Could the case be made for building a coal-fired ethanol plant? I’m thinking you could put it somewhere like Fremont, Nebraska. That would be in the middle of corn country, to allow good access for corn, and a market for the animal feed by-products. It could be accessable to both UP and BNSF for coal and corn inbound, ethanol outbound. This would also negate the issue of using natural gas as the energy source? Would something like this have any advantage over other etanol plants?
“…accessable to both UP and BNSF for coal and corn inbound, ethanol outbound.”!!
Hah, I knew it. You are a closet advocate for open access![}:)]
As for a coal fired ethanol plant, wouldn’t it be easier to just convert the coal directly into transportation fuels? I know that is generally true for a prospective coal fired biodiesel plant, aka it is more efficient to convert coal directly into a synthetic diesel product than it is to burn coal to fire up an oilseed crushing plant and subsequent transesterification facility.
A better take would be to utilize coal to fire up a fuel grade alcohol plant that uses cellulose as it’s primary feedstock, aka ag, urban, and forestry wastes. Sometimes those ag and forestry wastes can be had for cost of transporting them, and some urban areas will pay you to take their garbage off their hands.
Hardly. Since both rairoads have lines through that town, it would be “competition.”
Tom gets it! There are highways through town as well. [:)]
MY son says that until gas hits $4.00 or more per gallon ethanol will not compete cause it is to costly to produce. [:)]
The way gasoline prices are going up, plus the lead time to build these plants and develop related technology, it’s a good thing this is already started.
Well, if you are so concerned about locating where you have two railroads, then you must be aware of the rate advantages of intramodal competition, which means you are a closet OA fan, since OA = intramodal competition. It’s okay, you don’t have to face up to that potential truth right now, just keep it behind closed doors where no “rail professionals” will find out and start mocking you.
And so what if there are highways through the town as well. I’ll bet there’s a sidewalk or two as well, and a bucolic dirt airstrip to boot. What does any of that have to do with providing the necessary transportation services for the delivery of coal and corn to the plant? I guess you might truck some of the finished product locally, but you ain’t gonna ship in the necessary quantities of coal or corn to the plant by truck or wheelbarrow, or Ralph’s Puddlejumper Air Taxi Service. Someone like greyhounds might argue that point as relevent, but surely not you?
Maybe you should consider locating the coal fired corn ethanol plant somewhere in the heartland of Illinios, where corn is growing right on top of coal seams. Maybe then you could have such a plant be served by all truck sans any rail connection(s).
Dave:have you had your blood pressure checked recently?[:)]
Well they had this during the 70s energy crisis calling it gasohol. Once the gas prices decline the gasohol disappeared quite quickly. Again at this moment I will accept what my son says as he does it for living every trading day. Maybe if they would have kept the factories from the 70s running & blending it with gasoline we would not be in the shape we are in now. I would guess though it would not be the Mobil of the worlds best interests to do that[:)]
I have a hunch that all the excitement over “ethanol as an alternate fuel” overlooks the cost to produce the corn (or whatever) that gets converted into ethanol. Unless it can be produced from waste cellulose (corn STALKS, old newspaper, leaves from my yard, etc). But WHY NOT an “ethanol-fired ethanol plant”??
Economically speaking, I’ve always thought the idea of ethanol was goofy. Your son is probably correct, on a purely economic basis. Throw in a bunch of poitics, and the situation weirds out pretty quick. Most farm states subsidize etanol production, in the name of “economic development”-what’s good for the farmer is good for the farm state.(!) There are many who adhere to the idea that a gallon of ethanol replaces a gallon of gasoline from “The Middle East”. I have some trouble with that logic. It will, perhaps, replace a gallon of gas from the most expensive source, whether that is Saudi Arabia, or Wyoming. Ethanol should, at the very least, help with the tight supply of gas,thereby helping lower the demand/price(?)
The big drawback that I perceive at this time is the massive amount of natural gas it requires to make ethanol, which contributes to the cost of natural gas going up. That’s why I wonder if it would be any different, if a plant could be coal-fired?
In keeping with the point I made in the other ethanol thread, is there an adaquate piece of industrial property in Fremont where both UP and BNSF can simply build out an industrial spur, or would one (or both) of them have to negotiate inhospitable neighborhoods to reach this site? 'Cause if only one is right next to the property, you are not going to have any intramodal rail competition to keep transport costs down.
As I recall, Fremont is surrounded by cornfields. I used Fremont as an exmple because both UP and BNSF run through there with coal. There are literally, 100’s of places it would work.
Today’s paper has an article about Akron,Iowa wanting to build both a biodiesel and ethanol plant. It mentions the possibility of using coal for an energy source.[:)]
Irony of all ironies- I think this is on the line that BNSF just purchased from the state of SD. A condition of the sale I think was that BNSF had to allow the Dakota & Iowa railroad (((((access))))) to shippers on the line. Weird coincidense, don’t you think?[:-,]
Open access is equal to intramodal competiton? Now THERE’S a leap of logic.
A leap right off a cliff.
Well, I’m sure Murphy doens’t want this topic to slip into the eternal argument over the benefits of OA, so I will digress, except to point out that, yes indeed, OA = intramodal competition. That’s the entire basis of OA. But of course Tom fell off the cliff of logic years ago.
Back to coal fired “renewable” fuel concepts. Back when I was more involved with the MixAlco folks, there was discussion on how best to hydrogenize the acetone output into the higher chain alcohols such as isoproponol and butanol…
(I’ll back up here. The MixAlco process uses ruminant from cows to convert cellulose into a carboxyll salt, which is dewatered into acedic acid, which can then be further processed into the ketone aka acetone. The final step involved adding hydrogen to the ketone to convert it into an alcohol by mixing it with a hydrogen rich product such as methane aka natural gas. But with natural gas prices so high, it now appears to me anyway that the best way to hydrogenize the acetone into higher chain alcohol is to gasify coal using the steam process to produce a stream of CO and H, from which the H can then be extracted. There, now you;re up to speed.)
The proprietor of this process is averse to using coal for the hydrogenation step, preferring instead to use gasified biomass. This is somewhat typical of renewable advocates, who find that the best way to produce the desired end product from organic materials is to use “evil” hydrocarbon fuels such as coal as a key component of the process, which seems to fly in the face of their ideal.
Me? I have no problem in using so-called “fossil fuels” to produce biofuel products, provided that is the best way to utilize the hydrocarbon to make transportation fuels. But for that combo to work you need a very low cost biomass feedstock, or else you are wasting the hydrocarbon fuel in a less than efficient manner for the end game. Most of the time though, you’ll find that that best use of coal for making transportation
Open access is no more the equivalent of intramodal competition than railroads are equal to trucks. The trucks and trains use DIFFERENT infrastructure to provide service. Several different truck lines can use the same roads and loading docks because the roads are publicaly owned and the loading docks are owned by the company. The only way that more than one railroad can serve the same industry with a single siding is 1. the company owns the siding and it connects to more than one railroad, or 2. the owning railroad is granting trackage rights to another (for a fee, of course). Hardly open access.
Sorry Dave, I don’t have a rope long enough to pull you back from over that cliff.
Dave-interesting sidenote in today’s paper about windmill produced electricity: My first thought was to have wind/electricity hooked directly to the “cooker”(?) at the ethanol plant , then use coal to fire up when the wind isn’t blowing. Problem is, the newspaper article says that the mean old electric companies won’t allow the windmill people open access to send their juice over lines that somebody else bought, paid for, and maintain. What a strange world we live in![:)]
Actually, it’s quite understandable. As you know, windmills can only produce power intermittently, while power coming into the grid has to match exactly the demand for power. Peak demand, off-peak demand, it’s all real time stuff, 24/7/365. Thus, for wind power to be viable in the power equalization equation, it has to be backed up with a dedicated alternate power source.
That’s probably why the utility won’t accept the wind company offering, they need to offer a backup source so the power coming online can be added when needed and taken off when not needed. Otherwise, I believe the power company has no legal power to reject the new power source under law.
Since access to power lines is now open, that doesn’t mean you can just toss a few MW of power onto the grid any time you want. You still have to offer the power (1) when the demand for that power is there at the time you want to offer it, and (2) when there is a “slot” available (otherwise you would overload the system).
I should add, wind power is also more expensive, even with taxpayer subsidies. In order for the utility to justify the purchase of wind power, they might first have to sign up enough eco-types who are willing to pay more more “clean, ecofriendly” wind power. I type wind with the parenthesis-via-asterik because of that need for a backup electricity source when the wind isn’t blowing. It’s ironic, but some of those eco-types
A key component to this whole ethanol manufacturing process seems to be heat. Our regional landfill is working toward a couple of projects that use the waste methane from the landfill.
Their first objective is generation of electricity. They feel they have plenty of fuel for a couple of big gen sets. Selling the power will help their balance sheet, as well as generate capital for the other part of the project.
A byproduct of internal combustion engines is heat, and they have a plan for using that as well - growing vegetables. According to one of the managers of our local facility, approximately 12% of the tomatoes consumed in NYS are grown at a similar facility in the Buffalo area. Ten acres or more of greenhouses will grow a lot of whatever you want to grow.
The waste heat can be used for both heating and cooling, much as steam was used to both heat and cool passenger cars back in the day.
If the ethanol can be wrung from municipal waste, and some of that waste can also generate the heat (either via waste heat from generators or directly by burning the methane) necessary to make the ethanol, sounds like the potential for a win-win situation…
Either way, railroads can certainly figure into the mix.
A couple of the ethanol plants in Iowa are going to use coal. I can’t say offhand which ones. There was an article in the Des Moines Register a while back.
As I recall, they will be getting blocks of cars, rather than a dedicated unit train. Also, ADM in Cedar Rapids and Clinton get coal trains for their power/steam plants.
The name Gasohol has disappeared, but a 10% alcohol/90% gasoline mix has remained available, at least here in Iowa. E-85, a 15% mix is available, but much more limited. I think most vehicles built in the last 20 or so years are ok for the 10% mix, but not for the E-85. Some vehicles built in the last few years, so called flex-fuel cars, are able to use the E-85.
Concerning the pros/cons about ethanol, or anything for that matter. Isn’t it funny how studies done by or for groups just reflect that groups position. When was the last time some one said, “We had an independent consultant do a study that proves that everything we thought to be true, wasn’t. Therefore, we no longer claim what we once did.”
Jeff