http://www.physorg.com/news10284.html

The article states that production cost using celulosic technology is too high. However a quote from another article I saw just today claims the price has come down dramatically. Ref: "Genencor says its enzymes have cut the cost of making a gallon of cellulosic ethanol from $5 five years ago to 20 cents today. " Link - http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...67959/index.htm

Q: If that"s not cheap enough, what does it have to be???

If you take into account the cost of protecting the oil supplies, which is currently ~1.4 trillion per (calculated as cost of the current Iraqi military effort), and the positive effect of keeping an additional ~1.3 trillion in the US economy (the approximate cost of importing oil) then I would guess that ethanol is hands down the winner.

While it would be fabulous if bio fuel could indeed help save us from the dead end of petroleum.. I think there is sufficient evidence from assorted bean counters and accountants and the like… that significant costs for creating bio fuel are hidden in subsidies and tax schemes and “cooked books” in order to promote the technology and give the farmers some cash and call it something other than a hand-out. Dig deep on the costs side and it starts to look more like smoke and mirrors… than any true alternative.

Also, I have heard several scientists (who are not employed by the bio fuel industry) in interviews lately who say... if you do the math on acerages needed to grow fuel crops to make anything more than a token dent on oil imports... you will see that there won't be any land left to grow food crops!

BioFuel is a gimmick.

I don't think bio-fuel is a gimmick: there are always gimmick-mongers among the real people. Bio-fuel has been a moderate success even in India on an individual basis (not on a large-scale). The two sides to it are (1)the technical aspects, and those are unquestionable, and (2) predicting the economic side of the issue; for example, in a bio-fuel-based economy, Iraqi oil would lose much of it's importance; it'd change the global power-equation. Wouldn't there be a lot of savings in terms of wars called off or not fought at all? Since in a high-tech agricultural system like in the US, expenses in terms of oil use in the production of corn would tend to offset some of the advantages, cellulosic technology may be a better alternative.

I live in SD and have an ethanol plant just a few miles away. I'm wondering why all the "scientist" don't include the full cycle in their "calculations"?
1. They ignore the fact that the mash created by the process is used as cattle feed.
2. They ignore the use of manure as fertilizer.
3. They ignore the cost of bringing gasoline to the production site (required for E15 and E85 so the feds don't TAX the fuel a BOOZE but NOT required for E100 - if the feds don't tax it.)

Further, no one has "calculated" the costs of a true fuel 'system' plant where there is an on-site feed lot. Corn goes in, alcohol and manure goes out. The manure can even be used to generate heat or as a source of fibrous plant material for creating secondary (cellulose cycle) fermentation.

The article fails to point out that there are no EPA approved E100 conversion devices available in the US.

What I'm really curious to see is a side-by-side comparison of ethanol vs biodiesel -- both are the same basic idea (grow plants, turn them into fuel), but with different plants and different fuels. Seems it'd be a good idea to figure out which is more effieicent, and concentrate R&D on that one.

Some good points made but consider this...

The US changed from leaded to unleaded gas in just two years. The cars currently exist -- been used in South America (Argentina isn't it?) for years.

What's needed is the mandate to make it happen.

The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of rocks. We can do better.

Hello,

Recently Al Gore came to Brazil to a forum about ecology (eco award), and mentioned Goias as the state of ethanol.

Well, this is my state.

We are have the biggest potentially for ethanol global demand, our land is flat, no damage to the environment to explore sugar cane, also know-how, labor quality, government support and large logistics investments.

The reason of this email is that i have a farm, around 300 ha, plus 700 ha others from my relatives (15o51'57.25'' S 49o.18'42,74'' W), (beginning with this area, but many other local farmers are interested in joining this business) near, around 3km west there is a federal highway BR-153 that connects the south-east and north of Brazil, also 3 km east is where the north-south railway is planned to , it's already under construction, also there are other ethanol plants under development in our region and one of the biggest about 60 km west.

We are looking for partners to explore our potential or buy our propriety.

Through AMCHAM, which I'm a member associated, I'm in a discussion group with others farmer's land in the region (Jaraguá - St. Patrick valley) to offer bigger areas, and government investments as attractive strategy.

So, we are open to discuss new opportunities. As well as providing informations about this energy sources.

Thanks,

Alberto Barbo

Everywhere I look I find that it costs about 100 dollars to convert to ethanol but I cannot find anyplace that tells me how to do it. And if I do is that a violation of EPA requirements.