Vinod Khosla Talks Ethanol 430
IamTheRealMike writes "Vinod Khosla, venture capitalist and co-founder of Sun, has a new obsession these days. Ethanol is the fuel touted by many as an alternative to dwindling oil stocks, but is it all it's cracked up to be? Whilst Khosla is an avid supporter of ethanol as an alternative fuel (video link) his optimistic views have been rigourously challenged by Robert Rapier, an oil industry insider who is also engaged in a quest to discover alternatives. Recently the two debated via phone the merits of an ethanol economy, and Mr Rapier has now written up a report of the debate. What will be powering our cars 10 years from now?"
Biodiesal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ethanol is NOT the silver bullet! (Score:4, Interesting)
An interesting read, regardless. I do believe that most oil companies are aware of environmental concerns, though most will not agree as to how successful (or sincere) they are. As a business person, it would make sense for the traditional oil companies to get their hands in the ethanol coffers (ahem, I mean, business) sooner rather than later.
Ethanol may not be the be-all-end-all of fuels, but it would be a heck of a lot better (as a renewable resources) than relying solely on petroleum.
Re:Biodiesal? (Score:3, Interesting)
I myself support an improvement in American public education. In particular, spelling and grammar are areas which desperately need to be addressed.
If you're going to be using poop, it makes much more sense to make butanol, which is made by bacteria, instead of biodiesel, which is made through a cracking process.
You could also run the poop into a pond, and grow algae on it, which would produce both "clean" ("gray") water and the algae. Oceanic algae produces something like 85% of the world's oxygen and is dying off rapidly due to pollution and climate change. Anything that makes more algae is good. The algae can be used to produce oil, for biodiesel, and organic waste, which can be used for fertilizer or processed into butanol. The process also produces methane gas, which can be captured and itself used to produce energy. The water output from the process is clean/safe enough to be used for irrigation.
Bacteria for the win (Score:3, Interesting)
We'll have to do something, and bitching about energy efficiencies and densities isn't the answer, doing is.
I wish the oil companies would think this way - (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes there's tons of oil left in the world. There's enough for at least 20 years if we don't find more and if we find more, more than 20 years. The problem is oil companies tend to think oil is the ONLY solution. So basically according to them once the oil runs out cars will stop running. That's a good theory, except it's wrong, and we'll find a way to avoid it soon.
But at the same time let's figure out what works. The oil company always says "that won't work" but why don't we get a reason. Is the refinery process to expensive (not meaning the cost of upgrading the refineries which is always a big number)? Is the fuel source too expensive (batteries)? Is it dangerous to contain (Plasma, Hydrogen fuel cells)? or is it too hard to come by on the scale we're talking about(nuclear power and fusion)?
That's not to say Ethanol is the solution. Solar power is certainly not (too expensive to update cars and parts).
Personally you have to give american and japanese car companies credit. They are at least trying to figure out the solution. European companies have basically ignored the alternatives and just switched to diesel acting like it is the solution. It too might be for the time. But at the very least we have to stop listening to the oil companies' opinions unless they are well thought out opinions. Not because they are bad people, or idiots but because they have something worth protecting (our reliance on them), and they won't just give that away or tell us "yes you CAN get energy from other sources".
Re:This is my day job (Score:3, Interesting)
Could the US grow enough sugar cane in its more tropical parts? Aren't there other crops besides corn and sugar cane which are oily enough to produce ethanol economically? Say, switch grass or hemp?
Ethanol for gullible people only (Score:1, Interesting)
Politians are not engineers. They repeat what is popular. People are not asking the right questions. There are viable bio fuels but the corn industry is popular for a lot of farmers, and businessmen making a profit on a growth industry based on a falicy.
Re:I have read... (Score:5, Interesting)
That having been said, ethanol and biodiesel don't have to come from these feedstocks. The folks at SUNY ESF have figured out how extract simple carbs from cellulose for fermentation using only heat and pressure with only water as a solvent. And then you have the enzyme approach the Iogen folks in Canada are pushing. Likewise, the algae biodiesel folks are really close to turning the corner.
My point? Just because corn and soy based biofuels aren't a magic bullet doesn't mean that liquid biofuels don't have an important place in our energy policy.
Disclaimer: I drive a 2003 VW TDI that gets 46mpg lifetime (paper log, not dash readout). By using the B20 pump near my house, I can go 57.5 miles for every gallon of petrodiesel consumed.
