BP Scientist: Ethanol Easier than Biodiesel 22 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By Michael Kanellos
Ethanol or biodiesel? The debate has raged for years over which one has the greater potential for weaning the world away from fossil fuels.
Oil giant BP, or at least one of its scientists, leans toward ethanol.
"Biodiesel is much more problematic," said Paul Willems, technogy vice president in the energy biosciences department at BP, during a talk at the Synthetic Biology Workshop sponsored by UC Berkeley and Innovation Center Denmark. "The world does not have viable solutions to biodiesel... It is pretty hard justifying dedicating acres to this kind of land use with the current yields."
Ethanol is now at a point where the main challenge lay in reducing the cost to produce it. Not easy, but a technical problem. Biodiesel will require scientific breakthroughs, followed by technological know-how to reduce prices.
It's an ongoing debate, so please chime in. And either way the market develops, the world probably won't meet its biofuel mandates at the current rate, he said. Right now, the consensus estimates are that biofuels need to become 11 to 19 percent of the fuel supply by 2030. (The estimate consists of manufacturing forecasts and policy mandates.)
"The industry is not going to deliver these kinds of targets," he said.
So far, the U.S. is already way off its goals for its mandate for cellulosic ethanol, according to other researchers.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This coin is still in the air but if I had to call it right now biodiesel works. Ethanol works in Brazil but we are not Brazil.
How can you tell when an oil company employee is lying? When their lips move!!
By far the best and proven tech on biofuels is to F-T waste forest, crop, yard biomass directly into very clean diesel, gasoline.
You just gasify biomass at 1500f into syn gas, H2-CO and water gas shift it to correct proportions. Then feed it into a F-T converter just like most of the oil companies do with stranded NG called GTL into diesel or any HC you want by changing the temp, pressure, catalyst.
The waste heat is then used to make electricity making a very eff conversion process.
This is far more eff, cost effective than ethanol, Butanol, veg oil biodiesel and well known, doable now. Sasol has been using this for decades to turn coal into fuels in S Africa .
But we need far more, more eff vehicles, plug in hybrids and EV's which can easiy cut out oil use by 60% in 10 yrs if we start now.
My 80mph, 100 mile range EV sportwagon gets 250mpg equivalent and my 3wheel MC gets 600mpge. Both are inexpensive to build at about $10k for the sportwagon and $6k for a cabin on the MC using 30-100 yr old tech, just common sense, good design.
The fact Chevron bought the NiMH battery patents then stopped Toyota, others from making EV size ones shows how scared they are of EV's. The $45k RAV4EV's made before the battery ban now sell for $75k and still running strong with 130 mile range, 80 mph and 100k-140k miles on them.
We have no energy shortage, just a political problem, corporate welfare subsidizing oil $1.50-2/gal in our income taxes according to the WSJ, Economist Mag, CIA, others. This subsidizes Iran, Russia, oil dictators and terrorists too. If we make oil pay it's way with a tax then all this would solve itself, make our country rich again and our enemies poor.
To me that is the patriotic thing to do. What would you call supporting our enemies? I know what I call them.
Gas to Liquids, and Coal to Liquids plants are actually quite rare, for the same reason.
On Jul 27 09:18 AM jerrydd wrote:
> By far the best and proven tech on biofuels is to F-T waste forest,
> crop, yard biomass directly into very clean diesel, gasoline.
>
> You just gasify biomass at 1500f into syn gas, H2-CO and water gas shift it to correct proportions. Then feed it into a F-T converter just like most of the oil companies do with stranded NG called GTL into diesel or any HC you want by changing the temp, pressure, catalyst.
>
> The waste heat is then used to make electricity making a very eff
> conversion process.
>
> This is far more eff, cost effective than ethanol, Butanol, veg oil
> biodiesel and well known, doable now. Sasol has been using this for decades to turn coal into fuels in S Africa .
>
Good enough for the Iranians, should be good enough for us... ;) But seriously, there is a lot of wasted NG, in the form of stranded gas released during oil recovery, that is flared, but could be converted into methanol via portable plants...
The difference is that ALL the resources that will go into converstion to a new NG energy technology are non-renewable and limited. Anything we use converting to a non-renewable energy resource will not be available for use in converting to a subsequent energy resource. If we don't get it right soon it will be too late, and global catastrophe will result.
