Re: Ethanol?

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
" 
" Holy crap batman. More hype? Or the truth?
" I was considering running the Ambassador on E 85 or 100.
" Now I'm wondering if it is worth the effort?
" 
" http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1225

he seems to be a 'watcher', very good at seeing where we've been but
not so good at where we could go.  but --

i have long thought that our ethanol program was contrived to make
archer-daniels-midland richer, and little else.  our whole
infrastructure is based on making fda-grade output; cost structure has
a completely different set of imperatives.  to then burn this as fuel
would be funny, if people weren't so serious.

there are two ways to link sugars into long chain polymers, starch and
cellulose.  we - and yeast - can only break starch down.  but so much
more of the plant is cellulose - why waste it, if you're seeking fuel?
basing our fuel ethanol on corn starch is an example of food-think.

the solution: cellulosic ethanol.  it isn't here yet, but it's coming.
but why only ethanol?  perhaps propanol or butanol or some other
liquid fermentation product would make a better fuel.  it doesn't have
to be drinkable!

there is one point for ethenol: it is -possible- to 'dehydrate' it
into ethylene, chemical feedstock #1 in the plastics industry.

i'm not finished, but that's enough rant for today...
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought