There was some discussion last year of a kind of genetically modified ash tree, or some variety that grows very quickly, and locks up some carbon in its roots after harvest, so it could be a carbon negative fuel cycle. I wonder if Weyerhaeuser is thinking along those lines for the "purpose-grown energy source?"

The economics could certainly be better as a coproduct, although the environmental impact is a concern. Verdant forests are not exactly "marginal lands."

Most likely a variety of of Popular that grows very fast in the PNW.

I'm not a forestry grad. Would that constitute "soil mining"?

RUN CAR ON WATER

PUT A CONTAINER OF WATER UNDER THE HOOD. STICK IN 2 ELECTRODES, ONE IGNITION, OTHER TO A GROUND. THAT MAKES HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN. RUN A TUBE TO THE MOTOR TO CARRY THE HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN. DOUBLES YOUR MPG.

Good to see some confirmation that big fossil oil is fully aware that it is not only possible to replace all fossil fuel with biofuels it can also be very good business with a limited research effort (spend less than $1 billion and three years) on process technology and given the fact that crude oil is $625 a ton going up (6.25*$100 barrel) and dry biomass can be made and delivered for $50 a ton in the needed volume and converted to at least 40% liquid fuel.

@Niel: Very relevant question. It is fortunately not a problem. The end product of biofuels is all sorts of hydrocarbons. That is hydrogen that derives from water and carbon that derives from atmospheric CO2. The rest of the “atoms” that are needed for biomass to grow is basically soil that can be recycled 100%. So biomass is moved to a biofuel factory and the non-hydrocarbon residuals are moved back to maintain soil quality. Off cause this has to happen and we may need legislation to ensure that it happens. However, the problem should be minimal because the land is owned by people who are interested in protecting soil quality so that their business can continue forever. They will do the necessary things to sustain it.

Wait and see. Big oil will gradually become big biofuel. This is motivated solely by the rise of the price of crude oil (Not any drive to be green. They don’t care about that anyway even though they may say so). This time the price rise of crude oil is not artificial and easily reversible as the oil crisis of 1973 and 1979. No, this time it is a permanent rise caused by the lack of sufficient supply to meet demand because of emerging global peak oil. This is why it will be less risky this time to develop process technology for biomass to liquids. It will come big time globally in the coming two decades. Furthermore, it will not be based on eatable biomass at all because it is limited in quantity and because it cost far more than the $50 per dry ton that is possible for non-eatable biomass. Biofuels and battery power is going to get us through peak oil without most people even noticing that something fundamental happened to the way we make energy. It will be business and growth as usual just with sustainable energy instead of fossils.

Leo, are you Rafael evil twin?

In my reading, I have come across people saying that the oil companies will just buy up biofuels companies when the time is right. They will not shelve the technology, but rather corner the market by sheer financial muscle. It makes sense if we are going to E10 and further nationwide and they do not produce the ethanol.

I agree with you mostly Henrik, but "However, the problem should be minimal because the land is owned by people who are interested in protecting soil quality so that their business can continue forever. They will do the necessary things to sustain it." is a bit naive.

This was the rational for privatizing forest land in western Canada that all us forestry students were fed 10 years ago. Avoided the "tragedy of the commons". It all sounded nice in economic theory, on paper. Of course the reality is different. In BC all that has happened is the private forest land holders just sold off their land for real estate development, a much more lucrative land activity, of course after razing it for immediate profit.

Big business is not interested in continuing their business forever. They have a much shorter time horizon corresponding with shareholder profit. Do not believe that they will be maintaining the quality of the environment for anything other than maximizing one or two generations of biofuel production. Biodiversity? Water quality?

I have heard something similar about some farmers. The view that their lives depend on the land and they will care for it has been refuted to some extent when short term gain comes into play. Maybe they might lose the farm if they do not pay their loans, each case is different. There are repeated examples that show that quite a few will not act in the land care taker role, even when rational projection says that they should or will.

BEST BUY IN NONFOOD BIOFUELS

WATER IS THE BEST VALUE SOURCE OF NONFOOD BIOFEULS. WE CAN GENERATE ENOUGH HYDROGEN FROM 2 OUNCES OF WATER TO DRIVE OVER 100 MILES USING SIMPLE ELECTROLISIS. HYDROGEN PROVIDES MORE BTU'S THAN GASOLINE. HOW MUCH DOES WATER COST???

LEO WELLS

Leo,

I am going to email Mike, the site manager and see if we can not get you banned from here. If I could get your ISP, I would see if I could get you banned from the Internet as well. (every user agrees to a terms of use policy and harassment is a violation of that policy)

THANK YOU SJC FOR YOUR ENCOURAGEMENT

AS SMART AS YOU ARE, MAYBE YOU CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THE AUTO MANUFACTURES' ENGINEERS TO REALIZE THAT WITH TODAYS ALTERNATORS AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS WE CAN NOW GET HENRY FOR'S INVENTION TO WORK IN TODAY'S VEHICLES SO WE CAN LEARN TO "RUN CARS ON WATER", NOW, BEFORE WE EITHER RUN OUT OF OIL OR CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO BUY FORIGN OIL FROM OVER SEAS.

LEO WELLS

Seems like a good direction for oil. We will need the big players to drive some of the conversion to non-fossil liquids including jet fuel. The item to be watchful about is the potential to squeeze out small producers as they have done in the past. Prior to turning over our energy future to the old players, we should consider firm ways to guarantee diversity of sources.

Fortunately, the energy picture is far broader today with breakthroughs arriving at a somewhat dizzying pace. Nano-materials look to be driving much of the new technology and that appears to be coming out of the small, entrepreneurial startups. With high efficiency electrolysis, PV and electron storage all on the near horizon - Henrik's prediction has solid footing.

Swapping trees for corn seems like a pretty bad idea. Without pulling scientific rabbit out of a hat, deriving liquid fuel from trees would run into the same carrying capacity challenges that ethanol is now facing. Paper and lumber prices would skyrocket–as would the pressure to log native forests to make room for plantations to grow feedstock (think Amazon, Borneo). I see a repeat of the “eco-nightmare” that Palm Oil is proving to be.

There’s certainly other CleanTech ventures out there more promising than this one.

The Range Fuel business in Georgia using forest product waste does not seem to think so. The lumber and paper people are glad to have contracts to sell the waste that they used to just burn. No one is planting millions of acres of forest for biofuels, they are just using what is already there.