GM Inside News Forum banner

USA's Sixth Cellulosic Ethanol Plant

3K views 28 replies 13 participants last post by  bluecon 
#1 · (Edited)
Range Fuels is building the first one in Georgia.

Mascoma Corp. is building the second one in Michigan.

Abengoa Bioenergy is building America's third cellulosic ethanol plant in Kansas.

Lignol applies to build America's fourth cellulosic ethanol plant in Colorado

Florida Crystals Corp. is bulding America's fifth cellulosic ethanol plant in Florida

Mascoma is building America's sixth cellulosic ethanol plant in Tennessee

UT Board Approves Biofuels Business Partnership

KNOXVILLE -– The executive committee of the University of Tennessee Board of Trustees today approved a business partnership between the university and cellulosic biofuels pioneer Mascoma Corporation to establish Tennessee as a biofuels industry leader.

The University of Tennessee and Mascoma plan to jointly build and operate a 5 million gallon per year cellulosic ethanol biorefinery in Monroe County.
 
#4 ·
I love the fact that most pushrod V8's run awesome on ethanol.
 
#6 ·
Ethanol is a joke. It requires to much energy to produce, by the tractors used to harvest the crop, the energy used to turn the crop in to ethanol and then the trucks that need to haul the fuel from the producer to the distributer.

The only reason it makes sense at all is the US government subsidies that farmers recieve on virtually every crop they produce.
 
#7 ·
johnct2005 said:
Ethanol is a joke. It requires to much energy to produce, by the tractors used to harvest the crop, the energy used to turn the crop in to ethanol and then the trucks that need to haul the fuel from the producer to the distributer.

The only reason it makes sense at all is the US government subsidies that farmers recieve on virtually every crop they produce.
Take your foot and insert it into your mouth, please.

Cellulosic ethanol plants can produce ethanol from ANYTHING biological. Grass clippings, tree branches, biological waste, paper, TRASH. Anything that can be composted in any way can produce ethanol.

pwn3d.
 
#8 ·
johnct2005 said:
Ethanol is a joke. It requires to much energy to produce, by the tractors used to harvest the crop, the energy used to turn the crop in to ethanol and then the trucks that need to haul the fuel from the producer to the distributer.

The only reason it makes sense at all is the US government subsidies that farmers recieve on virtually every crop they produce.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

All of the same "I'm afraid of change" whining that has been a constant, anytime a major change has come about in history. Somehow, everyone who engages in this very type of detracting, gets proven wrong every time.

Biomass derived fuels are coming - like it or not. They are the best answer to our energy needs at current. I say, instead of cowering in the corner while shouting about how much of a "joke" ethanol is, you get yourself ready for a world that is increasingly using renewable energy sources.
 
#9 ·
johnct2005 said:
Ethanol is a joke. It requires to much energy to produce, by the tractors used to harvest the crop, the energy used to turn the crop in to ethanol and then the trucks that need to haul the fuel from the producer to the distributer.

The only reason it makes sense at all is the US government subsidies that farmers recieve on virtually every crop they produce.
Yes, because it's so much more efficient to pump oil from miles beneath the surface, transport it by ship to a refinery, refine it into gasoline, pump it into storage tanks and transport it by truck to a distributor.

If we use biomass to make the fuel, clean power to turn it into ethanol and biodiesel in the transport trucks we've cut oil/fossil fuel consumption by a HUGE margin.
 
#10 ·
AndrewGS said:
Yes, because it's so much more efficient to pump oil from miles beneath the surface, transport it by ship to a refinery, refine it into gasoline, pump it into storage tanks and transport it by truck to a distributor.

If we use biomass to make the fuel, clean power to turn it into ethanol and biodiesel in the transport trucks we've cut oil/fossil fuel consumption by a HUGE margin.
Not to tag onto your post but also simplification of the delivery process. A release from foreign oil. Less pollution both by commuters and delivery vehicles. CONTROL OVER PRICE. And best of all, a **** you aimed at the Middle East. And another **** you aimed at Venezuela and that psycho Chavez.

We need cellulosic technology NOW. The faster we get the ball rolling the faster we can wean ourselves off of the pricks who make money hand over fist while behind closed doors planning ways to murder our civilians and screw with our economy.:yup:
 
#11 ·
johnct2005 said:
Ethanol is a joke. It requires to much energy to produce, by the tractors used to harvest the crop, the energy used to turn the crop in to ethanol and then the trucks that need to haul the fuel from the producer to the distributer.

The only reason it makes sense at all is the US government subsidies that farmers recieve on virtually every crop they produce.
I guess that enough people have already kicked you about your first goofy paragraph, so let me at the second one!

Farmers have been given subsidies on their crops (or even to NOT grow crops) in order to keep their prices higher, so they can be profitable (or more profitable). And this has been going on loooong before these last few years of ethanol production start ups. But if there is more demand for crops (for fuel, for food, for clothing, etc., etc., etc.) then the extra demand drives prices (and profits) up to a level where the subsidies we pay now won't be required.

In addition, ethanol production continues to get more and more efficient. But gasoline production continues to become less and less efficient, since the easier to access (cheaper) oil gets used up, and we have to rely more on the difficult to access (expensive) oil. Yes, even at $83 a barrel, oil is still a cheap fuel, but it's price will continue to climb, while ethanol's price will continue downward. Which one is the future?

Besides, I would rather pay some farmers in Iowa $10 a gallon for ethanol, than pay $1 a gallon for gasoline from Iran,Venezuela, etc.
 
#12 ·
Don't feel too bad johnct2005.
The more we all learn about cellulosic ethanol, the better off we all are and the more we can inform other people about its benefits.

This is great. It seems like every month, more of these plants are coming on line or are getting ready to be built. Let's start a contest. What state, will be the largest ethanol producer by 2010?
 
#13 ·
Wolfman01 said:
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

All of the same "I'm afraid of change" whining that has been a constant, anytime a major change has come about in history. Somehow, everyone who engages in this very type of detracting, gets proven wrong every time.

Biomass derived fuels are coming - like it or not. They are the best answer to our energy needs at current. I say, instead of cowering in the corner while shouting about how much of a "joke" ethanol is, you get yourself ready for a world that is increasingly using renewable energy sources.
This is more like when Lenin told the Russians communism would be good for them. Just because it is a change doesn't mean it is better.
 
#14 · (Edited)
AndrewGS said:
Yes, because it's so much more efficient to pump oil from miles beneath the surface, transport it by ship to a refinery, refine it into gasoline, pump it into storage tanks and transport it by truck to a distributor.

If we use biomass to make the fuel, clean power to turn it into ethanol and biodiesel in the transport trucks we've cut oil/fossil fuel consumption by a HUGE margin.
Not only do the oil companies do all that and make a nice profit they also subsidize the US government to the tune of about 75 Billion a year from taxes and royalties.
 
#15 ·
IndyCamaro83 said:
Don't feel too bad johnct2005.
The more we all learn about cellulosic ethanol, the better off we all are and the more we can inform other people about its benefits.

This is great. It seems like every month, more of these plants are coming on line or are getting ready to be built. Let's start a contest. What state, will be the largest ethanol producer by 2010?
Iowa because they have the important presidential primary there.
 
#16 ·
bluecon said:
This is more like when Lenin told the Russians communism would be good for them. Just because it is a change doesn't mean it is better.
Let's see... we can buy oil from OPEC for $82 a barrel,


or we can buy ethanol from American farmers.


And E85 is selling for $1.94 in Indianapolis.

Yeah, this is just like communism.

It is rather ironic, to say the least that you want the freedom to buy all the oil you want from OPEC, and call the cellulosic ethanol industry "communism", when it was Lenin who said "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
 
#17 ·
Once again.
Look at that tax rate times the 130billion or so gallons of gas consumed per year and add the royalties and you have one big chunk of change that the oil companies are handing to the government. And the Ethanol industry? They are heavily subsidized.

"America has about 22 billion barrels of "proven" oil reserves, defined as "reasonably certain to be recoverable in future years under existing economic and operating conditions." In addition, there are an estimated 112 billion barrels that could be recovered with existing drilling and production technology. Make that, with existing drilling and production technology and fewer Democrats like Pelosi who, while promising energy independence, are opposed to any drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and much drilling offshore, where 87 billion of the 112 billion barrels are located, as is much of the estimated 656 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas."

"While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax) and California's various governments make 40.2 cents (the nation's third-highest gasoline tax). Pelosi's San Francisco collects a local sales tax of 8.5 percent — higher than the state's average for local sales taxes."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will051707.php3
 
#19 ·
bluecon said:
This is more like when Lenin told the Russians communism would be good for them. Just because it is a change doesn't mean it is better.
This has nothing to do with communism. This is about our energy independence.
 
