|
Though not often referenced, an
option in the quest for alternative energy to fossil fuel is the use
of
ethanol as the primary energy source to power burners of
Distributed Power Generation Systems. The reality is, that ethanol
is mostly mentioned in the considerations for
automobile fuel
does
not necessarily preclude it from being a viable option for the
Distributed Power Generation systems without thorough consideration
of the factors that have roles in the adoption of ethanol.
The Power Generation Company, or Utility Company considering the
adoption of ethanol as the alternative energy has one of two choices
available to make. Either the company will have the ethanol supplied
which would be akin to the current practices of having the fossil
fuel supplied, or the company would actually produce the ethanol as
well so as to have a better control of the supply. In the former,
the issues arising for consideration in the development of
ethanol
bioprocess is shifted to the supplier, in the latter, the issues are
part of the concerns of the company. However, whatever the choice
the entity that assumes the development of a the ethanol bioprocess
still must address the issues.
These issues of course are
matters of process details: Implementing any ethanol biotechnology
process generally demands the
scoping of the ethanol bioprocess, a task that requires the
defining of the composition of the biotechnology process by
selecting from amongst
the Ethanol production, microbes immobilization process and the fermentors process.
Because of the prospective impact of these
various choices the
Power Generation Company must factor them into
the decision making, as to have properly considered all potential
sources of supply disruption. The reality is that the longer the
supply chain the more the number of degrees of freedom of supply
disruption. Clearly each
choice introduces a degree of freedom of supply disruption.
Obviously for the Utility company maintaining direct control of the
Ethanol Bioprocess operations, for each degree of freedom of supply
disruption that its seeks to eliminate also adds to horizontal unit
of management control. |
Even so the Utility Company that
keeps the direct control of the Ethanol Bioprocess operations has
the least number of degrees of freedom of supply disruption.
Admittedly, there is the inherent potential supply disruption by the
suppliers of the bio-feeds, however, that can be managed to a minimum through the use of
multiple suppliers and with the use of the well-established linear
programming techniques of feed management.
Of course, it can also be
argued that the same approach can also be applied to the supply of
the ethanol; however, because quality control can be better managed
at the ethanol production level than at the ethanol feed supply
level, the latter approach would be better. Yet, its equally
admitted that the ethanol can also be procured from several sources
and then re-distilled to maintain Power Generator design
ethanol-feed specification, but that would make the entire process
more expensive than is truly necessary. In any event, the splitting
of the choices has various impacts as noted already, yet there would
be situations where the direct management of the bioprocess by the
Utility Company together with the Distributed Power Generation
System is not advisable and so the least supply disruptive approach
to the management of the choices is still worth determining.
In general, the desired
proof depends on the application need and in terms of the number of
distillation columns that is supported, determines the level of
complexity of the bioprocess, as well as other factors of design
consideration.
|
|
