Non-Food ‘Cellulosic’ Ethanol Could Be Price Competitive With Gasoline By 2016.

Cellulosic ethanol production.According to research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), ethanol produced from non-food materials (inedible parts of plants, woods, and grasses) will be price competitive with corn-based ethanol and gasoline by 2016. It’s a second generation biofuel called cellulosic ethanol and for years, figuring out how to cost effectively produce ethanol from non-edible plants has been a challenge. From BNEF:

“The survey collected data and predictions on the production costs of 11 leading players in the cellulosic ethanol industry. All use a technique, commonly called enzymatic hydrolysis, to break down and convert the complex sugars in non-food crop matter, and a fermentation stage to turn the results into ethanol. The results showed that in 2012, the cost of cellulosic ethanol production was $0.94 per litre, around 40% higher than the $0.67 per litre cost of producing ethanol from corn, which dominates the US biofuel market and is competitive with US gasoline. By 2016, respondents thought the price of cellulosic ethanol would match that of corn-based ethanol.”

Why is the move to cellulosic biofuels so important? From BusinessGreen:

“Cellulosic biofuels are widely regarded as critical to the development of the biofuels industry, as they allow developers to produce fuels from waste material or fast-growing grasses removing the need for energy crops that have been blamed for eating into agricultural land and driving up food prices.”

Another benefit of cellulosic ethanol is that its production can reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by up to 85% over reformulated gasoline according to a study conducted by Michael Wang of the Argonne National Laboratory. Starch-based ethanol made from corn reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 18-29% over reformulated gasoline. [BusinessGreen and BNEF]


Solar Paint? $1 Million To Market It? NextGen Solar, Please Be Right.

Len Batterson Nextgen SolarFrom and – It’s difficult to not be a little cynical when a company comes out and says it has a paintable solar solution that is supposed to be more efficient than the currently available solar panels. And the craziest aspect is that they’re only asking for $1 million to bring it to consumers. The organization is NextGen Solar and it is led by Len Batterson, a tech investor who has been backing startups for 27 years. His product, developed by Argonne National Laboratory, hopes to beat the current solar panel efficiency high-mark of 14% sunlight to power conversion by taking it to 25% and then possibly up to 40%. The paint would be applied to rooftops, outer building walls etc.

Very Jubbling if it works but only $1 million to take it to market? I guess that is where my cynicism lies. $1 million might get you a logo, website and some nice office chairs but if it were such a viable idea, especially in this green-gold rush era, why would somebody need just $1 million to market it? Please prove me wrong and create a product that does everything you’re saying it’ll do. I’ll be a customer and I might even paint my car with solar paint. Because we do need a more efficient solar solution and it needs to cost less than the current solar panels that are available. What we don’t need is the Jubbling equivalent to vaporware and more eco-hype.