Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter by Ms Audreyanna Thomas that appeared in the SN of Aug. 12, 2017 under the title “Molasses would be the preferred raw material for ethanol production in Guyana” in response to the ongoing conversation on ethanol in Guyana.
Editor, in that letter, GuySuCo concludes on molasses as the preferred feedstock for ethanol; and, if used, ethanol production would be limited to11.7 million litres. In essence, the Corporation is saying that cane-to-ethanol is not a preferred feedstock, and even if molasses is used, ethanol output would be low.
Essentially, the Corporation is saying “NO” to ethanol production in a very descriptive way. The Corporation also uses numbers conveniently in some sections of its argument to articulate its position, then conceals them in other sections. For instance, reference is made that one tonne of cane =70 litres ethanol at best, and one tonne of molasses = 260 litres of ethanol. This shows that molasses produces more ethanol than cane, but hides the fact that one tonne of molasses is made after processing between 25 and 33 tonnes of cane at GuySuCo’s mills (using molasses % on cane of 3-4). Therefore, if we take the same amount of cane that makes one tonne of molasses and make ethanol instead, we would get between 1,750 and 2,310 litres of ethanol (25X70 = 1,750 or 33X70 = 2,310) as opposed to 260 litres.
The Corporation further advances its arguments using studies conducted some 8 to 13 years ago. A pertinent question is: how relevant are those studies to present day and future conditions?
GuySuCo, in its current shape and form, cannot operate a viable ethanol facility using molasses as feedstock. Therefore the Corporation has two probable options: (1) Increase molasses production, which translates to increased cane production; or (2) convert cane directly to ethanol. Option 1 is not possible, as the Corporation’s policy is to downsize operations, which is being implemented at this instant. This policy position is articulated in the State Paper on Sugar. Option 2 will not be pursued either, as there is zero commitment to conduct a study to confirm or dispute the viability of cane-to-ethanol.
It is an established fact that the bio-ethanol demonstration plant at Albion is not a commercial producer. Its objective, capacity, and very name explain that fact.
I maintain that the CEO of GuySuCo stopped operations of the bio-ethanol demonstration at Albion. However, Ms Thomas claims that this information is misleading and inaccurate, and the plant operates continuously in the cropping period.
If that is so, I urge Ms Thomas to share with this nation the following specifics: (1) How many hours did the plant operate per crop respectively in 2016 and 2017?
(2) How many tonnes of molasses were used by the plant per crop in 2016 and 2017 respectively?
(3) How many litres of hydrous and anhydrous alcohol were produced per crop in 2016 and 2017 respectively?
(4) What was the average per cent alcohol for hydrous and anhydrous per crop in 2016 and 2017?
(5) How many litres of hydrous anhydrous ethanol were distributed to estates?
(6) How many litres of anhydrous ethanol were blended with gasoline per crop in 2016 and 2017?
(7) How many litres of E-10 blend were used in 2016 and 2017?
(8) What was the consumption rate on vehicles that used it?
Yours sincerely,
Sookram Persaud
