Strawman-Poet:

It's hard to take you seriously after you've claimed that you'd bet I'm a "juris doctor" (don't waste your money because you'd lose).

But what HAVE you bet on that makes you so confrontational about a possibly cheap ethanol process (such as from BRI/Coskata) ?? Tar sands projects ?? Exxon ?? Fuel cells ??

Since I don't see such a cheap ethanol process disappearing if it exists (although oil companies or oil sheiks may try to bury it), why not hedge any investments you've got that may lose due to cheap ethanol ??

If the BRI/coskata process can be shown to make cheap ethanol, then the process could be profitably introduced at a small scale. Over the course of many years (unless cheaper/cleaner vehicle energy supplies are found), BRI/coskata processing would increase until all the really cheap convenient feedstocks get used up (such as garbage, crop, and timber residues). Thereafter, algae could provide all the "scaling" you obsess about (but the sort of 100% "scaling" you insist on doesn't wipe out economic competitiveness anyway).

And I've never seen a fuel cell, except for some toys - so, even after all their hype, they seem to be impractical. They are initially expensive, and aren't durable at all due to inevitable fuel contamination and in the sort of conditions vehicles work. Low-temperature fuel cells (below the boiling point of water) have water disposal problems, as well as freeze-up and overheating problems (unless heat exchangers are huge). Solid-oxide fuel cells degrade quickly due to their high temperatures and their extreme temperature cycling. Carbon fuels cells are just a few mW in a lab somewhere. Someday, somehow, medium-temperature acid fuel cells may work adequately. Maybe ammonia could be an OK fuel (rather than hydrogen). But instead of blaming the "scaling" strawman of cheap ethanol, why not blame your inadequate fuel cells: For example, why not demand standard accelerated lifetime test results from your pet fuel cell projects (and electric-car batteries too), in order to calculate effective costs per kWh ??

Unfortunately, most Americans have become all too flabby about practicalities. They want Mars missions, and empty fuel cell hopes, and corrupting corporations like Exxon to do all their practical thinking for them, and then go to the mall and buy all sorts of toys from China. Meanwhile, the hungry Chinese will start to make electric cars - with batteries - and not impractical fuel cells. And the Chinese are desperate for fuel so if the BRI/coskata process is economical, they'll use it (even if denied licenses to the patents). So the BRI/Coskata process may soon find success but likely outside the US where people would appreciate the practical brilliance of Dr. Gaddy's vision (former head of the Chemical Engineering Department at the University of Arkansas - thus politically incorrect because Arkansas is not a state bought by Exxon):

http://brienergy.com/pages/about01.html

I haven't given up about getting good cost info. about the BRI/Coskata process - and (if the price is right) promoting/investing in it (if I was allowed the opportunity - but I wouldn't let Poet stop me). However, it's clear to me that others (like the Chinese) would want it a whole lot more (despite Poet's objections that it isn't perfect).

Hi! I'm Lorryuncori.
How are you? :)

But what HAVE you bet on that makes you so confrontational about a possibly cheap ethanol process (such as from BRI/Coskata) ??

I don't have a dog in that fight.

What I do have is a bunch of time analyzing both the energy and carbon flows for the various options, and a picture of the futures I do and don't want to live in.  Converting biomass directly to liquid fuels is the worst of all options.  With electricity, you can not only get many times the net work out, but you can extract hundreds of millions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year and sequester it.  If you don't need the carbon removal, you could use the concentrated CO2 to run some of the more productive algae-growth systems and produce liquid fuels and chemical feedstocks as secondary (not primary) products.  You lose all of that if you go straight to ethanol.

Since I don't see such a cheap ethanol process disappearing

Since you don't seem to get the economic angle, I'll spell it out for you in a bullet list:

• Of all the once-through biofuel schemes, all but the ones using microalgae would be seriously limited by the available feedstock.  (The microalgal schemes may not work out.)
• Limited feedstock means a limited supply of product.
• Limited product, in a world of declining oil supplies, means that the price will be bid up to parity with (very expensive) oil.
• A cheap process for producing a high-dollar product results in one of two things:
  1. Very high profits for the owners of the process, or
  2. Very high prices for the feedstock, resulting in things like entire crops and forests being fed to the process because it is immediately profitable.

If we want to avoid these pitfalls, we have to aim to make energy cheap.  This means making it abundant, and the only way to do that is to scale well enough to be able to flood the market.

And I've never seen a fuel cell, except for some toys

1 megawatt MCFC stack operating in 1999
SRI claims MCFC/DCFC demonstrated at 300 kW

DOE has been running a program to scale SOFC's down to the 5-10 kW range to be suitable for vehicle APU's.  You don't have to worry about thermal cycling in a stationary system; you just run them at minimum power all the time to keep them hot.

Meanwhile, the hungry Chinese will start to make electric cars - with batteries - and not impractical fuel cells.

That's what's on the other end of the grid from the fuel cells (and wind farms, and nuke plants).  We should have gotten started years ago with something like Firefly Energy's 3D² technology, but BushCo. sold the country out to the House of Saud.

Exxon-Poet:

So, your links describe a 1999 Japanese stationary fuel cell research project, and another sponsored by Ohio & Illinois coal producers, ExxonMobil and Chevron. Both are only indirectly related to "Green Cars". And you insist there's already something economic about these research projects. But like I said, these sorts of fuel cells won't be commercial (if ever) for a long, long time (especially on vehicles).

I suppose some individuals might wonder why would ExxonMobil and Chevron, when selling liquid fuels so profitably, want to introduce a cheaper vehicle power source ?? If you swallow that, wouldn't cheap BRI/Coskata ethanol competition finally prompt ExxonMobil and Chevron to sell even more economical fuel cells ??

Look, I'm no friend of ExxonMobil and Chevron, but I can't accuse them of holding economical fuel cells off the market. And yet you insist that "somebody" has such fuel cells that are more economical than cheap BRI/Coskata ethanol, but you can offer no more than links to some far-from-commercial research projects.

You deserve a lot more feedback than I've given, so why not try your trolling at this recent Coskata article:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/coskata-forms-s.html#comments

I'll tell you this for sure: If BRI/Coskata ethanol is cheap, I'll buy it, and maybe invest in it. And I hope the Chinese really use it - although they will remain more cost-sensitive and hence will develop more battery-driven vehicles. And if you don't like such a future, you'll just need to get de-sensitized.

Exxon-Poet:

Oooh, now that's clever!  What's next, calling me a poopy-head?

your links describe a 1999 Japanese stationary fuel cell research project, and another sponsored by Ohio & Illinois coal producers, ExxonMobil and Chevron.

You said you'd never seen fuel cells that weren't toys.  I gave you a couple of things that were definitely not toys.  How was I to know that you were going to complain about the nationality or corporate identity of the sponsors too?

wouldn't cheap BRI/Coskata ethanol competition finally prompt ExxonMobil and Chevron to sell even more economical fuel cells ??

You haven't gotten the message yet:  BRI and Coskata can't make enough of anything to cut XOM's profits significantly.  Not even in principle, because the shrinking amount of domestically-produced petroleum (about 11 quad's worth per year) is roughly equal to the maximum amount of bio-ethanol that gasification processes can produce, ever.  XOM can import raw materials; where are BRI/Coskata going to get them?  No threat for a long, long time.

The real threat to XOM (aside from declining world oil production and resource nationalism) comes from electrics.  The power for electrics comes from generators; the cleaner and more efficient, the more attractive to the public and the bigger the ultimate threat.  SOFCs and DCFCs can produce several times as many vehicle-miles of energy from a ton of biomass than can BRI/Coskata.

you insist that "somebody" has such fuel cells that are more economical than cheap BRI/Coskata ethanol

Never said that.  I said they were more efficient, and ultimately more worth pursuing because they have the potential to completely solve several very sticky problems.  BRI/Coskata is limited to partially solving one.

If BRI/Coskata ethanol is cheap, I'll buy it, and maybe invest in it.

What I fear is that the temporary expedient (ethanol) will gain a lock on the supply of biomass, and prevent the emergence of the carbon-negative generators and electric vehicles necessary to get us to a regime which remediates human-produced climate change.

And if you don't like such a future, you'll just need to get de-sensitized.

Next thing, you'll be telling me that I should just sit here and live with corn ethanol despite it being an environmental disaster.  You can keep your advice.

National Algae Association

Algae: The Next Biofuel

Inaugural

Algae Commercialization
Business Plan and Networking Forum

April 10, 2008

www.nationalalgaeassociation.com

The divorce had been done under the veil of secrecy, according to Russian media, in February. The marrige will take place in St Petersburg on June 15, at the palace Konstantinovo.
Alina Kabaeva is 25 years old, Russian gymnast who has had major success on the international stage including Olympic gold in Athens.
She is considered one of the most beautiful Russian woman, and in 2007 entered the Russian Parliament as a member of the "United Russia" party.
According to sources, Putin and Kabaeva are more 'than friends' since 2000. Putin (56) has two daughters with Ljudmila, 23 years old Marja and 21 years old Katerina.
True or not, everything will be confirmed very soon, though is likely that Putin will follow in Sarkozy's footsteps.

Leading film-makers are seeking to change the way we think
about other countries. This is one of a powerful series of
films to be shown on Pangea Day, May 10, “the day the world
comes together through film”. video blog

If you've watched the previous debates, you've noticed the Perception Analyzer at the bottom of the screen. It records the reactions of about 30 "uncommitted" voters - but some say your brain can't devote its full attention to what the debaters are saying and what you're seeing.More..

by proxrte101a