Let’s stop obsessing about corn
Just an FYI, my Clean Break column on Monday discussed the debate around ethanol and criticizes skeptics who dwell on the weaknesses of corn-based ethanol without seeing the long-term potential and appreciating the technical progress around cellulosic ethanol. I recognize we still have plenty of work to do to drive down the cost of cellulosic ethanol production, but I do take issue with those pundits who claim we need some kind of technological breakthrough before we can move away from non-grain feedstocks such as corn. Fact is the inventions have been done and an immense amount of work is going on to make cellulosic ethanol production economically feasible and sustainable.
Tyler Hamilton is senior energy reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the cleantech market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper. Tyler can be reached at tyler@cleanbreak.ca
February 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I would agree with you that we should not jump all over new ideas before they have had time to mature. However, the fact is that there are much better ways to convert biomass to energy other then liquid fuels like ethanol.
Anytime you convert a solid feedstock to a liquid fuel it used a very significant amount of energy in conversion. Ethanol, whether from grain corn or switchgrass, will always be very energy intensive, regardless of the gains that are made.
As a comparison turning agricultural residues and/or switchgrass into a densified pellet that can be used for residential, commercial or agricultural heating applications has a much better Energy Return On Investment (EROI).
For example switchgrass pellets have a return of 14:1 compared to 1:2 at best for ethanol. Even with significant innovation we will not be able to reach anywhere near the same EROI that is currently available through a very simple process. So lets use our resources as efficiently as possible.
February 20th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
We’re including the quality of the resultant fuel in our equations?
Heating is one result we may require from fuel, but transportation is I think what the ethanol reach is about.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
The best reason I can think of to move away from corn based ethanol is due to the fact that tortilla prices have doubled in Mexico and Central America. The majority of these people live in poverty and corn tortillas are the staple food of their diet.
This is already leading to political instability in Mexico where their President, Felipe Calder
February 21st, 2007 at 7:13 am
I agree that improvements are forthcoming, but I think the issues with ethanol are such that they will “squeeze” its effectiveness as a fuel…ultimately other sources of energy will prove better.
If transportation is the main market for ethanol, I’d like to see massive improvements in the efficiency of our road network as well as public transit. Greater efficiency there means that a larger proportion of our transportation energy can be supplied as electricity, so that most people will never need to even touch an ethanol pump. Only then, I think, could we justify turning substantial amounts of our wasteland (ie. wilderness) into a genetically-engineered fuel factory.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:05 am
It’s worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
February 21st, 2007 at 8:28 am
Talking about efficiency: Zap, Mini, Whisper
In these vehicles you can use any appropriate fuel in an ICE, FC or steamengine (since this engine is only used to charge the batteries). Make it modular, and you can change your mind half way.
Or better still: make it plug in with a charge of RES. This makes the case for more RES stronger, due to load balancing capacity of all those vehicles with their batteries connected to the grid (and earn the car owners some money for services rendered)
I’d prefer methanol, since that can sustainably be made from cellulose now, and not at some future date when prices have come down and poor people have been deprived more due to our habits.
Mobile bio methanol plants could be exported to regions where poor people can be in charge of a piece of forest. This anables them to take care of this area and feed residues into these machines in a way that keeps the forest healthy and earns them money for their development.
No rocket science; feasable with the right focus.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:19 am
I Remember they said we would be out of oil by 2000
Truth is, we have more oil today then ever. We found more and more and better ways to get it out of the ground, factories are more efficient cars etc.(the model was wrong and still is)
In the next 200 years when we finally run out of oil, you’ll fuel your “hover car with plutonium.”
February 21st, 2007 at 9:46 am
Interesting. Could you supply us with more of your visionary perspectives.
I for one would be delighted to see where applying the categorical imperative would lead us to in your perspective.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Hello Tyler,
I recently published two blog enteries on corn-ethanol and the ethanol industry in general on my site:
THE GREEN CHEMISTRY TECHNICAL BLOG
15 February 2007
From “Abandon the use of Ethanol” to “a Re-evaluation of the possiblities of the Ethanol Industry”
16 February 2007
Follow-up on Ethanol Re-evaluation and Consolidation in the Industry during 2007?
I came to the same conclusion as you, although with much more discussion – on Ethanol and biofuels in general, and their progression.
I suggest that interested readers take a look.
And maybe link back to my site
THE GREEN CHEMISTRY TECHNICAL BLOG
Best wishes,
Mark
February 21st, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I don’t think I’m alone in this belief: battery technology will reach such a level in 1-3 years that it will make burning biomass for electricity used in transportation more efficient than turning biomass into liquid fuels for vehicles.
Stephen