The Food v Fuel corn debate

Is there enough corn to go around? That's a question that is being raised more and more as rising ethanol production in the United States continues to eat into the corn supply.

A new study on planned ethanol facilities says that the industry has underestimated the number of plants due to come on line soon. The Earth Policy Institute says that rather than 62 new ethanol plants, there are actually 79 being built, according to a report in today's New York Times business section.
"This unprecedented diversion of corn to fuel production will affect food prices everywhere," according to Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.

However, the NYT reporter, Alexei Barrionuevo, points out that Brown's concern may be overstated. Corn farmers are increasing production and will be able to meet the new demand, according to a spokesman for the National Corn Growers Association. Corn farmers produced their third-largest crop last year. "All demands for corn - food, feed, fuel and exports - are being met," according to the Association.

Brown goes as far advocating a moratorium on licensing new ethanol plants. I am by no means an expert on this issue. But common sense leads me to believe that given the ethanol momentum that has built up in recent months Brown's moratorium would be an unecessarily negative step. While the country is on pace to exceed the 2005 federally mandated Renewable Fuel Standard, that standard is way below where biofuel production needs to be if we are going to seriously improve our renewable energy use.

By the way, I think the good news here is that this debate is taking place at all. It shows just how far ethanol production has come. Brown also makes a very good point in highlighting the maturing of cellulosic ethanol technology and plug-in hybrid cars.

The NYT also points out that the pace of new plants is slowing anyway due to rising construction costs and shortages of plant machinery parts due to the enormous demand. Permitting problems have also affected some projects. Critics say ethanol plants can contaminate water supplies. I have written about two examples in Florida alone of projects that were forced to be abandoned (Gate Ethanol's project in north-east Florida and US Envirofuels second Tampa area project at Port Manatee).

Click here to read today's NYT article.

Check out the Earth Policy Institute's website for complete coverage of the debate over corn-for -food-versus-fuel issue. The website includes an August interview with Lester Brown on NPR's Science Friday show with Ira Flatow.

Click here for the National Corn Growers Association statement countering the Earth Policy Institute study.

- David Adams

Comments

[C. Scott Miller]

Let's not forget that the cornbelt produces more than just corn. They simultaneously produce corn stover (everything but the kernals). That can be the first feedstock for the second generation of ethanol plants (which produce cellulosic ethanol from plant waste using emerging technologies).

Should corn kernals become expensive, more and more sugar fermentation plants will add cellulosic ethanol conversion technologies. Once deployed these facilities won't necessarily be tied to corn waste. Other crops, switch grass, and plant waste could also be converted. That will free farmers to engage in better soil sustainability practices. And it will add significantly to the biomass feedstock available while lowering dependence on food crops.

The other opportunity comes from reducing demand while increasing supply. With flex-fuel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and especially flex-fuel PHEVs we can drive down demand for liquid fuels while gradually replacing gasoline with ethanol. This is an area where state legislators can help by mandating cheap flex-fuel conversions of standard models of cars (est. to cost $50-$200/vehicle) so that the individual consumer can democratically "vote" with their pocketbooks which fuels they wish to support.

[Gary Bridge]

The comment above is no more than wishful thinking and it is propagating a new buzzword from W's last State of the Union address.

Ligno-cellulosic is thought to be the new magic bullet for the ag ethanol industry. But it definately is not. Bloggers may understand planting of corn, fertilizing it with petrochemical fertilizers and using copious amounts of water and giant diesel tractors to effect just one annual harvest of corn kernels.

And these corn kernels are very inefficiently fermented in a 4-day batch process using enzymes to hydrolyze the starch and convert it into sugars. Then yeasts are added in to munch the sugars for lunch and excrete ethanol as a waste product while offgassing tons of beer-fizz CO2 greenhouse gas. The resulting ethanol is about 10% volume strength in the beer/mash which must then be expensively distilled and mole-seived to raise it to anahydrous state. Then clean the tanks and start another 4-day batch process all over again.

The pressure to produce more bioethanol has seen corn prices go from $2 to $3 per bushel. This understandably excites farmers and midwestern politicians.

Ligno-cellulosic is a new method, not commercialized yet except for one Pilot Plant in Canada. It utiizes the corn stalks or stover as feedstocks. First these stalks are collected and ground. Next step is to begin a 7-day batch fermentation process and use extra expensive, stronger acidic enzymes to break the cellulose down and convert it into sugars. Then add yeasts and continue with the traditional batch fermentation processes.

Problem is that one out of every 3 batches gets contaminated with mother nature's own bugs. A seven day cooking/fermentation process is too long and contamination can occur. I've read that the ethanol volume in this process is only about 4% which then must be highgraded to anahydrous state to be used for gasoline blending. Then clean the tanks and start it all over again. Oh, the ethanol produced by ligno-cell means is significantly more expensive than when fermenting ground corn kernels.

Just like the hydrogen hallucination (way too expensive and way too dangerous for the transporation sector) things like ligno-cellulosic are getting blown way out of proportion by people wanting to raise investment capital or toss another ruse into the global oil end game.

Ethanol is a wonderful, biodegradable new biofuel alternative. However, fermentation processes to create it are fraught with inefficiency. At least it dilutes into water bodies and feeds micro-organisms with a free lunch. Something that float-on-water biodiesel can't do. Water solubility is the first elemental key to utilize when evaluating any alternative fuel. And we've all witnessed oil spills, capiche? Brown urban smog is just an oil spill in the sky made up of unburned oils or other hydrocarbons in an emission stream from tailpipes and industrial smokestacks.

There are some other new green alternatives coming along in the biofuels arena. Complete changes of chemistry sets, process drivers and continuous 24x7 synthesis processes which will effectively and cleanly convert society's waste streams of garbage, sewer sludge, methane, coal, animal manure, garbage, etc., as process feedstocks and replace corn kernels or corn stalks and produce a stronger Btu biofuel for less than 25% of corn ethanol's present fermentation costs.

Stay tuned.

Gary Bridge

[David Adams]

Gary, in defense of Scott's comments I suggest you visit his website (The bioconversion blog). You clearly sound as though you know your stuff. But so does Scott.
We all know about the shortcomings of corn. But methinks you are a little too pessimistic about cellulosic ethanol's potential, at least as a transitionary technology. Your comment about biomass as the future best option is very much on the mark. That's Scott's whole thesis too.

[C. Scott Miller]

Gary -

I foresee a three phase progression for conversion of biomass to ethanol.

The first is SUGAR fermentation - sugarcane for Brazil, corn for the U.S. The second phase would be the batch mode conversion of cellulosic feedstock using the enzymatic hydrolysis you describe. Call it SUGAR+ in that it batch converts biomass into sugar to be batch fermented into ethanol using first phase technology. Its redeeming value is that greatly expands the volume of biomass that can be converted - mitigating the food vs. fuel dilemma.

The third phase is what my 18-month old BIOconversion Blog is all about. Instead of batch mode processing a continuous flow of biomass feedstock is fed to gasifiers to produce syngas that can be cleanly converted into ethanol while the heat is harnessed to co-generate electricity. Conversion is continuous and takes several minutes vs. several days for conventional batch mode fermentation.

This technology is already in pilot demonstration. There are several companies that are pursuing the fermentation of syngas either through bioreactors or use of catalysts, but I feel the BRI Energy site (which I created) has the best explanation of the process.

If commercial scale-up is successful, a broad array of carbon-neutral feedstock is available for conversion - including sugars, cellulosic biomass, and - most importantly - blended waste from not only cultivated crops but also forests and urban industries (see BIOstock Blog). I currently work with a wood BIOstock services company and with L.A. urban utilities on these two sources of feedstock. Besides converting feedstock with negative cost, syngas from fossil fuel gasification is also possible for higher volume output.

There are certainly risks with any new technology. Will syngas fermentation be the winner I think it will...?

Stay tuned.

[Vinod Khosla]

It appears to me that Lester Lave has an agenda and he is disingenuous about his assumptions and data. Nobody interested in a serious debate makes the kind of obviously ridiculous assumptions he continues to make despite being corrected many times. He claims to be an expert (to us e a term from a recent National Corn Growers release - a release I agree with) without studying the issue, or atleast acknowledging that he has understood the other side and disagrees because of reasons x,y and z. He makes future assumptions about his favorite technologies but not about ethanol. Why? Has he ever had a practical solution he proposed see real world adoption because of his strategies? I don't know and don't really care to waste my time researching his background because of the poor quality of his thinking (in my humble opinion - again I could be completely wrong as I have been wrong before, but I will trust my judgment any day against his. I am sure he will do the reverse). I wonder what his source of funding is or what other agenda he has? His general solutions are impractical and idealized and would be great if possible but are so blue sky they don't deserve attention. Anybody can offer a great solution like we should all drive less, be more efficient, pay more for idealized solutions, etc etc.
It is unfortunate that the press keeps publicizing his points of view just because they make for spicy stories. I guess these kinds of stories always win over thoughtful practical debate. What is clear is as biofuels technology catches on its powerful enemies, especially the petroleum industry, will step up the PR campaign against it to avoid biofuels becoming a real alternative to gasoline. They have too much to lose and enough money to fight it for a long while. Why otherwise would the American Petroleum Institute be talking about food prices? Why would Lester be talking about food versus fuel arguments for the world's needy when every poor country (and I grew up in India) is arguing for higher western food prices and lower food subsidies so THEIR farmers can earn a decent source of income by being able to sell the food they produce? As every decent economist knows it is a major source of angst and one of the reasons why the Doha round of trade talks broke down. Ask anybody in India or Brazil if they like higher western food prices or they prefer subsidies for farmers. Also ask everybody who talks about ethanol subsidies how much the corn subsidy has gone down because of ethanol? Is it a subsidy or not "net from the US Government" or atleast how much fo a subsidy? And while we are at it we might ask about the DIRECT subsidies to gasoline which were minimally and directly measurably estimated by a research anaylyst at $0.20-0.30 per gallon and all subsides, direct and indirect to oil which have been estimated anywhere between a few dollars to over $4.00 per gallon by various folks. Why? Because the API does not pay for that PR? Why does Lester Lave not press these points? One wind researcher actually said they don't like ethanol because it is taking money and attention away from wind. I guess everybody has an agenda. I guess I do to but I have a pro biofuels agenda because as some would say I have investments in biofuels. But I would not invest in biofuels if i did not think it was real and economically viable. If this did not make economic sense I would be investing somewhere else. I could be wrong but for my investments sake I hope I am not biased.

[Gary Bridge]

Spock said to Capn' Kirk on StarTreck 30 years ago "you are just a carbon-unit Jim!" And he was right... Humans are about 65% carbon. And carbon is carbon is carbon - once it is isolated. Ie: a carbon atom from my eyelash or your belly button or a corn kernel is the exact same carbon atom building block as carbon isolated from coal, natural gas, garbage, sewer sludge, ground tires, petroleum coke bottoms or even carbon isolated from polluting CO2 greenhouse gas.

So just stop and think a minute here after reading (yet perhaps not fully understanding) all of the issues surrounding the biofuel debates going on concerning food vs: fuel issues. I think that the reality of growing renewable carbons (corn, sugar beets, sugar cane, sorghum, cannola, soy or even switchgrass) and using inefficient technologies to convert these plants into biofuels -- is the first problem. Really understanding how these conversion technologies work in fuel production or even in creating the mechanism for increased petroleum combustion efficiencies is the second common problem. And then facing up to the land issues, irrigation issues and then food vs: fuel issues is just now beginning to sprout as the tip of the iceberg and will become the third and next major problem to overcome. And perhaps much sooner than most people realize as Lester Brown is attempting to call serious attention to...

People are not debating that biofuels are good, clean, highly profitable and decentralized new fuels. However most folks don't even understand that the principle difference between biodiesel and ethanol is that biodiesel, just like petroleum-derived diesel, - still floats on water bodies like the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Whereas bioethanol with ONE oxygen atom anchoring it's two-carbon molecule, -- then dilutes evenly in water and thus feeds this planet's micro-organisms, bugs, trees and green plants with a free lunch should ethanol alcohol be spilled into lakes, rivers, streams or groundwater. Very few people use the basic issue of water solubiity in ANY of their evaluations of new biofuels.

The fact that biodiesel is sulfur-free is good news. The fact that biodiesel still floats on water is not good news. The fact that both biodiesel and bioethanol are inefficiently processed is also not good news. The fact that both come from otherwise food crops may become the straw that broke the camel's back. And sooner than most people might think!

