Scientists consider ethanol sources beyond corn, and why termites may be the key breakthrough
Biofuels was one of the major topics that surfaced at the American Association for the Advancement of Science last week. Nobel laureate Steven Chu called the need for alternative fuels "very pressing" as the economics of powering autos with gas is four times as expensive as plug-in electricity. Experts say biofuels will have a major impact on the energy economy within the next decade as other technologies, such as nuclear fusion, are too far away from commercial uses.Ethanol from corn does not appear to impress scientists, who say the production costs exceed the value of the fuel itself and could affect food supplies. Instead, cellulose ethanol is more exciting since its yield has the potential to be "2.5 times higher than sugar cane."
But since nature designed the cell walls of cellulose to discourage traditional distillation methods, scientists are also turning to nature to solve the problem. Apparently, termites have the ability to digest cellulose walls. Now scientists are studying the enzymes in the termite's digestive system to figure out better ways to turn wood cellulose into sugars. Scientists don't want to unleash an army of termites on wood piles or switchgrass; instead, learn how the enzymes work and develop a commercially viable synthetic process. Another possibility is breeding cellulosic plants that more amenable to ethanol production. Some say genetically modified plants could be available in 15 years.
Related:
[Source: Alan Boyle / MSNBC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
breaking news 8:59PM (2/18/2007)
why is anyone outside the corn industry still talking about ethanol???
bottom line: ethanol has about 1/2 the energy density of biodiesel.
Reply
PJones 1:17AM (7/08/2009)
If ethanol requires us to grow crops for fuel, it eats into our food supply. Why not convert cow manure, sewage or garbage (waste products we have no shortage of and are wondering where next to put it)?
ksmith 9:43AM (2/20/2007)
B/c there are millions of vehicles on the road today that are capable of running on E85. Granted, the vast majority of them are optimized to run on gasoline, but a few can run equally well on ethanol, notably the forced induction engines. Also, an engine burning E85 (or even straight-up gas) will have fewer NOx emissions due to the lower flame temp. Green diesel won't help you there, that's just the nature of the diesel engine.
I'll admit, it's nice to sit back and play armchair regulator, or to paint a pretty picture of the ideal green motoring society, but some of us have to keep our heads in reality and looks at solutions that can be applied sooner, rather than later.
Reply
Jimmy 8:50AM (2/19/2007)
"why is anyone outside the corn industry still talking about ethanol?"
* Some forms of cellulose ethanol are near commercial production
* We can make ethanol in the quantities needed to significantly displace petroleum
* We can use ethanol widely in the existing vehicle fleet
* Adding flex-fuel capability to a vehicle is less expensive than diesel or hybrid options
* Ethanol fuel can be extremely clean from an air pollution standpoint. Ford's goal for the flex-fuel Escape Hybrid was to make it a PZEV vehicle.
"bottom line: ethanol has about 1/2 the energy density of biodiesel"
That really makes no difference. Most fuels have a lower energy density than diesel, including gasoline. Energy density is only critical when it is very difficult to contain, such as with batteries and gases like Hydrogen and CNG.
Reply
frank78 12:24AM (2/20/2007)
Thing is, not only does ethanol have a much lower energy density, but diesel engines ar far more efficient than your standard ICE. The effects amplify each other. So take a 4 door sedan that runs on gasoline and gets 27 miles per gallon. With E85 that same car gets roughly 17-18 mpg, more like the mpg of a medium or large SUV. Make that same sedan a diesel engine and it will get more like 35-38 mpg.
Unless ethanol can be produced much cheaper than it is right now, diesel and biodiesel make so much more sense. Ethanol wastes more resources, is terrible for soil and air (more fertilizer equals more sulfur) so until cellulosic ethanol can be sold at gas stations for less than $1.40, it will harm the economy and squeeze the middle class.
As of right now, ethanol is a buyout from politicians to sway votes.
Though I must admit if a post I saw is correct where a company said it could produce ethanol for $1 per gallon using waste in garbage dumps, then ethanol is good. Otherwise, it's a red herring from politicians.
Reply
Jimmy 1:41AM (2/20/2007)
#3, frank78
Let's use some real numbers rather than made up ones. A large heavy V6 Chevy Impala gets an EPA combined 24 mpg with gasoline and 19mpg with E85, a much smaller difference than your "example". Also, note the Chevy V6 is a *software only* flex fuel vehicle with a fairly primitive engine.
I do agree that biodiesel is an excellent fuel, but I think the criticisms of ethanol are unfounded. In terms of pricing, you should be aware the in the USA biodiesel gets a $1.00 per gallon tax credit for blenders and ethanol gets a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. Of course, the petroleum industry gets tax breaks which dwarf all the alternative fuel credits.
Reply
RC slowla 3:02AM (2/20/2007)
So scientists can synthesize something this complex, yet they can't synthesize motor oils and gasoline?
Riiiiiight....
Reply