Greener ethanol: taking natural gas out of the production process
Iowa State University and Frontline BioEnergy, manufacturers of biomass gasification systems, have joined forces to attempt to eliminate natural gas from ethanol production. According to Physorg, natural gas is the second largest expense at most ethanol plants behind the cost of the corn. Natural gas is present throughout the production process. It's used in boilers to create steam to liquefy corn starch, distill alcohol and dry leftover distiller grains. Physorg notes an unsourced estimate which states Iowa's total ethanol production accounts for 16 percent of the state's demand for natural gas.
The researchers at Iowa State want to replace the natural gas with producer gas. Producer gas is created by injecting biomass into a fluidized bed gasifier. Inside the gasifier, the biomass reacts with a hot sand-air mixture and creates a blend of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and other flammable gases. The efficient and reliable process releases enough of its own heat for the reaction to be self-sustainable and supposedly produces few emissions. Also, the resulting gas can be easily integrated into a plant's existing boilers.
The primary focus of the study is to design a gasifier large enough to provide energy for an entire ethanol plant.
[Source: Physorg]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
aaron 8:53AM (9/28/2006)
do they address the fact that growing corn takes a lot of nitrogen fertilizer and nitrogen fertilizer is made from natural gas?
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 9:33AM (9/28/2006)
"...nitrogen fertilizer is made from natural gas" --aaron
Not exactly correct, but the more exact and detailed process is actually worse. Most commericial fertilizer is made from ammonia, which is produced by the Haber-Bosch process. Natural gas is used in the process to produce hydrodgen, which is then combined with nitrogen in the presence of a catalyst to form ammonia.
But back to another unanswered question in the article:
Q: Why not just burn ethanol to produce the needed heat?
A: Because the yield would be negative.
Reply
caveman_dick 1:53PM (9/28/2006)
Why not use the cleanest power souces of them all to create the heat, the sun?!?!?
Reply
Justin 11:32AM (9/28/2006)
Q: Why not just burn ethanol to produce the needed heat?
A: Because the yield would be negative.
As usual, Howard the Whore is posting false information. Howard, do you get paid to do it, or are you just stupid? You could burn ethanol to power an ethanol plant, since it has a 1.3 return on energy. But natural gas is more cost effective. Also, by turning the energy in natural gas into ethanol, you make a fuel that cars can use (when blended with gasoline). Currently the number of cars that can run on natural gas is very low.
No one's claiming ethanol in its current form is perfect. But posting info you know to be incorrect is unethical.
Reply
Chris 2:29PM (9/28/2006)
Because solar is a joke? The cost of the panels and sheer size of the solar field would be prohibitive. They might also want to run at night or on a cloudy day...
You folks are missing the point here. The idea is to get the cost of power down by gasifying waste product. In this case, the ethanol producer could burn his distiler's dried grain. Why burn the product for power when you can burn the byproduct?
Reply
aaron 10:22AM (9/29/2006)
Ok so let me rephrase, natural gas is a key component in the growing of corn. So let's run this scenario. A BP executive has said that North America has peaked in natural gas production. We can super cool and import NG from places like the Middle East and then use it to make fertilizers to grow corn so we can make ethanol so we can drive more or we could drive less. Commercial fertilizer plants are moving over seas (following the NG) and we can ship in fertilizers to grow corn so we can make ethanol so we can drive more or we could drive less. What makes more sense?
1.3 return on energy man... you obviously don't consider embodied energy. You think that computer you're typing on just appeared? You think ethanol plants or tractors or other infrastructure spring fully formed out of the ground. Wrong. Rerun your numbers considering ALL of the energy it takes to make ethanol and 1.3 is unrealistic. Better yet grow some corn so as to get a better idea of what you're talking about. And I won’t even mention the 15 million children that starved to death last year on the continent of Africa. Well, I guess I did. Even if you don’t believe that or you don’t care, the public perception of ethanol is bound to be a problem in terms of food vs. fuel. In the mean time how about toning down the language and relying on skills of debate rather than ugliness. Did you really call someone a whore?