Many people believe that converting to a nonrenewable energy resource like natural gas will delay conversion to a renewable resource like solar, or wind, or geothermal, or tidal, or nuclear (for all intents and purposes, indefinitely renewable). If the delay is too long and/or too costly, we'll pass the point when we can convert without massive loss of life on a national and global scale, and there will be no way to sustain civilization as we know it.
Leeb calls that outcome "Game Over". I think it's fitting.
Iran will be a net importer of oil in a couple of years, if they aren't already, so the natural gas that comes from their oil wells enables them to afford exporting oil for a few years longer. And that's all it does.
On Jul 27 12:59 PM kebu77 wrote:
> toomuchgas says, "Why not just use abundant NG as fuel and save all
> the processing cost, waste products, and land and water pollution."
>
>
> Good enough for the Iranians, should be good enough for us... ;)
> But seriously, there is a lot of wasted NG, in the form of stranded
> gas released during oil recovery, that is flared, but could be converted
> into methanol via portable plants...
Actually, this is the amount that is received from "oil companies" into
the tax coffers. This still makes it a political problem. The US government doesn't want to loose the Trillion dollars per year they receive from oil companies in taxes each year without some kind of fallback scheme.
"Natural gas is a nonrenewable natural energy resource"
If climate change is real, no amount of energy-related CO2 release is acceptable.
Using biodiesel instead of petroleum diesel is like saying, "I'm only peeing back into the water cooler the amount my employees drink."
WayneS, if what you say is true how can they sell oil on for under $1.50/gal? That they pay taxes on income like other corps has no bearing on their many times larger subsidies.
The $1.50-2/gal comes from large tax breaks, depletion allowances, Persian gulf, oil war, balance of payments costs, military costs, etc.
If not for oil we would have none of these costs which come to 20% of our gov budget. That in oil as it should be would solve the problem as most other energy sources would be lower costs.
How many more of our soldiers die, maimed for oil? Especially when it would be so easy to do if not for the subsidies oil gets? Do you support subsidizing Iran, Russia, oil dictators terrorists and big oil?
All I want is a real free market, not supporting our enemies and corporate welfare to the richest companies on earth. Isn't that what a patriot would want? What are you?
But Jerry, you miss an important point. BTL is very capital
intensive. It is therefore only competitive at a much higher oil price. At the technology is not new, the scope for improvement is probably limited.
Gas to Liquids, and Coal to Liquids plants are actually quite rare, for the same reason.
JD GTL were rare but becoming common now. BTL is not much more costly than refining is, in fact F-T is used in many refineries now.
The big cost is waste heat which can easily be tuned into electricity at 50% eff by cogen steam/low temp Rankine.
BTL is a small operation operation, 1-10 people as biomass needs to be within 10 miles to be profitable and be enough biomass to run a unit as it takes a lot.
BTL takes no more cost than used to F-T NG now used widely with new plants coming online all the time.
If oil has it's real cost in it then BTL will be a big bargain but cost effective now. Don't forget it's the cleanest diesel made too.
On Jul 27 11:28 PM jerrydd wrote:
>
> WayneS, if what you say is true how can they sell oil on for under
> $1.50/gal? That they pay taxes on income like other corps has no
> bearing on their many times larger subsidies.
PS: Who's they? Venezuela? I know US oil companies don't get subsidies other than what everyone else gets. Leading Congressman want to naturalize US oil fields. All this leads to more importing of oil.
Does this mean 20% of our gov budget is paid to people to look over the shoulders of the 500+ oil companies in the US? What other cost could there be?
Forget the other 500+ oil companies, ExxonMobil has paid more taxes than they made in the US over the last several years. This is money made overseas coming to America. What other industry is doing this?
"That in oil as it should be would solve the problem as most other energy sources would be lower costs."
The high taxes for oil is what allows alternatives to even be looked again.
WayneS I'm not sure you are capable of understanding this.
We are at war now for 1 reason, OIL!!! Were are in the Persian Gulf with much of our military for 1 reason, OIL!! 1/3 of our military is used for 1 purpose, OIL!! Since those costs are there only because of oil, they should be in oil, No?
Last yr we spent $500B for imported oil which could instead make jobs, invest here instead of it going to Iran, Russia, oil dictators and terrorist. That's $1600 for ever person in the US going to our enemies.
If we become independent of imported oil we could pull completely out of there and reduce our military by 1/3 and have no more wars over oil and stop our terrorism problem that is about OIL!!
Now add sweetheart royalty deals, depletion allowances, tax breaks like the $10B one the repubs forced through last Nov before they let the energy bill pass and really $2/gal tax won't cover all that. Nor does it cover pollution or CO2.
Road taxes at the pump have nothing to do with oil, but road costs and don't cover them.
I understand.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we cut off their supply of oil.
We the people of the United States are individually responsible for all of the deaths in war since then by our apathy and hypocracy. And now, if "climate change" is true, we just don't care.
All of these "Green" things make sense if we are just talking about making money. (and nothing wrong with this) But when we start anthropromorphising oil companies as evil and alternative energy companies as good, we are missing the point. A feel-good tactic.
What I keep saying (but no one wants to hear because there is no money in it) is the best way to stop importing oil is to stop using the oil. We could stop importing from Venezuela and the OPEC countries now just through conservation.
Raise taxes on gasoline to where it is never below $4/gal. Use this money to finance alternative energy. $4 gasoline saved 1700 lives and billions of dollars last year. Two birds with one stone. Energy and health care crises.
None of this will happen and people will keep dying so we can continue our way of life.
PS I still don't believe that oil companies are getting huge subsidies. I think our government is getting so much money from oil companies through taxes they don't want to loose a good thing.
The energy bill just passed will do nothing but create a new money-making business based on Enron, i.e., selling dirt.
Note to Jerry: U.S. imports of petroleum from Iran are zero, and have been for some time (since the U.S. government started imposing sanctions on trade with Iran after the 1979 revolution):
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...
And just out of curiosity, from what terrorists is the United States buying oil? I'm sure that the State Department would want to know. Please provide names and contact details. I assume Canadians (e.g., Quebec separatists) do not count.
Speaking of terrorists, JerryDD asserts that "We are at war now for 1 reason, OIL!!!". So, it has nothing to do with terrorism (in Afghanistan, which has no oil), alleged weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), or that GWB wanted to finish a war (in Iraq) that daddy started, or to secure a strategic base in order to be able to mount strikes against (possibly nuclear-armed) Iran?
WayneS Great post finally.
Subsidyeye as you most likely know oil is fungible thus whenever oil is bought anywhere it drives the price up. Since it's a world market and our enemies control 40% of it, 40% of every dollar we pay for oil goes to them.
We are at war in Afghanistan because Osama who wanted us out of Saudi Arabia where we were because of OIL was hiding, attacking us from there, No?.
The money for terrorist mostly comes from the countries, people who are wealthy, in power because of oil. No? Where were most of the 9-11 hijackers from? Iceland?
While there were some other excuses no one who thinks well so I guess that leaves you out, believes we are in Iraq for any other reason than oil. The fact Iraq probably has more oil left than SA does and whats in Iraq is sweet vs most of SA's is sour which our refineries are not set up for, only sweet crude.
Yes, I know oil is fungible. But from where did you get the 40% number? According to this chart, total world oil reserves are 1,350 billion barrels.
nationmaster.com/graph...
Being generous in the definition of "enemy", I would count the reserves of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Burma and Cuba. Adding those together, I get just under 25%. I am not counting Saudi Arabia (20% of world reserves) as an enemy. Though some of its diaspora (like Osama) might be sworn enemies of the United States, its government is not, nor are most of its citizens. Not wanting U.S. military bases on its soil does not make Saudi Arabia an enemy, any less than it makes Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland or any of a large number of other countries who don't want U.S. military bases on their soil enemies of America. (Would you like Saudi Arabia to set up a military base in your state?)
"We are at war in Afghanistan because Osama who wanted us out of Saudi Arabia where we were because of OIL was hiding, attacking us from there, No?"
No. Ever heard of the Taliban? They long precede Osama. Indeed, the United States encouraged the Taliban at first as our enemy's (Sovient Union) enemy. The Taliban regards western culture as decadent; so does Osame. They were a match made in heaven.
"The money for terrorist mostly comes from the countries, people who are wealthy, in power because of oil. No? Where were most of the 9-11 hijackers from? Iceland?"
At the time that the 9-11 attacks were being planned, oil prices were at a record low. It does not take much money to fund terrorism. And, as you point out, oil money is fungible. So even if the USA were to stop importing oil, other countries would. Trying to stop terrorism through subsidizing biofuels is about the least cost-effective way I can imagine to address the problem of terrorism.
We need, above all, to be winning hearts and minds in the countries harboring terrorists; not creating new terrorists and terrorist sympathizers (as we did in Iraq); and getting serious about tracking down the leaders and bringing them to justice.
"While there were some other excuses no one who thinks well so I guess that leaves you out ... "
Translation into English, please?