Thanks for introducing hemp into the discussion. People often aren’t aware that there are sans-THC versions of the hemp plant. Much to the disappointment of pot-heads and ultra-conservatives who need some reason for a reaction.

Hemp paper and fibres are much more environmentally friendly, especially when compared to cotton. Cotton crops consume something like fully 1/3 of all pesticides used in the world, plus huge amounts of water.

Here in Australia we have a strong commercial hemp industry going, which of course is hoping to get the jump into ethanol.

You can’t beat plants for energy storage, but the real breakthrough needs to be heavy use of cellulosic processes commercially. Algae, waste conversion, plus plenty of research going into cellulosic methanol.

Anything that accelerates these achievements should be welcomed. Corn use (as feedstock) will drop away soon enough.

TTAC’s coverage of ethanol has not focused on government support. Most of the focus has been on dislike of being forced to buy 10% ethanol gasoline. Another focus has been criticism of ethanol as an energy source.

I’m always happy to join the conversation, I’ve just been mystified that your coverage of ethanol seems to be solely focused on one topic: government support. Of course ethanol (and every other renewable energy source) needs government support. This country has spent a century and trillions of private and public dollars establishing petroleum as the only source of transportation fuel. Despite all of that, oil STILL receives support from the government.

I would also love an explanation as to how the ethanol tax credit prevents investment in other renewable energies. The tax credit for blending ethanol will be around $5 billion this year and we have a $1.6 trillion deficit. The government hasn’t shown that a lack of funds will stop them from spending money on a good idea. Can you point to a single instance where an elected official said: “I was going to vote for your solar tax credits, but we can’t afford it because of the money that is supporting ethanol”?

If you like ethanol from sources other than corn starch, you should welcome this DOE grant because it will speed up the process. We still have some work to do, but things are looking good for us to commercialize our process in 2011. Corn cobs are the best first feedstock for a number of reasons. But once we get them figured out, we’ll move on to other sources of cellulose. I’ll do my best to keep you updated on our progress and look forward to some in depth ethanol coverage on TTAC.

Then why was Wesley Clark and his group clamoring for the 10% blend to be increased to 15%? He insisted in his paperwork that if it wasn’t 15%, the world would cave in on ethanol.

Haven’t seen any studies on utilizing Kudzu yet, but it sems we have no problems growing that in excess either.

Corn based ethanol exists simply because there are entrenched interests, who don’t want the bra zipped up on their tax-money nipple.

Corn, corn byproducts, irrelevant. The science is rock-solid that turning it into ethanol produces lousy energy ROI. Even worse when contrasted against other readily available/producible biomass.

The plant you link to shows production levels of 20,000 gpy, and as you say, it’s a pilot plant. This is what I meant by “none have them actually entered standard production,”although I grant my wording could have been better.

As for ethanol demand, it seems the futures markets are bearish on the corn juice. As one of the reports linked above notes:

“Ethanol still enjoys a 45-cent excise tax break, which means that ethanol is still about 39 cents cheaper than gasoline after the tax break. Nevertheless, blending economics for ethanol are now much less favorable than they were as recently as August when ethanol was trading 50.1 cents below gasoline and ethanol enjoyed a 95-cent discount to gasoline including the excise tax.”

My problem is that the only reason the price of ethanol even comes close to gasoline is the blender’s credit which eclipses (and crowds out) all other renewable energy investments. Meanwhile, increased flex-fuel capabilites are going to cost taxpayers even more as automakers are hesitant to simply pass the increased cost onto consumers.

Still, if POETs plants can eliminate corn ethanol production, I’ll be all for it. I simply see no reason for optimism at this point. Mostly because POET produces a hell of a lot more than 20k gpy of corn-based ethanol.

In any case, news searches reveal we’ve been slacking a bit in our ethanol coverage. Look for more ethanol debate in these pages going forward.

1. There have been lots of studies on removing agricultural waste from the field. I have yet to see one concluding that the removal of a small amount (like the cob) has a negative impact on soil quality. If you can’t find any of these studies, I’d be happy to point you in the right direction.

2. We have a pilot plant producing ethanol from corn cobs that has been operating since Last November.

3. Ethanol use this year in the U.S. will increase by about 20 percent. That doesn’t seem like “tanking” demand to me.

BTW, I’m glad you liked our picture!

If switchgrass or timber ever reach scalability, it should take about 5 years to get a decent ethanol region going in Kansas/Texas/Arkansas/etc.

It will be the mother of all boondoggles when ADM et al figure out how to get USDA/DOE subsidies for mowing prairie grass…

Hemp sounds like a very interesting idea.

The point is if we really wanted to do this it’s possible, as currently set up it’s just another means of transferring money to the already rich (trickle down economics) w/o accomplishing anything that might change the status quo (oil industry)