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 8:50PM (9/28/2006)
"But natural gas is more cost effective." -- Justin
DOH! Why do you suppose that NG is more cost effective than ethanol? Could it be that ethanol is inferior to this FOSSIL FUEL?
Speaking of ethics and whoring, anyone who advocates burning FOSSIL FUEL in the production of something that is supposedly 'green' is advocating leaving an uninhabitable planet to our grandchildren to starve in. Ethanol (especially corn-based ethanol) is not actually 'green' in any meaningful sense of the word.
When there is an ethanol plant that is self-fueling with a positive yield, then it can be considered 'green'. It hasn't happened yet, and I doubt that it is possible, at least not using corn. But ethanol production isn't really about ethanol -- it's about corn.
Reply
Jimmy 10:04PM (9/28/2006)
Aaron, the scientific studies of ethanol production include the products and machinery used to grow the crops as well transporting the crops to the bio refinery. With regard to famine, the horrible conditions in parts of Africa are the result of political conflicts and not fuel production. In general agriculture has a stabilizing effect on society, where as oil wealth has produced dangerous and unstable nations. Agriculture is a good thing. The “food vs fuel” argument is completely unfounded. Corn is mostly used for animal feed and ethanol production still produces animal feed with fewer carbs and more protein.
Howard, you state that ethanol is not cost effective compared to fossil fuels. If you choose to ignore the environmental, health and social costs of “cheap oil” then you may be right. However, that is certainly not a “green” way of looking at the world.
Reply
aaron 10:49AM (9/29/2006)
Jimmy,
Other scientific studies do not support the claim that ethanol is even 1.1. It really depends on whose science you believe. For me 1.3 isn't much better than 1.1- not when your economy is based on the eroei rate of oil somewhere in the 1.10 range.
Corn is mostly used for animal feed and that includes a large number of humans. Most of the processed food that makes up a large portion of our diet is based on corn. Pick up the packaging for the last piece of food you ate and you'll probably find corn in it. The idea that the food vs fuel argument is unfounded is wrong. Plants turn sunlight into sugar. You can feed that sugar to humans or animals (later eaten by humans at a severe loss in efficiency) or it can be used to create fuel. Yes I know the byproducts can be used to feed animals (later eaten by humans at a severe loss in efficiency) but if you have a problem feeding all the people on your planet you have to stop and consider how you're using your sunshine. Blaming starvation solely on political problems is only half the story. People don't eat political problem. BUT all of this is moot because perception is reality and we are already seeing a backlash against the idea of growing fuel while people are starving. The perception alone will cause problems for ethanol.
By the way if you examine most recent human history, yes agriculture has been a stabilizing force but if you examine more fully the previous 2 million year history of humans you'll find another story entirely. The invention of agriculture and subsequent disproportionate distribution of wealth, in terms of the whole of human history, was the most destabilizing thing we ever did. I am not suggesting we go back. We can't, but it is a bit in accurate to think of agriculture as a totally positive event. Humans lived for millions of years without it and with much less conflict than we endure today. Just go ask a Native American.
Reply
Justin 10:58AM (9/29/2006)
Rerun your numbers considering ALL of the energy it takes to make ethanol and 1.3 is unrealistic.
They're not my numbers. Its the number that the DOE and every reputable study has shown. The only reason I can think of, that someone would debate something thats been proven like this, is if they're getting paid to subvert the scientific process. Sorry if my language offends you, but that kinda makes you whore, doesn't it?
Reply
aaron 11:30AM (9/29/2006)
Wow such faith in the federal government and its DOE numbers. What does that make you?
I was not paid to say anything I wrote. I am surprised the administrator of this site allows you to go around name calling. That certainly isn't part of the scientific process. Looks like this forum is a waste of time. Don't bother with more yelling. I won't be back.
Reply
Justin 12:20PM (9/29/2006)
Come on Aaron, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. My comments were directed more at howard than you.
But you have to admit that when you post something like ethanol having a negative return on energy, when the evidence seems to disagree, you open yourself to ridicule. It's nothing personal, you and howard know a lot about alternative fuels and I respect anyone trying to promote them.
Reply