Reading through these recent news articles listed above citing conflicting studies on just how many new ethanol plants are being constructed is proof in itself that citizens and investors alike are positively reacting to what hit all of our pocketbooks right after the Katrina hurricane. The fact that gasoline prices have temporarily fallen off these past few months isn't going to stop the forward momentum that has just barely begun. The price gouges which we all experienced was another straw that broke the camel's back - instigating worldwide response toward new fuel alternatives... And the recent U.S. fuel price hikes didn't stop here. These price increases coupled with the petroleum industry's record-breaking profits have been felt worldwide. People from other countries are blaming the USA for more than just invading Iraq over false claims of WMD's.

Turn the page a minute. Beyond recent fuel price hikes, what is actually the process driver behind global warming phenomena? Anybody view Al Gore's new presentation? Or What the Bleep? Or Farenheight 9/11? Or Mr. Khosla's ethanol slide show now being presented to Google's employees and viewable online?

In layman's terms, smoggy urban air is simply unburned oily hydrcarbons which are emitted out tailpipes and industrial smokestacks of refineries, cement kilns and coal-fired power plants. These oil-based hydrocarbons of incomplete combustion (emissions) then phase separate into our water laden atmosphere. We view and breathe these brown clouds of unburned oils as urban smog which are now blowing between continents. Not too healthy a global air recipe and the basis for most respiratory ailments today, -- essentially linked to incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.

Think of smog as phase separated unburned oils - even from biodiesel. Consider that even edible olive oil phase separates from acid-water vinegar in salad dressing. Shake this edible (oil) salad dressing up - and watch it phase separate within moments. This is the exact same example of incomplete oxidation combustion of hydrocarbons (either fossil or renewable based like biodiesel) which emissions then phase separate in the air. Smog is an oil spill in the sky - the air we breathe!

When 100% C1 methanol or C2 ethanol is combusted neat as a substitute fuel, the emissions streams contain more aldehyde and ketones yet is still water soluble, -- and it biodegrades. Did the Indy 500 Race Cars combust neat methanol for 37 years because its flames were nearly invisible or because methanol's emissions were biodegradable -- or because when properly tuned, these race car engines provided approximately 30% more horsepower?

Serious students to the biofuel arena have likely read the Pimmental/Patzek reports concerning corn ethanol production consuming more energy than it provides. And I tend to agree with these scientists when I understand completely that a $3 bushel of corn which is annually harvested with giant diesel tractors, fertilized with petrochemical based fertilizers and watered with fresh water -- contains only so much carbon as a basic building block to produce ethanol.

Most people don't understand the 4-day batch fermentation processes of corn or the highly touted 7-day batch fermentation processes of ligno-cellulosic ethanol.

Herein it is ONLY the carbon contained in cornstarch or cellulose which is hydrolyzed into sugars which yeasts then consume as a food product while offgassing CO2 beer-fizz as the yeasts co-produce ethanol as a waste product which then must have 90% water distilled and mole-sieved to reach anhydrous, fuel-grade state. Then clean, sterilize the tanks and begin another 4-day, highly inefficient batch fermentation process. Using enzymes and bugs to drive the conversion of renewable, farmed carbon atoms isn't very efficient. Having documented the workings of 85 ethanol plants - I can attest to this fact. I understand the difference between wet and dry milling front-ends to fermentation ethanol plants. I also understand the annual life cycle of preparing land and then growing and harvesting either food or fuel crops.

Compare for a minute the fact that one bushel of cattle manure or municipal sewer sludge contains far more carbon per unit volume as a basic building block than does one bushel of $3 corn. Remember that municipal sewer sludge (or garbage waste) is being generated 24x7x365 while the bushel of corn is a one-time a year annual harvest needing land, water, fertilizers, diesel tractors, etc.

What IF the chemistry sets to produce ethanol were suddenly changed? What if superheated steam, not biological enzymes or yeasts - was used as a front-end process driver instead? Or think about gasification techniques which isolate carbon from society's wastes or coal or tires into CO & H2 syngas building blocks as a new front-end driver cleanly utilized to convert waste carbon into new building blocks for alternative fuels. Change the chemistry set here folks and then think about cleanly converting society's waste streams, tires, coal, methane, sawdust and even CO2 greenhouse gas into new, stronger Btu biofuels than ethanol batch fermented from corn.

With proper engineering and catalyst techniques - you can produce a blend of water soluble, oil soluble, longer-chained fuel alcohols which are 20% stronger Btu than is grain ethanol fermented with yeasts. And accomplish this on a continous 24x7 basis vs: batch fermentation -- and at 1/4 or less the production costs per gallon of new biofuel -- which unlike biodiesel, will feed the planet's bugs and plants a free lunch as it dilutes in water and thus quite readily biodegrades.

There is a sleeping green giant awakening now which is not understood by the public just yet. Imagine beginning to turn the tide on OPEC gallon for gallon (or resolving Peak Oil for that matter) and utilizing NYC's daily waste streams as plentiful & renewable carbonaceous feedstocks for this new biofuel process. And creating a globally new industry without land use issues or food vs: fuel issues while synthesizing an extra strong 90,400 Btu biofuel for 25¢ per gallon on a continuous basis. Something which may generate 80% ROI's before applicable tax credits which now are not needed.

If this is true, then the first green wouldn't be the new fuel. It would be the inherent profits which drive the outward expansion of a new industry. The near-term environmental benefits would become the second green in this new fuel equation. The first green would become the money to be made. And think about private equity opportunities therein. Or municipalities decentralizing this new equity ownership to millions of common citizens through municipal or industrial bonding mechanisms. Couple this with absolutely seamless application of this new, stronger Btu biofuel into all flavors of petroleum fuels and also into coal for power plants -- which yields immediate reductions of oily-based hydrocarbon emissions greater than 50%.

Just a few more thoughts amid the blogs where concerned people don't understand that it is a carbon atom which becomes the basic building block here. And this carbon can come much cheaper from society's daily waste streams vs: an edible corn kernel or soy or cannola or switch grass when a totally different chemistry set is utilized.

And my key word above was synthesis, - as in catalytic synthesis. This has nothing to do with Mr. Miller's earlier suggestion of gasifying biomass to then FERMENT this CO & H2 synthesis gas into ethanol. This isn't the mechanism which I refer to. My experience with fermenting syngas is that it will not become a new fuel system's process driver. Neither will ligno-cellulosic. Instead, I'm indicating GTL or gas-to-liquids synthesis. And not Fischer-Tropsch which coal producers are eager to now utilize post Katrina to produce very expensive synthetic diesel, gasoline or jet fuel. These fuels, like biodiesel may be sulfur-free. But they still float on water and so do their uncombusted emissions when coming into contact with this planet's atmosphere of water vapor. Stay tuned.

Gary Bridge

[David Adams]

Vinod, Gary, and Scott, thanks for all your thoughtful comments.

I have a quesiton for Gary. Am I right in synthesising your comments thus:
you prefer ethanol to biodiesel due to its water soluble quality? But you still have reservations about ethanol due to its inefficient means of production (from corn).

You don't address the sugar cane energy ratio, by the way. Your skepticism about cellulosic ethanol would suggest you are not a fan of that either.

I fully support your advocacy for waste conversion to energy (and I have written some about anaerobic digesters etc), but I'm afraid I don't have the scientific background to fully appreciate the difference between what you are suggesting and Scott's syngas option. Maybe you can explain that further.

p.s. I think you ignore what Scott says about the evolution of technology. It seems to me he is not advocating corn ethanol and the ultimate solution. He simply sees it, like Vinod does, as a technology-ready-now option from which we can evolve to bigger and better ideas.

p.s. can you tell us a bit more about your own background. From your post and its referneces to your e85 studies it's clear that you have had your head in the muck so to speak - which gives you a good deal of moral authority on this subject!!

[Gary Bridge]

I have a quesiton for Gary. Am I right in synthesising your comments thus: 
you prefer ethanol to biodiesel due to its water soluble quality? YES

But you still have reservations about ethanol due to its inefficient means of production (from corn).
YES, LOTS OF RESERVATIONS. ETHANOL AS A 2-CARBON FUEL IS A GREAT, BIODEGRADABLE FUEL. FERMENTING IT FROM CORN OR OTHER CEREAL GRAINS IS A 4-DAY BATCH PROCESS AND IS VERY, VERY INEFFICIENT. FERMENTING IT FROM SUGAR CANE AS IS ACCOMPLISHED DOWN IN BRAZIL IS MORE EFFICIENT, SIMPLY BECAUSE SUGAR CANE PRODUCES MORE ETHANOL PER UNIT VOLUME OF FEEDSTOCK. HOWEVER, THE PROCESS OF FERMENTATION OF EITHER CORN OR SUGAR CANE IS INHERENTLY INEFFICIENT AND HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MANY STUDIES. SIMPLY CONSIDER THE OFFGAS OF CO2 FROM THE PROCESS OF FERMENTATION AS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF WASTE HERE. PIMMENTAL AND PATZEK HAVE PUBLISHED EXTENSIVELY ON THE ENERGY BALANCES HEREIN. I SIMPLY REALIZE THAT ONLY CARBON CONTAINED WITHIN CORNSTARCH IS THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT BEING CONVERTED BY ACID ENZYMES AND YEASTS INTO ETHANOL. CONSIDER THAT A BUSHEL OF CATTLE MANURE CONTAINS MORE ELEMENTAL CARBON BUILDING BLOCKS THAN DOES A ANNUAL BUSHEL OF $3.50 CORN. CHANGE THE CHEMISTRY SETS AND PRODUCE C2H5OH ETHANOL AND OTHER ALCOHOLS INSTEAD THROUGH CONTINUOUS SYNTHESIS BY EMPLOYING THERMAL CONVERSION PROCESSES VS: BIOLOGICAL CONVERSION METHODS.

You don't address the sugar cane energy ratio, by the way. Your skepticism about cellulosic ethanol would suggest you are not a fan of that either.
I'M NOT A FAN OF FERMENTATION METHODOLOGY -- PERIOD. LIGNO-CELLULOSIC AS THE HOLY GRAIL IS A DIVERSIONARY RUSE IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, JUST LIKE THE HYDROGEN HALLUCINATION IS. BOTH WERE DELIVERED FROM THE BULLY PULPIT OF THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESSES A FEW YEARS APART. ONE WAS GIVEN AS THE NEW HYDROGEN FUEL CELL ANSWER - JUST 3 WEEKS BEFORE THE U.S. INVADED IRAQ. THE SECOND MESSAGE ANNOUNCING LIGNO-CELLULOSIC, MAY HAVE BEEN ANOTHER RUSE TO DIVERT ATTENTION, - WAS GIVEN A FEW MONTHS AFTER KATRINA WHEN PETROLEUM FUEL PRICES SPIKED TO $3.50 PER GALLON.

LIGNO-CELLULOSIC IS A SEVEN DAY BATCH FERMENTATION - USING EXTRA ACIDIC ENZYMES - AND THESE BATCHES MAY BE CONTAMINATED BY NATURE'S OWN MICRO-ORGANISMS. LESS DENSE ETHANOL VOLUMES ARE PRODUCED IN FINAL MIXTURE, THUS MORE WATER NEEDS TO BE DISTILLED OUT - EVEN MORE INEFFICIENT HERE WITH LIGNO-CELL AND PRODUCING ANHYDROUS ETHANOL AT NEARLY TWICE THE PRICE PER GALLON AS FROM CORN.

I fully support your advocacy for waste conversion to energy (and I have written some about anaerobic digesters etc), but I'm afraid I don't have the scientific background to fully appreciate the difference between what you are suggesting and Scott's syngas option. Maybe you can explain that further.
FERMENTATION METHODS OF CO & H2 SYNGAS SUGGESTED BY SCOTT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANEROBIC DIGESTION WHICH PRODUCES A "BIOMETHANE" WHICH IS COMPRISED OF CH4 METHANE AND C02 GREENHOUSE GAS. PLEASE DON'T CONFUSE THESE TWO TECHNOLOGIES WHICH ARE NIGHT AND DAY APART.

SYNGAS IS CO & H2 WHEN PRODUCED FROM A GASIFIER CONVERTING SOLID CARBONACEOUS FEEDSTOCKS. WHEN METHANE IS STEAM REFORMED, THE RESULTING SYNGAS IS CO & H2, H2, H2.

SCOTT HAS LEARNED OF A PARTICULAR UNIVERSITY SCIENTIST WHO IS TRYING TO PRODUCE ETHANOL THROUGH A WHOLE NEW TECHNOLOGY OF FERMENTING OR REACTING THE CO & H2 SYNGAS WITH MICRO-ORGANISMS TO PRODUCE ETHANOL. THIS PARTICULAR SCIENTIST HAS BEEN PLUGGING ALONG AT THIS TECHNOLOGY FOR MANY YEARS WITHOUT ANY COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. HIS YIELDS ARE NOT THAT GREAT... I'VE NOT PERSONALLY MET WITH THIS PROFESSOR, YET TWO GROUPS OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS WITH WHOM I CONSULT HAVE PROVIDED ME WITH THEIR OWN FIRST-PERSON EVALUATIONS HERE WHICH ANCHORED MY OWN INITIAL OPINIONS. THE ELEMENT OF USING BUGS OR MICROBES TO CONVERT SYNTHESIS GAS INTO ETHANOL ISN'T THE ANSWER. GTL CATALYSIS IS. AND PRODUCING PURE ETHANOL FROM THIS CATALYSIS METHODOLOGY DOESN'T OCCUR. THE RESULTING PRODUCTS BECOMES A BLEND OF HIGHER ALCOHOLS ANCHORED WITH C1 METHANOL INSTEAD WHICH IS LIKELY THE WINNING DIRECTION WHICH PEOPLE ARE SEEKING. HOWEVER I'VE MET SOME FOLKS THIS PAST YEAR FROM THE EASTERN USA WHO ARE PURSUING THESE METHODS YET STILL COUCHING THE NEW END PRODUCT BIOFUEL AS "ETHANOL" - THUS "TRICKING" THE INVESTOR SO TO SPEAK AS ETHANOL IS THE KEY BUZZ WORD HERE.

p.s. I think you ignore what Scott says about the evolution of technology. It seems to me he is not advocating corn ethanol and the ultimate solution. He simply sees it, like Vinod does, as a technology-ready-now option from which we can evolve to bigger and better ideas.
JUST CONTINUE REVIEWING THE PRESENT FRONT-PAGE ARTICLES CONCERNING THE FACT THAT CORN PRICES HAVE RISEN 61% IN JUST THE PAST YEAR BECAUSE OF INCREASED DEMAND. THE FOOD VS: FUEL ISSUES WILL ESCALATE EVEN FASTER THAN MOST PEOPLE HAVE CONTEMPLATED. IN JUST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS AFTER THE 2007 SEASONAL HARVEST OF CORN YOU'LL GET A BETTER FEELING FOR THIS SET OF ECONOMICS. THIS YEAR FARMERS WILL BE GOING AFTER BIGGER BUCKS FOR CORN AND START PLANTING MARGINAL LAND AND/OR SWITCHING FROM SOY, WHEAT, OATS OR BARLEY OVER TO CORN FOR THE RESULTING ECONOMICS. THIS WILL CREATE NEW SHORTFALLS OF WHEAT AND OTHER FOOD PRODUCTS AS A RESULT. ALL OF THE AGRICULTURAL FOOD ELEMENTS HERE ARE TIED TOGETHER WITHIN THE BIGGER PICTURE BEING DISRUPTED BY BURGEONING CORN ETHANOL IN THE USA.

p.s. can you tell us a bit more about your own background. From your post and its referneces to your e85 studies it's clear that you have had your head in the muck so to speak - which gives you a good deal of moral authority on this subject!!
I'M A CONSULTING ENERGY TECHNOLOGIST WHO HAS DOCUMENTED THE WORKINGS OF HUNDREDS OF ENERGY PRODUCING PROJECTS DURING THE PAST 30 YEARS. THUS I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ALL SORTS OF TECHNOLOGIES RANGING THE GRIDIRON FROM FOSSIL-BASED TO RENEWABLE-BASED TO FUEL CELLS (BOTH HYDROGEN VS: METHANOL) TO SOLAR, ETC. I'M NOT A FAN OF NEW ALGAE BLOOMS PAVING THE WAY EITHER. SORRY.

GARY BRIDGE