Cervus wins.

Somebody mention to about coal. To be specific to liquefying the coal. That required energy and do not reduce carbon in the atmosphere.
If we have to use coal then we have to look on Carbone fuel cell. Yes there is something like that. From this what I read there by fare more efficient then hydrogen fuel cell.

The best thing, what I see, for future with liquid fuels so fare are alga and bio-diesel from them.

Yes the American car industry probably will be decimated with in next 1-2 years.
There have only one solution: import cars that they producing out side of US, because there small efficient cars. But that will not look well with the unions. They will have to close almost all manufacturing in US.
Shifting the production of small cars to US will required retooling factories, that required 2-5 years that they do not have.

On the note to what bettered said:
Communist utopia - stay away as fare you can. I lived in that system for 20 years. All the ideas look on the paper very nice, but in reality it create elites that have all the privileges and rest of the population live in slavery.

There is some common thing between US and communist system. You see most people think that US is a true capitalistic system where competition drive the development. That unfortunately not true.
The system in US is driven by elites that are in the corporations that do not have any legion to the particular country or place. If you will look on face value, the difference between corporation and the party elites in communist country you will find a lot of similarities.

The system that is right now in US is a corporatism.
Roosevelt in 1930s describe system run by corporation as a fascism, and that what it is in US right now. That specially true after 8 years of Bush and neo-con. And when you see what neo-con aparatchiks did and doing, you can see them more like neo-natzi. Neo-cons have total disregard for other nations, people life (Iraque & Afganiatan) and own people life (own solders expose to 1300 ton of depleted uranium - have life of uranium is 4.5 billion years!!!).
We not only invaded country for no reason, we kill innocent people, and we contaminate that region for ever.
That sad , that very sad.

Not about the Afghanistan: It look more and more we are in Afghanistan not because we looking for Osama, but we securing the oil pipe that crossing that country.
Another sad story.
This country need serious change of direction.
We have to start think like rest of the world. Many new democracy creating there system from scratch. In many cases there better the our 200 year. The reason is that they reject what do not wok and accept what do work. We need reform in US system, hopefully the incoming new precedent will have the will and means to do that.
The country should be for the good of the all people not for the good of the corporation.

OK, I stay on topic. GM killed electric car only so it can claim Lazyrus Effect - i.e. raising electric car from the dead. And I am god atheist! Also, if GM want to make alcohol from waste - start with management! There.

And to mki traitor: "they reject what do not wok and accept what do work."

This is NOT discussion of cooking appliance - it IS discussion of American waste to fool system!

It was funny once, bettered, but this thread is for serious discussion, not for laughs.

I apologize for the miss spelling.
You should see that response before I spell check it :)

“it IS discussion of American waste to fool system!”
That a good one.
That like 1920 banking system and today.
Sow much for renewal fools system lol

While ethanol is not an optimal energy carrier, this process does lend itself to BTL and WTL (Waste To Liquid).

Selling vehicles, then selling fuel, what next, adapting this process to generate and sell electricity?

Opportunities include private-public partnerships between towns & cities and GM/Coskata.

E.P.
GM does not need to fuel the whole fleet. With the Chevy Volt deriving 80% of its motive power from mains electricity, they only need to get another 16% from ethanol and 4% from oil.
As fuel prices increase over the years, and battery technology comes down, I would expect SUV's etc to have bigger batteries & extended range.

At the end of the day, long range, EV's are probably not economical to produce, and ethanol/butanol will have a place.
I expect a plant optimised for jet fuel would work as well.

I am not aware that the Choren process gets more than 100 gallons/dry ton, but given their commercial demonstration plant is now running we should soon know.

It's too early to say whether Choren's BTL process is more efficient than Coskata's or Zeachem etc.'s ethanol processes. Let them compete and play it out.

But we need to get the incompetent buttinski's like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the bumpkin crew out of the game. They are distorting the picture out of all recognition with their pork barrel political bull-in-the-china-shop routine.

ToppaTom:

lighten up. If a satirical thread discomfits you - stop reading it.

I am not aware that the Choren process gets more than 100 gallons/dry ton...

