Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: redgolum
I guess my concern is that the amount of energy needed to process the manure is more than it produces.

That's the case in any production of fuel. But, at 85% effeciency, it's in the right range of pumping and processing raw crude. Plus, we would be getting rid of millions of tons of waste saving us money. It's not profitable yet (no industry is at the beginning) but it has the potential of being very profitable.

106 posted on 04/13/2004 12:28:20 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Is this process 85% efficient? If that is right, it beats any other "renewable energy" in existence. Anybody got a source of good info on this? (I am a chemical engineer, so this sounds just crazy enough it might be feasible).

As far as being profitable, I worked for 5 years in ethanol and most of the time the companies I worked for/with did not make a profit. Talking with some of the old hands, if the subsidy was removed the ethanol industry would disappear. As it is, many of the small plants won't make it.

However, the economics are improving. The cattle market is up, so the demand for DDG (dried distillers grains, cattle feed) a byproduct is up, so maybe the ethanol plants will start being solidly in the black soon.
111 posted on 04/13/2004 12:36:28 PM PDT by redgolum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson