May 8 2008

For $9,995, your car could run on sugar and tequila

The E-Fuel Micro-Fueler, on display in New York. Click for photo gallery.

(Credit: Caroline McCarthy/CNET News.com)

NEW YORK--"Henry Ford had it right all along," E-Fuel founder and CEO Thomas Quinn declared, referring to the fact that many original Model T Ford automobiles ran on the ethanol, not gasoline. But that was before the era of Prohibition, which banned production of the biofuel along with other forms of alcohol.

Now, he hopes ethanol can have a real revival.

In a press event at Revel, a Meatpacking District restaurant that features a greenhouse-like roof and trees growing inside, Quinn and his fellow executives unveiled the EFuel100 MicroFueler. It looks like a cross between a gas pump and an old-fashioned refrigerator, it'll cost $9,995, and it'll be available for customers in the fourth quarter of 2008 (if all goes well).

What is it, exactly? It's a home ethanol refinery. Connect it to a power source and a water source, add sugar "feedstock" and yeast or discarded alcohol (yes, that could mean last week's tequila) and in a week it can produce 35 gallons of ethanol that Quinn said any car can run on.

"I'm from Silicon Valley and I've worked with some very talented entrepreneurs in my lifetime," explained Quinn, whose previous start-up Gyration was responsible for a patent in Nintendo's "Wiimote" controller. "A couple years ago, I sensed this paradigm shift that we're all feeling today." He was referring to fossil fuel shortages and the rising cost of gasoline. With gas prices well over $3 per gallon, and no real middle ground in the market between industrial biofuels (there are still only 1,200 ethanol stations in the U.S., and only three in the entire state of New York) and "moonshining" operations that can be difficult and dangerous, he saw the opportunity to create the EFuel100.

"It's almost third-grade science to make ethanol," Quinn said. Anyone in the U.S. can obtain a license to produce alcohol, ethanol included.

Click for gallery

But ethanol, for better or for worse, has gotten a bad rap. Some have connected rising food prices to the fact that corn-based ethanol means crops are going toward fuel rather than human consumption, and some reports have claimed that ethanol's carbon footprint isn't as "green" as it appears.

E-Fuel's executives have attempted to counter this rumor by saying that its sugar-based ethanol won't hurt food prices because sugar is a surplus crop, and that sugar ethanol is inherently more efficient than corn. And it's safe to make at home, because no combustion is involved.

Throughout the press conference on Thursday, Quinn reiterated that there's nothing unusual about making car fuel in your backyard.

"We're already in the ethanol business," he explained, gesturing to the bar at the back of the restaurant, "but we're using it as a beverage drink."

 

Recent posts from Crave:

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 9 comments (Page 1 of 1)
by oxfamqc May 9, 2008 3:01 AM PDT
Thta's the big difference between Brazil's ethanol production and ethonal running cars, and the U.S. corn-based ethanol production used as an additive. Corn-based ethanol is an environmental disaster, requiring huge parcels of land that could be used to grow food, and uses lots of., oh the irony, petroleum to produce. Either way, even though Brazil's sugar cane ethanol is a much better way to go, it is still a stop gap, and not a real solution for the future. Much in the same way that natural gas cars are. Hydrogen cells, electric cars, etc. are what we should aim for, and frankly what should have been in place already was it not of some greedy petrol interest.
Reply to this comment
by b_baggins May 9, 2008 9:57 AM PDT
Oh, please, give me a freaking break. Tell me how a greedy petrol company stops research in other fields. Do they walk around with their thugs and blow up alternative fuel research laboratories. What you are really whining about is that oil companies spend their money on, wait for it, exploration and drilling for oil. Well, duh. That's the business they are in. You might as well whine that computer manufacturers are evil greedy interests because they don't support abacus research.
Reply to this comment View reply
by adammcc81 May 9, 2008 12:25 PM PDT
How much sugar and yeast are necessary to produce the 35 gallons. For pricing reasons this information would be nice to know.
Reply to this comment
by halfsek May 9, 2008 2:26 PM PDT
According to an article in Wired, they claimed that it will be about $2.00/ gallon. They went on to say that there would eventually be lower quality sugar (in the sense of eating) that could be used which would be much less expensive. Hey, once it hits the 5k mark, I would definitely think of getting it.
Reply to this comment
by johnzocco May 10, 2008 1:20 AM PDT
Now if someone could come up with making fuel from urine and feces, with all the waste produced from cattle, poultry and humans, we would never run out of energy, and it would be cheap as well!
Reply to this comment View reply
by drig0423 May 12, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
I have a culinary background and immediately started calling my old supply stores. The best price I found for 50 lbs of sugar in the midwest is 66 cents a pound. According to their website you need 470 lbs of sugar to produce 35 gallons of ethanol, or $310.20 worth of sugar. That's $8.86 a gallon for ethanol! You would need to find sugar for 27 cents a pound to equal pump prices (approx $3.75/gallon) or 14 cents a pound to equal the $2.00 per gallon claim. Anyone find a better price on sugar than that?
Reply to this comment
by mountain_racer May 13, 2008 6:15 AM PDT
Sugar for food is refined sugar, it doesn't sound like you need to use sugar of this grade. Unrefined sugar should be MUCH cheaper, and $0.14 per lb. doesn't sound unreasonable. The problem like any product that is new in the consumer market would be the infrastructure to deliver it. You can't buy unrefined sugar at the local grocery store. This would probably end up being distributed by your local big box hardware store (i.e. Lowe's or Home Depot) like wood pellets or water softener salt. The final price of the MicroFueler would be my problem, 10 grand for 35 gallons a week isn't cost effective for me. Either a lower initial price or a larger capacity so I could share the cost with my neighbors would be necessary for me to consider it seriously.
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software