The Choren plant is being brought online over the next 8-12 months. Here are some specifics:

Maximum production: 18 million litres of BTL p.a (= the annual requirement of about 15,000 cars)
Biomass requirement: About 65,000 tonnes of wood (dry matter) p.a.
Raw materials: Forest residue and waste timber
Supply is secure for several years
Investment: About €100 million
Technical details: 31.5 km pipelines, 57 km electrical cables,
5,000 fittings, 5,000 measuring signals,
60 pumps, 181 containers and reactors
45 MWth output
Partners: SHELL, Daimler and Volkswagon
Synthesis/hydrocracking partner: Shell

It seems reasonable to be concerned that these wood burning operations do not co-opt forest residue. Much of that residue is needed for healthy forest and its removal can be extremely damaging.

What is the best system to convert (about 1+ billion tons/year) ordinary refuse-garbage into usable gas or liquid fuel or electricity with the least residues and damaging GHG?

Whoever can do that should be actively supported.

GM keeps kicking the can down the road, don't they?

gr states

...All in all, the Coskata approach to liquid biofuel seems well thought out and potentially a great success. Why would a big sponsor like GM expose themselves to enviro-wrath by switchhing to coal? Bad business

from

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/25/19318/1676

Bill Roe, Coskata Cellulosic Ethanol CEO:

Yes. We talked about the fact that food for fuel is a non-starter in many countries, but some of those countries are rich in other resources, either they have biomass or they have coal, which is a perfect feed stock for these, we just do not talk about much here because of the CO2 footprint being so much different. When you talk about India, or talk about China, those areas were loom large, we believe, and we will be able to use feedstock of that nature, for example, to make liquid fuels locally from their own raw material.

It makes sense from a raw material point of view if you use coal, period. Simply because it is relatively inexpensive. It is very concentrated. It is material handling into gasifiers as well known and well understood. The power of the CO2 footprint isn't as attractive, for obvious reasons, and so as a result, we think it is important to position the company in its early going as a company that can and will produce fuels from truly renewable resources. Now as soon as I tell you that, if you ask, "will these process ever be use to make fuel from coal?" I hope so. It would be stupid not to. So, as not confuse people with where we are headed and what we are really all about, that's next.

@ Axil:

"Spin is the illusory work of any competent climate particle."
James E. Hanson, Lead Author IPCC AR5

Oops! Forgot to include the all important disclaimer from the masthead of "Gristmill"

"©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®"

LOL Axil!

@gr

I verified that those words of Bill Roe did come from his interview at

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/14/autobloggreen-qanda-coskata-ceo-bill-roe-on-cellulosic-ethanol-pa/

For your convenience the full context is provided below. Maybe glome and dome is how the world really is.

ABG: Anything you can talk about as far international plans or you sort of briefly mentioned it. Anything that you can hint that, as far as what might be coming?

Roe: Yes. We talked about the fact that food for fuel is a non-starter in many countries, but some of those countries are rich in other resources, either they have biomass or they have coal, which is a perfect feed stock for these, we just do not talk about much here because of the CO2 footprint being so much different. When you talk about India, or talk about China, those areas were loom large, we believe, and we will be able to use feedstock of that nature, for example, to make liquid fuels locally from their own raw material. There is an interest in this technology in the Far East and in Asia by a major corporation that has the capability to help set up and make arrangements for utilization technology with Asian feedstocks, and then do trading and transport of the fuels. So, my guess is the way these would likely go is that the first dozen plants or so will likely be built here in the U.S. But, at that point we begin to look at moving into these other areas with our partners, our manufacturing partners, our collaboration partners like GM, into the areas were they want to see and need to see and want take ethanol fuel for transportation vehicles.

ABG: Can you explain a little bit more, why it makes more sense to possibly use coal as a way to create the syngas in other countries than it does here?

Roe: It makes sense from a raw material point of view if you use coal, period. Simply because it is relatively inexpensive. It is very concentrated. It is material handling into gasifiers as well known and well understood. The power of the CO2 footprint isn't as attractive, for obvious reasons, and so as a result, we think it is important to position the company in its early going as a company that can and will produce fuels from truly renewable resources and coal is not a renewable resource. Now as soon as I tell you that, if you ask, "will these process ever be use to make fuel from coal?" I hope so. It would be stupid not to but we have to be mindful of the big picture story here and the big picture impact. I really think that in short order there will be some strong environmental arguments that can be made for coal-to-liquids using this process. So, as not confuse people with where we are headed and what we are really all about, that's next. They will not be the first plants that we build, that is for sure, and at some point down the track, I am sure that is going to happen.

