Slashdot Mirror
Vinod Khosla Talks Ethanol
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?"
I myself support Biodiesal as an alternative fuel - just so much more 'waste' areas could be used. (Even LITERALLY! Human waste could be used) Clearly, there are still limitations to it, though.
Corn based ethanol is certainly not a good deal. Our subsidies are so high that, should they disappear (another topic entirely), ethanol would be dead. Sugar (i.e. sugar beets, sugar cane) produces a much more energy-dense ethanol, but we are up against the corn lobby (yes, there is one) in making that transition.
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.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
I'd wager that in the future bacterially manufactured fuels, be it ethanol, butane, or whatever new thing comes along, will all be made via bacteria on waste--or a catalyst. Hell, we've got bacteria that eats grass and poops ethanol now, and you can "grow" a batch of bacteria anywhere. All we'd need is a plot of space for a big-ass building to house the stuff in and tubes that drain the fuel into external tanks. Once Economies of Scale kicks in, it's worth the massive start-up cost.
We'll have to do something, and bitching about energy efficiencies and densities isn't the answer, doing is.
"If there was no more oil. What would we use?"
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".
My understanding is that Brazil already uses ethanol with almost half its fleet, and is closing in on self-sufficiency as far as their energy needs. They do this by using sugar cane as a source of ethanol instead of corn, because sugar cane gives a higher yield of ethanol than corn.
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?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Since 2 major university studies (See previous Slashdot articles) have shown that for every gallon of Ethenol produced, it takes 1-1.18 equivalent gallons of oil to farm, transport, and distribute, you are NOT PRODUCING ANY ENERGY ! You are transporting Oil Energy through Ethanol to the end user. The ratio has to be less than 1 to show a true source of energy.
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.
The EROI for ethanol is 1.67 to 1 while the EROI for biodiesel is 3.2 to 1. That is, both have a positive energy balance. But that still doesn't change the fact that corn and soy are crummy energy crops. It just so happens that they have huge agribusiness lobbies behind them. Of course, trading ExxonMobil and Chevron for ADM and Monsanto isn't a big improvement.
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.
Why don't you verify it yourself using a little bit of common sense:
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
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If Congressman Fred Upton has his way, our engines will be running on 10% ethanol by 2012. This is a good policy that deserves consideration.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
I think we are using 10% ethanol already. At least here in Virginia. Maybe it's nothing, but I have noticed a slight change in the way my car sounds since they made the switch. It kind of sputters randomly if I deccelerate with the clutch engaged, and my car only has 46k miles. Spark plugs aren't due to be changed for another 14k... I hope it isn't related to this change, I know they were warning boaters against using ethanol blends in some cases.
I think Germany invented it in World War II. I know it was used in Apartid South Africa though. I'd be shocked if we aren't still using some sort of fossil fuel. Solar is really the only other reasonable option and that's probably not practical for a good 25-50 years.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
That's one of the first times I remember seeing John McCain on the national stage, during an Iowa debate for the Republican nomination. He had the cajones to tell them flat-out that he thought corn subsidies for ethanol were a huge mistake and that he opposed them. He was roundly booed, but he took it on the chin and kept going.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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?
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"