Comments on: Ethanol plants could produce “green chemicals”

By: Paul, Chicago, IL

Paul, Chicago, IL — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:39:27 +0000

Richard -

Sorry my attempt at sarcasm fell a little flat with you. I was trying to very succinctly say a couple of things, the first being that saying that something shouldn’t be done because it causes cancer is essentially meaningless. You say comparing coffee to MEK is like comparing milk to gasoline – well, not only does gasoline cause cancer, milk causes cancer! It’s useless to say that something causes cancer without (at least) talking about what the statistical relevance of the risk is, and, even then, there are many things that cause cancer that, in balance, we find worthwhile to do anyway. (I use gasoline every day, for example. Not to mention milk.)

The further point I was trying to lead to from that was that I don’t believe saying MEK causes cancer is meaningful (let alone useful) in the discussion of whether using idled ethanol plants to produce it is ‘green.’ Whatever the method of producing MEK industrially is, it seems reasonable to at least start with the assumption that brewing it would have a net lower effect on the environment than refining it, ergo, I’d think it qualifies as ‘green.’ I’d think it at least deserves careful and thoughtful consideration.

I hope this expansion helps illuminate my earlier comment’s point…

By: Jerry, Sarasota FL

Jerry, Sarasota FL — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:13:53 +0000

I know of a company called The Renewable Corporation (RNWC) that is taking ‘green chemicals’ to a whole new level by using sugarcane ethanol to create ethylene for plastics and a variety of other chemical compounds.. a much better solution.. not using petroleum.

By: Richard Mercer San Rafael,CA

Richard Mercer San Rafael,CA — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:04:42 +0000

Paul

Comparing coffe to MEK is like comparing milk to gasoline. I work on boats and am familiar enough with MEK which is used as a solvent for epoxy and polyester resins. It’s dangerous enough that I won’t use it, despite the fact that I use other dangerous chemicals. I’m not saying they shouldn’t make it, but your remark is uninformed.

By: Paul, Chicago, IL

Paul, Chicago, IL — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:03:50 +0000

“Arries” writes “To bad MEK is a known cancer causing agent.”

Coffee is a known cancer-causing agent. What’s your point?

By: Brad, Buffalo NY

Brad, Buffalo NY — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:25:05 +0000

it is a step in the right direction. If you look at the evolution of process devolpment, efficenies are created over time. When the wave of early adopters get a hold of technologies like this more minds will be on it and it may move forward.

By: Arries/Lakemary FL

Arries/Lakemary FL — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:44:59 +0000

To bad MEK is a known cancer causing agent. What’s GREEN about that?

By: Sam, Muscatine, IA

Sam, Muscatine, IA — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:36:25 +0000

I can buy a gallon of MEK for $20 at my local hardware store. I think annual production of 57 million gallons (not 57,000) would be closer to actuality.

By: Todd Woody

Todd Woody — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:33:47 +0000

$2 billion is the value of the global market.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:35:43 +0000

Something is wrong with the market numbers. At $2Billion/57,000 gallons works out to $35,000 per gallon.

By: Cliff, Thousand Oaks, CA

Cliff, Thousand Oaks, CA — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:04:31 +0000

It’s actually 1, 4 Butanediol or BDO, not DBO.

I would be very curious to see what the yields of these bacteria are and the relative volume of production. MEK by biological processing sounds interesting but the yields, equipment changes at these closed MEK plants, as well as other considerations are significant hurdles before we’ll see commercial success.

As for BDO, the demand is in the billions of pounds, and I doubt the green friendly process has a lot of viability in the markets BDO serves, with exception of some niche markets.