Biobutanol: Friend or Foe?

Ethanol producer magazine ^ | March 2010 Issue | By Erin Voegele

[Kevin J waldroup]

Those working to develop U.S. biobutanol production stress that they should not be seen as competitors to the existing ethanol industry any more than cellulosic ethanol should be seen as a competitor to corn ethanol. Rather, they note that producers of all biofuels share the same goals, and will be valuable allies in meeting the second stage of the renewable fuel standard (RFS2) requirements, limiting U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and furthering the political initiatives of the renewable fuels industry.

[ClearCase_guy]

Drill here, drill now. To hell with renewables.

[Repeal The 17th]

Butanol certainly makes more sense as a gasoline alternative
than ethanol does, put the price is currently prohibitive.

[bigbob]

The issue with all renewables - with just about anything for that matter is - how does its value stack up vs the next-best alternative? If it takes government subsidies, upsets other industries and prices, or has other unintended consequences, biobutanol will be a non-starter. Or should be, if the government lets the market decide.

[r9etb]

If it takes government subsidies, upsets other industries and prices, or has other unintended consequences, biobutanol will be a non-starter. Or should be, if the government lets the market decide.

I disagree. There is a legitimate government interest -- national security, in particular -- in alternative fuels. It is important to find sources of energy that do not depend on unstable, corrupt, and dangerous foreign sources.

The problem with those alternatives is that they entail very significant R&D costs, and have a long lead-time, in a business where the current alternative is well-established and, currently, lower-cost. It's not something you really want to wait for until the last minute, and there's no short-term profit potential, so it's unattractive to the business world....

So some form of government involvement is appropriate on the R&D and basic infrastructure level. Of course it can be abused.... but the general need is legitimate.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

I attended a seminar on a hydrogen fuel cell power car which was being road tested. The project manager said the only things wrong with the car was it was ten times too expensive and three times too heavy, other wise it was fine. Such is the fate of most alternative energy sources. There may be a nitch market, but gas and oil energy content is hard to beat.

[freedomfiter2]

Rather, they note that producers of all biofuels share the same goals,

Sucking up tax dollars for bad ideas?

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Does anyone know where one can actually buy some biobutanol to try it out? How much per gallon?

[marsh2]

We know that forests in the west have been left unmanaged and are greatly overstocked with huge fuel loads. This is creating conditions that have seen larger, more intense fires. These fires pour pollution into the air and post fire conditions load sediment into the streams. The frequency of re-burn combined with changed cyclical climate conditions is permanently converting forest to brushland in many areas.

A very expensive investment in fuel reduction is necessary to restore balance to the forests so that they can safely carry low intensity fire in a manner that these forests could hundreds of years ago. It is hoped that cellulosic ethanol, or pyrolisis once perfected, could provide a cost offset by providing a market for sub-merchantable fuels cleaned out of the forest. Biomass/Cogeneration with the wood products industry will also provide a market. Otherwise, the typical cleanup is stack and burn in slash piles on the forest floor.

It may require a subsidy, but it would be cheaper than simply paying for stack and burn, provide more jobs and serve as an additional source of power.