Comments on: Chemistry: The Future of Cellulose http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/ Pure Energy Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:29:07 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55753 Anonymous Mon, 25 May 2009 13:22:55 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55753 Is Rufus just Vinod Khohsla in disguise? His arguments are basically same as those put forth by the esteemed Mr. Khosla 3 years ago, i.e., that we can get thousands of farmers to grow millions of acres of switchgrass with average yields of 10 tons/ acre, and we extract 100 gal ethanol from every ton, but "don't worry about the logistics" . . . As USDA and DoE have found out, it's ALL about the logistics (and storing the biomass, and pretreating it, and grinding it, and dealing with all the dirt etc that's present . . . . I don't doubt that it can be done, but it would be nice for someone to actually show it can be done economically first at a very small scale before making grand plans for it to solve our transportation fuel supply needs. Is Rufus just Vinod Khohsla in disguise? His arguments are basically same as those put forth by the esteemed Mr. Khosla 3 years ago, i.e., that we can get thousands of farmers to grow millions of acres of switchgrass with average yields of 10 tons/ acre, and we extract 100 gal ethanol from every ton, but “don’t worry about the logistics” . . . As USDA and DoE have found out, it’s ALL about the logistics (and storing the biomass, and pretreating it, and grinding it, and dealing with all the dirt etc that’s present . . . . I don’t doubt that it can be done, but it would be nice for someone to actually show it can be done economically first at a very small scale before making grand plans for it to solve our transportation fuel supply needs.

]]> By: Robert Rapier http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55736 Robert Rapier Sun, 24 May 2009 22:30:59 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55736 "Do you think the yield on this method would be 100 gallons ethanol per ton (or it's HMF equivalent) simalar to what Coskata was claiming?"<br /><br />I haven't checked, but I think the overall yield will probably lower for this process because you are only getting the cellulose. The big difference will be in the net energy. Coskata has a hybrid process; half gasification (which converts all of the biomass and not just the cellulose) and half biochemical. The biochemical part introduces water back into the system, which hurts the energy return.<br /><br />RR “Do you think the yield on this method would be 100 gallons ethanol per ton (or it’s HMF equivalent) simalar to what Coskata was claiming?”

I haven’t checked, but I think the overall yield will probably lower for this process because you are only getting the cellulose. The big difference will be in the net energy. Coskata has a hybrid process; half gasification (which converts all of the biomass and not just the cellulose) and half biochemical. The biochemical part introduces water back into the system, which hurts the energy return.

RR

]]> By: takchess http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55731 takchess Sun, 24 May 2009 11:38:45 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55731 Thanks Rufus.<br /><br />This is off topic but way cool. <br /><br />A Heat Engine without mechanical parts <br /><br />http://dsc.discovery.com/technology/features/inventing-thermoelectric-generators.html<br /><br />Also RR thanks for the interesting post. Thanks Rufus.

This is off topic but way cool.

A Heat Engine without mechanical parts

http://dsc.discovery.com/technology/features/inventing-thermoelectric-generators.html

Also RR thanks for the interesting post.

]]> By: takchess http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55732 takchess Sun, 24 May 2009 11:38:45 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55732 Thanks Rufus.<br /><br />This is off topic but way cool. <br /><br />A Heat Engine without mechanical parts <br /><br />http://dsc.discovery.com/technology/features/inventing-thermoelectric-generators.html<br /><br />Also RR thanks for the interesting post. Thanks Rufus.

This is off topic but way cool.

A Heat Engine without mechanical parts

http://dsc.discovery.com/technology/features/inventing-thermoelectric-generators.html

Also RR thanks for the interesting post.

]]> By: rufus http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55725 rufus Sun, 24 May 2009 05:09:36 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55725 A bushel of corn (kernels) weighs 56 lbs. it will yield a little over 2.8 gallons of ethanol. 2,000/56 = 35.7 bu X 2.8 = 100 gal of ethanol/ton.<br /><br />Average yield is 155 bu/acre. Or, 155/35.7 = 4.34 tons/acre. You get about 17.5/lbs of high-protein cattle feed for every bushel distilled for ethanol. That gives a co-product of 2,712 lbs of DDGS/acre, or 625 lbs/ton of corn. <br /><br />You, also, get about 600 lbs of CO2/ton. About 1/3 of that is sold to soft drink bottlers, etc.<br /><br />Several refiners such as Plymouth are removing 1.2 of the approx 1.8 lbs of corn oil/bu. A bushel of corn (kernels) weighs 56 lbs. it will yield a little over 2.8 gallons of ethanol. 2,000/56 = 35.7 bu X 2.8 = 100 gal of ethanol/ton.

Average yield is 155 bu/acre. Or, 155/35.7 = 4.34 tons/acre. You get about 17.5/lbs of high-protein cattle feed for every bushel distilled for ethanol. That gives a co-product of 2,712 lbs of DDGS/acre, or 625 lbs/ton of corn.

You, also, get about 600 lbs of CO2/ton. About 1/3 of that is sold to soft drink bottlers, etc.

Several refiners such as Plymouth are removing 1.2 of the approx 1.8 lbs of corn oil/bu.

]]> By: rufus http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55726 rufus Sun, 24 May 2009 05:09:36 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55726 A bushel of corn (kernels) weighs 56 lbs. it will yield a little over 2.8 gallons of ethanol. 2,000/56 = 35.7 bu X 2.8 = 100 gal of ethanol/ton.<br /><br />Average yield is 155 bu/acre. Or, 155/35.7 = 4.34 tons/acre. You get about 17.5/lbs of high-protein cattle feed for every bushel distilled for ethanol. That gives a co-product of 2,712 lbs of DDGS/acre, or 625 lbs/ton of corn. <br /><br />You, also, get about 600 lbs of CO2/ton. About 1/3 of that is sold to soft drink bottlers, etc.<br /><br />Several refiners such as Plymouth are removing 1.2 of the approx 1.8 lbs of corn oil/bu. A bushel of corn (kernels) weighs 56 lbs. it will yield a little over 2.8 gallons of ethanol. 2,000/56 = 35.7 bu X 2.8 = 100 gal of ethanol/ton.

Average yield is 155 bu/acre. Or, 155/35.7 = 4.34 tons/acre. You get about 17.5/lbs of high-protein cattle feed for every bushel distilled for ethanol. That gives a co-product of 2,712 lbs of DDGS/acre, or 625 lbs/ton of corn.

You, also, get about 600 lbs of CO2/ton. About 1/3 of that is sold to soft drink bottlers, etc.

Several refiners such as Plymouth are removing 1.2 of the approx 1.8 lbs of corn oil/bu.

]]> By: P.M.Lawrence http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55723 P.M.Lawrence Sun, 24 May 2009 04:59:54 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55723 "I would think then the important considerations would be 1). What happens to the lignin and hemicellulose in the biomass?; and 2). How much energy does it take?"<br /><br />This is really just speculation, as I don't have enough facts to go on, but I would guess that the cellulose can be conveniently dissolved out of a pulp, either with those solvents or in a separate stage using the rayon process which has a cuprammonium ion complex in water as a solvent. Then the stuff that's left can be burned (maybe indirectly after gasifying) to help power the remaining processes. Drying out the water would be cheap, but there's the issue of reclaiming enough of the solvents to be cost effective. I'd guess that a cellulose dissolving process would be rather like that for sugar beet, making use of counterflow; that could easily be adapted to flush any of the solvent out of the final waste. Since copper is used in the main process, the only issue is reclaiming the ammonia - but (again guessing) low pressure distillation <i>should</i> be cost effective for that, though it might need some added alkali to free it up.<br /><br />I've sometimes wondered if the rayon process could be a starting point for some other processing pathway, but that's even more speculative. “I would think then the important considerations would be 1). What happens to the lignin and hemicellulose in the biomass?; and 2). How much energy does it take?”

