VentureBeat

jfco said:

What was oil’s return on energy invested early/mid last century? Wasn’t it closer to 1.2 than today’s 5? If ethanol is renewable, and we are still progressing in extracting its full potential, does this become a moot point in 5-10 years as we edge closer to getting say oil’s returns with ethanol?

At some point this grinds down to renewable vs non-renewable. Better to adopt the former even if it costs a bit more (debate becomes how much more) as it is more sustainable.

tate423 said:

At last check we consume 200 billion gallons of gas a year. If we farmed all corn in the country and turned it all into ethanol we would get less than 20 billion gallons of ethanol and it burns less efficiently in today’s engines.

Matt Marshall said:

Tate, I think that is why Khosla is proposing we produce a lot more ethanol. Not sure if you’ve got an argument there.

Greyzone said:

So how do we address global warming? We STOP trying to hold on to the easy-motoring suburban mess we’ve created and start thinking about new patterns of living. Unless and until we do that, nothing will matter.

By the way, you can argue economics and morality all you want. Science trumps them both because science is reality and reality will bite you in the ass if you ignore it.

thormuller said:

The issues around biofuel are larger than Ethanol, particularly now that BP/Dupont is leading the charge with a commercial alternative, biobutanol: http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/06/dupont_bp_to_pr.html

It’s 30% more efficient than ethanol, and can be made from “a range of feedstocks such as sugar cane or sugar beet, corn, wheat, or cassava and, in the future, cellulosic feedstocks from fast growing ‘energy crops’ such as grasses, or ‘agricultural byproducts’ such as straw and corn stalks.

It works in today’s engines.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of biobutanol’s costs/benefits relative to gasoline. At first glance it looks a lot more compelling than ethanol.

Prof. Goose (The Oil Drum) said:

The solution in the face of the problems we face is not going to be a single magic silver bullet. There is no material on earth with the EROEI of light sweet crude.

What we need to work towards is a comprehensive strategy utilizing a collection of magic silver bb’s, including nuclear, cleaner CTL, biofuels, you name it, we need to do the R&D&I, and we need to do it post-haste.

David Mathews said:

The United States does not need ethanol. Corn is too valuable to burn away in the engine of an SUV. Americans really need to stop, the consumer autocentric civilization ought to die.

The oil industry has made a total mess of the Earth. While it has provided luxury and conveniences for a small percentage of humans the vast majority were left to suffer impoversihment and deprivation and exploitation. So many crimes were committed on our behalf, but we didn’t notice because our victims were hidden on the other side of the globe and their suffering didn’t matter anyway because they are non-white and non-wealthy.

Americans have also suffered. Americans have become obese, unhealthy, addicted to numerous drugs, and slaves to consumerism. Of all the animals on the Earth, the Homo sapiens are the least fit. Natural selection will handle us harshly once the fossil fuel/technology crutch is taken away from us.

America and its corporate agents have also committed crimes against humanity on behalf of the automobile culture. American bombs are not falling on Iraqi civilians because Americans love the Muslims. Americans love oil and hate Muslims. Prejudice and bigotry against Islam appears sufficient justifications for violence and genocide against the Muslims, that’s the only thanks the Muslims get for giving us their oil for our worthless paper.

American oil companies have done nearly as much evil in countries such as Nigeria and other unfortunate African countries. Americans love Nigerian oil more than they love the Nigerians. American love Nigerian oil so much that we would kill Nigerians in order to secure their resources for our own consumption.

Ethanol is a terrible idea for many reasons. Transforming food into fuel is a passive form of genocide. Americans have a long history of squandering the world’s resources, we must not squander the world’s food supply.

Given America’s gluttony, greed, wastefulness and self-involvement, I think it best that we allow Peak Oil to destroy our economy. Consider this a sacrifice in order to save the planet from further human damage: Americans will become impoverished and starve a little so that billions of impoverished people don’t die because food prices becoming prohibitively expensive.

You Mon Tsang said:

Matt,

This is an important debate and I really appreciate the way you shone light on the debate and gave us (your readers) the chance to understand both sides of the issue.

I hope this is the type of reporting you will continue to do at VentureBeat. I can see this technique applied to all sorts of debates.

Raj said:

I find that both parties are trying to arrive at the same conclusion, but with different routes. In my opinion, from what I have gathered from Rapier’s blog and from Khosla’s responses, is that Khosla is protecting an investment that he has made/is currently making. I find Rapier’s arguments to be much more convincing; I find that the whole ‘golden bullet’ solution to energy is never going to work.

In making his point, I felt that Khosla may have skewed the facts in his favor, making it seem like ethanol is a ‘golden bullet’ solution to the uninformed masses. The crux of the debate lies on the numbers.

“You might ask how ethanol is a renewable fuel, when its energy inputs are fossil fuels.”

This is very very true, and something to keep close at heart. Ethanol is a step towards a conservation-conscious public, but it cannot be touted as the end-all to our energy woes. Khosla even says somewhere in his statement (my apologies, I cannot find it now) that ethanol may be a temporary solution; I agree with him on this. To me, a ‘renewable’ energy source that uses fossil fuel inputs is hardly renewable.

Raj said:

I forgot to say this in my last post, but great job on gathering the facts, and thank you for doing so. The more information we have when it comes to these decisions, the better off we will be.

David said:

It is frustrating to watch people who know next to nothing about energy (Valley VC’s) dupe people who know nothing about energy.

Khosla has clearly misled and spun the potential of ethanol well beyond the facts.

First, even the miniscule ratio of 1.2 for net energy output is unlikely to be accurate. Take, for instance, the fact that growing crops for ethanol production is extremely fertilizer-intensive and that fertilizer production and distribution (e.g. trucks) is extremely energy-intensive. The difference between a net energy ratio of 1.2 and one that is less than 1 is too small to be precisely measured.

I would challege Khosla to at least use ethanol or another renewable source of energy in his ethanol plants to improve the net production. Using lower cost gas/oil/electricity in the plant to produce subsidized ethanol may be a great way to make money but it does not reduce global warming.

Second, Khosla’s point that the fossil energy he uses to produce ethanol is not petroleum (but likely coal or natural gas), and that this is beneficial because petroleum is scarcer and more valuable than other fossil fuels because it is the only fuel that can be reliably used in automobiles etc. is misleading. This is because coal and gas can be converted relatively efficiently to petrol, as it has been done for nearly a hundred years. The Germans did it during WWII. His old firm, Kleiner has even invested in GreatPoint Energy, a company which claims to have technology for coal gasification (though its technology is unproven and more expensive than conventional technologies)

If we want to reduce emissions of CO2, rather than subsidizing or mandating ethanol, we can impose a CO2 tax on all CO2 emissions (there is 10% CO2 tax on gasoline in Norway) and let economic forces take care of the rest. It is likely that more efficient use of energy and promising technologies such as plug-in-hybrids, CO2 capture, and perhaps even cellulosic ethanol will flourish. Indeed, I bet that we will find that we can use our abundant coal for the production of gas and liquids in a very clean way by capturing and sequestering the CO2 (and using the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery in the process).

