$1 a gallon?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
$1 a gallon?
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/02...ng-garbage.html
http://www.coskata.com/
Think the guys are in a dream world, but if it can be pulled off will make for some interesting motors in the future.
The cost issue is a critical one in alternative fuels, and few investors will gamble on any business that relies on government subsidies. Roe said producing a gallon of Coskata ethanol will conservatively cost $1, unsubsidized. By the time it arrives at a filling station, it should cost the motorist from 50 cents to $1 less than gasoline. As for the environmental cost, Roe said the process releases 84% less carbon dioxide than gas does.
Ethanol's Future
For years we've heard that ethanol's viability as an automotive fuel will depend on cellulosic sources. "Could this be it?" I asked myself as the plant tour ended. From what I've seen so far, it absolutely could be, and then some. We won't know, though, until we see how well and affordably Coskata's process scales up. Currently under construction is a 40,000-gallon-per-year demonstration plant that late this year or in early 2009 will begin supplying GM with ethanol. Coskata will also work with ICM, the company responsible for roughly half of the current corn-based-ethanol plants, to build a commercial facility capable of producing 50 to 100 million gallons per year. Its product should be in consumers' cars early in 2011.
Ethanol's Future
For years we've heard that ethanol's viability as an automotive fuel will depend on cellulosic sources. "Could this be it?" I asked myself as the plant tour ended. From what I've seen so far, it absolutely could be, and then some. We won't know, though, until we see how well and affordably Coskata's process scales up. Currently under construction is a 40,000-gallon-per-year demonstration plant that late this year or in early 2009 will begin supplying GM with ethanol. Coskata will also work with ICM, the company responsible for roughly half of the current corn-based-ethanol plants, to build a commercial facility capable of producing 50 to 100 million gallons per year. Its product should be in consumers' cars early in 2011.
Think the guys are in a dream world, but if it can be pulled off will make for some interesting motors in the future.
Community Organizer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,961
Likes: 12
From: Oregon City, OR
The one problem that has been brought up before is the cost of everything else affected by the massive jump in corn production at a loss of production of other farm products, which increases cost.
So we can save 50 cents per gallon on fuel, but we spend an extra $100-$200 to buy food because it all went up?
So we can save 50 cents per gallon on fuel, but we spend an extra $100-$200 to buy food because it all went up?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,435
Likes: 0
From: Andromeda
yeah, it may cost less but you'll be going to the pump more because it burns at a lower btu than gasoline, making it less efficient
the article has a great "WOW, cheaper than gas" factor but read the fine print.
on the environmental side, I think it's still a cool idea.
the article has a great "WOW, cheaper than gas" factor but read the fine print.
on the environmental side, I think it's still a cool idea.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,950
Likes: 474
From: MAHT-O-MEDI
From the current C&D feature "Closet Gas hogs" online now.
Anything on E85
City/Highway: Minus 25 percent
E85, a blended fuel consisting of 85-percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline, has been championed (by GM in particular) as a viable and green solution to the petroleum problem. Unfortunately, both adjectives are a stretch. You could fill volumes with debate over the benefits and social, fiscal, and environmental costs of ethanol, at least the starch-derived strains, so we won
Anything on E85
City/Highway: Minus 25 percent
E85, a blended fuel consisting of 85-percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline, has been championed (by GM in particular) as a viable and green solution to the petroleum problem. Unfortunately, both adjectives are a stretch. You could fill volumes with debate over the benefits and social, fiscal, and environmental costs of ethanol, at least the starch-derived strains, so we won
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
From: Westfield, NJ
Ethanol doesn't even border on a reliable solution IMO, for the reasons stated there, and a few others. When you put everything together, harvesting, processing, using, ethanol is a much bigger poluter than gasoline. Furthermore, we can't produce even a fraction of what we need, and production is entirely tied to the weather. If all the farmland in the US convereted to produce ethanol, we still couldn't produce enough to account for 1/10th of our energy needs.
It's a popular choice of politicians for "alternative energy", but only because it gets them support from American farmers. It's really a poor substitute for gasoline, in every way.
It's a popular choice of politicians for "alternative energy", but only because it gets them support from American farmers. It's really a poor substitute for gasoline, in every way.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,981
Likes: 10
From: mount airy
Originally Posted by ace123,Mar 3 2008, 01:49 PM
If it goes to mainstream production, it would be produced from switchgrass, not corn. Corn can make ethanol, but I think switchgrass nets more per acre.
Another point, I saw in the other thread about $4 a gal gas where a person (not on this forum) said that he wished he could make a car that runs on Milk since thats so much cheaper than gas (not really at least not by me they are about the same).
But the point is first that's silly just b/c something is cheaper per gallon does not mean it's better than gasoline. Lets say they could use milk we'd need new cars and new infrastructure which is not cheap and would negate a lot or all of the cost savings.
Most importantly maybe milk is cheap now when a family drinks a gallon a week. But if people were buying 20 gallons a week to put in their car how would the supply hold up? Not well then we'd have the price go way up and people would be competing with drinking milk (food) and milk for the car. So it's similar to the food v ethonol supply and price.
Also, last I heard Ethonol cost about $2 or more a gallon and probably maybe the price is lower than we suspect because of government subsidies, so if the real cost is more than oil/gas it's not a great solution except if we want to stick it to OPEC which wouldn't be bad except we are nowhere near able to make enough ethonol.
I read about the Honda Clarity and how they are trying to come up with a solar (home recharging) where you would be (in theory) no fossil fuels to run the car. But that's a while down the road.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Sabre,Mar 3 2008, 11:24 AM
The one problem that has been brought up before is the cost of everything else affected by the massive jump in corn production at a loss of production of other farm products, which increases cost.
So we can save 50 cents per gallon on fuel, but we spend an extra $100-$200 to buy food because it all went up?
So we can save 50 cents per gallon on fuel, but we spend an extra $100-$200 to buy food because it all went up?
Coskata's system, which is currently small in scale, works on a variety of source materials, or feedstocks, including shredded tires or other waste material, as well as cellulose such as wood chips.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 1
From: Glendale
Yeah corn ethanol has always been, and will always be a terrible idea. Bush basically pandered to the Corn lobbyists. Sugar cane ethanol produces up to 3 times more energy per acre than corn, and switch grass/cellulose could be up to 7 times greater. Corn is a bad deal all the way around, but we keep on pushing this for no other reason than our politicians keep on taking money from them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
4IGS2000
California - Bay Area S2000 Owners
10
Jan 5, 2002 12:33 AM