Comments on: First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant in USA Up and Running http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/ What is the future of fuel? What's new? What's next? Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction. Thu, 24 May 2012 23:24:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Federico López-Medel http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-8160 Federico López-Medel Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:08:09 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-8160 What shall I do to visit your ethanol plant? If is possible please sends the requirements. Regards Federico López-Medel What shall I do to visit your ethanol plant? If is possible please sends the requirements.

Regards

Federico López-Medel

]]> By: Federico López-Medel http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-30237 Federico López-Medel Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:08:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-30237 What shall I do to visit your ethanol plant? If is possible please sends the requirements. Regards Federico López-Medel What shall I do to visit your ethanol plant? If is possible please sends the requirements.

Regards

Federico López-Medel

]]> By: Biofuel Industry Hopes to Recover with Next Generation Fuels : Gas 2.0 http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-8159 Biofuel Industry Hopes to Recover with Next Generation Fuels : Gas 2.0 Fri, 15 May 2009 17:07:02 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-8159 [...] the conference, cellulosic ethanol pioneer Verenium shared their progress. In Jennings, Louisiana, they are producing 1.4 million gallons per year of [...] [...] the conference, cellulosic ethanol pioneer Verenium shared their progress. In Jennings, Louisiana, they are producing 1.4 million gallons per year of [...]

]]> By: Bill Brand http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-8158 Bill Brand Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:11:01 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-8158 Clean future energy is wrong in his assessment of ethanol. CNC Mike is right but needs to update his engine facts. Steve-O is right that ethanol is superior, but E15 -E20 is not the right blends. Butanol is out there as a possible biofuel alcohol, but what is pushed as its advantage is that is performs 'just like gasoline' which isn't that great. The only significance of energy density that 'Clean Energy' speaks about is to compare pricing alternatives and suggests maybe our cars need a bit larger gas tank. An 18:1 compression ratio ( or appropriately turbo charged) spark ignition vehicle will get 50% better thermal efficiency than gasoline in our present vehicles. Its 2/3 energy density of gasoline when boosted 50% for better thermal efficiency results in the same MPG but produces significantly less CO2. This is also true compared to Butanol but Butanol as a 4 carbon fuel will produce less CO2 than gasoline but more that the 2 carbon ethanol. Our immediate fuel protocol should be E23 - E30 or a bit more which is the 'sweet spot' for ethanol blends as this blending makes gasoline burn more completely and can result in a MPG up to 15% greater than gasoline. This can be achieved with any existing computer controlled fuel injection vehicle (almost anything out there that is still running) with minor computer tuning and other minor modifications. It is not just BTU's per gallon that determine a superior fuel, but factors like Reid vapor pressure, octane, rate of flame spread, and latent heat of evaporation all of which determine the potential EFFICIENCY of the fuel. When the right relation of these factors are found in a 2 carbon fuel like ethanol, I say it is a superior fuel. Clean future energy is wrong in his assessment of ethanol. CNC Mike is right but needs to update his engine facts. Steve-O is right that ethanol is superior, but E15 -E20 is not the right blends. Butanol is out there as a possible biofuel alcohol, but what is pushed as its advantage is that is performs ‘just like gasoline’ which isn’t that great. The only significance of energy density that ‘Clean Energy’ speaks about is to compare pricing alternatives and suggests maybe our cars need a bit larger gas tank. An 18:1 compression ratio ( or appropriately turbo charged) spark ignition vehicle will get 50% better thermal efficiency than gasoline in our present vehicles. Its 2/3 energy density of gasoline when boosted 50% for better thermal efficiency results in the same MPG but produces significantly less CO2. This is also true compared to Butanol but Butanol as a 4 carbon fuel will produce less CO2 than gasoline but more that the 2 carbon ethanol. Our immediate fuel protocol should be E23 – E30 or a bit more which is the ‘sweet spot’ for ethanol blends as this blending makes gasoline burn more completely and can result in a MPG up to 15% greater than gasoline. This can be achieved with any existing computer controlled fuel injection vehicle (almost anything out there that is still running) with minor computer tuning and other minor modifications. It is not just BTU’s per gallon that determine a superior fuel, but factors like Reid vapor pressure, octane, rate of flame spread, and latent heat of evaporation all of which determine the potential EFFICIENCY of the fuel. When the right relation of these factors are found in a 2 carbon fuel like ethanol, I say it is a superior fuel.

]]> By: Bill Brand http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-30236 Bill Brand Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:11:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-30236 Clean future energy is wrong in his assessment of ethanol. CNC Mike is right but needs to update his engine facts. Steve-O is right that ethanol is superior, but E15 -E20 is not the right blends. Butanol is out there as a possible biofuel alcohol, but what is pushed as its advantage is that is performs 'just like gasoline' which isn't that great. The only significance of energy density that 'Clean Energy' speaks about is to compare pricing alternatives and suggests maybe our cars need a bit larger gas tank. An 18:1 compression ratio ( or appropriately turbo charged) spark ignition vehicle will get 50% better thermal efficiency than gasoline in our present vehicles. Its 2/3 energy density of gasoline when boosted 50% for better thermal efficiency results in the same MPG but produces significantly less CO2. This is also true compared to Butanol but Butanol as a 4 carbon fuel will produce less CO2 than gasoline but more that the 2 carbon ethanol. Our immediate fuel protocol should be E23 - E30 or a bit more which is the 'sweet spot' for ethanol blends as this blending makes gasoline burn more completely and can result in a MPG up to 15% greater than gasoline. This can be achieved with any existing computer controlled fuel injection vehicle (almost anything out there that is still running) with minor computer tuning and other minor modifications. It is not just BTU's per gallon that determine a superior fuel, but factors like Reid vapor pressure, octane, rate of flame spread, and latent heat of evaporation all of which determine the potential EFFICIENCY of the fuel. When the right relation of these factors are found in a 2 carbon fuel like ethanol, I say it is a superior fuel. Clean future energy is wrong in his assessment of ethanol. CNC Mike is right but needs to update his engine facts. Steve-O is right that ethanol is superior, but E15 -E20 is not the right blends. Butanol is out there as a possible biofuel alcohol, but what is pushed as its advantage is that is performs ‘just like gasoline’ which isn’t that great. The only significance of energy density that ‘Clean Energy’ speaks about is to compare pricing alternatives and suggests maybe our cars need a bit larger gas tank. An 18:1 compression ratio ( or appropriately turbo charged) spark ignition vehicle will get 50% better thermal efficiency than gasoline in our present vehicles. Its 2/3 energy density of gasoline when boosted 50% for better thermal efficiency results in the same MPG but produces significantly less CO2. This is also true compared to Butanol but Butanol as a 4 carbon fuel will produce less CO2 than gasoline but more that the 2 carbon ethanol. Our immediate fuel protocol should be E23 – E30 or a bit more which is the ‘sweet spot’ for ethanol blends as this blending makes gasoline burn more completely and can result in a MPG up to 15% greater than gasoline. This can be achieved with any existing computer controlled fuel injection vehicle (almost anything out there that is still running) with minor computer tuning and other minor modifications. It is not just BTU’s per gallon that determine a superior fuel, but factors like Reid vapor pressure, octane, rate of flame spread, and latent heat of evaporation all of which determine the potential EFFICIENCY of the fuel. When the right relation of these factors are found in a 2 carbon fuel like ethanol, I say it is a superior fuel.

]]> By: CNCMike http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-8157 CNCMike Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:31:10 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-8157 I'll be glad when the "worse mileage from ethanol" myth dies once and for all. If you burn ethanol in an engine built for gas you will get lower mileage. If you build ethanol specific engines with high compression (13:1 or even 14:1) and cam profiles ground and timed for ethanol you will get at least 15 to 20% better mileage than a gas engine. Don't believe that myth about water damaging engines either. There are a lot of cars on the road using water injection systems right now for various reasons. I use to inject water right into the carb on my 70 Chevell when the octane levels dropped and detonation became a problem. I’ll be glad when the “worse mileage from ethanol” myth dies once and for all. If you burn ethanol in an engine built for gas you will get lower mileage. If you build ethanol specific engines with high compression (13:1 or even 14:1) and cam profiles ground and timed for ethanol you will get at least 15 to 20% better mileage than a gas engine.

Don’t believe that myth about water damaging engines either. There are a lot of cars on the road using water injection systems right now for various reasons. I use to inject water right into the carb on my 70 Chevell when the octane levels dropped and detonation became a problem.