BurningMan said:

Matt - Glad to see you note that Khosla’s tax is not a force for good.

In fact at it’s most morally pure, it’s sipmply a strong-arm business tactic for him to improve his ROI. However I suspect worse. At it’s most reprehensible, the tax is Khosla using his power to force his values on the whole population. Whether those values are fear of global warming or fear of Darwin, it is wrong to force me to comply.

Not only is it wrong morally, it is wrong economically and technically. It’s the wrong (least efficient) way to get the answer to our energy problems. You think the billions pouring into alt-energy investments won’t be diverted by Vinod’s tax?

I’m all in favor of Kholsa risking his capital on one technology. But don’t coerce me to contribute to it.

Rex said:

I’m looking forward to an ethanol production trial where all of the inputs are ethanol derived. Ethanol fueled farm equipment, nitrogenous fertilizer produced by an ethanol driven process, ethanol powered transport and ethanol fueled processes in the distillery etc. The mimeral content of the mash also needs to be returned to the land to avoid soil depletion. This is the only way to convince skeptics like me that mr Khosla’s proposal has any merit other than as a method for farmers to make money from government subsidies. Biodiesel from any of the oil crops has a better return on energy investment than does bioethanol from corn.

stefan said:

Ethanol, Fuel cells, solar cells, and hybrid technologies are just throwing technology at the problem. I say about TIME!!!

The only solution oil companies have is to drill for more oil. That is not a solution, that is a delay tactic.

All of the above technologies are getting cheaper and cheaper. Maybe they don’t follow Moor’s Law, but don’t use that as a criticism. Energy density, energy efficency, and overall efficency in production and price are trending down. It may take time, but its better than hitching your horse to a stage coach that has no wheels…

Mark Wendman said:

I think that unmentioned are a few little not so insignificant points of note. From a contemporary elite conference (name evades me) a tax assisted representative of the Saudi government said if Ethanol competes on prices with gasoline - they ( the Saudis / OPEC ) will drop prices to put Ethanol out of business. If I am not mistaken this was mentioned in a NYT article about Vinod’s efforts in Ethanol. Quite illuminating don’t you think?

1 - This comment by the Saudi government minister speaks to the actual viability of a concerted effort in Ethanol supplementing and partialy displacing gasoline supplies, and as to how increased Ethanol might impact a near monopoly on oil used in automobile fuel production.

If the Saudis take this seriously, I figure many of the arguments against Ethanol are slightly vacuous.

2 - Ethanol replacement of some gasoline repatriates some of the present oil import expenditures to the heartland of America - often to smaller farm collectives (yes I know ADM is the giant in the business presently). Ethanol is a good renewable [meaning you can cultivate the feed stock materials] fuel alternative, rather than exporting US dollars to lands far away, supporting often unstable governments, nations not infrequently at counter purposes to American interests.

Diversification of the beneficiaries of the revenue / cash stream presently associated with gasoline / oil is a good thing, even if imperfect.

I also suspect many more Americans if given the choice to NOT send any revenue to say the Saudis and their brethren, would vote with their cars at the pump and pay cash to Americans producing Ethanol, if the opportunity became a viable option for fueling their day to day commuting.

Somehow I did not hear this addressed by Mr. Rapier in the least.

Folks from the oil industry don’t like the potential of larger scale production of Ethanol for upsetting their near monopoly, and will make all kinds of roundabout explanations as to why Ethanol is unviable, now and in the future.

Most of those counter arguments are a bit weak to be kind, and neglect the potential of cellulosic ethanol after suitable process innovations are developed in the near future.

3 - The paradigm of Cellulosic ethanol dramatically improves the financial prospects for Ethanol going mainstream in the medium term. Right now cellulosic ethanol is in its infancy, almost barely getting out of R&D phase, but not quite ready yet. Conventional ethanol plants can easily convert to cellulosic when the frontend preprocessing technology for cellulosic feedstocks matures. One step at a time.

Khosla is amongst the best venture capitalists if not the best in investing in promising new technologies, often ahead of the pack, and lately with benevolent civic minded thrust in clean tech. My hat is off to him !

Where is Mr.Rapier in doing anything that either is innovative or helping bring innovations to market that might bring renewable or alternative fuels to the automobile market?

Easy to criticize Mr. Khosla, but hard to be in any way correct about it. Vinod is spot on with his focused thoughtful efforts to gain critical mass in Ethanol conversions & production.

4 - Innovation even in the best most successful cases, is sometimes haphazard, and hardly a virgin birth. Oftentimes success in commercial innovation is most critically dependent on the perspiration / effort of the individuals - the technologists and sage investors. (Edison comes to mind - and I dare say anyone predicted the success of the light bulb until apparent and nearly practical)

You can reason your way out of any rational attempt to innovate, if you have the motivation to do so.

I dare anyone to in anyway hint that Khosla does not work hard, if not amongst the most thoughtful tech investors in the venture capital business.

That Vinod wishes to lead (not ride along in the backseat griping as Mr. Rapier does) a positive paradigm change in automobile fuel infrastructure, my hat is off to him, as Ethanol will keep more dollars here in America than anything that petroleum might, as the majority of petroleum here is imported often from unsavory characters.

Second, there is quite a bit of activity in R&D in technologies relevant to helping cellulosic ethanol come into being - most important is development of enzyme assisted chemistries for pretreatment of the feed stock and how to recover the enzymes for cost reduction in the manufacturing process.

Innovation is the right approach to make Ethanol a better business prospect than it already is currently and a wise investor is the best catalyst to bringing to market new innovations. Somehow this is discounted by some naysayers.

5 - Why do oil firms pay barrel extraction or similar taxes to most other oil producing states (Texas comes to mind) and NOT to California?

Here the intention is to use the tax revenues to diversify the automobile fuel infrastructure, with obvious positive benefits to air quality, and balance of trade, and migrating to renewables - all by mitigating oil imports, from development of a domestic Ethanol production infrastructure.

I suppose in Houston they don’t give a darn about the air they breath? Well here in California, I guess we do, and rather than sitting by passively, folks here partake in suggesting and attempting to implement practical solutions to problems.

Mr. Rapier might be upset by civic minded citizens taking part in society, rather than being whiners such as he, but I’d rather not wait for passive leaders in name, who have no interest in the general public to do something. Kudos to Khosla !

6 - Mentioned repeatedly by Khosla among others is that the rationale for Ethanol is in part a proper compromise that leaves the huge infrastructure in the internal combustion automobile - largely intact. Minor changes to oil / gasoline fueling can be implemented broadly in both cars and trucks, with little upset to the automotive industry or fuel station infrastructure. And because many new vehicles can be retrofitted for E85 and many new vehicles are being manufactured with switchable E85 capability, this simple change in fuel using Ethanol is able to come to market reasonably quickly and with minor costs.

7 - Lastly - with the eventual success of cellulosic ethanol production, low yield corn based ethanol will lose its predominance, due to numerous potential advantages of cellulosic feed stocks - cheaper, more productive agriculture and more efficient feed stock transport.

So while the lack of vision and lack of action by Mr.Rapier is curiously conflicted by his industry ties, the facts and momentum are behind Khosla and the push towards increased ethanol fueling of automobiles - all the way.

Rob Bradley said:

It is important to distinguish biofuels as such from the creation of dim-witted US policy today. While a 1.2 energy balance is a plausible estimate for corn-based ethanol in the mid-West, as opposed to around 5 for gasoline, the corresponding figure is between 9 and 11 for Brazilian ethanol from sugar. (Largely because the energy needed for processing comes from other parts of the sugar cane.) Many cellulose-based processes also have the potential for high conversion efficiencies.

More generally, arguments that a tax should not be applied to fuel because it would constitute “coercion” are specious. All tax is coercion, and taxes on products that have damaging side effects are a highly economically efficient way of raising money and achieving broader goals.

The real biofuels problem in the US today is that obsession over this one technology has derailed more valuable progress such as on vehicle efficiency standards. CAFE legislation at present lets a manufacturer sell more inefficient vehicles provided that it sells some flexfuel models as well. The fiction is that these flexfuel cars run on ethanol, though in fact they do so less than 1% of the time. We would be better served getting rid of those kinds of policies, which deliberately increase US oil consumption, than fretting about whether ethanol can be made to work.

Robert Rapier said:

I have been reading through the comments, and wasn’t planning to respond. However, Mark Wendman’s comments are so far off the mark that they warrant a response.

Wendman writes “If the Saudis take this seriously, I figure many of the arguments against Ethanol are slightly vacuous.”

You are an engineer, are you not? Do the calculations yourself. But I guess it is always better to take a second-hand comment and use that as the basis of your argument instead of actually doing the work to support your point. Right?

Wendman writes “Ethanol replacement of some gasoline repatriates some of the present oil import expenditures to the heartland of America - often to smaller farm collectives.”

Again, as an engineer, do you actually understand the energy balance issues? If you understand this issue, you will see that this “repatriation” actually exchanges some imported oil for imported fertilizer and imported natural gas.

Wendman writes “Ethanol is a good renewable [meaning you can cultivate the feed stock materials] fuel alternative….”

Did you even read the initial essay? How are you cultivating all of the fossil fuels used to produce ethanol? How can ethanol be renewable when 90% of the energy content was derived from fossil fuels?

Wendman writes “Somehow I did not hear this addressed by Mr. Rapier in the least.”

That’s because you didn’t bother to do even a tiny bit of homework before offering up your opinions. But if you wish to butt heads with me, Mr. Wendman, you will have to do your own work and not rely on 2nd hand information.

Wendman writes “Folks from the oil industry don’t like the potential of larger scale production of Ethanol for upsetting their near monopoly.”

A couple of things, Mr. Wendman. We simply can’t produce enough ethanol to make a dent in our oil consumption. But even if we could, the capital costs for getting into the ethanol business are very low. If it looked like it was going to be the next big thing, do you think the oil companies would sit around twiddling their thumbs? Is that what you would do? Oil companies can make ethanol as easily as ADM. In fact, the biggest cellulosic ethanol trial underway is being funded by Shell.

Wendman writes “Right now cellulosic ethanol is in its infancy, almost barely getting out of R&D phase.”

Wendman again failed to do his homework. Cellulosic ethanol research has been going on for over 30 years. The process still has not shown to be economically viable, because breaking down the cellulose is a costly step. When someone actually shows that it can be done economically and on a large scale, then we can talk about it. The fact that labs across the country have been working on this for a long time indicates that it is not as easy as proponents like to claim.

Wendman writes “Where is Mr.Rapier in doing anything that either is innovative or helping bring innovations to market that might bring renewable or alternative fuels to the automobile market?”

Would you prefer a list of my alternative energy patents, or would you like a copy of my graduate thesis on cellulosic ethanol? Seriously, Wendman, do you shoot from the hip like this all the time? You make this too easy for me.

Wendman writes “That Vinod wishes to lead (not ride along in the backseat griping as Mr. Rapier does).”

Open mouth, insert foot. I have spent years working on this stuff. My criticisms are designed to sort out myth and hype from truth. Something you would understand had you bothered to do your homework. If we are going to pursue responsible energy policy, it does not help to have fiction masquerading as fact.

Wendman writes “Why do oil firms pay barrel extraction or similar taxes to most other oil producing states (Texas comes to mind) and NOT to California?”

Had you done your homework, you might find that part of the reason is that California adopted a different taxation model. They have high corporate taxes on oil companies, whereas Texas has none. California gets a much higher level of profits from oil companies than does Texas.

That’s enough of my time, Mr. Wendman. If you ever want to pick up the subject again, that is after you extract your foot from your throat, please do some homework next time. You are invited to my blog any time to discuss the subject, but keep in mind that an unprepared mind is swiftly dispensed with (as you now know).

Cheers,

Robert Rapier

Mark Wendman said:

I have been reading through the comments, and wasn’t planning to respond. However, Mark Wendman’s comments are so far off the mark that they warrant a response.

Wendman writes “If the Saudis take this seriously, I figure many of the arguments against Ethanol are slightly vacuous.”

You are an engineer, are you not? {YOU BET I AM) do the calculations yourself. [for the old process or the new innovations??] But I guess it is always better to take a second-hand comment and use that as the basis of your argument instead of actually doing the work to support your point. Right?

>>>>>>>>> Still not answered. Why are the Saudis worried enough to threaten retribution against an alternative fuel ? Because it is not a threat? Because the Saudis know that innovation and scale up will likely improve the energy balance in renewables? In a means not yet acheivable in small scale? Or are you wiser than the Saudis who fear the impending innovations??

Wendman writes “Ethanol replacement of some gasoline repatriates some of the present oil import expenditures to the heartland of America - often to smaller farm collectives.”

Again, as an engineer, do you actually understand the energy balance issues? If you understand this issue, you will see that this “repatriation” actually exchanges some imported oil for imported fertilizer and imported natural gas.

>>>>>>>>> Sill not answered - the CASH lost in balance of trade payments by paying foriegn entities for OIL is substantive. You conveniently dodge the issue. and very conveniently.

Wendman writes “Ethanol is a good renewable [meaning you can cultivate the feed stock materials] fuel alternative….”

Did you even read the initial essay? How are you cultivating all of the fossil fuels used to produce ethanol? How can ethanol be renewable when 90% of the energy content was derived from fossil fuels?

>>>>>>>>> Where the cultivation consumes non renewables - the amounts / proportions of nonrenewables consumed will change [decrease]over time as process learning improves and alternative energy infrastructure increases. End of silly diversionary argument.

Wendman writes “Somehow I did not hear this addressed by Mr. Rapier in the least.”

That’s because you didn’t bother to do even a tiny bit of homework before offering up your opinions. But if you wish to butt heads with me, Mr. Wendman, you will have to do your own work and not rely on 2nd hand information.

>>>>>>>>> My apologies, that my homework does not address your pouncing on the energy balance, but neither are you addressing my points. The energy balance is not terribly favorable YET due to non cellulosic production techniques, which as I said will change towards cellulosic as more engineering - more sophisticated genetic engineering and process innovations are brought to bear. Once the Ethanol infrastructure is increased there will be more motivation and resources to apply more sophisticated innovations and methods. Something about critical mass of effort, even if one adknowledges ADM as the behemoth, it is just one firm, with motivation to use corn as is.. Another aspect is that corn based ethanol does have the advantage of producing as byproduct waste of non ethanol feedstock - animal feed - which is of benefit in agricultural regions. I would not be surprised if this was left out of your energy balance calculations.

Wendman writes “Folks from the oil industry don’t like the potential of larger scale production of Ethanol for upsetting their near monopoly.”

A couple of things, Mr. Wendman. We simply can’t produce enough ethanol to make a dent in our oil consumption. But even if we could, the capital costs for getting into the ethanol business are very low. If it looked like it was going to be the next big thing, do you think the oil companies would sit around twiddling their thumbs? Is that what you would do? Oil companies can make ethanol as easily as ADM. In fact, the biggest cellulosic ethanol trial underway is being funded by Shell.

>>>>>>>>>> At present the amounts produced are trivial and will not make a huge difference. TRUE. But to change this, one starts small, grows the endeavor and gains with intiially marginally profitable infrastructure growth, even if not cellulosic for example (YET). Moreover facts in the energy balance will change as more disciplined farming scales up, esp when converting to cellulosic in the medium term. With cellulosic will come switchgrass cultivation, and this will bring things to a more favourable stance.

Wendman writes “Right now cellulosic ethanol is in its infancy, almost barely getting out of R&D phase.”

Wendman again failed to do his homework. Cellulosic ethanol research has been going on for over 30 years. The process still has not shown to be economically viable, because breaking down the cellulose is a costly step. When someone actually shows that it can be done economically and on a large scale, then we can talk about it. The fact that labs across the country have been working on this for a long time indicates that it is not as easy as proponents like to claim.

>>>>>>>>>> Cellulosic ethanol process engineering is in its relative technological infancy - as so far it has failed. In large part the advances to come, will arise from genetic engineering applied to enzyme [cellulase] genetic engineering - developing means to signifcantly cost reduce cellulase or equivalents, by RECENT techniques leveraging genetic engineering. Without genetic engineering applied to cellulosic enzyme cycles, much of the prior work was quite crude in technology - almost the dark ages. I have seen alternative techniques that are also promising but have barely been tried yet.

And Genetic Engineering Techniques will make an impact on the cost effectiveness and process yields of cellulosic. The bioengineered enzyme paradigm transformation in cellulosic innovation has barely taken foot, despite the meagre results from the 30 years of prior unsophisticated efforts in cellulosic. Dwell on the past failures and you will never innovate successfully.

I have read some of the patents for older attempts at cellulosic and the efforts were quite crude compared to present endeavors, even if you cannot surmise this to be the case. The prior 30 years work in cellulosic R&D is not indicative of the medium term prospects for success in the least. Success in innovation is hardly predicted by past failures, even if your thesis taught you success was not easy. No one said it was.

Wendman writes “Where is Mr.Rapier in doing anything that either is innovative or helping bring innovations to market that might bring renewable or alternative fuels to the automobile market?”

Would you prefer a list of my alternative energy patents, or would you like a copy of my graduate thesis on cellulosic ethanol? Seriously, Wendman, do you shoot from the hip like this all the time? You make this too easy for me.

>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, writing does not constitute DOING. Carping about others efforts from your keyboard is not spongeworthy. GO FORTH and DO. Innovate and implement, by any means, even fail, then carp at others. So far you are just on the podium, demeaning someone elses thoughtful and measured efforts to reduce pollution, and to reduce imports from troublesome nations. Your pontificating is Not worth a darm thing in my books. I’ll take Silicon Valley any day of the week over naysayers such as yourself, even if you rule he Oil Drum, in Silicon Valley you are just another naysayer. And no, the needed innovations will not be easy, but they will happen when effort is applied.

Wendman writes “That Vinod wishes to lead (not ride along in the backseat griping as Mr. Rapier does).”

Open mouth, insert foot. I have spent years working on this stuff. My criticisms are designed to sort out myth and hype from truth. Something you would understand had you bothered to do your homework. If we are going to pursue responsible energy policy, it does not help to have fiction masquerading as fact.

>>>>>>>>>>>> How much work did you do? Did you actually field ethanol production and back manufacturing plants, and innovate in large scale manufacturing of renewable fuels? Or write how it was not feasable? Did you study process optimzation and do experiments, to improve ethanol yields? Did you apply genetic engineering to reduce enzyme costs in digesting cellulose? I still am not convinced of much other than you are putting down someone’s effort that is more substantive than your prior work in alternative fuels.

Where you talk of non renewables for cultivating ethanol feedstock, are you weighing that some good portion of this claim is subject to the possiblity that the ratio of non renewables expended in the cultivation and fertilizer use might have nonrenewables use reduced? Can an ethanol plant be run off of ethanol, or Photovoltaics? Might that have a dent in the balance ? Run the figures … This is obviously not present yet, but again, it will change in time, even if the balance of non-renewables to renewables is not there yet? First we have to build out Ethanol plants and more widely deploy photovoltaics, and spend less time denigrating these efforts.

Where does one begin? By opining that change is impossible because you said so? Or by beginning the change ? I vote for change. I vote for Silicon Valley over Houston ANY DAY. I vote that innovation will be found and developed, I vote on more than blind optimism, I vote that the brains are out there, and Khosla and others will find them and give innovation the opportunity to blossom and beat back the naysayers. Naysayers citing failures in past history as a determinant of future probabilities of success??. WRONG .. INNOVATION HAPPENS, and might not be the case in HOUSTON. At Intel there was a management dictum that speed of learning / process improvement is a competitive business advantage. Silicon Valley has it and Houston does not. And don’t try to convince me otherwise. Just watch…

Wendman writes “Why do oil firms pay barrel extraction or similar taxes to most other oil producing states (Texas comes to mind) and NOT to California?”

Had you done your homework, you might find that part of the reason is that California adopted a different taxation model. They have high corporate taxes on oil companies, whereas Texas has none. California gets a much higher level of profits from oil companies than does Texas.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Don’t care. ALL California companies pay high taxes. It is a quality of life thing. I’d rather live here than in the oil smog of Houston’s endless dirty refineries, and would rather live next to an ethanol refinery over an oil refinery any day. If the California barrel tax on oil / or gas tax at the pump, helps in any way to wean ourselves away from our present addiction to oil [quoting our president], I am all for it, and all for having helped fund innovations in the direction of energy innovations, for renewables and all kinds of useful practical energy innovations.

That’s enough of my time, Mr. Wendman. If you ever want to pick up the subject again, that is after you extract your foot from your throat, please do some homework next time. You are invited to my blog any time to discuss the subject, but keep in mind that an unprepared mind is swiftly dispensed with (as you now know).

>>>>>>>>>>>> My foot is not in my mouth. My money is betting on innovation to improve auto energy supplies, in manners that the oil industry might not like, but I could care less. I know that proliferation of Ethanol fuel will improves our balance of trade and will source auto fuel from the heartlands of our agriculture, and reduce air pollution from environmentally friendly E85.

As to my belief in the potential of innovation as a means to solve problems, it is not a blind belief, but a reasoned gamble with good intentions and with the knowledge that there is a bit of a gamble, but the right kind of effort to begin with. Naysaying as a means to stifle innovation efforts is not well intentioned, and is unwarranted. Just watch. and we will see who eats their words.

As to your lack of familiarity with the advances from genetic engineering that will likely positively impact the potential of practical enzymatic digestion of celluloic feedstock, my sincerest condolences. All we need is some room temperature high yield enzyme produced by an genetically engineered bacteria, and your pragmatic “boots stuck in the mud” with oh so easy skepticism, will be vanquished rather quickly.

I encountered this kind of dissmissive can’t do attitude in my year’s stay in Austin Texas, and I took it in stride, and singlehandedly both fixed a -20% plant wide manufacturing yield crash from second shift, and subsequently tripled the yield of a 3 year old volume production part, as naysayers surrounding me tried to prove me wrong every step of the way. ( just ask my surprised bosses - who after my come from the blue fix to the plantwide yield crash, tried to prove me a fluke and threw me the dog of a 3 year old part running 30% of normal yield, that no one corporate wide at our Fortune 500 firm, could fix for 3 years, which I promptly did in 2 months ) Folks with more paper credentials, and better corporate connections, folks who should have paid attention to important technical details, but did not.

So my belief in naysayers is quite limited. Blind belief is no guarantee of success, but if you don’t try, and refuse to innovate, you surely will fail.

Sorry, but inovation, successful innovation, requires the persistence of someone like Intel’s Tom Rowe who 10x increased the yield of the Intel 256bit DRAM process when it was thought impossible. Innovation of substance is hard, and saying it cannot be done is the easy way out, no matter what industry. Optimism is no guarantee of success, but real engineers must thoughtfully try [naysayers excused from the line of duty at the front], as many depend on the hope of a positive outcome, and I won’t give a whit about naysayer, even if I retain measured pragmatism.

Can do is me, and from the pleasure I have of observing and partaking in the most fascinating successes by the best folks in INNOVATIVE SILICON VALLEY - WE CAN DO, and you can carp for all I care on the The [slippery].Oil Drum.

There is no guarantee or preordaining success, but if you don’t swing the bat to try in substantive challenges, you surely will fail. That is a given. If you cannot change the numbers, they you have failed in your efforts to innovate.

Sucessful commercial development of alternative renewable fuels certainly won’t come from Houston. That is pretty damm obvious. At Intel we’d have said something like “what are you smoking?”if one thought for a moment bioengineering alternative fuels innovation might come from Houston or the oil industry.

I’d wager that Khosla might well successfully persue cellulosic development and profit from it, and leverage it by rapid implementation from converting conventional ethanol refineries at the appropriate time. A wise thoughtful man Vinod is.

And then we’ll see whose foot fits where, Robert - Best of luck in your naysaying…

Cheers & I’ll toast you with E100 brewed in California,

Mark Wendman

Robert Rapier said:

Hi again Mark,

This will be my last brief response, but I want to clear up two items for you. Whatever gave you the idea that I am in Houston is beyond me. I live in Montana. But it is this lack of attention to detail that has caused you to mistakenly whack away at these straw men of your creation. Consider this a prime example of your incorrect conclusion jumping.

Second, you have completely missed my point. The issue here is not innovation. I love innovation. I love technology. I was pointing out the need for genetic engineering in ethanol production 10 years ago. I don’t naysay on these counts. What I have a problem with is on specific claims that have been made that simply are not true. I have a problem with a nation being promised a solution based on many instances of misinformation. What happens if the public doesn’t take seriously the fact that our petroleum supplies are dwindling, because they have been promised that ethanol will save the day? We are losing an opportunity to implement conservation measures, and push for changes that have a greater chance of success. When you understand my position a bit better, perhaps we can take up this issue again. But I won’t waste Venture Beat’s bandwidth to do it. I simply wanted to set the record straight, because I don’t appreciate the attempted character assassination.

Cheers,

Robert Rapier

Mark Wendman said:

Robert,

Your R2 essays are thoughtful, but by the same token your posts refuting Vinod are portrayed in a decently misleading manner.

You are on the one hand trying to debunk where there is no debunking to do (by your tacit admission in a few of your R2 posts), and yet publicly you seem to conveniently ignore the same things you have in your R2 posts - things which on the face of it are pretty simple, even obvious re EROI sources and contributors especially upsides not yet universally implemented optimally, nor even yet piecemeal.

Since the roll out of any new large scale infrastructure is a bit chaotic, the implementations will not be consistently perfect nor best in class methods all at once. This you might acknowledge is normal for any technology paradigm shift. Without developing an ethanol infrastructure we cannot leverage the upsides which you describe in proper implementations
of ethanol in your posts - but do not highlight in your debates.

Important distinction…even if we think alike on many issues.

Ethanol’s large scale birthing will not be perfect, no virgin birth with all the teething problems avoided. But for fundamental reasons Vinod repeatedly highlights, Ethanol is the most pragmatic near term shift that can have the most benefits with the least change to the conventional internal combustion auto inventory, infrastructure and fueling distribution
infrastructure. This is apparent and a makes Ethanol a good compromise, with enormous potential upside for many aspects you admit to in your R2 posts all by mostly simple specifics of the refining plants, powering of same, cultivation, transport and harvesting locales and the like..

Moreover, ethanol will not be intended to entirely replace gasoline infrastructure, even if it attains a solid 5-10% replacement or supplementing of gasoline, it will have made marvelous progress and a significant impact. There is a bit larger upside if cellulosic is implemented successfully and that adds to the EROI upside potential.

Moreover where you point out that conservation is essential and critical, I think much the same way, but please realize a VC will have a tough time making a critical impact with a conservation based business model. VCs typically drive new technologies and preferably ones with large imperative markets - the zero dollar billion dollar market phrase comes to mind, as valley lingo.

My personal take is that conservation is not stressed enough and the single largest policy impact can be in driving large pragmatic increases in urban and populous suburban areas’ public transportation infrastructure. Most bang for the buck, but refused by all kinds of vested interests, so far. If the public transportation infrastructure is subcritical mass with poor service folks don’t feel comfortable using it. Where the service is good, people gravitate
to using public transportation and lose bad habits.