Re:I have read... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sunlight energy: 1kW/m2 at noon measured at ray-perpendicular plane
USA land area: 9,161,923,000,000 m2, adjust this for sun angle (Rearth=4,000 miles)
Daylight hours/day: use your best judgement here.
From this, calculate how much sunlight energy hits the US of A per day.
Corn sunray-biomass efficiency 5-10%
Fermentation efficiency (sugars/cellulose to EtOH): 30-70%
From this, calculate how much sunlight energy hits the US of A per day.
How much of the energy can be converted into Ethanol?
Now compare the total energy convertable to ethanol with the oil energy currently consumed:
USA oil consumption: 20,000,000 bbl/day
Metric: 159 liters/bbl
Oil energy: about 15 kWh/kg; density: about 0.8 kg/L
Re:Look, this is simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
Very true. There are three solutions to this problem.
The first is a fuel stabilizer added to the fuel. This can be a toxic solution, but is not necessarily. One possibility is (as you say) to thin it with petrodiesel. Another is to thin it with alcohol, which as we know is already known to be run in diesel engines with only minor additive and modifications. A modern TDI diesel with high compression (One report I read featured vehicles running at 23:1 compression pre-turbocharging, which is fairly high except that some of your old school mercedes diesels are 22:1 anyway) but I'm not sure if an additional additive would be necessary to prevent the alcohol and biodiesel from interacting somehow.
The second is some sort of heating mechanism. For instance, a small, electrically-heated fuel reservoir could provide enough fuel to start the vehicle, and operating heat could be used to heat the fuel tank. This does add some weight and complexity but it could be a working solution. This could even be a subreservoir inside the fuel tank, that the driver is not necessarily even aware of.
The third solution is basically just a modification of the second, in which we have a completely separate fuel system. We fill this with petrodiesel and start up on it. Even petrodiesel requires heating at very low temperatures, of course, but we can use an additive with this fuel, and not feel too bad about it almost regardless of what that additive is, because we're only using it to come up to temperature.
I still believe that butanol has the most promise, however. To quote from butanol.com (a business, mind you):
The primary reason is that it's a direct replacement for gasoline, and even at current prices it's not dramatically more expensive than gasoline. Most butanol is currently made from petro sources, but (again, as per the front page of butanol.com) "The historical ABE fermentation technology produces a variety of fermentation products. The ABE process uses bacteria to produce Acetone Butanol and Ethanol. This fermentation process yielded a 6:3:1 ratio of Butanol, Acetone and Ethanol".
Thus the biggest problem with this process is "what do we do with the acetone"? :)
(The ABE process was first used to make chemicals for TNT.)
The best part is that the process works on any biological material, the only thing that changes (based on how tightly the constituent parts are bound to each other) is how long it takes to break down. All of our organic waste could simply be ground up into mush (whatever isn't already) and fed into reactors for this system.
Well, actually, the best part is that it's energy-dense, cleaner than gasoline, and works in gasoline vehicles without modification.
Re:What will be powering our cars 10 years from no (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What will be powering our cars 10 years from no (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What will be powering our cars 10 years from no (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We wouldn't even be talking about ethanol... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice rebuttal at The Ergosphere (Score:3, Interesting)
For those not familiar with it, The Ergosphere is an excellent blog that tackles energy related issues from an analytical/scientific/empirical point of view, neatly cutting through any associated hype. Definitely recommended for anyone with an enviro-geek mindset. :-)
As a teaser, here's the conclusion to the article, after a lengthy analysis, complete with verifiable stats:
In my less than humble opinion, the powers-that-be are promoting ethanol because it serves up subsidies to various interests while not threatening the status quo (oil companies). If you can make an end-run around those interests, you could improve the environment, the economy and the prospects of the average American while making a huge pile of money. Isn't that better than just being a shill for GM, the corn farmers and ADM?
Re:Look, this is simple. (Score:3, Interesting)
Downsides to butanol? It probably has the same problem with seals. However, do you have any idea how easy it is to rebuild a carburetor? There's a lot of parts, but all automotive parts are designed for easy assembly. That and replacing the flexible fuel lines are all anyone would need to do, period.
It's important for you to grow up and realize that we don't necessarily do things just because they're good for us. Surely you are aware that big oil is one of the biggest lobbies in this country? Do you really think it's in their best interest to promote butanol when the bacteria that makes it (along with acetone and ethanol) is old enough that even if it had been patented, it would have long since expired? The reason we're not doing it now is that some old wrinkly white dudes are making a lot of money on cracking dino juice.