#21 ·
Wolfman01 said:
This has nothing to do with communism. This is about our energy independence.
Sure it does. Only communist would be foolish enough to heavily subsidize an industry by transferring money from the taxpayers and at the same time increaseing the price of food while a heavily taxed perfectly good alternative source of fuel was not produced due to government interference.

"Pelosi vowed, as politicians have been doing since President Richard Nixon set the fashion, to achieve "energy independence." Such vows are, as Soviet grain production quotas used to be, irrational reflexes that no serious person takes seriously. Pelosi baldly asserts that "energy independence is essential to reducing the price at the pump," but she does not say how."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will051707.php3
 
#22 ·
bluecon said:
Sure it does. Only communist would be foolish enough to heavily subsidize an industry by transferring money from the taxpayers and at the same time increaseing the price of food while a heavily taxed perfectly good alternative source of fuel was not produced due to government interference.

"Pelosi vowed, as politicians have been doing since President Richard Nixon set the fashion, to achieve "energy independence." Such vows are, as Soviet grain production quotas used to be, irrational reflexes that no serious person takes seriously. Pelosi baldly asserts that "energy independence is essential to reducing the price at the pump," but she does not say how."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will051707.php3
The Soviet Union also built missles and maintained standing armies. Should America stop defending herself so as not to become communist like the Soviet Union?

Communism is the collectivization of the means of production. Farms are not being collectivized. Etahnol plants are not being collectivized. Rather, the federal government simply is not taxing profit made by the sale of ethanol.
 
#23 ·
HoosierRon said:
The Soviet Union also built missles and maintained standing armies. Should America stop defending herself so as not to become communist like the Soviet Union?

Bluecon
That makes absolutely no sense and is totally irrelevant as to communism or capitalism. If i remember Hitler also had a large army. We actually need the large army to protect ourselves from these tyrants.

Communism is the collectivization of the means of production. Farms are not being collectivized. Etahnol plants are not being collectivized. Rather, the federal government simply is not taxing profit made by the sale of ethanol.
They are transferring the money from hardworking taxpayers to produce a product that makes no economic sense and restricting the competition with the unelected court system. Sounds like a good step towards communism.

"Liberalism was a precursor to Socialism, which is the precursor to communism."
 
#24 · (Edited)
bluecon said:
They are transferring the money from hardworking taxpayers to produce a product that makes no economic sense and restricting the competition with the unelected court system. Sounds like a good step towards communism.

"Liberalism was a precursor to Socialism, which is the precursor to communism."
The government is not "transfering money" to corn farmers. To the contrary, because of the demand for corn, farmers are not getting price support subsidies. (Your comment about restricting competition with the unelected court system is a non sequitur, so I won't respond to it.)

Nonetheless, the government is transfering money from hard working taxpayers to marines to kill the enemy in Afghanistan. Sounds like a good step toward what the Soviet union was doingin Afghanistan in the 1980s. DO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP[ TAXING YOU TO PAY THE MARINES IN AFGHANISTAN?

"Americans who prefer to pay Saudi Arabia for gasoline rather than American farmers for ethanol deserve the freedom that Saudi Arabians have."
 
#25 ·
HoosierRon said:
The government is not "transfering money" to corn farmers. To the contrary, because of the demand for corn, farmers are not getting price support subsidies. (Your comment about restricting competition with the unelected court system is a non sequitur, so I won't respond to it.)

Bluecon
Of course they are transferring the money. That is what the government does. The money goes to subsidize the ethanol plants which subsidizes the corn and causes all food to increase in price. (technically another government caused tax) And then to top it off the government taxes the oil companies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and puts roadblocks in place every chance they get

Nonetheless, the government is transfering money from hard working taxpayers to marines to kill the enemy in Afghanistan. Sounds like a good step toward what the Soviet union was doingin Afghanistan in the 1980s. DO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP[ TAXING YOU TO PAY THE MARINES IN AFGHANISTAN?

"Americans who prefer to pay Saudi Arabia for gasoline rather than American farmers for ethanol deserve the freedom that Saudi Arabians have."
I am Canadian. We have almost no army. (maybe 10,000 actual fighting troops) If not for the Americans I would be typing this in Russian.

When can I expect corn ethanol to make us energy independant? It will not provide any significant benefit.

Much easier and beneficial to drill for oil in Alaska and offshore.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top