Axil - thanks for the clarify. If as Roe envisions, he wants to turn his technology toward CTL in China and India etc. instead of for fully renewable feedstocks like waste - I expect it will end the warm fuzzy he's getting from GM. They are positioning themselves to benefit from the WTL green buzz and will suffer green wrath if they are hung with a CTL fuel maker banner. Presumably Wagoner meant what he said at the announce of GM investment in Coskata:

"Coskata expects to be able to replicate this process almost anywhere in the world because it can use almost any source material - including agricultural waste, municipal waste, discarded plastics, and even old tires."

Roe can dream of CTL overseas markets - but there's lots of competition in the field and it will likely arrive at the expense of his cozy deal with Wagoner.

And yes, it is a gloom and doom world - but that's what makes it funny.

gr

From the Roe interview it says in part;
“There is an interest in this technology in the Far East and in Asia by a major corporation…”

Why wouldn’t Coskata, once they get establish, ignore GM or if required replace them with this corporation.

Remember, at the end of the day, what matters is profit margin. If the money is there, why would GM ignore the first principal of corporate survival; staying in the black. The blacker the better … as black as coal.

@ Axil:

"I want to see the sun, blotted out from the sky... Paint it, paint it black..." Stones

Of course there is nothing to prevent Roe or any purveyor of CTL (FT) technology from finding partners to exploit the earth's cheapest energy resource. As for GM, they claim to subscribe to the CERES model of corporate and environmental responsibility - which has not to my knowledge positioned CTL yet.

One thing we can be sure of, Coskata will be a tiny blip on the CTL front as dozens of big players jump on the bandwagon. And with candidate Barack Obama and bipartisan coal pols firmly behind CTL, we can expect to see more of it soon.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-senators_obama/

The prudent direction for any liquid fuel at this point is to consider:

1)sustainability, 2)enviro-impact, 3)efficiency, AND their being a Transitional Solution. Transitional to electrification. While short term U.S. transport energy is better addressed by CTL than foreign oil, it must not interrupt the steady movement to electrification.

In the end the biggest winners financially and ideologically will be fully sustainable solutions. Coskata's ticket to paradise is its green thumb. If it chooses to muddy it with CTL applications - the bloom will rapidly fade. How do they counter strip mining PR vs. household/industrial waste to fuel? All the profits in the world will not turn the tide against sustainability. As Michio Kaku explains, we're presently a Type Zero planet. We need to become Type One.

http://www.ceres.org/NetCommunity/page.aspx?pid=705

Speaking of electrification, the amount of raw materials (both steel and fuel) required to bring new oil fields into production is growing rapidly.

Sooner or later, you'll get more energy return in less time by using the oil to make composite blades and the steel to make pylon towers than to drill in really out-of-the-way places.  The question is, how close are we to that day?  Could we be there already for the windiest areas?

-----" LOL
Ethanol is not going to save GM's ass. But it sure does make for great PR.

Posted by: DS"---------

On the contrary. Ethanol is the perfect choice. We are in a global economy. Markets in the developed countries are fairly well saturated and staid. In order to diversify and grow, large companies need to look to foreign markets. It does not good for GM to spend huge sums of money and effort for 1-2% market share change in developed countries when they can go to undeveloped countries and easily coup 50%-100% market share, countries that often have millions of potential customers.
High tech is expensive and requires extensive infrastructure to employ. The key to undeveloped market share is simple, rugged products that people can use dependably almost anywhere. The engineering priniciple KISS is of great importance in this type of product.(Keep It Simple Stupid)

Ethanol is the perfect choice as a fuel for this reason. It is tried and true with over 120 years of history and extensive use, especially in the racing circuits. It is cheap and easy to produce from raw materials available just about anywhere.

To concentrate on ethanol powered vehicles is a perfect marketing and engineering choice for GM, and in the long run will make them a pile of money. No high tech expensive engineering, reliable results, and very little change in current production and supply chain infrastructure. Ethanol powered vehicles are the best way to go for a big automaker to insure a future market to expand into.