Public trasportation in one fell swoop can have a huge impact on vehicle total fuel consuption rates by reducing proivaste vehicle use when the right factors are present

Many of what you describe as EROI weakneses are able to be peicemeal solved or improved incrementally with plant adaptations and upgrades.They are not fundamental to ethanol, and this is where the arguments you hold publicly with Vinod are actually counterproductive - not true to your whole story and assumes that as the infrastructure rolls
out that, the call it holistic cycles would not be upgraded and improved??

Where you at times are correct indicating your main concern that EROI is inadequate for many of the plants and planned distribution modes, you also properly point out in your R2 discourses that judicious integrated facilities and infrastructure can dramatically change
the EROI upside. Here we completely agree, but you don’t stress this publicly enough for whatever reason, as to generate ill founded controversy.

So it is not specifically a technical impediment which limits EROI but call it vertical cycles integration in plant, methods, infrastructure and cultivation / harvesting. Not to use a phase too loosely, but a holoistic approach to the complete Ethanol cycle.

Intrinisically ethanol is not an EROI limiter, it when poorly implemented can still be adapted to a better EROI, by simple means that you describe and anyone with some thought can put together.

While wisdom has to be applied, it will gain a footing even if the initial implementations might be haphazard initially.

Clearly say a thermosolar LUZ style plant - with thermo solar “power” generation, can possibly directly power a decent fraction of an ethanol refinery. This is not perfect for all hours nor at all times, but here again large scale electrochemical membrane flow batteries for thermo electric generation / power storage / levelling can improve the basic limits to an otherwise seasonal / daytime pure thermo solar EROI.

So here I will point out that roll out of ethanol will first and foremost build infrastructure for a needed diversification of automobile fueling for internal combustion vehicles. Ethanol holds some bumps in the road, and there will be some variabilty of EROI of plants that will improve as more experience is brought to bear. You fundamentally don’t have an arguement with the upside potential, even though you don’t stress this in your debates.

My impression is that a buildout of ethanol is required, partly to complement oil and partially displace some consumption, and to put in place the systems learning with ethanol that will gradually proliferate and improve the technology only by larger scale production. Most of your more public complaints clearly can be adressed to mitigate your valid concerns, from ideas you have enumerated outside of the public challenges to Vinod.

Personally I see that ethanol will play a significant role in auto fueling and the paradigm change, even if restricted to a seemingly smaller market share in relation to oil, will portend positive changes in fueling of vehicles in many respects, and provide a means to limit monopolistic practices by the oil industry, aside to contributing to a reduction in non-renewable oil consumption. It is merely one part of the equation, important and something not to be ignored or dismissed, even if complemented by alternative techniques and strategies.

Cheers,

Mark Wendman

Mark Wendman said:

Robert,

Here is the proof in the pudding that Cellulosic Etanol will have far better prospects than your rearview mirror of pessimism.

From this month’s MIT Tech Review -
http://www.technologyreview.com/TR35/Profile.aspx?Cand=T&TRID=436

No doubt you will try to dismiss Agrivida and make curious of excuses that genetic engineering applied to the enzyme part of the cellulosic EROI puzzle will for some reason in your eyes will suffer some achilles heel, some impenetrable weakness that only you might fathom and interpret.

Heck even with lowly corn - not the best yield crop for cellulosic - apparently they are predicting inteh range of +20% in ethanol yields. With switchgrass the effects will be more obvious and beneficial.

Facts are coming, and Agrivida http://www.agrivida.com might be the poster child for why your pessimism and rearward looking historical numbers for EROI in the not too distant future will be obsoleted in the context of innovation funded by VCs, teaming with similar forward looking brethren. Not aided by rearward looking naysayers, and certainly not by the oil industry.

Take care and be sure not to be a sea anchor in the waves of innovation to come. Good R&D engineers try to improve and innovate, and while a slightly jaded view of any new innovation is warranted, at some point you might have to accept reality that the oil industry has dragged its feet for obvious motivations or mere lack of skill and creativity.

Skilled tech VCs will in fact fill the void with results, funding the most innovative promising keys to the puzzle / challenge of EROI for ethanol - cellulosic or other.

Agrivida might not be the only one, nor the best solution, but you will be hard pressed to argue that their model of enzymes grown into cellulosic feedstock will certainly make cellulosic ethanol both highly likely, commercially viable in due course (ie nornal certification and R&D cycles).

No doubt in the future, this might if you are honest to yourself, cause you to rethink the invective you have sent Vinod’s way. Realize that his heart is in this, and with good intentions, and skill that you seem to gloss over.

A guy who funds out of pocket Microcap loan funding for poverty stricken folks in India, has his heart and intentions in the right place.

I’d also point out that Agrivida’s effort in applying these concepts initially to corn, might not be the best idea commercially to be kind, but the same methods & concepts applied to switchgrass might actually get over the regulatory hump due to greater distance from the food chain - ie better isolation from human edible feedstock - albeit not perfect.

Agrivada’s model - GM modfication of plants to incorporate enzymes enabling cellulosic digestion, is not the only model one can envision as a means for cost effective enzyme production for enabling cellulosic ethanol. But surely the innovations will occur faster than you have cared to admit.

Cheer up, it is only a blog.

Robert Rapier said:

“Here is the proof in the pudding that Cellulosic Etanol will have far better prospects than your rearview mirror of pessimism.”

Mark, at this point I have no doubt that you are merely posturing. You misread my position, proceeded to attack based on your misunderstanding, and then made excuses that the problem was me not making my position clear. In fact, you are guilty of serious comprehension problems, and a failure to do your homework. Case in point, your mistake that I lived in Houston, and then proceeding to attack Houston based on that mistake. Consider why you made that mistake, and consider that you are making a similar mistake by misrepresenting my position on these other issues.

I have sent you links to my essays. Read them or not, but if you don’t read them, you have no excuse for misrepresenting my position. I have written numerous essays in favor of heavy funding of cellulosic ethanol. I told you by e-mail that I was advocating genetic engineering for cellulosic ethanol 10 years ago (14, actually). Therefore, your claims that I would downplay Agrivida’s efforts are borderline dishonest.

It is not clear to me what game you are playing, unless you are trying to catch Vinod’s attention with your incessant cheerleading. Maybe he has a position in his organization for one more person who merely tells him what he wants to hear, instead of applying a critical analysis to the problem. Just understand that there is a big difference between “invective”, and a critical analysis, and without the critical analysis it is easy to go down the wrong path.

Good day,

Robert Rapier

Ed B said:

The discussion is entertaining but sterile. Its discussion of a moving target—the data is varying rapidly, depending on circumstances of the moment. Eith the wide range of values, you always can pick values that support your point of view.

More specifically. They are using the word “ethanol” when they really seem to be talking about “corn ethanol”. Chemically the same as “sugar cane ethanol”. Economically, totally different.

The energy out/ energy in ratio of 1.2:1 may well apply to corn. (GOK, which means God only knows). Ethanol from sugar cane, based on a much more extensive Brazilian experience, seems to have a ratio of 8.3:1.

Ethanol price in Brazil is at present around US$100/m3. This is US$0.375/gallon.
Note the preposition “in”. Once the ethanol reaches the US, there is a transportation charge (minute) and a US$0.14 per liter import duty. This amounts to US$0.525 per gallon. A 140% duty.

The US is probably justified in placing a large duty on Brazilian ethanol although the legality of this is being examined by the WTO.

Mark Wendman said:

Ed,

You are catching the jist of this.

The numbers and technical context is indicative that small things of material significance can have a large impact on Ethanol’s long term viability. One can fudge them or interpret them either way, which actually means there is opportunity that remains real and viable for ethanol growth, as we see even today. Certainly if one uses all worst practices the numbers will need to be pessimistic as some wish for. One can be too optimistic, but one can find a pragmatic medium.

Robert wishes to run numbers that are largely pessimistic, and ignores both what you point out re sugar cane, and in the case of corn based ethanol is using again numbers which have no upside from promising technology improvements, nor specifically that of the substantive upside of a genetically engineered assist for a success he deems too improbable for cellulosic. I think that is wrong - cellulosic will happen in parallel with a larger buidlout of corn ethanol and will be enabled to benefit from lower yielding corn ethanol plant infrastructure - possibly converting to cellulosic - step by step.

As to ignoring that the complete solution - ie optimal Ethanol delivery ecosystem - it can evolve and benefit from upgrades in technology and mere details of implementation - this is where Robert fails to acknowlege that ANY (not just ethanol) technology transition can be piecemeal, and that proliferation in advance of an optimal perfect solution, can build sufficient demand for improvements to be upgraded across significant portions of the newer infrastructure.

Build a regular corn ethanol plant - and migrate to corn cellulosic, and then say switchgrass cellulosic as feedstocks are optimized, and chemistry and processes improved. Do you scrap a non-cellulosic ethanol plant equipment to upgrade to cellulosic ? I doubt that sincerely. You’d add on process equipment for the cellulosic digestion, or if lucky with Agrivida the transition to cellulosic might be requiring of no equipment changes (this remains to be seen).

Is cellulosic improbable? and the upside to cellulosic seen through far too strongly rose tinted glasses - I doubt that, but some such as Robert say it can’t happen since 30yrs of prior failures in cellulosic makes it improbable in his “jaded” eyes.

That the proponderance of biofuels work has transpired without Genetically Engineered methods, is an indicator that there is upside to GM techniques, and Agrivida is an obvious example of the potential in the near to medium term…after they implement a switchgrass version.

Robert is used to getting his way nearly unchallenged on the Oil Drum and in taking a historical perspective as immutable, and as his ?alone.

That Agrivida is doing a particular technical thrust which clearly demonstrates even in lowly corn based ethanol, viabilty on a technical level for cellulosic corn, and stronger potential for cellulosic switchgrass, is apparent with some foresight, yet is conveniently off his horizon.

I think that I sense a reluctance to evision a transformation which he finds inconvenient or less desireable, or almost impossible since he might have failed at a comparable effort with less experience in genetic enegineering that will be required to make cellulosic a success.

The EROIs will be improved and the Farmers in Middle America and elsewhere will see some upside taken from Houston (the allegorical capital of the oil industry ?). Fewer imports of oil from undesirable foreign suppliers from a growing ethanol ecosystem is apparent but not wanted by some.

Even if prop 87 does not come to pass (I hope it does) there is enough momentum gathering for ethanol to displace a small, growing portion of total gasoline sales.

The careful engineering and systems setup of ethanol will improve EROI as times goes on, and infrastructure grows. It will both be beneficial in EROI with the improvements forthcoming and avalable today, and profitable and better in balance of payments.

The political aspects of the implementation do threaten the status quo, and whether Robert wishes to fess up that he is not helping the pollution and economic aspects of Ethanol’s potential for the rest of the country(outside of the oil industry), I can understand his implicit motivations which largely remain unspoken…. even if he wishes to keep trying to point the discussion in another direction.

I figure walmart’s interest in providing a quick growing infrastructure of ethanol E85 fueling locations is another aspect hinting as to the business viability of this, saide from the benefits potential and actual in the pollution metrics..

http://mark-nano.blogspot.com/2006/09/khoslas-excellent-articles-on-biofuels.html

Best Regards

Mark Wendman

Robert Rapier said:

Mark, again, if Mr. Khosla is looking to fill a slot for “Yes Man”, you will probably be in the running. If, however, he is looking for someone who can think critically, I think you are going to be out of luck. You have shown incredibly poor comprehension skills going back several posts now, and comprehension is important. In addition, I have to question your basic integrity, given that your misrepresentations continue. It is no longer worth my time to engage you. I don’t mind a debate, but not with someone who is just trolling for attention.

Given that I would not question someone’s integrity without providing examples, I will provide a couple. First, your accusation that I have ignored sugar cane is false. Just because you again failed to do your homework on a particular issue, that does not give you the right to falsely characterize my position. It would be no different than me saying you have ignored the fact that industrial corn farming causes significant soil erosion. But since we haven’t discussed that, I wouldn’t be showing much integrity if I made such an accusation against you. In fact, I have written positively about Brazil’s experience with ethanol.

Second, you continue to misrepresent my position on cellulosic ethanol. You have no excuse for this, given the number of times I have corrected you on this. Either you lack basic comprehension skills, lack integrity, or just desperately need attention. In fact, I received an e-mail this morning from someone asking what exactly your problem is. Others can see what you are doing. If you have to misrepresent someone’s position in order to attack it, then you are arguing from a serious position of weakness. If someone wants to see some of my actual feelings on cellulosic ethanol, as opposed to your misrepresentations, they can read one of the essays I have written on the topic:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/ethanol-from-biomass-sustainable.html

But I’ll tell you what. If you want to write a fact-based pro-ethanol essay, I would be glad to host it on my personal blog and address it. It can’t be another one of these “rah-rah, ethanol is going to save us, Vinod Khosla is my hero” posts. It has to deal in actual facts. Perhaps part of the reason you have shied away from the facts is that you are so unfamiliar with the subject matter. If this is the case, please familiarize yourself a bit more before submitting your essay. Now, I really am finished wasting Venture Beat bandwidth addressing your false allegations. I just wanted to make crystal clear for the readers exactly what you are doing, and I want to make sure they take you with a grain of salt given your documented misrepresentations.

Sincerely,

Robert Rapier

John Schreiber said:

Rapier is so rabidly against corn ethanol it is difficult for ethanol proponents to see that he has positive input relating to other issues we care about. His name appears on this presentation as a researcher: http://www.epa.gov/region6/6pd/pd-u-sw/wte_ftworth/cafo/holtzapple.pdf
and this is not the work of an enemy, regardless of the other negative noise coming from his keyboard.
Personally, I prefer Khosla’s methods and positive view over Rapier’s, and I am quite confident that Khosla’s way will inevitably result in positive change at less cost than any other method offered.

