×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Bio-fuels .... good or bad?
16

Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Does anyone have any idea of the impact of bio-fuels? pros and cons?
We are no longer talking about recycling used chip fat here, but purposeful production.
Even as Bio-fuels begin to atract attention we hear about grain and meat prices rising, as we should expect when there is competition to turn our wheat into either bread or fuel.
We also have concerns about our environment. Indonesia is said to be prepared to plant more palms for the palm oil and that means more destruction of the forrests (more burning and smoke?) and loss of habitat to the already endangered (how seriously?) Orang Outang.
This report suggests Brazilian sugar cane as a source. http://www.livemint.com/2007/09/24013816/BPCL-looks-to-tie-up-with-Petr.html
We all know that we are already losing rain forest at an alarming rate so how bad will this be? 600 acres doesn't sound like a whole lot of land but:
  • how much bio-fuel will it produce?
  • Should bio-fuel be organic? (seriously, the impact of chemicals etc isn't just on foods but on the local ecosystems... )
  • How much land would be required to produce enough bio-fuel to replace petrol/diesel?
  • If we replace petrol/diesel with bio-fuel, how cost effective is secondary refining
  • what are the impacts on the oil industry? Does crude get more expensive or less?
  • what are the economic impacts of such changes on refining and thus on society?
  • What are the questions we should be asking?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Or for a long-term picture, how many Joules of energy go into the average person's mouth compared with those that go into his tank?  I have no idea but suspect that the ratio is well below unity.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Try reading "Revenge of the Gaia" or some other James Lovelock book. He has an attitute and isn't 100% objective (far from it), but he lays out some objective scientifically correct info.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

On the last point jmw, I think you're already on the right track in terms of the questions we should be asking.

As far as the other questions go, I think the answer is largely that it depends.  

How much will it produce - which type of biofuel are you considering, and which refining process?  
Cost effectiveness - what is the energy source for your refining process?  
What will the future price trend of of petro-fuel be?

Personally I'm quite hopeful for bio-fuel.  The fact is it can be produced and used with a net carbon release of zero, if done right.  And the proceeds from bio-fuel are much more likely to benefit a wider section of the population than petro-fuel; notably the agriculture producers and their supporting industries.  Many of the arguments targeted at bio-fuel neglect to consider (often intentionally) that it is a a technology in its infancy, with a large amount of efficiency yet to be gained.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Example: from the antigreen website dated today, Sep 25: "Corn based ethanol contains 76,000 BTU's/gal, and takes 98,000 BTU's/gal to plant, grow, harvest, and refine. NET POSITIVE BTU? Uhhh. None. -22,000 actually. "

From Argonne National Lab, dated July '02: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34- percent energy gain. Furthermore, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy, which helps the United States to reduce its dependence on imported oil. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy feedstocks, such as coal and natural gas, to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 Btu gain."
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

Antigreen indeed.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Well, Argonne aren't exactly neutral. Their funding comes from the Feds, and the Feds want to bribe the farmers, so the politically acceptable message is that corn based ethanol is a positive step.

Realistically most of this silliness will be eliminated if, or when, the price of oil rises to a level commensurate with its value - at the moment it is so cheap it is virtually impossible to make rational decisions on reducing its usage.

However since the Saudis are now building petrochemical plants, to turn oil into plastic, we might see a fundamental revaluation of the price of oil.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Burning bio fuels simply sends back into the atmosphere carbon dioxide that the plants took out when they were growing in the field.

So the use of bio fuels will grow more and start becoming attractive as fossil fuel oils price increase.

There is no sufficient arable land on which to grow all the bio fuel crops needed to satisfy industrialised nations.

The industrialised countries are looking to the Third World to feed their addiction: the land is there for the taking as is cheap labour, and the environmental damages of large plantations, bio fuels extraction and refining can all be outsourced, exactly as they were in the extraction of crude oil.

By cutting down the world forests to have intensive Soya plantations will have a negative impact on net CO2 balance.

Development needs energy, energy has impacts on Earth climate changes, and Earth is the ship of all the humankind. Let us think together for a better and clean energy

luismarques

 
“We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia. We must do it while we are still strong enough to negotiate, and not a broken rabble led by brutal war lords. Most of all, we should remember that we are a part of it, and it is indeed our home.
By James Lovelock Allen"

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

On a relatively small scale with targeted application etc, probably good.

On a very large scale which involves reducing food production so much as to cause hardship, destroying valuable environments etc then probably bad, or at least problematic.


"By cutting down the world forests to have intensive Soya plantations will have a negative impact on net CO2 balance. "  

Will it, at least significantly?  I thought that mature forests were close to carbon neutral, the dead foliage etc decays releasing CO2 etc almost as fast as the live foliage takes in CO2, especially when you add in the associated wildlife.  Growing crops (if you ignore the fuel used etc) is also approximately carbon neutral.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
In the UK we are informed that the price of eggs is set to increase by 50% because of wheat prices.
This is somewhat alarming because we have hardly mooted the idea of bio-fuels and already we are seeing serious price impacts.
Now I don't know just how much of this is anticipated and how much is transitional but it worries me that in the short term we may be able to feed our cars but not our families and even if both food and bio-fuel are available we may not be able to afford both.
Of course it is transitional.
We just have to wait until the rain forests are chopped down and burned (as seems to be the natural response and which releases a huge amount of CO2 and CO2 collected by some trees over many decades, perhaps even a hundred or so years in some cases, will be released in a series of rapid bur seasons.) then we will have all the land we need for bio-fuels and food. Maybe. Club of Rome anyone?
We still avoid the problem of too many people and a need for a fuel source that doesn't destroy the planet as we know it in one way or another.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

... back to Lomborg's assessment.  Big solar cell arrays in otherwise empty deserts.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Related question, while it may vary with climate etc., what is actually the best crop in terms of efficiency for creating biofuel?

Cane sugar seems good for conventional ethanol but is corn really competative without massive governement subsidies?  Is sugar beet a better alternative?

Are some of the 'vegetable' oil sources more efficient?

If cellulose ethanol comes out well then what is the best feed crop, or is it better to use waste from regular food production?

What about these supposed processes that can turn certain wastes into an oil?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

2
In the US, where corn is used for ethanol/bio-fuel production, prices for "agricultural" producers are going up:
- fertilizers for other crops are increasing as corn growers, with a higher margin crop, can pay higher prices
- feed lot owners are charging more because corn (for feed) is increasing (to a fuel equivalent)
- land that once produced other crops are switching to corn, resulting in less other produce
- land that once did not produce anything (for example, lack of water) are being converted to crops, in many cases, with irrigation (because the fuel equivalent prices make it economically viable) resulting in heavier water usage, and heavier water run off

So, price of food is going up.

Another problem: if you grow only corn on a piece of land, you start "starving" the soil of specific nutrients - that is why farmers rotate crops in certain patterns, in order to keep the soil healthy. The alternative is fertilizers, which is what many growers are doing to take advantage of the prices due to ethanol.

Yes, other countries are going bio-fuel, but at what long term cost? I don't think anyone knows for sure.

I think bio-fuel is a good technology. I think the application of the technology needs to be improved. When we use wood chips, food processing plant leftovers, spent oil/grease, bio-fuel is a good idea. To use "virgin crops" to convert to bio-fuel (ethanol, bio-diesel, etc), I think that needs to be re-thinked to see if it really is viable in the long run.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."   
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

ther is 24 calories in 1 oz of ethanol.  If you need 3000 calories to stay alive and walk to work, that's 1 gallon per day.  Every gallon of ethanol fuel starves 1 person.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Well, why not give up tobacco, tea, coffee, silk etc before starving.  Even abandon some food types that make relatively inefficient use of the land.

How much land is used on 'non essential' crops, how much ethanol could we get from it?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
That is also where the question of "organic Bio-Fule" comes in. Organic farming generally makes less intensive use of land. Plus, in the UK, farmers are encouraged to leave the field margins and hedgerows for the benfit of wildlife whether organic farmed or not.
Plus we have the EU set aside schemes.
Now you can bet that pressure on land use will put pressure on organic farmers and the price of organic food will probably rise more steeply just to get the same or better $/£/€ yield per acre.
Or, organic farming will go by the board. As suggested above, without crop rotation farms will be dependent on fertilisers.
There are some serious environmental issues here.
What happens to set aside?
The big supermarkets have had some negative effects on the countryside, and farm management tends toward the big machines which requires larger fields and fewer hedge rows. Operatoed by or on behalf of the bio-fuel companies can we see pressure for more of this?
EU dwellers can also look forward to some interesting revamping of farm subsidies.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

I have 26.9MJ/kg for ethanol's lower heating value.  That's 6.4 kcal/g or about 5000 kcal/l or 23000 kcal/gallon_UK.  So each UK gallon could "feed" about 7 people.

(My order-of-magnitude alarm bells started ringing when I noticed that a gallon of ethanol equates to 2.5 gallons of whiskey.  That's a lot of booze for one person to consume each day!)

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
SomptingGuy,
You scared me! I'm still scared.
Food or fuel, OK, but food or whiskey? Oh dear. Just think how punitively the Chancellor will tax Whiskey to make us use it for fuel esle fuel prices will climb to whiskey prices.
The impact on the Whiskey industry would bring about the Secession of Scotland from The UK.
So OK Japanese or Welsh Whiskey, I can live without that, so long as there is Scotch or Bourbon.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

2
Except that "Whiskey" is anything not produced in Scotland.  They distil "Whisky" in Scotland.  They say man cannot live on beer alone.  What about beer and whisky then?  

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

The only whiskey to worry about is Irish, the rest is better off used for fuel.

It would be interesting to see figures for how much arable land is currently used for non vital food production.  Combined with changing some pastoral land to arable etc it might be possible to generate a reasonable amount of bio fuel without significantly impacting world food stocks.

However, it would require a change in habits and menues.

I don't see it happening.  It's easier to cut down rain forest or starve the third world than get people to stop smoking, drinking alchohol, tea coffee, eating chocolate, lots of meat etc.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Back to the war time spirit and Dig for Victory!
Get people back on the allotments and growing wheat and rape seed instead on pansies and imported flowering shrubs. Window boxes of it instead of parlsey and pansies.
I think I'll send of for some "Hasting's Prolific" seeds.

Must be a lot of land that could be used for small DIY bio-fuel production.... drag it along to the market and get a few bob for sack or two.
On the other hand, My great uncle had a better idea of what to do with corn (he lived in Georgia) though I gather the revenue men had a different idea about his self help initiative.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Rumour has it that some people grow plants in cupboards and wardrobes here in West Sussex, using artificial light.  Seems like a good use of space to me and it apparently fuels people all through the night.  Our local plod aren't too keen though.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Those lights can sure be bright!

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

==> using artificial light.

Solar powered artificial light, no doubt?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

The numbers get you wondering.  If I can buy cheap rum for $25/gallon at 40%, thats $62.5/ gallon on the C2-OH.  So why does it cost $2.00 gallon as fuel?

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Taxes and quality

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

2
If we could get rid of all the @(#&$(@ subsidies, it would be EASY to tell if a biofuel had more or less energy in it than it took to make!  The cost alone would tell you.  But what Argonne argues is that corn ethanol is a way to take the energy in "plentiful fuels like coal and natural gas" to turn corn into a liquid fuel which displaces the US dependence on foreign oil.  In other words, it's an economic shell game, putting a green-wash on coal and/or wasting natural gas that could be used more efficiently to operate vehicles directly.  Using corn as an intermediate in such a shellgame is done for one purpose only:  to obtain votes by providing agricultural subsidy in the guise of environmental policy.

Any calc you do has to take into account all the inputs and all the outputs, though.  The oft-touted studies which view corn ethanol as a net consumer of fossil fuel energy neglect to offer any benefit for the brewer's grain mash that is left over after fermentation.  This material is not a waste, it's a secondary product which can be used to offset the need for the grain in the first place.  Doing such a calc and forgetting a major energy balance line item like this is either extraordinarily incompetent or deliberately fraudulent.  There are many fraudulent or grossly erroneous claims out there on both sides of the argument for corn ethanol, so it's not just one side guilty of these bad calcs.

Based on my review of the information, I'd say that corn ethanol does offset, to a minor extent, some fossil fuel use- to such a minor extent that it's hardly worth doing.  Biodiesel does the same, provided it uses waste vegetable or animal oil as a feedstock- using fresh oil biodiesel is pretty much energetic insanity.  That also assumes that there's no alternative food use for the waste oil (i.e. in pet food etc.)

This is all a distraction from what we should be doing:  taxing carbon or putting in place a cap and trade system.  There's ample evidence to satisfy me that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels as fuels (as opposed to higher value uses such as chemical feedstocks etc.), and the only way that will work is to hit people in their pocketbooks.  The solutions are many, and few of them are fuel replacements- most of them are behaviour changes for consumers and design changes to the things that consume energy.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

ADM (Archer Daniels Midlands) would likely love to have bio-fuels take off, they would make out very well.  If I remember correctly, sugar cane would be a more "efficient" source of ethanol compared to corn as it takes less work to begin firmentation.

Regards,

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Ignore that man behind the curtain!

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Catch this link while you can:
http://www.sustainableshipping.com/news/2007/9/69392?tag=2-1019-0-0
In essence it says that while Palm oil looks good in terms of yiled per acre compared to other fuels, the main producers, Malaysia and Indonesian, would actually release huge amounts of CO2 through deforestation and draining peat swamps.

Quote:

"There are bad biofuels in the world and palm oil is often the very 'baddest'," Ed Matthew, fuels expert with Friends of the Earth was reported saying.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Now that the next president of the United States of America has won the Noble Peace Prize for his global warming film, I am investing all my money into switch grass farms and biodiesel production companies!

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
The Nobel Prize committee is probably composed of the same guys (or ones with similar mental qualities) that are on the Turner prize committee; 'nuff said?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
The greenies position against palm oil is strengthening though they wish to try the same trick as with tropical timber... establish it as from renewable resources. Well, there's no problem with that, this is a renewable crop that will take over most of Indonesia. That isn't the problem, its the slash and burn that will replace other forest species and send the Asian Elephant and Orang Outang to early extinction....
but their hearts are in the right place...

Another and possibly more attractive bio-fuel is oil from Alage.
http://algaelink.com/
They pass the website test, just. They do have films but the overall website appears to have been put together by someone too busy doing other things (like working on a real project) to worry about page links, menus on all pages and a working home page.... such a contrast to some of the con-merchant sites with flash players and animations, glowing testimonials etc).
Some links on this page:
http://www.biodieselinvesting.com/biodiesel-archives/2007/08/22/algaelink-offering-algae-to-biodiesel-class/

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

A Star for that, Ussuri!

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Definitely Soylent Green Territory but fuel not food, that was unexpected. (see the ethanol thread)

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Guffaw.  Thanks Ussuri, a star for that (after I go visit the restroom to lose my lunch).

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Wow, 10,000 liters a week! That'll be a BIG help.

Regards,

Mike

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Shudder.  Solyent Green indeed.  Perhaps inspired by the use of humans as energy sources for the machines in the "Matrix"?  Fat from animal processing plants would not be a better source of material?  How long before people think to become paid for having the liposuction done as a "renewable" energy source.  Putting all sense of ethics/humanity aside, 10000 liters from 11500 liters of "raw material" is (if true) a rather efficient process.

Regards,

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Some people are paid for blood transfusions.... not in the UK though, you bleed for nought but the pleasure of it.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Perhaps the biggest problem; depleting water resources.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

jmw, you mean the tea and biscuit isn't enough for you.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

To my opinion, we are approaching the problem from the wrong side.
We are expecting the optimal and perfect performances from the new technology.
When the first car came out, people asked ironically "and what happens when the fuel is over?" My horse just eats some grass and he continues ...
I don't see so many people riding horses today on the highways..

New things bring new problems, and everything is in a dynamic movement. New thinks bring also new solutions that nobody can even imagine right now, as we try to extrapolate from the actual situation.

Everything (statisticians say) has a logistic curve, but for some reasons we never think about it. Problem is that nobody knows and/or can predict when the curve will change its concavity. But it will do it.

If the new technology brings job to your local community, why not investigate on it?

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Kenat,
well, I guess it depends on what biscuits are on offer.
If the blood shortages get to crisis point maybe it'll be Gin and Tonic on offer or a pint of stout.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

kenat:  to quote Tom Waits, "I sold a quart of blood and got a half a pint of scotch!"  Sound like a fair deal?!

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

There was a time when trying to get blood from me would have been like tapping a keg of Guinness but I've grown up now, more or lesswinky smile

Half pint of scotch, no thank.  Half pint of real Irish Whiskey yes please.  Actually second thoughts I'm remembering that night now and I'll pass thanks.

In a true knee jerk reaction way, given the price of food at our local grocery store I've decided bio-fuels are a bad thing, at least for my wallet winky smile (yes I know it's probably as much/more to do with the price of oil).

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Oh yeah, the week dollar too.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Yeah, but ignoring distillers grain (the left overs from brewing) as an animal feed source is unfortunate.

Don't get me wrong I have concerns over bio-fuel but it seems that every set of figures is skewed to one extreme or the other.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Yes but all those animals do is turn it into methane, far worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (and better than a hangover).

These days the one environmentalist group I like to hear from are the bird watchers, they always seem at odds with the rest.
They are definitely anti-windfarms and, on the marine fuel front, prefer heavy fuel oil to distillate because it is easier to clean up.

In the case of "bio-fuels" even the most gung-ho activists seem to have reservations and say some bio-fuels are "bad". I'd like to think that is because there are real problems but I begin to suspect it is because too many people are seeing bio-fuels as the next golden goose and smilling too much. I must look and see what the bird lovers say but probably it is the possible encroachment of intensive bio-fuel crops on wetland habitats that will bring them out.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Bio fuels are ultimately all snake oil:  a distraction from what we really need to be doing, which is taxing fossil carbon and investing the tax into helping us kick our fossil fuels addiction.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Not sure I see the logic of biofuels...  Why use cheap, concentrated, easily transportable fuels (oil and gas) in fixed heating or power generating stations, and then go to all the trouble of converting a solid, low density organic material into a liquid fuel? Why not just burn the bioenergy crops for heating or electricity generation, and keep the fossil fuels for transport?

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

I'm not sure they've changed their minds.  Instead of paying you to do it they're going to fine you for not doing it.

Still has the potential problems of putting pressure on food supply and/or leading to forest etc being cut down for arable land.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Time magazine has a 6 page article damning biofuels. Maybe good sense will return over the next 5 or 10 years.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

I think this question depends on the source of the bio-fuel. For example the Time magazine article points out that "sugarcane based ethanol is efficient enough to cut emissions by more than it takes to produce the fuel", but that other bio-fuels are net carbon emitters.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Sugarcane is produced by dirty, intensive agriculture.  So yes, in the short term it displaces some fossil fuel consumption, but it isn't sustainable.

If the bio-source material is going to waste anyway, why not use it for fuel?  That depends greatly on what you mean by waste.  You need some of the agricultural waste to keep the soil condition decent.  And most of the food-based "wastes" such as used cooking oil and rendered animal fats can be used in pet food to substitute for fresh foodstocks.  Putting them in your gastank instead just diverts some fresh foodstock into its place.

Then there's the energy you waste to make these bulky, generally solid bio-source materials into anhydrous liquid fuels...

Part of the solution?  Perhaps.  But not a major one.  More distraction than solution in my opinion.

Stop holding out a false hope of a technological fix.  Tax carbon and real solutions will be provided by the market.  Do not tax carbon and you'll get more fiddling while the atmosphere burns.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

As a student I have been watching this lately to see if I want to stay in the oilfield industry or get out. My reasoning is if another fuel source is found and in readily available quantities it the oil market will go down. I am doubting this will happen within the next 5 years, but I feel within 5 to 15 years oil will not be in big demand as much
The main reason I never felt biofuels would work is harvesting area. The only one source so far I can think that will work is  using Algae. I was reading a paper recently that said they can grow algae vertically instead of horizontally like the other potential fuel sources so the yield per acre is really high. The article was either on cnn, foxnews, or slashdot

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Toastie:  trees are a lot easier to grow vertically than algae...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

In my opinion, biofuels should not use a source that ultimately is better off for human consumption or takes away from arable land.  I don't want to drive my car thru the beautiful forests while hungry!

Algae has the highest potential in that it can be grown in facilities built over unusable land (deserts), using non-potable water (possibly salt water).

What kills me over this debate is the closed minded people out there who are just anti-innovation.  I am not advocating giving up SUV's and moving into hippy-communes, but I do support finding an alternative to fuel the lifestyle I currently enjoy.  Plus, the people that solve this problem and invest in their efforts will make a TON of money!!  I hope the innovations happen here in the US, and my financial adviser put some of my money into their stocks!

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

PMR06:  you "do support finding an alternative to fuel the lifestyle I currently enjoy".  But of course, the lifestyle you currently enjoy is the one you can currently AFFORD.  Therein lies the rub.

True alternatives will cost MORE than the status quo, at least in the short term, because the status quo gets to dump sh*t into the atmosphere free of charge.  So guess what:  the status quo favours technologies that dump sh*t into the atmosphere.  Alternatives that don't do this, or do less of it for similar performance, fundamentally cost more- at very least in capital cost terms.  Ain't no way to innovate your way out of that one:  that one needs an ECONOMIC solution.

So what you want is a different kind of biofuel- snake oil.  It not only fuels your SUV, but cures cancer too- if you take enough of it.  Don't worry, there'll be plenty of people willing to sell it both to you AND to your financial advisor.

PS:  I don't consider myself to be at ALL anti-innovation or closed-minded.  I'm just anti-pipedream!  Look up how much biological carbon is generated every year by agriculture (ie. on the very best land suited for growing stuff), and compare that to how much fossil carbon we're using every year, and do the math- then tell me whether or not you're still holding out hope for someone to "invent" a new biofuel that will displace even the transportation fraction of the fossil carbon we're burning!  In reality, both lifestyles AND energy sources need to change.  We'll get to that realization quicker if we give up the false hope of a technological fix.  

As somebody who innovates and does process development for a living and has done so for most of my career, I can't for a minute forget that innovation needs underlying economics to fuel it- and preferably not in the form of subsidy or tax credits that are here today, gone tomorrow at the whim of whatever government's in power.  Innovation responds to payback- and can't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

I've always believed that scientific/engineering community  will find "THE" alternative to our energy needs before the present oil supplies run out.  Actually, as it was with the predicted end of the coal supplies near the end of the 19th century, I don't believe we will see the end of the oil supply at all in this century.  As it was in the beginning of the 20th, I'll just betcha we will find some, perhaps as yet unheard of, energy source.  It ain't gonna be bio fuels, that's for sure.  We, as a planet, cannot even feed ourselves much less grow enough to supply our greedy power/energy needs!

Rod

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

moltenmetal, You underestimate both what I can afford and am willing to pay for now.  Maybe that does not make me a typical American?  And what I do with my money is entirely my business, not yours and especially not the government’s.  I’ll pay a premium for my green fuel and zip past the electric go-cart toy cars in my big, American vehicle.

I'm not advocating all biofuels as the saving grace of the transportation industry’s energy crisis.  In fact, I don’t even support most biofuels.  Any biofuel solution that drives up the cost of food sources, is a negative net energy output, or depletes another natural resource is not a viable alternative.  Right now the infrastructure and machinery exists to distribute and consume diesel though, so a diesel based solution is at least feasible.  Algae grown on unusable land, using say wastewater treatment output, and results in a net energy output seems like a viable alternative worth pursuing.

I appreciate your future minded solution, which is exactly what we need.  But a tax increase will pass on cost increase to consumers who would be getting the same product for more money with no immediate alternative or foreseeable solution.  I have NO FAITH in our government to use your proposed tax revenue to solve this crisis any time soon.  We can see how the government is solving social security and health care... head in the sand, the next administration will solve it.  That is why I pay for my own health insurance, invest for my own retirement and support private industry to provide solutions to these problems.
 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Interestingly, I spoke with someone today who bought a Ford Escape Hybrid a couple of years ago. He received $3000 subsidy to help pay the difference between this and the standard Escape.
When he starts up the engine runs till it is at the optimum temperature to minimise pollution and to top up the batteries.
Since he lives about five minutes drive from home, it means he only gets to run on electric for the last brief part of his journey.
This means he is getting around 25mp(US)g and is dragging around the weight of the batteries.

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

That goes for all the current hybrids I believe, they are most effective as I understand it where you have a lot of stopping/starting or at least deceleration/acceleration.  Out on the highway or even round town if you don't have much traffic or too many stop signs/lights they don't save much and actually the mass of the batteries is a drag.

It's for this reason that I've previously suggested that hybrid technology at this stage should be focused where it would make most differences such as postal vehicles and other delivery trucks, maybe taxis or even busses in the larger congestion plagued cities.  However this seems unlikely to happen on a significant scale.

Once(if) plug in hybrids arrive, and make sense, then they'll start to be more attractive.  However, even then they only really make sense if the electricity is made from a greener and/or more efficient source than just burning the gas in the car (or at least moving the point of emissions has significant benefit)  - like full electric vehicles.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

I drove a Honda Civic IMA across the country last year.  It's a mild hybrid so the engine is always running, but there is a motor/generator that either absorbs or gives out power.  It was surreal to drive - like the car knows when you want to brake and helps out.  It was also fun watching the charge/assist lights going up and down.  The gas mileage was phenominal - 56 mpg over the whole trip.

I wouldn't want to pay to get it serviced though.

- Steve

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

PMR06: no problem for you to do what you want to do.  Make electricity on your own property using totally renewable means:  solar, wind etc.- or buy this energy from someone else.  Electrolyze water to make hydrogen, and compress the hydrogen to 5-10,000 psig to store it.  Then modify your big American vehicle's boring old internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen.  No fuelcell needed.  But MAN, it's gonna cost ya!  And no point to it while we continue to use fossil fuels to provide most of our electricity, either.

evelrod:  don't hold your breath.  We're very unlikely to find some way to stick a plug into vacuum space and extract energy from it.  As to your historical example, we switched from one fossil fuel (coal) to others (oil and natural gas).  No great technological leap there in terms of the energy SOURCE, though much was done on the discovery, recovery and utilization.  But we did discover nuclear power:  a mixed blessing in environmental terms for sure.  Far from the perfect energy source it was thought to be in the '50s...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Agreed that by 21st Century viewpoint the transfer of our primary energy source is no great technological leap.  However, as it was seen from 19th Century perspective...

I am vaguely familiar with the "null space" or whatever the geniuses are calling the theory these days and I have my doubts...But then again, I'm no genius.  We'll just have to wait and see...No, y'all will...I'm already too old to see it, I fear.

Rod

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

If we start to drive plugin hybrids, how will the transportation fuel tax be applied in the various jurisdictions?

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Has anyone ever known the feds to have a problem finding ways to tax us?  On anything?  I have a ghastly picture in my mind...of my electric bill!!!  

Rod

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

owg,

There will need to be an additional electricity meter (I already have two!) that measures electricity used to fuel cars.  This will require a different plug and some kind of tamper-proof system.
 

- Steve

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

There is a sales tax on electricity, so at least the local jurisdiction will get revenues from plug ins.

The hiway people will do what they do for cars that use propane.  You will go down annually and submit your milage and pay a tax on miles driven useing propane.  The way it works is if you drive more than about 8000 miles/year the tax is fixed at about $200.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Europe's diesel car ownership is leaping ahead while in the UK it is lagging. Why? because in the EU diesel is less expensive that petrol. In the UK it is the other way round.
LPG?
Forget it, in the UK no one trusts the government not to boost taxes once enough people have committed to using it.
So now we should trust the government to do the right thing at last? not likely.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

I think mainland Europe simply got a head start over the UK.  When I worked for CAV (now part of Delphi) back in the 80's, diesel fueled cars were pretty rare in the UK.  There were a few Pugs but not much else.  Neither Ford nor GM (a.k.a. Vauxhall) had a diesel worth buying.

- Steve

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
I can understand them getting a start but the UK isn't even in the race. The SMMT routinely complained of the tax situation to no good effect.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

I believe there is straight 50pence tax out of the 112pence per litre of unleaded petrol (at northern Scotland filling station).

In yesterday's Energy article, the author mentioned that the utility bills have gone up by some huge % in the name of helping green agenda, but without reducing a single mole of CO2 from the world. Its just an very good excuse for the govts and corporations to boost the income/profits by taxing more in the name of being more GREEN....
 

Siddharth
These are my personal views/opinions and not of my employer's.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Don't forget that the gov slap 17.5% VAT on both the price of the fuel AND the duty, so we are looking at something like 65p+ of total tax per 100p litre (using figures when 100p was the going rate).

- Steve

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

oh come on guys ... surely (stop calling me shirley) you know that the price of petrol (= gas) is controlled by taxes.  that's why it costs more in europe and canada than it does in the US or middle east.

IMHO bio-fuels and hybrids are just smart companies exploiting the tax incentives/gov't grants that are available. and don't get me started on "carbon-neutral" ... i'm warning you all !

the west is not, repeat not, going to significantly reduce it's per capita consumption of power ... that'd cost too much it living standard(/consumption).  the under-developed countries are busily (and dirtily) trying to match the western "standard".

the "only" long term solution is fusion power.

off soap-box

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

There must be a better way to correct our current problems in the fuel/pollution situation. Bio fuels just ain't gonna cut it in the long run.  All I see is a lot of political grand standing with NO real results.  Short of correcting the underlying problem with our planet, too many of us, what is there?  I like fusion...we know it works...we just need a 'little' more time.

If we all pull together...Yeah, riiight...Like that will ever happen!

Rod

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Er, isn't fusion the cause of excess population?blush

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

That is a great link jmw. However the information that I need to convert me to becoming a disbeliever of the IPCC is an analysis of what is wrong with the IPCC solar forcing model. It seems to me if someone offers an alternative explanation, they need to critique the status quo.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Not really - Feynman points out that if you are doing real science then /you/ should be the strongest critic of the results that you give, and should publish why you think the observations that you have made could not be due to any other cause. If you aren't doing that then you aren't doing real science.



  

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

owg,

would you be interested to know that a canadian scientist (Steve McIntyre) has shown that you get Mann's hockey-sstick with a random input !

i don't think you can prove the climate models are using the wrong solar forcing any more than you can prove they're using the right one !

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

rb1957 - Yes, I chaired a pro/con meeting on global warming a few years ago and McIntyre's co-worker McClintock was on the con side. If the hockey stick can be shot down, I am not clear why the IPCC solar forcing approach cannot be shot down. I was wondering whether the time frame of their solar data was too short. That would be a similar "cheat" to one of the ways the IPCC (Mann) made the hockey stick work. If there are two theories on the same subject, both of which are too complicated for me to understand, it helps me if I see a lucid criticism of one of the theories.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

There was an interesting update on the biofuels debate carried in the 'International Herald Tribune' last Wednesday.

"In a recommendation released last weekend, the 20-member panel [reporting to the European Environment Agency], made up of some of Europe's most distinguished climate scientists, called the 10 percent target "overambitious" and an "experiment" whose "unintended effects are difficult to predict and difficult to control." http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/15/business/greencol16.php

One wonders if distinguished climate scientists have given any thought to the possible 'unintended effects' of a 60 percent reduction in global carbon emmissions.

 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

That may well be true, but this one's been handed down by UK Government PLC.  The Beeb's reporting was the first place I could confirm the start date (just read an article in PE, but couldn't reference it).

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/

- Steve

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but cannot be recreated, although it may change forms, e.g. friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy. In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy for thermodynamic systems, and is the more encompassing version of the conservation of energy. In short, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

With that stated, I believe that we do not have an influence on climate change - warming cooling or anywhichaway

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Please excuse my clumseyness - this post was meant for another thread.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Here is a note being circulated on ethanol from corn. The author specialized during much of his career in the use of additives in gasoline.

Common sense does not prevail when technology and politics are combined.  Case in point: the current energy situation.  A crisis has been lurking for years with no understanding from Washington DC.  The latest mainstay for the self-serving politicians is the mandate for use of ethanol in gasoline.  Here, they purport that it is good for the environment and adds to the fuel supply. Amazing, how wrong our  illustrious leaders can be for both needs.  As to the environment, oxygen (i.e. ethanol addition) in gasoline to reduce auto exhaust emissions should have had a sunset (i.e. been terminated) years ago because of the advances in fuel metering (stoichiometric sensing). Plus, the addition of ethanol increases evaporative emissions simply from adverse mixing conditions. Also, ethanol has significantly less energy/gallon than gasoline thus reducing miles/gallon of fuel per car.  
Now, as to adding to the fuel supply, corn ethanol results in a heavy consumption of gasoline...It requires as much or more energy to obtain seed, plow the ground, plant, grow, cultivate, harvest, produce, transport and market the ethanol relative to its energy worth in gasoline!  But  what a bonanza for the corn producers---- simply a shift in dollars for farmer support at the expense of food and gasoline consumers.  Plus a govt. subsidy for this! Worse than any subsidy is the depletion of our water resources when growing excess corn for ethanol.  According the Dept of Agric studies, it takes apprx. 4000 gallons of water to produce a bushel of corn.  About 2 and 1/2 gallons of ethanol can be obtained from a bushel.  How nonsensical, so, what else is bad?   Well, ethanol blends are being sold as marine gasoline....GREAT... but ethanol is hygroscopic and   absorbs moisture from the air.  And with sufficient absorption of water from the air, the ethanol/water will separate from the gasoline. Of course the humidity near a boat approaches 100%. Thus, a boat with a breathable fuel tank will provide an ethanol/water layer and a gasoline layer of fuel.   How nice for the poor boater with erratic engine behavior, provided he can even get the engine started.

I hope my addressees will give this brief a wide distribution to inform the electorate of the fraudulent promotion of ethanol/gasoline blends.
 

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

summarising then ... dumb and dumber ?

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
That's as good a description of politicians as any.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Saw an article on the news last night, or maybe this morning can't recal about Jatropha as a bio diesal crop.

The report said that it has energy per acre levels higher than soy which they said was already better than corn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha

There are obviously some issues with it still, and I'm still sceptical about widespread bio fuel generally but if we're determined to do it may as well try and do it well so this looks interesting.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Interesting little clip in the paper this morning about the severe shortage of corn predicted for the coming year because of all the flooding.  One little part was the statement as fact that it takes about 2 1/2 bu of corn to make one gal of ethanol...Fine.  I don't know how accurate that is but with corn trading ~$7.00/bu I won't ever be able to afford ethanol as a motor fuel and I'm not much for shine. winky smile  

Rod

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

On the bright side though, there were some reports that some farmers will grow soy bean instead as it can be planted later.

So, combined with the information on the news clip I mentioned that soy is more energy dense per acre than corn then the price of diesal should plummet, right?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Lots of propaganda in the above posts with few if any facts containing universal truths.  Looking at Brazil and the biofuel industry there seems to prove the economics and technology of biofuel.  Booming economy with over 35% of transportation fuels from plants.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

civilperson -

One problem with Brazil is that they are destroying rainforest at a rate greater than any other *continent*.  Since it's coming more and more to light that land use changes are having big regional climate effects, there's no telling what's going to come of that.  Since they are destroying so much transpiratable vegetation, they may not end up with enough rain to make their sugar cane grow...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

The Brazil example came up before, I thought on this thread but must have been one of the other similar.  As LCruiser points out, there are plenty of other issues that I'm not convinced that Brazil is the Gold standard of how to produce lots of bio fuel with out unintended consequences.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Rod, currently the yield is around 2.8 Gal/ Bushel of Corn.

Corn is not the answer, but it is a stepping stone.

 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

A stepping stone to increasing our taxes, not to mention third world starvation.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Question, if corn is not the answer, and ethonol might be, what impacts would there be to changing to sugar cane or sugar beets?

What if we used other low BTU bio-fuels and bulked them up with coal to form propane? It is currently being used as a motor fuel now and is some what plausable.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

The third world was starving long before the US became a major exporter of grain.  As a US taxpayer, I prefer my money (tax subsidies for farming) coming back to me (in cheap ethanol) rather than going to feed people who 1. don't appreciate my help one whit (anybody see any planeloads of help from overseas going to the poor Iowa farmers working to sandbag their houses?), 2. don't have the developed economy necessary to warrant/support smaller families and so become more populous due to lower food costs,  and 3. whose native farmers become poorer and less productive because cheap Yankee corn is competing with what they could have grown themselves.

Yes, a better solution is no subsidies at all, for any type of farming...but every legislator that has tried to do away with them has suffered for it.  And, you and I would scream if we suddenly had to pay the real cost of our food, including variable/unpredictable increases due to droughts, floods, etc.  Subsidies stabilize those variations by ensuring (usually) over-production for domestic uses.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

cranky, that questions been partially asked before.

Sugar cane needs certain climate to thrive, most of the US doesn't have that climate.  I believe it may also be fairly demanding on the soil, not sure if more or less than corn.

I've asked the beets question before and never got a satisfactory answer as I recall, my own limited research didn't turn up much.  Simplistically, give that beets are the preffered option for making sugar in temperate climbs you'd expect they'd be good for ethanol too.  Part of it I'm sure is that in the US people already grow a lot of corn, there are corn subsidies etc - it's an established 'industry' on a very large scale.

If serious about ethanol how about lifting sanctions on CUBA to get access to their cane?  Though they may have found new customers by now.

Given that the Diesel cycle is more efficient, and that soy beans supposedly get more BTU per acre for bio fuel I wonder if bio diesel is the way to go rather than ethanol. I believe less issues with distribution, modification of vehicles etc too but could be wrong.  Then Jatropha is potentially even more area energy dense, plus drought tolerant so maybe that needs more research.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Oh yeah, how about devoting some of the land spent growing things like tea, coffee, chocolate, tobacco and similar 'non critical food crops' to bio fuel production?  Not sure how you'd do it (maybe tax those items somehow) but as a way to free up more agricultural land to get biofuel grown does it have any merit?

Still fundamentally I think biofuel is problematic due to the competitiong with food crops and quetionable efficiency.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

If we want to import sugar, we don't need to lift our restrictions on Cuba. We simply need to allow imports more than the current farm bill allows.
But that's politics, which I'm deffently not an expert, although I have my thoughts.

Also importing surgar from other countries will rise the price of food in the third world, which is what we are seeing with corn. However I would think sugar would be a better crop for making ethonol.

If we change to oil crops for biofuel won't we again be rising food prices for the third world.

I somewhat agree the third world isen't our child.
But KENAT has a point that it would be better if we paid  tobacco farmers to grow soumthing useful, rather than paying them to not grow anything.
And I can somewhat say the samething about the goverment programs in the midwest to take farm land out of production.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?


Quote:

Still fundamentally I think biofuel is problematic due to the competitiong with food crops and quetionable efficiency.

As I agree, mentioned previously, I think that any bio fuel that impinges on food production is doomed to failure.  In the U.S., desert areas of the southwest once were considered for the cultivation of the ubiquitous creasote plant.  That was some twenty odd years ago.  Anybody reasearching that possiblity lately?

Rod  

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Thanks for the link, LCruiser.  I have asked those questions many times myself.

Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Actually, we need to plant trees........ Diesel trees that is.

Too bad the only place they could currently survive ( at least in the US ) is parts of Florida.

But the Amazon could easily become the next big oil producing area.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copaifera_langsdorfii

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Sorry, Pat, with the arable land in Brazil being used for food and sugar cane...With thousands of acres of rain forest being destroyed for further cultivation of same...Where would you suggest we plant enough 'diesel trees' to supply even the smallest part of our fuel needs?

LCruiser...
While hemp is by far the best choice, IMO, for our immediate energy needs, the arcane notion that industrial hemp is the same as marijuana (a result of the cotton lobby and Dupont v. Henry Ford in the 1930's)...can we really expect our most evangelical society to accept hemp as a fuel alternative (as well as many, many other manufactured goods replacing 'oil') any time in the near future?

The state of the U.S. economy is in trouble...I think we can agree on that.  The reasons are many and varied.  All I can suggest is a careful comparison of the economy of 97/98 with 07/08 with an eye to the future.  We have most probably two candidates to choose from for President this year, neither of which "can balance a check book"!

Rod

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

(OP)
Algae:
It triples in volume every day, is a year round, not annual producer and its yields can be as high as 15,000 gallons per acres.  
Corn yields are around 80 gallons and soy yields are approximately 40 gallons of biodiesel per acre (according to AAGC.)
AAGC is the American Algae Growers Corporation.
http://www.americanalgae.com/index_files/Page331.html
Sounds good.
Why do I get that "no such thing as a free lunch" feeling?
Am I just jaded? Why isn't all our money going into algae instead of wind farms?
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

Quote:

Algae fuel, also called algal fuel, oilgae[1] or third generation biofuel, is a biofuel from algae. Compared with second generation biofuels, algae are high-yield high-cost (30 times more energy per acre than terrestrial crops) feedstocks to produce biofuels.

Apparently the "high-yield" (per acre) part is valid, but the downside are the costs (not acreage) required  produce it.
 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Some more discussion in this link confirms very little acreage is used.  The challenge/cost seems to be in getting the tiny amount of algae/fuel out of large amount of water.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9765452-7.html
 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

One last link on pond scum below.  
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html

Quote:

Using algae as an alternative fuel is not a new idea. The U.S. Department of Energy studied it for about 18 years, from 1978 to 1996. But according to Al Darzins of the DOE's National Renewable Energy Lab, in 1996 the feds decided that algae oil could never compete economically with fossil fuels.

The price of a barrel of oil in 1996? About 20 bucks!

 

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

By the way, there's a video link to a CNN piece on algae at the last link above.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

a colleage said once (translated) "when a 3rd-world farmer chooses to plant seeds for bio-fuel instead of wheat for making bread, things start turning grey there".  

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Algae's been brought up in previous thread.  Both as biomass and some algae produce natural oil which could be harvested (especially if genetically engineered to produce more oil).

One of the biggest problems is apparantly getting light to the algae.  Either you need to somehow stir the ponds or whatever so all the algae gets exposure or you use light pipes, mirrors etc to try and get the light more spread out.  Otherwise only a fin film on top gets the light.  Sadly the algae has a habbit of sticking to things, like the light pipes et.

I can't remember where I read the article or I'd put a link.

 

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

There's a great independant film they play on PBS called "King Corn".  Most of our current grain production isn't for food, but for cattle feed so we can can have cheap "MacBurgerKing" beef.  

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/

If we Americans can get off of meat, more farmland will be availible for food or biofuel production.  For the record, I think biofuels are a BAD idea.  Corn is in everything.  The price of it will skyrocket as we currently see in the market.  Has anyone discussed Hot Rock Geothermal??

 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

IMO We should convert everything to electricity.  That way we only have to work on mass production of a clear energy source.  As technology exsists now, this would most likely result in MORE carbon being released into the air due to the fact that most of the electricty in some areas is generated by burning coal.  But if we could work on more clean coal technology, wind, hydro, thermal, nuclear, and any other types of energy I missed, I think we would be heading in the right direction.  Personally I think fission/fusion power would be the way to go.  If more post processing could be done to fission products to reduce the halflife that could be more feasible.  Fusion power speaks for itself if it ever becomes feasible.  I also think that a power generator using matter/antimatter annihilation could be a viable power source.  Matter/antimatter gives 100% conversion of matter into energy so would give a huge amount of power for a very small amount of fuel.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

jrhagen, how do you propose getting an electric airplane in a corresponding time scale?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Good point.  Things like aircraft will still need to burn fossil fuels.  Batteries are just too bulky and heavy to use in those applications.  We need to save our oil for the things that require it such as plastics, lubricants, and jet fuel.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

And I was thinking that after the ethonol making process, the mash could be fed to cattle. In the past it was dried, but they were working on a wet feed.

So exactly why is corn in everything, probally because sugar is to high priced.

So why not import and use molases for ethonol production, after all in the islands they have been doing it for years.
But don't they also use barley also?

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Corn is in everthing because High Fructose Corn Syrup is cheaper to make than plain sugar.  That's why the price of soda dropped so much.  HFCS is not good for you in the slightest.  Do some google searches.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

"Corn is in everthing because High Fructose Corn Syrup is cheaper to make than plain sugar."

Cane sugar is cheaper to make, but there are tarrifs that prevent importation of sugar to the US, and few cane plantations left in the US (all the land in Florida has been converted to retirement colonies).  Corn syrup fills the gap created by the tarrifs.

Corn is in everything because it is cheap.  It's cheap because it's subsidized, creating surplus corn that can be converted to (easily stored) syrup.  Corn is subsidized because not doing so causes farmers to go broke.  Farmers going broke (along with other factors) causes instability in food prices, and some people in the US (who don't know how to save/store food) to go hungry, and call their congresscritters and complain about it.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

  I agree.  One of the points of "King Corn" was that we subsidize corn to the point where they have gone for yield over quality.  Looking at historical corn breeds, there was so much protein then there is today.  
  Subsidies are a double edged sword.  Give the little guy money to help him survive and you also fund the mega-farmers who push crappy corn to feed livestock who aren't evolved to eat 100% grain.  Then they develop acidosis, so they pump them full of antibiotics.  Horrible vicious circle.  
  But, I digress from bio-fuels.  I believe current corn prices have jumped to about $8/bushel.  Prices pushed up by natural diasters and increased use.  Sound like any other fuel we use??
 

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

jmw Thanks for the link from the Telegraph. Very intersting.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

LCruiser:  he makes a compelling argument for getting the US off imported oil, particularly Middle East oil.  I agree completely.  Odd that he forgets about China's ability to compete for this oil, but otherwise he does some very effective fear-mongering.

We differ entirely in strategies for dealing with the problem.  The way to get off the foreign oil is to stop wasting so damned much of it, not to try to replace it with ethanol!  Unless you do the former, the latter, even if it were feasible, would soon reach its limits.

He doesn't even bother to do the calc to show how much land would be needed to get the US off foreign oil via corn ethanol because I'm sure he knows it's impossible as well as anyone else does.  He shows one graph which shows how much land is "arable", how much is farmland, how much of that is for corn and how much of that (was, in some unreferenced year) being used to produce ethanol, but that's as far as he goes.  You can do a simple order of magnitude energy calc for yourself to ground-truth it.  Simply take the entire world's generation of agricultural biomass (given in Wikipedia, with references) and compare it to the US's total petroleum and natural gas consumption annually.  I've done it, and there just isn't enough farmland, even if we didn't need any of it for food, to make this feasible- even if we do far better than corn ethanol ever could.

He does have a nice graph from an article in Science- I'd love a copy of the source article if anyone has it.  It shows Pazek and Pimentel's (flawed) studies off to the left, and a number of others off to the right (in the region showing that even corn ethanol modestly reduces fossil fuels use).  Then it shows "cellulosic- projected" way off to the right.  The magic technological fix...

As to cellulosic ethanol:  if it's not worth our bother to burn biomass directly to satisfy our stationary energy needs right now, it's not worth it to throw away a very significant portion of the energy content of the biomass to make cellulosic ethanol for transportation fuel use.  And despite 20-30 years of research and record-high oil prices, there are no commercial cellulosic ethanol plants yet.  There are significant technological and logistical and energetic and economic problems to be solved there, and merely willing them to be solved does not seem to be all that effective at actually solving them.

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

I am not an ethanol fan, but I note that Shell just increased their holdings in Iogen from about 25% to about 50%. This should speed up work on the development of a process to make ethanol from cellulosic material. However with the push to plugin hybrids and related arrangements, the "just burn it" lobby could be a winner.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Here is a site that claims that micro-scale production of bio-ethanol could be more economical than the big industrial facilities.

Design News article:

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6579734.html?nid=2333&rid=4335635#_self

Manufacturer's web site:

http://www.efuel100.com/

where they make the claim (from their FAQ):

"The MicroFueler is more power-efficient than US commercial ethanol plants due to its advanced membrane filtration technology and a non-combustion fermentation and distillation process."

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

Where can I get some of that "government surplus sugar for ethanol production at 2 cents per pound"? Then I could bootleg some of it into my coffee.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

RE: Bio-fuels .... good or bad?

The key benefit of his unit appears to be its physical similarity to a gas pump...

The heat of evaporation has to come from somewhere, whether you do this by conventional distillation or you use membranes.  What he's claiming is that it's not a "fired" unit and hence less dangerous.  I presume the heat is coming from electric immersion heaters in his case.  That's only "efficient" if you forget about the cost of the electricity, which of course he's banking on.

There are commercial ethanol producers who ae using membrane systems to dry ethanol, so there's nothing magic there.  The crude cut (geting rid of most of the water) is still most efficiently done by conventional distillation.  And the key problem remains:  the bugs are killed by the ethanol they're making before its concentration goes beyond a certain (comparatively low) level.

There are, in fact, lots of reasons that doing this on a small scale will be LESS efficient than doing it on the larger scale.  One of the big downsides in his case is the wasted sugar fermentation broth, whereas in a corn ethanol operation the brewer's mash can be fed to cattle.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources