researchers develop new process which reduces ethanol production costs by ONE THIRD

[JohnWxy]

http://ethanol-news.newslib.com/story/6938-25976/

Biofuels: Fungus Use Improves Corn-to-ethanol Process

ScienceDaily (May 27, 2008) — Growing a fungus in some of the leftovers from ethanol production can save energy, recycle more water and improve the livestock feed that's a co-product of fuel production, according to a team of researchers from Iowa State University and the University of Hawai'i.

"The process could change ethanol production in dry-grind plants so much that energy costs can be reduced by as much as one-third," said Hans van Leeuwen, an Iowa State professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering and the leader of the research project.

Van Leeuwen and the other researchers developing the technology -- Anthony L. Pometto III, a professor of food science and human nutrition; Mary Rasmussen, a graduate student in environmental engineering and biorenewable resources and technology; and Samir Khanal, a former Iowa State research assistant professor who's now an assistant professor of molecular biosciences and bioengineering at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa -- recently won the 2008 Grand Prize for University Research from the American Academy of Environmental Engineers for the project.
~~
~~

Allowing more water recycling would reduce the industry's water consumption by as much as 10 billion gallons per year. And it allows producers to recycle enzymes in the thin stillage, saving about $60 million per year.

(more)

[tinrobot]

1. Isn't corn one of the least efficient sources of ethanol?

Instead of dropping the cost by a third, why not just pick another crop that's more than a third more efficient?

[excess_3]

3. better than being slaves to Big Oil .n/t

[Tashca]

4. What crop??

I'm all ears.....I think many people would love to have something better.
Corn....you plant 20# to the acre and return 11,000#-12,000 per acre in 4 months. I don't know of another crop that can do that.
I don't know of another crop that the by-product can all be used as great cattle feed and what's left spread back on the soil as a fertilizer. The cattle manure from this makes a wonderful fertilizer too.
Maybe not complete nutrient cycling....but it is better than loading it on a boat and sending it over-seas. Then that is complete mining of the soil. You never get that back.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass....I truly am open to something different. I have not seen anything close.

[tinrobot]

5. Sugar cane is more efficient

According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) one acre of sugarcane would yield 665 gallons of ethanol, corn would yield 370 - 430 gallons.

Switchgrass yields over 1,000 gallons per acre, more than 3 times the yield of corn.

http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_biomass-crops.htm

[Tashca]

8. Yes sugar cane

I understand that it would be much better. I also understand it needs a very long growing season. To ramp up production I assume this would take out production acres for vegetables crops and things like that? I don't know for sure.
Switch grass and cellulosic ethanol. I believe at this point it is a theory. The main fear I have with cellulosic production is quick degradation of the soil biology. By taking all the above ground portions of plants you pull immense amount of nutrients from the soil. Maybe after the switch grass is processed you can apply whatever is left back to the soil???....I don't know. I know it can't be used as feedstuff.
I don't want to appear to be arguing for corn ethanol. I can just see at this point why they are using it. The infrastructure is already set up to handle massive amounts of it. I can guarantee producers are very open to alternative crops. Setting up infrastructure to handle vast amounts may be a different story.

[JohnWxy]

11. I don't think sugar cane can do well in the mid-west. It is grown in Louisiana and Fla.

If anybody finds a better crop than what they are now using I'm for switching. Whatever works best. ... that is until cellulosic ethanol becomes economically feasible.

Even (if and ) when cellulosic becomes feasible it will be several years before cellulosic would be produced in large volumes. Until then, keep using what you've got.

Here is another variety of corn they are looking into at the University of Illinois.

[poopfuel]

9. Hi, Bellator

There are about 20 or so other crops. And cellulose one day, even its byproduct can be used for all the same functions you mention.
Read the book that tells the truth about alcohol fuel.

http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com?bid=2&aid=CD8&opt=

[4dsc]

10. Why yes it is!!!

Food for fuel is immoral to boot!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. ... not counting the value of the acres that should be producing food.

Biodiesel. Biodiesel. Biodiesel.

[losthills]

6. More propaganda.

"Biofuels" are an alternative method of making fuel from oil.
And that's all they are.
And they are far worse than just making the fuel from oil directly, because they take land away from growing food crops and drive up the cost of food. And they drive the trend toward clearcutting forests for agriculture.
It's a lose/lose scenario, and anyone promoting it is trying to deceive you.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. The link was moved

I think this is the new one:

http://ethanol-news.newslib.com/story/6938-26007/">Fungus improves dry-grind ethanol production process

Still speculative, though (and doesn't address most other problems of large-scale biofuel production; e.g., soil depletion, though the water consumption profile is much more favorable).

Also, I wonder if Hans vanLeewen is any relation to Storm vanLeewen.

--p!

[JohnWxy]

12. Thanks, I didn't know they moved the damn article. Here is the new location for the full article:

http://ethanol-news.newslib.com/story/6938-25999/


" Van Leeuwen estimated it would cost $11 million to start using the process in an ethanol plant that produces 100 million gallons of fuel per year. But, he said the cost savings at such a plant could pay off that investment in about six months."