3 ms·

But he address the fact that it's actually worse from a carbon standpoint than gasoline. That added to the other environmental impacts associated with agricult

by enkid 4y ago

But he address the fact that it's actually worse from a carbon standpoint than gasoline. That added to the other environmental impacts associated with agriculture makes it clear it's still a worse choice than straight gasoline. Not only does it not help, it actively makes the problem worse.

pfdietz 4y ago
That was for ethanol from corn. Most of the carbon in the corn plants doesn't turn into fuel in that system. Even if cellulose could be converted, a great deal would still be lost in CO2. A land-efficient biomass fuel system would convert all the carbon in the biomass into fuel. This would require adding extra hydrogen, particularly if you want hydrocarbon fuels, since the oxygen in the biomass has to be carried off somehow. The hydrogen could be sourced from solar or wind by electrolysis.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  I am not a huge fan of ethanol fuel but the leftovers from fermentation aren’t waste, they’re sold as cattle feed. So the land utilization is split between products and it wouldn’t necessarily be better if the corn to fuel concession was higher.
- enkid 4y ago
  Is there a better alternative?
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    I've been interested in this company's technology for a long time: https://www.virent.com/ https://www.virent.com/ In any biomass technology with a CO2 waste stream, the CO2 can be converted to hydrocarbon fuel by Fischer-Tropsch, if you have additional hydrogen. In the post fossil fuel age, there will be an entire biochemical industry that converts biomass to chemicals now obtained from fossil fuels. Some of these processes will look a lot like things developed for the petrochemical industry. All the carbon going into landfills now will instead be fed into this industry.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  Yeah, and ethanol from corn is arguably one of the worst options for biofuels. You're better off with biodiesel sources... even soybeans are better, and they're not great.

by enkid 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

That was for ethanol from corn. Most of the carbon in the corn plants doesn't turn into fuel in that system. Even if cellulose could be converted, a great deal would still be lost in CO2. A land-efficient biomass fuel system would convert all the carbon in the biomass into fuel. This would require adding extra hydrogen, particularly if you want hydrocarbon fuels, since the oxygen in the biomass has to be carried off somehow. The hydrogen could be sourced from solar or wind by electrolysis.

colechristensen 4y ago
I am not a huge fan of ethanol fuel but the leftovers from fermentation aren’t waste, they’re sold as cattle feed. So the land utilization is split between products and it wouldn’t necessarily be better if the corn to fuel concession was higher.
enkid 4y ago
Is there a better alternative?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  I've been interested in this company's technology for a long time: https://www.virent.com/ https://www.virent.com/ In any biomass technology with a CO2 waste stream, the CO2 can be converted to hydrocarbon fuel by Fischer-Tropsch, if you have additional hydrogen. In the post fossil fuel age, there will be an entire biochemical industry that converts biomass to chemicals now obtained from fossil fuels. Some of these processes will look a lot like things developed for the petrochemical industry. All the carbon going into landfills now will instead be fed into this industry.
cbsmith 4y ago
Yeah, and ethanol from corn is arguably one of the worst options for biofuels. You're better off with biodiesel sources... even soybeans are better, and they're not great.