing that, now. It may not always be the case. And if the data ever do support AGW, then there will be a great need. In almost every such scenario, even given nuclear power plant, there is usually a desire to have a considerable amount of bio-mass to turn into carbonaceous fuels (for planes if nothing else). Can you say algae?

[GIThruster]

Best of luck.

http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/biod/prod/prod.html

[KitemanSA]

Best of luck.

http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/biod/prod/prod.html

Thank you, I am well aware of the oilgae site. I spend quite bit of time there.

[D Tibbets]

GIThruster. You quoted the Berkly study, but I'm not sure you interpreted it right.
The meta study, concluded (according to Wikipedia) that there was a net profitable energy production of liquid ethanol. The magnitude of this profit was uncertain . Depending of the feed stock - corn, cellulose, etc. profit energy production is ~ 0.9 to 1.2 to 3X depending on the study.
And as I mentioned, the energy balance profit is not the only issue. Availability of a transportation fuel may become a choke point as petrolium supplies dwindle. Expanded drilling may delay this but not prevent it.

Ignoring the environment and global warming claims (if valid) another option is heavy exploitation of coal gasification, oil sands, and oil shale. These could add several hundred hears to the oil reserves. But again I emphasize this is not sustainable, and not available for most of the world.
And ethanol is already a fuel supplement and commercially viable (at least marginally), mostly in the US and Brazil. The answer is complex. Basically, any contribution is needed (even small contributions add up), and carbon neutral is preferred if you are on the Global warming bandwagon And, I know, corn ethanol is not neutral, but the net energy output / unit of CO2 release is less by the proportion of the energy gain of ~ 1.2 to 3). If you stick with the minority conclusion that the energy gain is negative, then so would be the CO2 results.

Pressing wet algae for oil (like pressing olives for olive oil) presumably does not work, otherwise people would not be pursuing alternative methods.

Dan Tibbets