Author Topic: Cellulosic Ethanol In Georgia (Read 2322 times)

TexasTimbers · « **on:** September 03, 2007, 08:16:26 am »

I heard on the news this a.m. where some Colorado company is going to start harvesting pines trees in Ga. to convert to ethanol. I didn't catch many other details over the buzz of the electric shaver though. I bet one of the members must be close to the area they bought up or leased a bunch of acres I believe they said.

WDH · « **Reply #1 on:** September 03, 2007, 09:56:54 pm »

The plant is to be built in Swainsboro, GA. I don't have many details. I heard that it had been delayed because gas prices had fallen, but that might be hearsay.

DanG · « **Reply #2 on:** September 04, 2007, 02:12:50 pm »

That would be typical. It seems to take a 50% increase in gas prices to spur any action on the alternatives front, but only a 10% decrease to make them back off.

pineywoods · « **Reply #3 on:** September 04, 2007, 05:03:59 pm »

Same thing happened in louisiana, the official word was that the process they had developed worked OK in the lab, but didn't do so well when scaled up to production quantities. Not the first time i've heard of that happening.

fencerowphil (Phil L.) · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2007, 09:00:14 pm »

The plant is actually going up in Soperton, Ga.
A friend of mine was hired to be the plant manager.
He just started work in fact.

Process is designed for Pine. It is expected to operate
on the equivalent of 100 chip loads PER DAY.

Phil L.

Don P · « **Reply #5 on:** September 11, 2007, 08:55:07 pm »

I ran across a cellulosic ethanol and a bio oil page this evening on the UTK website, thought it might be of interest. The bio oil gets my curiosity up if anyone comes across anything else.
http://web.utk.edu/~mtaylo29/pages/Ethanol%20from%20wood.htm
http://web.utk.edu/~mtaylo29/pages/bio-oil.html

TexasTimbers · « **Reply #6 on:** September 12, 2007, 11:02:32 pm »

Could someone who understands the big picture of economics and markets dumb down your answer enough to explain why we have not already replaced foriegn oil dependence at least in some significant part with our vast natural resource and technological capabilities?

I think of all these reason s like venture capital takes a while to fall into emerging markets, but it is the market waiting to be fed that attracts the venture capital. Well there is certainly a huge market the biggest besides food. Is it because the processing of all these alternative energy resources takes the use of fossil fuels so that alone makes most of them cost prohibitive? When will one of the alternative energy sources take off on its own in a large degree? Is it wind power that will emerge? Solar?

Is there a solar panel manufacturer that makes its panels 100% with solar power?

Is there really too many big money oil people/corps/lobbyists/politicians that will not allow it?

I vote for Pauls woodburning truck to lead the way.

But seriously, can someone explain to me in a few sentences why we are STILL so overwhelmingly dependent on foriegn oil or is too complex to sum up in a pargraph?

beenthere · « **Reply #7 on:** September 12, 2007, 11:40:04 pm »

Only a guess, kevjay.
Oil is still cheap. Maybe not 'cheap' cheap, but in comparison -- it is cheap. Just a guess tho.

TexasTimbers · « **Reply #8 on:** September 12, 2007, 11:48:30 pm »

Well even this dumdum knows that bt.

I guess what I did a bad job at asking is (and you distilled MUCH better tyvm) is why is it so much cheaper in comparison?

Go ahead, synop it with 3 words or something.

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #9 on:** September 13, 2007, 07:44:38 am »

Brand of panels I used to sell is Solarex. They had their own Solar powered factory.

I believe they sold out to another outfit. Big Oil, maybe

Ron Wenrich · « **Reply #10 on:** September 13, 2007, 06:06:31 pm »

The short answer is that we aren't really short on resources or technology. There just isn't any money to push for alternative energy. Money buys legislation, pure and simple. The alternative energy crowd is too fragmented to entertain any legislature into making laws that would benefit them and not the fossil fuel crowd.

What's happening now is that we are really losing out to Europe in technology. I saw a report where 20% of Germany's electricity is solar produced. Germany is not noted for their clear skies. But, the resolve of the public and the legislature has put alternative energy on the front burner. We haven't done that since money is steering our legislature.

The consumer's can't demand anything that isn't being offered. And as long as the business climate is tilted in favor of fossil fuels, fossil fuels is what will be offered.

Corley5 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 13, 2007, 06:20:06 pm »

In it's simplest form it all comes down to $$$$$

TexasTimbers · « **Reply #12 on:** September 13, 2007, 07:30:24 pm »

Well that's sorta how I had it figured I just wanted to get another opinion. It seems to me that small companies are going to have to create niche markets and when enough of them have the big boys' attention they will come in and buy them out and have one bigger market.

Fla._Deadheader · « **Reply #13 on:** September 13, 2007, 08:37:03 pm »

OR, just let the new acquisitions just die a slow death

Riles · « **Reply #14 on:** September 13, 2007, 08:53:01 pm »

Trillions of dollars have been spent on fossil fuel development and internal combustion engines over the last 100 years. Is it really much of a surprise that the gasoline engine is so efficient? Give the cellulosic ethanol guys a trillion bucks and a hundred years and see what you get.

TexasTimbers · « **Reply #15 on:** September 14, 2007, 12:51:57 pm »

I think give them a billion bucks and ten years with the comparitively advanced technology is all it would take.

Corley5 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 14, 2007, 02:03:00 pm »

A billion dollars doesn't go very far when it comes to industrial R&D

Tom · « **Reply #17 on:** September 14, 2007, 07:53:58 pm »

I don't think you have to give them anything but permission. Getting "permission" from any of our levels of government is like extracting gold from lead. We have some of the most innovative thinkers in the world right here in the USA and they aren't allowed to do anything. It's the idea that we need a law passed to "allow" someone to invent that kills the drive. I don't care what faction is in charge, they are going to want to a bundle of money and total control of any product or system developed. I'm convinced that it is the job of Government to stop a citizen from doing what he wants.

It makes my bohunkus crave barbwire!

rebocardo · « **Reply #18 on:** September 14, 2007, 08:42:47 pm »

Haven't read the budget allowance in a year or two, or know if it was all spent, but, I think Bush budgeted something along the lines of 4 billion dollars the last two years for alternative energy.

> why we have not already replaced foriegn oil dependence at least in some significant
> part with our vast natural resource and technological capabilities?

Infrastructure, EPA, eco-nut groups, NIMBY.

Infrastructure because it is cheaper in the short term to keep using what you already have.

Mostly it is the NIMBY factor.

GA actually passed a state law so local codes can't deprive you of sun access (you can cut down your trees or your neighors if I read correctly

) or prevent you from building solar panels where you want.

stonebroke · « **Reply #19 on:** October 18, 2007, 08:54:49 am »

I have had a wind power company appoach me to put a wind farm in. Boy did the neighbors go nuts. They don"t want to look at them. NIMBY. But they are all in favor of green renewable energy just not anywhere near them.

Stonebroke

customsawyer · « **Reply #20 on:** October 21, 2007, 07:50:56 pm »

The plant is going up in Soperton as Phil stated and the rest goes along with the rest of what you guys are talking about.
#1. The town of Soperton is the home town of Hugh Gillis who was one of our senators for alot of years, anyway that family has had a hand in the state politics for a long time. I am not saying that they didn't do a good job or that they are bad people I just think that had something to do with where the plant got put.
#2. I read in the paper that the plant was going to cost $240,000,000.00 just to get it up and running. The first thing the state did was give them $82,000,000.00 to help with the building of the plant. Now if the plant actually gets up and running and is able to do what it claims it will be a great boost to the economy of this whole state. As long as the plant does what it says then I am not really against the helping them to get the plant off the ground as the state will make that back and then some, but I am starting to have doubts about it running at all much less how long they have been holding on to the state money getting intrest and such. Just makes you sit back and take along look at the whole thing.

WDH · « **Reply #21 on:** October 21, 2007, 10:10:18 pm »

I hear that the enzymes required to make wood cellulose into ethanol are expensive and not readily available to supply a full scale plant. I guess we will see.

Woodcarver · « **Reply #22 on:** October 22, 2007, 12:40:58 am »

I've read, too, WDH, that there hasn't been an enzyme identified that is suitable for the production of cellulosic enthanol on a commercial scale. Until one is found building a plant may be putting the cart before the horse.

DanG · « **Reply #23 on:** November 01, 2007, 01:21:04 pm »

They're trying to develop this technology in order to utilize the huge glut of surplus pine pulpwood in the area. If it fails, they may start making paper and cardboard out of it to replace all the plastic we won't have when the oil runs out.

News:

Author Topic: Cellulosic Ethanol In Georgia (Read 2322 times)