Wheels just fell off the Biodiesel and Ethanol bandwagons

[oilyriser]

I don't think algae can take care of itself as well as higher plants, so growing ponds would have to be built, needing constant maintenance of perfect conditions. Kelp might be interesting.


http://www.sarid.net/technology/051027-food-fuel-compete.htm

" For net energy yield, ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil is in a class all by itself, yielding over 8 units of energy for each unit invested in cane production and ethanol distillation. Once the sugary syrup is removed from the cane, the fibrous remainder, bagasse, is burned to provide the heat needed for distillation, eliminating the need for an additional external energy source. This helps explain why Brazil can produce cane-based ethanol for 60¢ per gallon.

Ethanol from sugar beets in France comes in at 1.9 energy units for each unit of invested energy. Among the three principal feedstocks now used for ethanol production, US corn-based ethanol, which relies largely on natural gas for distillation energy, comes in a distant third in net energy efficiency, yielding only 1.5 units of energy for each energy unit used."

 

[Shannow]

oilyriser,
more good information...thanks.

The logical place for algae production is near power stations. They have CO2 rich flue gasses, and planty of waste heat, making algae ponds grow quickly.

 

[oilyriser]

yes

If you washed the flue gas with water, you'd also collect the nitrogen oxides, which would make good fertilizer after you adjusted the pH.

Someone should plant the fields around a power station, and irrigate the crop with diluted flue gases and wash water.

 

[DJ]

Thing is people in power either can not actually understand what it takes to genuinely solve a problem or don't want to solve them, I am sure there are some of each.

oilyriser's statement of burning plain old corn in coal fired plants is exactly the kind of simple common sense that could actually help. Get more BTUs out of it while putting VASTLY less into it the gains over processing it into ethanol would be staggering.

 

[Shannow]

DJ,
part of the problem is that the "powers that be" don't want a distributed energy system to come into play, they want centralised systems.

e.g. how much of the world's area is covered by useless roofs ?

Where, in relation to these potentially huge power sources is the power consumed ?

my state's grid loading is about 90% during the daylight hours, and 50% overnight. We've got billions of $ in capital, that we can only 75% utilise because of the load profile.

So we have to spend more billions to reach ever increasing peaks, when we could be levelling the power station demand by using the acres of useless space.

Government don't want it, they want to see new centralised power stations with hundred kilometer transmission lies to get the power where it goes.

The generators don't want it, as they make 50% of their annual profits on those few scorching hot days that we become constrained (2.5c/kwhr revenue become $100/kwhr on a 40C day).

The solution according to these people is to put in massive wind farms, and build solar power stations covering hundreds of square kilometers.

The idea of taking locally produced biomass and turning it into electricity is so foreign to their belief systems it's unbelieveable.

 

[oilyriser]

Locally produced electricity can't be taxed, because it isn't traded. It's used at the source.

Wind power is quite profitable if you can sell it directly to a nearby consumer who normally buys at inflated grid prices. But then the local city council goes and bans wind turbines.

local consumption = no profit for the middleman

 

[Curious Kid]

I still have some reading to do of this thread, but I would like to being front and center, as though from an observer's point of view, addressing all of this energy stuff throughout the world..."just what is it that we as a collective are trying to accomplish?" Fuel for a vehicle? - transportation for...enjoyment/entertainment, travel to and from work location (because we live in cities, don't physically farm for ourselves and build/maintain our deemed neccessities in life); Fuel for heating - because we don't as a one-house family renewably farm biomass or trees to efficiently burn in anything other than fireplaces; Fuel to generate electricity for lighting because of inefficient natural home lighting design, wanting to be capable of doing something in fully lighted space 24/7/365.25; Economics, etc.

When it comes down to it, the assumption as I sense it thus far is that natural resources are free for the taking and infinitely plentiful - at the heart of the economic engine I gather. There's the strain of growing populus/consumption, and what might be hard to take is that the evolving waste stream may very well be the next up and coming resource - "natural"?

I am greatful for all that has been enabled for my experiencing life thus far, but how far has the generations come from the sustainable roots of livelihood?

Again I ask, in the broadest sense...just what is it that we are trying to accomplish?

 

[oilyriser]

I'd like to see permanent civilization established off this plantet, before the cheap energy runs out and makes it nearly impossible.

But in the broadest sense there is a deeper question that I cannot answer.

 

[Curious Kid]

I honestly don't expect an answer, but presented the question in hopes of bringing forth greater awareness as we go about our daily lives.

As far as farming, I think the boom came along with the industrial revolution - compact fuel sources, mechanical devices that could convert such heat to mechanical power, and the less bulk of fuel it would take to smelt iron (add communication and transportation capability/infrustructure). So with energy density, smaller equipment could yield ample power to accomplish a given task. Until the turn of the 20th century, it seemed that most power sources were still very much stationary (big like dinosaurs). Also add the spark of imagination,record keeping, material knowledge, initiave and investment towards accomplishing a goal, and then having a market to provide payback...unless it was for one's own reward/use.

Because machines and the naturally sourced fuel were now being put to work in place of animal/human power, humans began having more time for themselves, applied both constructively and destructively...but to be able to define such one must have a directive or standard to compare it to. Always having the opportunity to learn something none the less.

Is there more people than "fundamental" work load as it presently stands with machines and limitted energy source in use? If the case, than one must find something to do thst is constructive for support one's self - now of economic importance.

We as well are machines, though not in the tradional sense of the word, whose fuel is based upon animal, vegitable, grain and fruit.

Our evolving culture and imaginative vision also has a lot to do with it. Throw in competitive nature, the selective processes when finding a mate, the collective notion of what it takes to survive, etc.

Those are just a few things that I have sensed while going about my daily doings.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Quiet desparation.

 

[2003TRD]

It was brought up briefly but I did read that the US sits on the largest Oil Shale reserve in the world. Something to the effect of a 100 billion barrels or something. The problem is the expense of extracting the oil from it. It takes alot of energy to process it, since oil has been so cheap in the past, it wasnt worth pursuing, but they concensus was that when Oil reaches 90.00 a barrel it becomes worth processing the shale. So dont fret, plenty of fuel to come. I personally would like to see hydrogen fuel cells, but I also remember reading that the electricity required to process enough hydrogen (to power an all hydrogen vehicle base) would require at least 200 new nuclear reactors in the USA. I dont think that is going to happen,, the tree huggers make it impossible to get approval for one new reactor, let alone 200.

 

[md_lucky_13]

soy-based biodiesel "lost its wheels" when Blue Sun Biodiesel showed that canola oil has advantages over soy a long time ago.. They have already began moving away from Soy and making Canola the primary from of biodiesel they sell..

So, besides the author's research being horribly outdated and studying only 1 form of biodiesel available, I only have a few more problems with the conclusions..

Why did the researcher not address the Fischer-Tropsch process of creating bio-diesel fuel? Where are the economic implications of a wood manufacturing company being able to create a product out of what would otherwise be nothing more then WASTE? So.. they also skipped the BTL form of bio-diesel fuel, on top of using dated techniques.

Pitty..

He also did not address the recent Mack Blackwell Transportation Center article that shows chicken fat can be converted into a biodiesel fuel.. Once again, what are the economic implications of turning a WASTE product into something usable? There are no costs to get it to the current state.. The economy is already paying those costs. ****, talk to most restaurants about their tubs of used cooking oil.. most GIVE the stuff away.. Once again, how could you factor the costs to PRODUCE something if it is already there.. Take the costs to refine it and create a fuel, sure.. That’s acceptable.

Lets strip the eco-nazi mumbo-jumbo straight out of this article: The author is using dated technology to manipulate his data in a way to makes a very viable alternative fuel look like a loss. Beyond the fact that most major bio-diesel manufactures are moving away from Soy and into Canola oils.. Just dropping that fact ENTIRELY.. What are the economic costs/benefits from turning a complete waste product into a viable diesel fuel?

You will have to help me out understanding the economics here.. 2 forms of creating bio-diesel out of what would otherwise be a waste product completely skipped over in his articles.. why is that not mentioned?


Now, I will admit.. I skimmed a LOT of the crap posted here and in the article. I don't want to waste my time reading it all... But, was there any mention of using a blended alternative fuel with our current production?? I somehow doubt it.. After all, dealing with individuals like this it is always "all green or nothing!"

Just out of curiosity, would anyone know the rates of oil saved if every gallon of diesel was a bio-blend of around 20%? I used to have those statistics somewhere..

I do love statistics though.. Amazing how easy it is to find what you are looking for in them. An old professor has a sticker on his door that reads "if you don't find the results, MANIPULATE THE DATA!"

 

[jkhawaii]

guess every one will go back to riding horses

 

[TurboLuver]

quote:

---

guess every one will go back to riding horses

---

It is widely known that it takes 57% more energy to feed, groom and shoe a horse than the energy the horse produces.
So according to the prior logic, horse powered transportation/manufacturing could not now, nor could it have ever been considered a viable solution....

 

[Steve S]

My wife and daughter both have a horse, horses bad.

 

[Papa Bear]

Why are there more horses a**e$ than there are horses ??
P.B.

 

[PandaBear]

See, no matter how you cut it, whether you use alt fuel or crude, the end is near and only using less fuel is the option.

So why the heck are we mad at CA trying to force higher mpg limit on the auto industry? Stop the SUV/Truck/Minivan madness and everyone start working on a 1500lb 7 seater with a coefficient of drag of 0.21

 

[blz]

Hi!
I have other posts reguarding ethanol , bio and waste oil use , and trust me when i say that as far as i am concerned we should use petroleum as much and as long as we can.....but i am all for renewable fuels and such but its based on a diffent forum than most. I do it because it costs me and my family less, period.

 

[blz]

yes e85 produces less power/ energy release than pure gasoline. It 74% or 74/100 of the power that gas delivers, but that means its between roughly 80 and 90% of the power that gas has . ( the range is because some states -such as MN- req a 10% ethanol minimum anyway in almost all gasoline). So that being said, $3.10 gallon of gas would equal out to approx. 2.55 to 2.80 a gallon for e85. it is much cheaper than that here so it still makes economical sense for me to put it in my tank.

On a different note, i run ALL my cars on some ratio of e85 , even if they are not flex-fuel, you can run up to half e85/half gas in just about any viehichle on the road(except diesel)

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: TurboLuver
It is widely known that it takes 57% more energy to feed, groom and shoe a horse than the energy the horse produces.
So according to the prior logic, horse powered transportation/manufacturing could not now, nor could it have ever been considered a viable solution....


But horses can turn grass into tractive effort.

We got to the top of the food chain by developing an agricultural system that had a nett positive energy balance (i.e. we got much more energy out of it than we put in)...that includes the beasts of burden.

Then we discovered stored energy in petroleum, and now use 5 times the energy in food production as the calories that make it to the plate.

That's the "system" that's growing the ethanol.