MH:  The little I've read didn't say, but I think we could expect a serious water project to make certain that supplies are reliable.

Imagine the following:
• the feedstock for fermenting ethanol was not just corn kernels but also its corn husk, stalk, cob, and/or even a damaged crop;
• feedstock could include any agricultural crop or waste, forestry waste, or urban waste (MSW) or even fossil fuel;
• waste conversion to ethanol resulted in a reduction of landfill requirements by 85%;
• the fermenting process took less than 1% (7 minutes) of the amount of time that sugar fermentation takes (36-48 hrs.);
• the conversion process co-generated excess green power with no toxic emissions.

A proven bioenergy process exists that uses bacteria to effect the conversion (see http://www.brienergy.com). With this process, ethanol development holds promise for reducing waste, generating electricity, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

The fact that an infrastructure for its distribution already exists in many states and that the major auto manufacturers already produce flex-fuel cars internationally (i.e., Brazil) means that ethanol is a viable renewable liquid alternative to gasoline.

Comments?

Imagine the following:
• the feedstock for fermenting ethanol was not just corn kernels but also its corn husk, stalk, cob, and/or even a damaged crop;
• feedstock could include any agricultural crop or waste, forestry waste, or urban waste (MSW) or even fossil fuel;
• waste conversion to ethanol resulted in a reduction of landfill requirements by 85%;
• the fermenting process took less than 1% (7 minutes) of the amount of time that sugar fermentation takes (36-48 hrs.);
• the conversion process co-generated excess green power with no toxic emissions.

A proven bioenergy process exists that uses bacteria to effect the conversion (see http://www.brienergy.com). With this process, ethanol development holds promise for reducing waste, generating electricity, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

The fact that an infrastructure for its distribution already exists in many states and that the major auto manufacturers already produce flex-fuel cars internationally (i.e., Brazil) means that ethanol is a viable renewable liquid alternative to gasoline.

Comments?

The only problem with the BRI process is that it is very mass-inefficient; the CO2 created in the gasification process represents carbon lost, as is the CO2 created by the Clostridium during fermentation.  Only a fraction (¼?) of the carbon in the waste will be returned as ethanol.

If the only goal is to slash landfill requirements and generate useful products to offset the cost of waste disposal, you don't care.  On the other hand, if your purpose is to "close the loop" on carbon so that you don't need to fix as much to make your whole system carbon-neutral, it is a very big deal.

Whether hydrocarbon fuels are petrochemically or biologically derived, reducing use seems to be the best policy in terms of climate change, air quality, energy security and land use. Effective fuel efficiency standards should be a integral part of any energy policy.

Can anybody help me in getting a technology of ethanol produced from corn cobs . I'm interested to purchase the technology.