EP said:

John, you seem surprised. From Matt’s article, he makes it clear that Rapier is not the enemy. He wrote that Rapier “is not just a propaganda mouth-piece; he’s got substance.” I read his essay above and he seems bullish on ethanol from cellulose.

I think his position is clear. It does not seem to me that he has staked out an anti-ethanol position. My impression is that he is trying to keep this debate in the realm of science and out of mythology. We should applaud that stance.

EP

Mark Wendman said:

Hmm …

I am curious why Rapier debunks someone who is not doing anything other than pushing all ethanol forward?

Present technology Corn Ethanol is explained as non optimally efficient by Vinod - trivially obvious, and Rapier tends to “debunk” based on both the modest implications of corn as is, versus the potential upside nearterm with cellulosic.

Robert deems cellulosic’s technical success prospects as pessimistic due to its long history of failure [using prior simple tech innovations] as example of cellulosic implausbility for success.

Rapier seems to miss that Ethanol has merits due to its technical advance upside near/med term and misses almost blindly the infrastructure business issues and startup costs of purportedly better alternatives.

Yes technially there are better alternatives, but who will pay the huge transition costs? Certainly Robert does not have it in his back pocket? Robert might omit this matter too conveniently.

Infrastructure transition costs have to do with the not insignficant advantages of the very modest changes to cars and fueling that make Ethanol very plausible as a practical “vehicle” for a viable renewable fuel transition - for partial market share in automotive fuel markets.

Robert overcomplicates things and does so in a manner that misses salient points - critical salient points, that most other vehicle fueling options have significant business & cost barriers that are considerably more expensive to cross over.

Vinod explains this well enough without gory detail. One cannot blithly ignore as Rapier does - the costs of implementing alternative fueling stations with an infrastructure comparable to existing gas stations.

And the practical matters of transitioning automobile manufacturers to a radically new fueling / engine technology - are not in Roberts analysis.

It is as if Robert has some near infinite source of funds to help make a perfect alternative come into being by itself.

Even the forthcoming Honda home hydrogen setup for energy and fueling the Honda Hydrogen vehicle, will be costly for consumers to purchase - not for the average joe in the least.

And in the short term / med term, how far in travel can one use the Honda Hysdrogen vehicle for practical travel outside of daily commutes, until a larger deployed fueling infrastructure is built out?

IE venues for travel / travel ranges have practical limits with a limited fueling station infrastructure.

Ethanol fueling and vehicles will grow significantly, because compared to alternatives, the transition to broaden the fueling infrastructure is nearly seamless for Ethanol versus alternatives - in fueling station buildout and not onerous in the fuel refining in the least.

Simplicity of FFV - E85 FLEX FUEL vehicle modifications does away with the infrastructure hurdles and opens the opportunity for a viable lower business risk alternative in something very close to the present autmobile industry infrastructure - fueling stations and vehicle technology.

Ethanol is the KISS alternative for a reasonably clean renewable vehicle fuel.

You cannot gloss over these practical cost barriers, as it is of critical significance in business / marketing product technology transition practicality - ie the fuel costs and optimal EROI are merely one aspect [even if one selectively cherry picks present corn's numbers wrongly as one's justifications for a mistake in analysis].

The phrase “crossing the chasm” [to critical business/ market mass] is oft cited in more general less challenging tech startup issues.

This phrase is not merely a salient point in context to the actual viabilty of any alternative fuel business prospect - it is almost the main [business] issue, in many broader realistic analyses of the actual prospects.

Vinod understands this and Robert fundamentally is almost clueless - notable by no mention of these critical issues in his dismissive purported “debunking” paper.

One cannot ignore busienss reality when it stares you in the face. Vinod’s substantive business experience correctly tells him that he can make a business case with acceptable transition risks with conventional Ethanol and once attained, Ethanol has significant acheivable technology upgrades in EROI of merit in the very near term, all incrementally [read low risk].

For this - Robert is blind to realities, being too numbers centric for only part of the equation, in a pessimistic manner.

Idealism in tech transitions, is as dumb as PETA’s animal rights extremism [yup PETA is silly].

Even if you have PART of the Ethanol numbers, the business model is NOT complete without infrastructure costs in fuel station buildout and automobile volume manufacture, for a viable critical mass transition that might survive.

Ethanol will not completely supplant gasoline. That is a given, nor will it take a majority position any time soon, but it will have a significant positive impact that cannot be ignored - it will not be an insignificant niche in the auto fueling ecosystem.

This is why in my estimation Vinod is right and the “[tenaciousdna] debunker” might have a hard time making a viable business of a new technology, with his partial slanted analysis.

Too expensive per capita infrastructure startup costs for general vehicle applications for a new fueling option, and the numerous cited alternatives suffer slow uptake in the general population, till a harder to acheive needed critical mass is obtained.

Nowhere do I hear Robert talk like a business guy with tech smarts [this is after all VentureBeat], which is understandable given his lack of business experience.

Business smarts brings a notable perspective to not ignore the larger realities of why Ethanol is viable option.

Don’t falsely “debunk” with HALF the numbers of the WHOLE picture. It is more than misleading to do so.

Non cellulosic Corn ethanol is for now a useful “vehicle” for transition to a more promising ethanol technology in the very near term…

Please do not tell me that Robert is positive about cellulosic’s prospects for technical success, as he and I just went round and round about how he cites 30 years of prior Cellulosic failures as making Cellulosic success too improbable.

Then I point out Agrivida with GM cellulosic enzyme Corn and later switchgrass.

I will in about 4 weeks provide a point by point critique of Rapiers oft cited debunking paper - and point out its failings, which are numerous, even if it is purportedly a numbers centric missive.

Its glaring substantive numbers omissions make many of his incomplete numbers cited as mostly irrelevant, largely because a substantive upside is so close for ethanol and the ethanol transition barrier for critical mass in the marketplace is best in class of all alternatives.

Ethanol is an easy way to partly diversify a huge gasoline infrastructure with modest costs on transition (read acceptable BUSINESS risk) with technology upsides looming on the near horizon that makes it now and even more so later, a viable, cleaner fueling prospect for internal combustion engines.

Rapier is substantive, but in his debunking has a too convenient incomplete picture portrayed as the whole reality.

Trevin said:

I don’t think Rapier’s debunking paper was meant to address all pros and cons of ethanol. My reading of it says it was to address specific misleading claims that VK made. In that, I think it served its purpose. I really think you are reaching somewhat, Mark, for something that was never supposed to be there in the first place. At least you are if we are looking at the same paper. I just don’t read in that paper (or his other papers for that matter) that he thinks ethanol is inherently a bad idea.

Florida said:

I really like the layout and colors that you chose for this website! It certainly is incredible! :)

reescymn said:

giop lokater fdyujan

Mr http://reescymn.cj7osxm.net/sitemap11.html glad