]]> By: CNCMike http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-30235 CNCMike Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:31:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-30235 I'll be glad when the "worse mileage from ethanol" myth dies once and for all. If you burn ethanol in an engine built for gas you will get lower mileage. If you build ethanol specific engines with high compression (13:1 or even 14:1) and cam profiles ground and timed for ethanol you will get at least 15 to 20% better mileage than a gas engine. Don't believe that myth about water damaging engines either. There are a lot of cars on the road using water injection systems right now for various reasons. I use to inject water right into the carb on my 70 Chevell when the octane levels dropped and detonation became a problem. I’ll be glad when the “worse mileage from ethanol” myth dies once and for all. If you burn ethanol in an engine built for gas you will get lower mileage. If you build ethanol specific engines with high compression (13:1 or even 14:1) and cam profiles ground and timed for ethanol you will get at least 15 to 20% better mileage than a gas engine.

Don’t believe that myth about water damaging engines either. There are a lot of cars on the road using water injection systems right now for various reasons. I use to inject water right into the carb on my 70 Chevell when the octane levels dropped and detonation became a problem.

]]> By: Steve-O http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-8156 Steve-O Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:20:51 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-8156 I have heard little about bio-butanol. can be made from the same diverse sources of biomass, or even trash, as cellulosic ethanol? Yes, ethanol does get less MPG, but it is cleaner, plants used to produce it take in CO2, it's doemstic, and it isn't oil. Do Brazillian vehicles wear out because of this water thing you're talking about? I have not read that. In addition, I have read that engines burning 100% ethanol are clean, and run for hundreds of thousands of miles because of no sludge isnide the engine, valves, and rings. I have heard little about bio-butanol. can be made from the same diverse sources of biomass, or even trash, as cellulosic ethanol? Yes, ethanol does get less MPG, but it is cleaner, plants used to produce it take in CO2, it’s doemstic, and it isn’t oil. Do Brazillian vehicles wear out because of this water thing you’re talking about? I have not read that. In addition, I have read that engines burning 100% ethanol are clean, and run for hundreds of thousands of miles because of no sludge isnide the engine, valves, and rings.

]]> By: Steve-O http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-30234 Steve-O Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:20:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-30234 I have heard little about bio-butanol. can be made from the same diverse sources of biomass, or even trash, as cellulosic ethanol? Yes, ethanol does get less MPG, but it is cleaner, plants used to produce it take in CO2, it's doemstic, and it isn't oil. Do Brazillian vehicles wear out because of this water thing you're talking about? I have not read that. In addition, I have read that engines burning 100% ethanol are clean, and run for hundreds of thousands of miles because of no sludge isnide the engine, valves, and rings. I have heard little about bio-butanol. can be made from the same diverse sources of biomass, or even trash, as cellulosic ethanol? Yes, ethanol does get less MPG, but it is cleaner, plants used to produce it take in CO2, it’s doemstic, and it isn’t oil. Do Brazillian vehicles wear out because of this water thing you’re talking about? I have not read that. In addition, I have read that engines burning 100% ethanol are clean, and run for hundreds of thousands of miles because of no sludge isnide the engine, valves, and rings.

]]> By: Clean Future Energy http://gas2.org/2009/01/09/first-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-usa-up-and-running/#comment-8155 Clean Future Energy Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:59:21 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=1558#comment-8155 Whilst I think it is great news that the technology now seems to exist to replace the wasteful corn based process, I take issue with the comment of Steve O. Ethanol is a second rate fuel for two important reasons. Its energy intensity is significantly below that of gasoline, meaning that it does less miles per gallon. Secondly it absorbs water, with predictable results. These do not mean that it shouldn't be used, but suggest that one day it may be superceeded by Butanol or some other better alternative. Whilst I think it is great news that the technology now seems to exist to replace the wasteful corn based process, I take issue with the comment of Steve O.

Ethanol is a second rate fuel for two important reasons. Its energy intensity is significantly below that of gasoline, meaning that it does less miles per gallon. Secondly it absorbs water, with predictable results.

These do not mean that it shouldn’t be used, but suggest that one day it may be superceeded by Butanol or some other better alternative.

]]>