When I first became interested in energy issues in the seventies, we had fuel crisis. At that time, cellulosic ethanol was already an old idea, and there was a lot of talk of plans to build facilities all over the nation to use local resources to produce it. There were 30+ plants planned to produce natural gas from coal, and solar power was ramping up.
Most of that ended with the 80's.
Many things I have learned since that time have been shocking to me: All of the technologies to rid ourselves of dependence on foreign oil date back to before there was dependence on foreign oil. John D Rockefeller killed interest in ethanol, thereby ending most research as well, around the turn of the century, and the industry has continually worked in the same fashion.
While the petro industry sends it's "whisperers" out into the world to spread the "news" of ethanol's energy deficit, how dirty coal and nuclear energy are, how solar power only works for hippies in southern California, Big Oil is buying legislation like S.158 and others, that got them a tax break for drilling in the Gulf, worth something to the tune of $60 billion.
While I watched any decent research about energy leave this country or get absorbed by petroleum, and saw BOTH political parties play ball with what may be the Greatest Superpower in the World, the american public sat complacent in the ready availibililty of energy into the 1990's.
The twentieth century will someday be known as Petroleum's Century, and you helped make it happen, because you don't really care.
Every time I hear someone ask to end the ethanol industry's several million dollar annual subsidy, or some comment on "pork", I wonder why this runt at the government trough is picked on, when we have let the biggest hog get tax breaks:
$700,000,000 a year for Percentage Depletion; a similar amount for Nonconventional Fuel Production; $200,000,000 for exploration and development; $26,000,000 for the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit; a billion - $1,000,000,000 - in foreign tax credits; $100,000,000 in foreign income deferral; and depreciation allowances accelerated to the tune of billions annually.
Uncle Saud has also ensured you'd get a good deal at the gas pump with subsidies:
for R&D, $200,000,000; export financing, $300,000,000; and $100,000,000 from the DOI.
There are more millions and billions going into petroleum, but you see how frustrating it is to listen to the whining about politics. If we end ethanol subsidies and tax breaks, it's only fair to cut the same percentage for petroleum, right? No politician worth the price the lobbyist paid is going to back that, and no politician who can't be bought will go very far. For example, now that McCain and Feingold have had their run at money and politics, do you think they still have a chance at being anything but has beens and punch lines?
The problem is global, and it goes way, way back.
Henry Ford's quadricycle of 1880 ran on ethanol.
Cellulosic ethanol has been produced for more than 20 years, fuel cells using ethanol (190 proof is a great way to carry hydrogen for fuel cells) have been around for at least a decade.
Solar energy has been around since the 50's, Truman promoted it. Extracting coke, coke gas, and other fuels from coal goes way back, as well, yet, somehow, we all got talked out of using coal, which could be found all over the nation and was dirt cheap.
It will take only $400 million to build a plant producing commercial quantities of cellulosic ethanol from forest waste in Idaho, similar projects are planned in NY, using municipal solid waste, in Louisiana with rice byproducts. Let's push our politicians to extract some R&D bucks from petroleum and build some plants in the US.

Firstly, throw out the notion that human CO2 emissions cause 'global warming'. There is zero physical evidence that it does and lots of evidence that it does not, (CO2 in ice core samples and the last 8-10 years with no global warming but while CO2 % continues to accelerate thus DISPROVING Al Gore). Ethanol subsidies and oil company tax breaks are NOT the same thing! The ethanol subsidy comes out of my pocket; the tax break comes from (hopefully), a cut in some government entitlement, (60% of the federal budget is entitlement money - not what our federal government was ever conceived to be doing). If you add a $1 per gallon gasoline tax, (no matter at what point in it's distribution), - the price goes up and guess who pays for that? .. NOT THEM. So fine then, give ethanol a -- TAX BREAK! That IS the only fair playing field here. Standard Oil never got a subsidy did it? Ethanol will never be a viable mass fuel source without government subsidies - end the madness now before we tax ourselves to death and starve the rest of the world in the process.

wow i just read this forum abd tend to be inclined to believe the anti ethanol points of view . WHY ? They sound sooo passionate but they have to continuously reformat why we should do it but in the ime ofe the first post one thing i noticed is that they ignore nay sidestep the economical side effects IE food increases in cost , enviromental footprint of the mass production of said biomass to make it ethanol, ignore or do not discuss harvesting the oil we have you know the stuff seeping out of the ground in california alone or th closed wells off southern CA, you see they also provide how much it effects the populace and how detrimental it is as far as wasting a food source to replace something that is plentiful OIL If a well that went dry 20 yrs ago gets capped it was said before and understood that was that yet recently they are finding that the sights they capped are not empty any more they are replenishing themsrelves in TX and CA . the oil is self replenishing it takes time but there is evidance that agrees like the oik seeping out of the ground . i like motors and love engineering and reading about it and i do Comprehend what i read if it isnt twisted, i feel like the pro biofuel group is just twisting the same facts into their own bright light but i dont believe the way they format their argument for biofuel, its the same smoke and mirrors politicians use .oh it also seems based in theory not sscientific unbiased fact just seems twisted , confusing. and it shouldn't need be
oh and if a ford fiesta from the 80's could get in the 40-50 mpg range i know todays engines can as well.
sorry about the rant but that is just my opinion based on what i read here .