This is really just speculation, as I don’t have enough facts to go on, but I would guess that the cellulose can be conveniently dissolved out of a pulp, either with those solvents or in a separate stage using the rayon process which has a cuprammonium ion complex in water as a solvent. Then the stuff that’s left can be burned (maybe indirectly after gasifying) to help power the remaining processes. Drying out the water would be cheap, but there’s the issue of reclaiming enough of the solvents to be cost effective. I’d guess that a cellulose dissolving process would be rather like that for sugar beet, making use of counterflow; that could easily be adapted to flush any of the solvent out of the final waste. Since copper is used in the main process, the only issue is reclaiming the ammonia – but (again guessing) low pressure distillation should be cost effective for that, though it might need some added alkali to free it up.

I’ve sometimes wondered if the rayon process could be a starting point for some other processing pathway, but that’s even more speculative.

]]> By: P.M.Lawrence http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55724 P.M.Lawrence Sun, 24 May 2009 04:59:54 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55724 "I would think then the important considerations would be 1). What happens to the lignin and hemicellulose in the biomass?; and 2). How much energy does it take?"<br /><br />This is really just speculation, as I don't have enough facts to go on, but I would guess that the cellulose can be conveniently dissolved out of a pulp, either with those solvents or in a separate stage using the rayon process which has a cuprammonium ion complex in water as a solvent. Then the stuff that's left can be burned (maybe indirectly after gasifying) to help power the remaining processes. Drying out the water would be cheap, but there's the issue of reclaiming enough of the solvents to be cost effective. I'd guess that a cellulose dissolving process would be rather like that for sugar beet, making use of counterflow; that could easily be adapted to flush any of the solvent out of the final waste. Since copper is used in the main process, the only issue is reclaiming the ammonia - but (again guessing) low pressure distillation <i>should</i> be cost effective for that, though it might need some added alkali to free it up.<br /><br />I've sometimes wondered if the rayon process could be a starting point for some other processing pathway, but that's even more speculative. “I would think then the important considerations would be 1). What happens to the lignin and hemicellulose in the biomass?; and 2). How much energy does it take?”

This is really just speculation, as I don’t have enough facts to go on, but I would guess that the cellulose can be conveniently dissolved out of a pulp, either with those solvents or in a separate stage using the rayon process which has a cuprammonium ion complex in water as a solvent. Then the stuff that’s left can be burned (maybe indirectly after gasifying) to help power the remaining processes. Drying out the water would be cheap, but there’s the issue of reclaiming enough of the solvents to be cost effective. I’d guess that a cellulose dissolving process would be rather like that for sugar beet, making use of counterflow; that could easily be adapted to flush any of the solvent out of the final waste. Since copper is used in the main process, the only issue is reclaiming the ammonia – but (again guessing) low pressure distillation should be cost effective for that, though it might need some added alkali to free it up.

I’ve sometimes wondered if the rayon process could be a starting point for some other processing pathway, but that’s even more speculative.

]]> By: takchess http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55717 takchess Sun, 24 May 2009 02:22:48 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55717 In trying to understand this, I went back to an article you wrote on Coskata. Do you think the yield on this method would be 100 gallonsethanol per ton (or it's HMF equivalent) simalar to what Coskata was claiming? <br /><br />Seperately: When one talk about a ton of corn turned to first generation ethanol are they talking about a ton of corn kernels? Not entire ears of corn, this is something that I am not clear on. In trying to understand this, I went back to an article you wrote on Coskata. Do you think the yield on this method would be 100 gallonsethanol per ton (or it’s HMF equivalent) simalar to what Coskata was claiming?

Seperately: When one talk about a ton of corn turned to first generation ethanol are they talking about a ton of corn kernels? Not entire ears of corn, this is something that I am not clear on.

]]> By: robert http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55716 robert Sun, 24 May 2009 01:58:31 +0000 http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/chemistry-the-future-of-cellulose/#comment-55716 So we'll have electricity that's too cheap to meter. So we’ll have electricity that’s too cheap to meter.

]]>