DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 217--------------------------------------------------
Duckweed, the Miracle Biofuel Plant Part 1
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 30, 2013, 8:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Duckweed, the plant that may save mankind by enabling our
species to live symbiotically, instead of parasitically, with
the biosphere.
[center]
HTML http://chestofbooks.com/flora-plants/flowers/Woodland-Blossoms/images/Duckweeds.jpg[/center]
1. Some Notes On Duckweed Identification
Since flowering and fruiting are rarely observed in most species
of Lemnaceae, the following keys and descriptions are based
primarily on vegetative characteristics. Minor traits which
might seem insignificant in morphologically complex plants
assume greater importance in the Lemnaceae.
Ideally, it is best to observe living plants under a 30X
dissecting microscope, preferably with substage lighting to view
veins and the shape of budding pouches (dried herbarium
specimens can be hydrated in water to obtain a resemblance of
their former shape).
[center]
HTML http://www.iscopecorp.com/media/catalog/product/s/e/se300-a-microscope-7_1_1_1_1_1.jpg[/center]
[center]**20x 40x 80x dissecting microscope**[/center]
For difficult species it is often necessary to grow them in
containers to observe the development of diagnostic features
such as shape, size, number of plants cohering, nervation,
anthocyanin pigmentation and turions.
Some species may exhibit considerable morphological variation,
particularly when growing under less than optimal environmental
conditions, making their precise vegetative identification very
difficult.
The traditional duckweed family (lemnaceae) contains 5 genera
and at least 38 species. DNA studies indicate that duckweeds are
best included within the Araceae.
Duckweeds have a worldwide distribution, especially temperate
and tropical regions.
They are the smallest and structurally simplest of all
angiosperms, with greatly reduced vascular tissue (tracheids)
limited to the veins of plant body, filaments of stamens, and
roots of some species.
Duckweeds and associated microfauna are an important food source
for certain waterfowl.
They are potentially valuable for waste-water reclamation and
one species, (Wolffia globosa (Roxb.) Hartog & Plas) known
locally as "khai-nam," is eaten by people in S.E. Asia.
HTML http://waynesword.palomar.edu/1wayindx.htm#Disclaimer
HTML http://waynesword.palomar.edu/1wayindx.htm#Disclaimer
Agelbert note: There's a LOT MORE to duckweed than waste-water
reclamation. With proper nutrition (pig feces do quite nicely),
they can double their mass in 48 hours. There is simply no other
angiosperm on earth that can increase its biomass that fast. It
is true that algae, in theory, can grow even faster but
harvesting algae and extracting biofuels from it is quite a bit
more expensive than harvesting and extracting biofuels from
duckweed. For algae to be used to replace fossil fuel crude oil,
the price per barrel needs to be above $120 or more.
However, if fossil fuel crude oil is at or above $72 a barrel,
all hydrocarbon products can be made cheaper from duckweed than
from fossil fuels.
At the time of this writing, fossil fuel crude oil was $111 a
barrel. Need I say more? Well, yes I do.
Duckweed needs no chemical fertilizers and uses no fossil fuels
for harvesting. There is no plowing for planting and the water
can be continuously reused because the plants actually filter
impurities out of it.
In fact, duckweed makes an excellent bioindicator for heavy
metals contaminants because it readily takes up these toxins in
polluted water. Lemna minor appears to be the best duckweed for
use as a bioindicator of heavy metals contamination as evidenced
in experiments with various types of duckweed: Lemna minor is
very sensitive to the pollution/contamination of soil and water;
reacts to the salt TM with the concentration: Cu (0,000ymg/ml),
Zn (0,025 mg/ml), Ba (0.001 mg/ml), Co (0,0001 mg/ml), Mn (0,025
mg/ml).
HTML http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/Russe/heavymetal-e.htm
HTML http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/Russe/heavymetal-e.htm
Reactions range from discoloration to frond separation and roots
turning white and dropping off.
The metals are distributed as follows according to the degree of
toxicity for the test object: Co > > Cu > Ba > Mn > Zn > Pb.
This data on the sensitivity of duckweeds to contaminators make
it possible to make the following conclusions:
Copper (Cu), in comparison with Zn, Co, Ba, Mn, Fe possesses the
strongest toxic action and its reaction is manifested in 3 - 5
hours with the concentrations: 0,1; 0,25;0,025; 0.001; 0,0001
mg/ml.
Cu, Co, Ba, Mn - cause the complete disconnection of duckweed
fronds; with concentrations 0,1 - 0,25 - 0,025 mg/ml.Mn - death
of roots and their detachment from fronds.
The investigated metals possess toxic actions which can stop the
growth of duckweeds and affect their viability.
Lesser duckweed, swollen duckweed and greater duckweed - are
more sensitive subjects to the action of heavy metals than are
ivy-leaf duckweed and Wolffia arrhiza, which is apparently
explained by the intensive metabolic processes in the plants
themselves.
Lemna species as phytotesters possess high sensitivity to the
action of toxicants, since are capable of reacting to the metals
at concentrations in the range from 0,1 to 0,0001 mg/mL and thy
can be of successfully being used for testing
pollution/contamination by the pollutants of the components of
the ecosystem.
HTML http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/Russe/heavymetal-e.htm
HTML http://www.mobot.org/jwcross/duckweed/Russe/heavymetal-e.htm
This side use for bioindication can provide low cost test kits
for people who are concerned with pollution in their ponds or
stagnant water (duckweed will not grow in moving water although
it can be spread by it). Duckweed grows in lentic systems only.
Lentic just means still water.
Returning to duckweed as a petroleum substitute providing
sustainable energy and products at a reasonable price, the great
advantage of duckweed over other plant based biofuel sources is
it's greatly reduced vascular tissue and root system.
This means less lignin to remove for processing into ethanol or
plastics than with corn or sugar cane, for example. High lignin
content of other plants that have a lot of vascular and root
system "woodiness" is a huge cost hurdle for processing plant
sugars into ethanol. The lower the lignin content, the higher
the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) provided the plant,
like duckweed, has a high starch content.
This easier duckweed processing potential, in addition to
enabling cheaper ethanol production, as long as it isn't
contaminated with heavy metals, also fits the bill as a carbon
sink because of fast growth as well as being excellent feed for
fish, foul and even hogs.
It is a common protein and starch source for humans far more
cost effective than corn or soy beans. In other words, it's a
miracle food and energy source combining the qualities of fossil
fuels (minus the pollution) with the qualities of an easy to
grow, nutritious crop.
But let's take the process of growth and processing of duckweed
one step at a time to see how the costs to produce everything
from heat to jet fuel to plastics and pharmaceuticals from
duckweed at a scale as large, or larger, than current world use
of fossil fuels (crude oil, coal and natural gas put together)
compare.
Is it possible? Can it be scaled up? Will it use land needed for
food? Will it produce any pollution in the form of toxic waste
or green house gases? Is it really much cheaper than fossil
fuel? Will it, if it creates a new food and fuel green
revolution (a real one this time), backfire and cause a further
increase in human population that will consequently damage the
biosphere instead of lead us into a symbiotic relationship with
it?
I hope to answer all these questions and perhaps a few more.
The answers may surprise you. They may even anger or frustrate
you because humanity has been so slow to deal symbiotically with
the biosphere but has instead opted ruinously for the predatory,
selfish, parasitic insanity so preferred by our elites.
Whatever the case, I assure you these answers will provide hope
for a viable biosphere. Whether Homo SAP does the right thing or
not is another matter.
So without further ado, welcome to the wonderful world of the
tiniest flowering plant (angiosperm) known to mankind.
[center]
HTML http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L390xH255/es-lemnaencosta-390-e7908.jpg[/center]
[center]Duckweeds in Maracaibo lake[/center]
[center]
HTML http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0N0Gp2yPJtQ/TKsvs82S48I/AAAAAAAACXc/gmjiXcB23rc/s400/Wood+Duck+in+Duckweed.jpg[/center]
[center]
HTML http://earthsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/duckweed1.jpg[/center]
[center]
HTML http://cdn.thepondguy.com/images/blogs/eblog_square_pl_duckweed_04-30-11.jpg[/center]
[center]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SKUwRrrPITE/TqSL0fNOIhI/AAAAAAAABM8/JiVXutonNMk/s320/Giant+Duckweed+Spirodela+polyrhiza.jpg[/center]
[center]Giant Duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza[/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.ispot.org.uk/sites/default/files/imagecache/mid/images/16479/eba97a5d5ba0cdb4ecc2e546ac81bdd7.jpg[/center]
[center]Ivy-leaf duckweed Lemna trisulca[/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.uwgb.edu/biodiversity/herbarium/wetland_plants/wolcol_aspect01.jpg[/center]
[center]Lemna minor, Wolffia columbiana (watermeal) and
Spirodela polyrhiza[/center]
Fronds of Wolffia contain about 40% protein, almost as much as
soybeans. Furthermore, Wolffia contains a quantity of the
essential amino acid, methionine. Wolffia arrhiza has no roots.
[center][img]
HTML http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/pincle4b.jpg?w=475[/img][/center]
[center]Duckweed as a bioindicator of heavy metals -
discoloration, frond separation and root disconnection [/center]
[center][img]
HTML http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images2/LemMinor8b.jpg?w=475[/img][/center]
[center]Lemna minor[/center]
[center][img]
HTML http://plants.usda.gov/maps/large/LE/LETU2.png?w=475]http://plants.usda.gov/maps/large/LE/LETU2.png?w=475[/img][/center]
[center]Lemna turionifera[/center]
[center][img]
HTML http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images2/LemMinor6b.jpg?w=475[/img][/center]
[center]A. Lemna minor (probably). The midline row of dorsal
papules is not clearly discernible as in L. turionifera. Unlike
L. turionifera, reddish anthocyanin is not present on either the
dorsal or ventral side. [/center]
B. This plant has a midline row of dorsal papules characteristic
of L. turionifera. The majority of plants in this collection
(#11024) seem to fit L. minor rather than L. turionifera;
however, without evidence of turions produced in the fall I
cannot be 100% certain.
Agelbert NOTE: A turion is a a tiny tumor like projection that
duckweed grows when the water temperature gets near freezing
that makes it sink to the bottom and go dormant until the water
temperature is adequate in the spring.
HTML http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/09/08875/fig23b.gif
This is what Rutgers University ( School of Engineering and
Technology ) has to say about duckweed:
SNIPPET 1:
Governor’s School of Engineering and Technology 2012
I. Abstract
The pressing need for alternative energy is made manifest by the
dwindling natural oil reserves and the detrimental effects of
high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Current research
has been focusing on using starch from corn to produce ethanol
as a biofuel. However, the problems with competition with its
use as a food source and efficiency have shifted attention to
duckweed, a promising source for ethanol production.
Additionally, duckweed has potential to be used in wastewater
remediation, thus tackling the potable water crisis. Three
experiments conducted illustrated duckweed’s ability to grow
prolifically under unfavorable conditions, produce high levels
of dextrose, a form of glucose per grams of biomass, 9.68% on
average, and remove up to 50% of the ammonia contained in water
media in just two weeks.
These experiments, in total, evince duckweed’s efficiency in
remediating wastewater while also producing relatively high
dextrose levels for yeast fermentation into ethanol at a low
cost.
SNIPPET 2:
While maize is the most current source of ethanol and energy
production in the United States, expensive corn prices meshed
with economic and weather difficulties have now discouraged the
production of biofuels.
Additionally, excess amounts of energy are necessary to generate
corn-based ethanol and will result in a larger carbon footprint,
as well as wasting maize stalks and husks.
Therefore, researchers have shifted their focus more heavily on
the possibilities of using duckweed to extract dextrose and
produce ethanol.
As exemplified by this research project, duckweed illustrated
its ability to rapidly grow and remediate wastewater abundant in
toxic nutrients, making it ideal to deploy on a global scale.
However, with exponentially rising demands for energy and clean
water, duckweed offers a presently optimal solution in
efficiently ameliorating both these issues.
Future research in this field includes finding the best location
for duckweed growth in terms of surface area and climate. Larger
scale experiments should be conducted to prove the feasibility
of ethanol mass production as well as to test duckweed’s ability
to absorb phosphates and other toxic chemicals affecting water
sources.
While the current economic pressures have put constraints on
funding new scientific research endeavors, a new market should
expand for duckweed-produced ethanol based upon its efficiency
in process and abundance in water sources.
Through this research, cellulose is now being substantiated as a
possible source for ethanol production, and is increasingly more
adept at handling the energy and clean water crises.
HTML http://soe.rutgers.edu/files/2012Duckweed.pdf
HTML http://soe.rutgers.edu/files/2012Duckweed.pdf
How superior is duckweed to corn for ethanol production?
SNIPPET 1
Biosystems Engineering
Volume 110, Issue 2, October 2011, Pages 67–72
Growing high-starch duckweed for its conversion to bioethanol
was investigated as a novel technology to supplement maize-based
ethanol production. Under the fall (autumn) climate conditions
of North Carolina, the biomass accumulation rate of Spirodela
polyrrhiza grown in a pilot-scale culture pond using diluted pig
effluent was 12.4 g dry weight m−2 day−1.
Through simple transfer of duckweed plants into well water for
10 days, the duckweed starch content increased by 64.9%,
resulting in a high annual starch yield of 9.42 × 103 kg
ha−1.
After enzymatic hydrolysis and yeast fermentation of high-starch
duckweed biomass in a 14-l fermentor, 94.7% of the theoretical
starch conversion was achieved.
The ethanol yield of duckweed reached 6.42 × 103 l ha−1,
**about 50% higher than that of maize-based ethanol production,
which makes duckweed a competitive starch source for fuel
ethanol production.**
HTML http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1537511011001000
HTML http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1537511011001000
What you just read translates to a lot more than "50% higher
than maize-based ethanol production".
Why? Because Spirodela polyrhiza (giant duckweed) had no soil
plowed to plant it and pig feces, not chemical fertilizers, were
used to nourish and grow it.
At present, pig feces is an environmental problem that causes
eutrophication in lakes and streams (too much nourishment for
water plants and microbiota that, when the nutrient is used up,
die unleashing microbial activity during decomposition that
sucks out the oxygen and kills the fish) so this is an energy
multiple.
Eutrophication is an environmental problem because of B.O.D.
(biological oxygen demand).
Most natural waters contain small quantities of organic
compounds. Aquatic microorganisms have evolved to use some of
these compounds as food. Microorganisms living in oxygenated
waters use dissolved oxygen to oxidatively degrade the organic
compounds, releasing energy which is used for growth and
reproduction.
Populations of these microorganisms tend to increase in
proportion to the amount of food available. This microbial
metabolism creates an oxygen demand proportional to the amount
of organic compounds useful as food.
Under some circumstances, microbial metabolism can consume
dissolved oxygen faster than atmospheric oxygen can dissolve
into the water or the autotrophic community (algae,
cyanobacteria and macrophytes) can produce. Fish and aquatic
insects may die when oxygen is depleted by microbial
metabolism.[2]
Biochemical oxygen demand is the amount of oxygen required for
microbial metabolism of organic compounds in water. This demand
occurs over some variable period of time depending on
temperature, nutrient concentrations, and the enzymes available
to indigenous microbial populations.
The amount of oxygen required to completely oxidize the organic
compounds to carbon dioxide and water through generations of
microbial growth, death, decay, and cannibalism is total
biochemical oxygen demand (total BOD). Total BOD is of more
significance to food webs than to water quality.
Dissolved oxygen depletion is most likely to become evident
during the initial aquatic microbial population explosion in
response to a large amount of organic material. If the microbial
population deoxygenates the water, however, that lack of oxygen
imposes a limit on population growth of aerobic aquatic
microbial organisms resulting in a longer term food surplus and
oxygen deficit.[3]
**Typical BOD values**
Most pristine rivers will have a 5-day carbonaceous BOD below 1
mg/L. Moderately polluted rivers may have a BOD value in the
range of 2 to 8 mg/L. Municipal sewage that is efficiently
treated by a three-stage process would have a value of about 20
mg/L or less. Untreated sewage varies, but averages around 600
mg/L in Europe and as low as 200 mg/L in the U.S., or where
there is severe groundwater or surface water
Infiltration/Inflow. (The generally lower values in the U.S.
derive from the much greater water use per capita than in other
parts of the world.)[1]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemical_oxygen_demand
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemical_oxygen_demand
Pig feces contribute to high BOD through eutrophication which
can extract too much oxygen from the water and kill the fish.
But, when the pig feces are used to fertilize duckweed in
shallow ponds that do not reach the area streams and runoff, no
such high BOD occurs.
The pig feces are helping, rather than hurting, the environment
and eliminating the need for chemical fertilizers which require
using massive amounts of fossil fuels to make which subsequently
contribute to polluting our land, rivers and lakes and kill
microbiota in the soil.
No more DuPont or Monsanto or whatever for fertilizers! The pigs
will do the job just fine, thank you.
In addition, almost the ENTIRE plant is used to make starch, not
a small portion like in corn where a lot of plant energy is
devoted to vascular structures and roots. It is incredibly
wasteful to make ethanol from corn and incredibly cheap to make
it from duckweed.
Continued in: [center]Duckweed, the Miracle Biofuel Plant Part 2
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg218/#msg218[/center]
#Post#: 218--------------------------------------------------
Duckweed, the Miracle Biofuel Plant Part 2
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 30, 2013, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Duckweed is, for all practical purposes, a floating solar cell.
It makes maximum use of the sun to convert photons to plant
tissue with a lot of starch instead of vascular structures to
hold the plant up and keep it from blowing away in the wind.
That's why it grows so fast. Think of it as a super efficient
converter of light energy to starch (stored energy). It's a tiny
solar cell and a storage battery all rolled into one.
And there is one more thing you should know. Duckweed NEVER
stops growing. That's right, for every bushel of corn that you
harvest in one year, you can harvest 10 to twenty times more
duckweed that is 50% easier to turn into ethanol. The math is
mind boggling.
Yes, in places where the winter is cold, the duckweed will stop
growing if it is not housed so some geothermal heating might be
needed for a year round operation north of the southern states.
But so what? It would still be a bargain compared to corn.
Because duckweed grows so fast, you would need about a tenth of
the land area that corn now uses to get equivalent or larger
ethanol feedstock.
Would we be putting ponds in our corn fields? NOPE! Duckweed
ponds should be placed over non-arable land. There is more
non-arable land than there is arable land and it's, pardon the
pun, dirt cheap.
What happens to all those corn fields?
I don't know but we don't need to be plowing up that ground with
fossil fuel intensive machinery or fertilizing it with chemical
fertilizers killing the soil either. I would want them turned
into organic farms to introduce more crop diversity instead of
this insane monocropping.
The U.S. Government pays farmers NOT to plant right now. Why not
pay them to plant, over the corn field area, diverse flora (not
necessarily food crops) to help improve our biosphere?
I don't know what the corn farmers would do but what they are
doing now is just plain destructive. But that issue must be
addressed once it is clear we do not need to plant all that corn
for biofuel. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.
I am not concerned, however, because our farmers need only a
small nudge from we-the-people to stop unsustainable farming
practices. When they do that, they will be better off, despite
their fear of going broke because they might not be able to
market some other crop (hemp, anyone?) or make ends met with
"fallow" land (which isn't fallow at all but improving
biosphere).
By the way, I think that word "fallow" needs to be modified,
don't you?
The Little Green Plant That Could: Duckweed as a Renewable and
Sustainable Biofuel Feedstock
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_2h2CoQII#ws
Duckweed Ethanol
Christodoulos A. Floudas, Xin Xiao and colleagues explain that
duckweed, an aquatic plant that floats on or near the surface of
still or slow-moving freshwater, is ideal as a raw material for
biofuel production. It grows fast, thrives in wastewater that
has no other use, does not impact the food supply and can be
harvested more easily than algae and other aquatic plants.
However, few studies have been done on the use of duckweed as a
raw material for biofuel production.
They describe four scenarios for duckweed refineries that use
proven existing technology to produce gasoline, diesel and
kerosene. Those technologies include conversion of biomass to a
gas; conversion of the gas to methanol, or wood alcohol; and
conversion of methanol to gasoline and other fuels. The results
show that small-scale duckweed refineries could produce
cost-competitive fuel when the price of oil reaches $100 per
barrel. Oil would have to cost only about $72 per barrel for
larger duckweed refiners to be cost-competitive.
The article is titled "Thermochemical Conversion of Duckweed
Biomass to Gasoline, Diesel, and Jet Fuel: Process Synthesis and
Global Optimization."
Read more at:
HTML http://phys.org/news/2013-03-duckweed-cost-competitive-raw-material-biofuel.html#jCp
HTML http://phys.org/news/2013-03-duckweed-cost-competitive-raw-material-biofuel.html#jCp
Would you like to get in on the duckweed action? Would you like
to grow your own renewable energy?
Well, it's easy to grow duckweed. But if you want to grow it all
year, you need to house it. Why? Because duckweed sinks to the
bottom of a pond or still water lake when the temperature
approaches freezing. this prevents it from being trapped in the
ice but, since it can no longer receive adequate sunlight, it
goes into a dormant stage until the water temperature rises
sufficiently in the spring and the duckweed rises to the surface
again to resume rapid growth.
Pacific Domes has a dome designed for that purpose.
Greenhouse Domes
Standard galvanized steel tube frame with anchors
Greenhouse Dome Cover- 13 oz FR vinyl, 82% light transmission,
UV resistant
Base screens for maximum ventilation
Pre hung door or optional hoop door opening
Removable roof
Shade screen interchangeable with removable roof - optional
Solar Exhaust Fan included
Stove vent flashing and pipe-cap - optional
Dome Care Manual including floor plans and assembly instructions
Full information on all kinds of domes including a dome size
simulator here:
HTML http://www.pacificdomes.com/greenhouse-dome/biodomes
HTML http://www.pacificdomes.com/greenhouse-dome/biodomes
You will be happy to know that growing duckweed has many other
benefits as quoted below from an Installer of BioEnergy Domes.
But energy production is only part of the overall equation.
Sean Roberts, who farms five leased acres off East Butler Creek
Road outside of Ashland, is in the process of installing one of
the BioEnergy Domes at his Fiddle Faddle Farm. But he's going to
do more than generate electricity.
In addition to growing duckweed for electricity, he's planning
to grow fish and other vegetables in the dome. Just as duckweed
is stimulated by the water vapor and carbon dioxide, so are
other plants.
"It's an extremely sustainable process," said Roberts, who hopes
to have his system up and running in a few weeks. "You lose less
than 2 percent of water you would use if you were soil farming;
the only water it loses is through evaporation."
Full article here:
HTML http://www.kval.com/news/local/117947779.html
HTML http://www.kval.com/news/local/117947779.html
The internet has a wealth of information how to obtain and grow
any of the 38 varieties of duckweed cheaply. Advances in genome
sequencing of duckweed strains are aiding scientists in zeroing
in on the fastest growing varieties or those that provide the
most nutrition, depending on the requirements in a given
duckweed growing operation.
To keep up with the latest, just Google "Science news articles
about 'duckweed' " or "How to Plant Duckweed".
You have, like most responsible people, asked yourself what you
can do to make this biosphere more livable in the face of all
the pollution and Homo SAP greed that is despoiling it.
There are many things you can do like writing about renewable
energy. But, in addition, if you have access to land which is
not considered prime farm land and would like to grow a great
renewable energy crop so you can save, or even make, some money
while saving the planet, I recommend you give growing duckweed
by setting up your own shallow ponds some serious thought.
"...the easy way to plant duckweed is by removal of plants from
a pond where they grow. Fronds or leaves, 1/16 to 1/8 inch long,
grow hairlike roots from the underneath side of the leaf. These
roots obtain nutrition for the plant from the water in which it
grows. Duckweed is often found growing in companion with water
lilies, pond lilies and other still water aquatic plants."
HTML http://homeguides.sfgate.com/plant-duckweed-21859.html
HTML http://homeguides.sfgate.com/plant-duckweed-21859.html
Stay tuned for Part 3 where I will go into detail about how to
make ethanol from plant sugar(s) in general and duckweed in
particular. You will even learn how to make
moonshine/hooch/white lightnin' or whatever you want to call the
drinkable ethanol.
No, I don't recommend you make your own hooch because drinking
ethanol is a sure way for you to get diabetes or cirrhosis
unless you exercise moderation. The drinkable ethanol is tricky
to make and, if you aren't careful, can poison you to death.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mog.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif
That is not a concern for fuel you will burn in your car.
However, to get to the fuel grade ethanol you go through some
ethanol with a high water content (what booze has in comparison
with E100 ethanol engine fuel as used in Brazil). Booze, even
the undrinkable kind with wood alcohol and acetone poisons in
it, needs further refining to get to 200 proof (100% alcohol
fuel).
Continued in:Duckweed, the Miracle Biofuel Plant Part 3
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg220/#msg220
#Post#: 220--------------------------------------------------
Duckweed, the Miracle Biofuel Plant Part 3
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 30, 2013, 9:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Duckweed is the plant that may save mankind by enabling our
species to live symbiotically, instead of parasitically, with
the biosphere.
HTML http://chestofbooks.com/flora-plants/flowers/Woodland-Blossoms/images/Duckweeds.jpg
In Part 2 of this article I covered the great potential that
duckweed has as the raw material for making everything that the
fossil fuel, chemical and pharmaceutical industries uses fossil
fuels (hydrocarbons) for now.
But you and I, because we don't have chemical or pharmaceutical
laboratories handy, need to concentrate on obtaining ethanol for
heating our houses, water, food, running an emergency generator,
any internal combustion engine lawn tools (although I recommend
you go full electric when they wear out and transition to
geothermal heat pumps for heating and cooling, electric hand and
lawn tools as well as getting solar panels to power your house
and cooking appliances) and, most of all, E100 fuel for your
car.
Going from gasoline, propane or natural gas to ethyl alcohol is
not a simple energy trade; it's an improvement.
Propane and natural gas burn cleaner than gasoline but, as long
as they are fossil fuel derived, harm the environment so we
should do all we can to stop using them.
Why does burning gasoline result in all that smoke and burning
ethanol is so clean?
Without getting into chemistry formulas, what happens with
ethanol is that the oxygen is evenly distributed throughout the
molecule. Consequently, when it burns in air (which provides the
rest of the oxygen needed), all of the ethanol converts to water
and carbon dioxide.
Gasoline, however, because it is a hydrocarbon, has just carbon
and hydrgen atoms (no oxygen). When it burns (combines with the
oxygen in the air) it does not fully react to produce water and
carbon dioxide. There are a couple of reasons for this. First of
all, gasoline is a catch all term for a witches brew of
hydrocarbons that are distilled from a barrel of crude oil in
cracking towers in a refinery that produces the greases, heavy
oil, lighter oil lubricants, heating oils, kerosene and whatever
is left in the form of VOCs (volatile organic compounds).
A note here of clarification: The term "organic" here has
nothing to do with food not grown with chemical fertilizers or
pesticides. In chemistry, the field of "organic" chemistry
generally deals with certain types of carbon compounds so don't
let that word "organic" throw you here.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) – “Hydrocarbon compounds that
have low boiling points, usually less than 100şC, and therefore
evaporate readily. Some are gases at room temperature. Propane,
benzene, and other components of gasoline are all volatile
organic compounds.” - Art, 1993
HTML http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/vocs.html
The VOCs are nasty, carcinogenic waste products like benzene
(causes bone cancer - that is why early automobiles stopped
using it as fuel) and several others (the frackers are pumping
them into the ground in the USA as we speak which will result in
poisoned aquifers in many areas).
Back in the late 19th century, Rockefeller's refineries in
Pennsylvania flush these waste products down the rivers at
night. Rockefeller convinced Henry Ford to use that waste
product (gasoline) in his cars instead of ethanol as had been
recommended by Thomas Edison Laboratories working with the U.S.
Navy in 1906.
Ethanol was such strong competition for gasoline (U.S. farmers
made their own to run their farm machines and cars) that it
wasn't until Prohibition that Rockefeller cornered the
automobile fuel market. Rockefeller had given over 4 million
dollars (an enormous amount of money back then) to a Ladies
Temperance Movement to get the anti-hooch craze going in U.S.
Congress. If you think it was because he didn't want people
drinking, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. This is not a
conspiracy theory, it is history.
John D. Rockefeller was that fine fellow that said, "Competition
is a sin". He also said THIS:"Try to turn every disaster into an
opportunity. "
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
Attributed in [I]The Rockefellers[/I] (1976) by Peter Collier
and David Horowitz
"Measured in today's dollars, Rockefeller is the richest person
in the history of mankind."
HTML http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
Considering the mindset of this fine fellow and his descendants
in the fossil fuel industry, it is not far fetched to believe
than when an opportunity wasn't 'presenting itself' due some
competitive nuisance (like ethanol), [i]they would contrive a
"disaster" for said competition that they could then turn into
an "OPPORTUNITY" (I.E. PROFIT[/I]).
It seems that we can see where the modern, conscience free
expression, "Never waste a crisis" originated. I don't think
Karl Rove and the Bush family invented the idea of deliberately
creating a crisis in order to obtain a profit or stifle
competition, do you? >:(
But all that misery and pollution is environmental damage that
has been done. We can't change the past but we can stop being
ignorant on how it shapes the future for better or, in case of
gasoline, for worse.
So returning to the comparison of burning gasoline versus
ethanol, we see a bunch soot generated when gasoline burns. In
the video the burning is done in open bowls but don't let
anybody try to convince you that inside an engine combustion
chamber, this soot which creates extra friction and reduces your
engine's life is not happening. It is. :o
Gasoline, because it is a fossil fuel and not a uniform
substance of basically identical molecules like we see in
ethanol, has sulfur contamination and may even have heavy metals
in it too, depending on the quality of the crude oil.
As the quality of the crude gets worse (see tar sands and high
sulfur Venezuelan heavy crude oil) the content of the VOCs at
the end of distillation that produce the gasoline are more
polluting. So this problem with gasoline will get even worse as
crude oil gets more scarce or we start getting gasoline from a
horrendously polluting process now being used by Exxon in a
recently built refinery that gasifies coal and turns it into
gasoline (along with a lot of mercury contamination in the
coal). ??? >:(
When the various different hydrocarbon compounds with sulfur and
other contaminants that make gasoline are burned, since the
oxygen is not distributed evenly, you get a lot of carbon
monoxide (incomplete combustion), some carbon dioxide and water
(from complete combustion) and some nitrogen and sulfur (and
other contaminants) compounds. The soot you see is carbon
molecules curling up into partial bucky ball type shapes that
resist further chemical reaction and act as abrasives in your
car, massively increase engine waste heat and are irritants in
your lungs.
Radiative properties of soot particles
HTML http://www.thermopedia.com/content/148/
The U.S. Government tested ethanol (up to E85 only not the
excellent E100 fuel used in Brazil) and found less pollution and
no engine problems. They did claim the pollution "balanced out"
between the two because ethanol had more nitrates but remember
that an internal combustion engine is lubricated with oil from
fossil fuels. Part of this is always in the combustion chamber
so you will never get a truly clean burn as long as the oil is
hydrocarbon based.
Also, had they tested E100, they would have found much less
pollution as well as less engine wear. They didn't want to go
there like Brazil has done over a decade ago. In fact the air
quality in cities in Brazil has made giant strides in pollution
reduction. But, of course, you haven't read that in our
pro-fossil fuel media.
As to the propaganda myths that have been perpetrated by the
fossil fuel industry about ethanol, Let's clear the air. They
are simply a pack of lies. The fuel that really harmful for your
car and for the environment is gasoline, not ethanol. Ethanol is
a a 100% source of sustainable, renewable energy. Don't be
fooled by the Orwellian anti-ethanol fossil fuel propaganda.
Duckweed, the Miracle Biofuel Plant Part 4
HTML http://thehalloffame.wikidot.com/liesofbigoil
#Post#: 3240--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 2, 2015, 10:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Award-Winning Documentary Offers a ‘Surprising Solution to
America’s Oil Addiction’
Cole Mellino | June 2, 2015 11:58 am
--- Quote ---
> The film dives into an array of solutions for a clean energy
future including advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol and
plug-in hybrids. The film contains interviews with a wide range
of notable figures including former Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, Washington Gov.
Jay Inslee, singer/songwriter Jason Mraz,
internationally-acclaimed author Deepak Chopra and actors
Michelle Rodriguez, Amy Smart and Ed Begley, Jr.
--- End Quote ---
Article with pictures and an excellent comment by yours truly ;D
at link:
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/02/freedom-documentary/
#Post#: 3248--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 4, 2015, 1:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Corn Ethanol Is Worse for the Climate Than the Keystone XL
Pipeline, According to EPA’s Own Estimates
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif<br
/>
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/02/corn-ethanol-climate-change/
Don't miss the comments.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
#Post#: 3576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 7, 2015, 9:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One of the best kept secrets (by the fossil fuel government
>:() out there is that an internal combustion engine DESIGNED to
run on ethanol, even though it has higher compression, is
actually far more durable, as well as being nearly thirty
percent cheaper to manufacture. That's right boys and girls, the
witches brew of VOCs and various carbon chain hydrocarbons
called gasoline is HELL on internal combustion engines.
WHY? Because ethanol runs MUCH COOLER 100% of the time! You can
literally put your hand on the block of an engine running
ethanol! The severe wear that an ICE experiences is mainly due
to WASTE HEAT. That is HEAT that is UNUSABLE for MOVING THE
VEHICLE. So they have to over enginner the metal to withstand
all that waste heat. It's STUPID to use gasoline. But we still
do it because that's the way the fossil fuel bought and paid for
government wants it.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Combined with other Renewable Energy sources, ethanol from algae
or [I]Lemna minor[/I] or/and some other plant source can enable
us to transition to 100% Renewable Energy NOW, not 50 years from
now.
The U.S. Renewable energy Laboratory (did you even know we had
one? :o ) ran a TWENTY YEAR (1976-1996) study on algae to
biofuels and SUCCEEDED in numerous breakthroughs that made it
economically feasible to make biofuel for ALL our ICE cars,
trucks, ships, trains and planes (jet fuel too!). And it is
HARDER to get biofuels from algae than from duckweed because
algae is so hydrophilic (it loves to have water in it and around
it so it can use it with the CO2 to make carbohydrates) because
much more energy is needed to dry it than duckweed.
Do you know WHY they dropped the whole thing? I can tell you the
boilerplate bullshit excuse they used. The U.S. Government
claimed (After 20 YEARS of study with several important
breakthroughs that made it DOABLE!) that it "wasn't necessary
because the price of oil had dropped so low".
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
BALONEY! The fossil fuel industry BURIED it just like they did
the fuel farmers made in the 1920's with Prohibition!
But it's back! And it ain't gonna go away THIS TIME. And it IS
contributing to the DEATH of fossil fuels.
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png
#Post#: 3693--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: September 1, 2015, 7:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010915200505.jpeg[/center]
[center]Can We Really [b]Do This?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif
???
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif
[/b]
[/center]
Of course we can. There is enough excess ethanol capacity to get
started now and the technology to make E100 engines is readily
available.
As of June 10, 2015 (Renewable Fuels Association):
212 operating EtOH Plants - 15.401 bill gals capacity
New Plants under const - 0.100 "
Total Capacity: 15.501 billion
gallons
Estimated usage 2015 13.180 billion gallons
(STEO, 6/9/15, EIA)
Estimated Excess capacity: 2.321 billion gallons
Just the current idle/new capacity is enough to fuel >1,000,000
vehicles (15,000 miles/yr @25mpg, 600 gallons/vehicle). By the
time that capacity is used up, the processes to make ethanol
using cellulose and algae for ~$1.50/gallon will be available
enabling us easily to get to the 36 billion gallon federal
requirement by 2022.
To achieve oil independence we need to replace 66 billion
gallons of gasoline. We already have capacity to make 15 billion
gallons of ethanol, so just 51 billion gallons more is required.
Is there enough waste cellulose to do this? Yes. The DOE
published an update of their billion ton annual cellulose
availability paper in August 2011. Using the DOE's very
conservative yield of 85 gallons of ethanol per ton of
cellulose, we could make 85 billion gallons of ethanol without
hurting food production or exports.
Ethanol is a carbon neutral liquid motor fuel. That is, the CO2
produced by burning it goes right back in to growing more
cellulose the next year.
No new carbon needs to be brought up from underground. The waste
cellulose the DOE talks about in the above paper all biodegrades
to CO2 anyway. We might as well pick it up and make ethanol out
of it.
Dr. Bruce Dale and his associates at Michigan State University
confirmed this study in Environmental Science and Technology,
October 2010, with their article Biofuels Done Right: Land
Efficient Animal Feeds Enable Large Environment and Energy
Benefits. They show beyond any doubt that the U.S. can make over
100 billion gallons/yr of ethanol without "decreasing domestic
food production or agricultural exports."
The cost to a retail franchisee to modify an existing storage
tank to accept ethanol is quite site specific, but would be
between $25,000 and $30,000 including a new blender pump with
card reader.
It should be noted that ethanol is already ubiquitous at the
wholesale level. Where ever there is a gasoline terminal, there
is ethanol either in barges, tankcars, or tanktrucks.
An ethanol blender pump is a filling station fuel pump that
allows consumers to select the desired blend of gasoline and
ethanol from E0 (straight gasoline) up to E100 (i.e., Dresser
Waynes's Ovation iX).
The ethanol producer could sell E100 direct to the retail
franchisee bypassing the price setting mechanisms of the oil
companies.
For the 12,000 pump infrastructure -- every 2 miles in the 100
largest cities, 25 miles apart on highways-- the total cost
would be less than
$500 million, a pittance compared to other technologies.
Actually, we already have over 2,000 E100 capable stations since
the existing E85 stations can just switch to E100 with no futher
investment.
Going with higher level intermediate blends such as E20 and E30
is going to cost as much as going to E100 so why not go all the
way to E100?
Is there precedent for such a change in automotive fuel? Yes,
there is -- the change from leaded to unleaded fuel in the
1970's as catalytic converters came on the scene. There was a
lot of dispute about whether this could be done. Yet when the
mandate stayed in place, we switched in quite a short period of
time.
The mandating of at least 50% of new vehicles to be E100 capable
by the end of 2016 is a much easier and lower cost venture than
the switch to unleaded fuel.
Brazil made themselves independent of imported oil by using
flex/fuel engines capable of burning E100. In fact, all retail
motor fuel stations in Brazil must offer E100. If Brazil can do
this, so can we.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010915200646.jpeg[/center]
[center]A Shell station in Sao Paulo. Brazil showing 2 grades
of gasoline and E100.[/center]
This is a political decision to make, not a technical one.
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png
HTML http://www.e100ethanolgroup.com/Can_We_Really_Do_This_.html
AGelbert NOTE: Ethanol as a fuel is far superior to gasoline. I
have learned that ethanol's octane rating is higher than that of
non-leaded gasoline. More thermodynamically important, however,
ethanol combusts completely because it has one consistent
chemical structure and carries it's own oxygen to aid the
process.
In addition, ethanol has extremely low waste heat because,
unlike gasoline, it doesn't produce carbon deposits from
incomplete combustion on the cylinder walls that increase
friction and decrease engine life. Unlike an engine running on
gasoline, you can touch the block, or the manifold, of an engine
running on ethanol with your hand AND KEEP IT THERE without
getting burned. This has huge savings implications for engine
design that the fossil fuel industry has done it's best to keep
from internal combustion engine designers and manufacturers
(more on that below).
"High energy density" calculations are based on EXTERNAL
thermodynamic combustion processes. It is true that gasoline
will boil water in an open flame faster than ethanol will. That
doesn't have beans to do with automobiles.
But when INTERNAL combustion is involved, ethanol produces more
useful work than gasoline. That has EVERYTHING to do with
automobiles.
But there is more the fossil fuel industry does not want most
people to know. Due to the fact that ethanol burns so cleanly
and has such low waste heat, a high compression internal
combustion engine specifically designed for ethanol would be
about 30% lighter (i.e. a lot cheaper) because the metal alloys
involved would not have to be engineered to withstand the engine
stressing waste heat that gasoline generates. Of course, said
internal combustion engine (ICE) could not be approved for
running gasoline. Gasoline would trash an engine designed
specifically to run on ethanol in short order. The fossil fuel
industry would not like that at all. ;)
A lighter ICE running ethanol would then get even more
mechanical energy out of each gallon because less engine weight
would need to be moved along with the car and occupants.
The only way gasoline's higher energy density than ethanol would
make it a superior fuel is if cars were run by EXTERNAL
combustion processes like a steam engine.
The Fossil Fuel Industry knows all that. That is why they
continuously try to demonize and talk down ethanol biofuel with
mendacity and dissembling about "low ERoEI", "water in the fuel"
and "corrosion".
I, and many others, have exposed all that fossil fuel industry
self serving propaganda. We need fossil fuels like a hole in the
head.
#Post#: 3697--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: September 2, 2015, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Shilling for Dollars[/center]
[center]
HTML https://frackorporation.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/gilbert-ross.gif[/center]
Front groups with official and impressive name such as Medicine
and Public Health at the American Council on Science and Health
(ACSH) tend to lend an air of authoritative credibility to a
given issue. It carries the impression of being an expert
source.
To increase the “expert credibility” image, add someone with a
few letters before and/or after their name to the staff.
But is the front group or its representatives really an expert
and credible organization?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif
Full article:
HTML https://frackorporation.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/shilling-for-dollars/
Agelbert NOTE: The short answer is NO. The ACSH is funded by a
rogues gallery of polluters. The scientists they employ are
bought and paid for to distort, dissemble and twist the science
of applied physics (see "High Energy Density" of fossil fuels
happy talk) and climate science along with several other
pro-corporate and anti-people propaganda). The ACSH exists to
perpetuate the profit over planet polluting status quo, PERIOD.
[center]Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and
Health[/center]
Posted on April 17, 2015 by Gary Ruskin
The American Council on Science and Health is a front group for
the tobacco, agrichemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other
industries.
Personnel
ACSH’s “Medical/Executive Director” is Dr. Gilbert Ross.[2] In
1993, according to United Press International, Dr. Ross was
“convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was
“sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture and
restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid
system.[3]
ACSH’s Dr. Ross was found to be a “highly untrustworthy
individual” by a judge who sustained the exclusion of Dr. Ross
from Medicaid for ten years.[4]
Funding
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
ACSH has often billed itself as an “independent” group, and has
been referred to as “independent” in the press. However,
according to internal ACSH financial documents obtained by
Mother Jones:
“ACSH planned to receive a total of $338,200 from tobacco
companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and
Phillip Morris International were each listed as expected to
give $100,000 in 2013, which would make them the two largest
individual donations listed in the ACSH documents.”[5]
“ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron
($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb
Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer
Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness
giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000),
and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000).
Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for
financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British
American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Philip Morris
International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled
Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker
Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom
Trust.”[6]
ACSH has received $155,000 in contributions from Koch
foundations from 2005-2011, according to Greenpeace.[7]
Indefensible and incorrect statements on science
ACSH has:
Claimed that “There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand
smoke involves heart attacks or cardiac arrest.”[8]
Argued that “there is no scientific consensus concerning global
warming. The climate change predictions are based on computer
models that have not been validated and are far from
perfect.”[9]
Argued that fracking “doesn’t pollute water or air.”[10]
Claimed that “The scientific evidence is clear. There has never
been a case of ill health linked to the regulated, approved use
of pesticides in this country.”[11]
Declared that “There is no evidence that BPA [bisphenol A] in
consumer products of any type, including cash register receipts,
are harmful to health.”[12]
Argued that the exposure to mercury, a potent neurotoxin, “in
conventional seafood causes no harm in humans.”[13]
Footnotes
[2] “Meet the ACSH Team,” American Council on Science and Health
website.
[3] “Seven Sentenced for Medicaid Fraud.” United Press
International, December 6, 1993. See also correspondence from
Tyrone T. Butler, Director, Bureau of Adjudication, State of New
York Department of Health to Claudia Morales Bloch, Gilbert Ross
and Vivian Shevitz, “RE: In the Matter of Gilbert Ross, M.D.”
March 1, 1995. Bill Hogan, “Paging Dr. Ross.” Mother Jones,
November 2005. Martin Donohoe MD FACP, “Corporate Front Groups
and the Abuse of Science: The American Council on Science and
Health (ACSH).” Spinwatch, June 25, 2010.
[4] Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental
Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, In the Cases of Gilbert
Ross, M.D. and Deborah Williams M.D., Petitioners, v. The
Inspector General. June 16, 1997. Docket Nos. C-94-368 and
C-94-369. Decision No. CR478.
[5] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the
Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones,
October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health
Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones,
October 28, 2013.
[6] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the
Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones,
October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health
Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones,
October 28, 2013.
[7] “Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: American
Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Greenpeace. See also
Rebekah Wilce, “Kochs and Corps Have Bankrolled American Council
on Science and Health.” PR Watch, July 23, 2014.
[8] Richard Craver, “The Effects of the Smoking Ban.”
Winston-Salem Journal, December 12, 2012.
[9] Elizabeth Whelan, “’Global Warming’ Not Health Threat.” PRI
(Population Research Institute) Review, January 1, 1998.
[10] Elizabeth Whelan, “Fracking Doesn’t Pose Health Risks.” The
Daily Caller, April 29, 2013.
[11] “TASSC: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition,” p. 9.
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San
Francisco. November 21, 2001. Bates No. 2048294227-2048294237.
[12] “The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012.” American
Council on Science and Health, February 22, 2013.
[13] “The Biggest Unfounded Health Scares of 2010.” American
Council on Science and Health, December 30, 2010.
Food For Thought, Hall of Shame
HTML http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/
Agelbert NOTE: Here is an excellent example of pseudo scientific
baloney published by the ACSH (it's three years old but the same
baloney continues to be peddled by fossil fuelers and those that
swallowed their mendacious propaganda):
Energy Density: Why Gasoline Is Here To Stay
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg
By Hank Campbell
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>| August 2nd 2012 11:00 PM
SNIPPET 1 - The Pretense of Objectivity Wind Up (i.e. tough love
"real world" baloney mixed with sympathy laced rhetoric):
Like people who approach geopolitics with the attitude of "If
people would just talk to each other, we would all along", there
are a lot of naďve assumptions about just dumping gasoline.
We know it causes emissions, and emissions are bad, we know a
lot of the money paid for oil goes to fund Middle Eastern
terrorism, and that is bad - those things should cause both the
left and the right in America to want gasoline gone. And yet it
is not gone. The reason is simple: gasoline is a lot more
efficient than alternative energy proponents want to believe.
SNIPPET 2 - The pitch:
Energy density is the amount of stored energy in something; in
the case of gasoline we talk in America about a 1 gallon volume
but I will use both metric and standard for the values. Gasoline
has an energy density of about 44 megajoules per kilogram
(MJ/kg), converted to American values that is 1.3 × 108
J/gallon.
SNIPPET 3 (Just ONE of SEVERAL real world AND applied physics
LIES):
Ethanol was the last craze of the Anything-But-Oil contingent
yet even they had to succumb to reality and recognize that the
lower energy density meant 25% worse gas mileage - worse for
people, worse for food prices and worse for the environment.
HTML http://www.science20.com/science_20/energy_density_why_gasoline_here_stay-91403
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090315203150.png[/center]
Agelbert NOTE: To begin with, ethanol is not a "craze". It was
not a craze in 2012 and, because presently 15 billion gallons of
it are made a year
HTML http://www.e100ethanolgroup.com/Can_We_Really_Do_This_.html,
it
certainly isn't one now.
But the fact that the author is so ignorant of history (Edison
labs in partnership with the U.S. Navy, in the first decade of
the 20th century, PROVED that ethanol was a superior fuel to
gasoline - It was rather convenient for Standard Oil that
Prohibition just happened to come along after Rockefeller funded
the temperance movement to the tune of several million
dollars...) is informative about the questionable scientific
objectivity of the author. ;)
The author puts up a happy talk graph showing gasoline as the
high energy density champion over E85. He leaves out E100 (an
informative omission that points squarely at a fossil fuel
bias).
The chart is accurate. So what's the problem? The problem is
that energy density of gasoline and ethanol is a process
determined in the lab, by scientists, in certain standardized
conditions. I'm CERTAIN fossil fuelers know this. The energy
density of about 44 MJ/kg) for gasoline is determined by heating
water, in an open flame in standard atmospheric conditions (a
fixed temperature and pressure - sea level at 59 degrees F).
If the above appears irrelevant to you, let me remind you that
heating water in an open flame is an EXTERNAL combustion
process. It is true that gasoline will heat that water quicker
than ethanol. ;D
But, unless you have a steam engine running your car, you need
to consider how much WORK you can get from gasoline versus
ethanol in an INTERNAL combustion engine.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
The author neglected to mention that ethanol (E100) has a higher
octane rating than non-leaded gasoline, even though E100 has a
lower energy density. ;D High octane ratings give a fuel better
mileage as long as you oxidize them in a high compression
internal combustion engines. That is why tetra-ethyl lead was
invented to help our children's IQ... You see, ethanol was
outlawed for fuel thanks to Prohibition... And, by the way,
leaded gasoline is STILL LEGAL for use in aircraft internal
combustion engine, all of which are high compression engines. Do
you live under the approach to general aviation airport? Then
you are getting the "benefit" of still another "externalized"
cost thanks to the fossil fuel industry.
When you mix gasoline with ethanol (e.g. E85) you LOWER the
octane rating. IOW, you are making it LESS efficient. You are
making it LESS competitive with gasoline. You are getting the
waste heat disadvantage of gasoline and losing the a part of the
high octane rating of ethanol. That is Inefficient. That is
unscientific. That is STUPID. But that is convenient and
profitable for the fossil fuel industry. You might ask yourself
why E100 is in common use in Brazil, but not in the USA. I'll
give you three guesses - the first two don't count. ;)
Why ethanol's octane rating is higher than that of non-leaded
gasoline if ethanol has a lower energy density? Because ethanol
is of uniform chemical structure. Consequently, it burns evenly
and does not suffer from pre-ignition (like low octane gasoline
DOES) which can severely damage an engine.
More thermodynamically important, however, the consistent
chemical structure of E100 ensures complete combustion, aided by
the fact that it carries it's own oxygen.
In addition, ethanol has extremely low waste heat because,
unlike gasoline, it doesn't produce carbon deposits from
incomplete combustion on the cylinder walls that increase
friction and decrease engine life.
Unlike an engine running on gasoline, you can touch the block,
or the manifold, of an engine running on ethanol with your hand
AND KEEP IT THERE without getting burned. This has huge savings
implications for engine design that the fossil fuel industry has
done it's best to keep from internal combustion engine designers
and manufacturers (more on that below).
IN SUMMARY, "High energy density" calculations are based on
EXTERNAL thermodynamic combustion processes. It is true that
gasoline will boil water in an open flame faster than ethanol
will. That doesn't have beans to do with automobiles.
But when INTERNAL combustion is involved, ethanol produces more
useful work than gasoline. That has EVERYTHING to do with
automobiles.
But there is more the fossil fuel industry does not want most
people to know. Due to the fact that ethanol burns so cleanly
and has such low waste heat, a high compression internal
combustion engine specifically designed for ethanol would be
about 30% lighter (i.e. a lot cheaper) because the metal alloys
involved would not have to be engineered to withstand the engine
stressing waste heat that gasoline generates. Of course, said
internal combustion engine (ICE) could not be approved for
running gasoline. Gasoline would trash an engine designed
specifically to run on ethanol in short order. The fossil fuel
industry would not like that at all.
[color=green]A lighter ICE running ethanol would then get even
more mechanical energy (i.e. WORK) out of each gallon because
less engine weight would need to be moved along with the car and
occupants.[/color]
The Fossil Fuel Industry knows all that. That is why they
continuously try to demonize and talk down ethanol biofuel with
mendacity and dissembling about "low ERoEI", "water in the fuel"
and "corrosion".
I, and many others, have exposed all that fossil fuel industry
self serving propaganda. But they just keep throwing it out
there to try to preserve the TOTALLY unscientific basis for
claiming fossil fuels are a "better fuel" than E100 (pure
ethanol).
Don't believe them. And check to see who is doing the funding
when you read happy talk about fossil fuels.
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is not
objective, science based or credible. Hank Campbell, like the
fossil fueler MKing that haunts the Doomstead Diner, is not
interested in scientific objectivity; preserving the fossil fuel
profit over planet status quo with mens rea mendacity is behind
everything they write.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Further reading that methodically takes apart some relatively
recent pseudo scientific baloney by the "illustrious" Professor
Charles Hall, friend of fossil fuelers everywhere.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.pnghttp://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
[center] Renewables have higher ERoEI than fossil fuels
HTML http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.com/2014/07/renewables-have-higher-eroei-than.html<br
/>[/center]
[center]
HTML http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/yayayoy/yayayoy1106/yayayoy110600019/9735563-smiling-sun-showing-thumb-up.jpg<br
/>[/center]
#Post#: 4049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 27, 2015, 7:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Sustainability in Bioenergy Video[/move]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH_nhmVzjVU&feature=player_embedded
[center]Biofuels can bridge the gap to transition to 100%
Renewables. We need fossil fuels like a HOLE IN THE HEAD!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif[/center]
#Post#: 4305--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 9, 2016, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML http://files.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/first-model-t.jpg[/center]
[center]1908 Ford Model T.[/I] [i]The first Ford Model T rolled
out of the factory on September 27, 1908.
HTML http://www.doobybrain.com/2008/09/29/a-century-since-the-introduction-of-the-ford-model-t/[/center]
[center]Fuel choice lost
[/center]
January 6, 2016
by Nathan Taft
Picture this.
You’re driving down the road and you notice your tank is almost
empty — time to fill up. You pull into a fueling station and see
the price of gasoline has gone up quite a bit since the last
time you were there. Instead of gritting your teeth and shelling
out more than you’d like on gasoline, you look to see what the
price per gallon is for kerosene and ethanol. And you’re in
luck: Both kerosene and ethanol are selling at a lower price
than gasoline, with kerosene being the cheapest. You refuel your
car with kerosene, keeping that extra money you would have spent
on gasoline in your pocket, and go on your way.
Sounds ridiculous, right? Sure, it would be nice if the world
worked like that and we could choose what fuel we used, but we
simply don’t have the technology. Take your unobtainable,
utopian pipe dream somewhere else and talk about realistic
solutions to our oil addiction.
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
Well, I’ve got some news for you. That paragraph up above?
That’s not wishful thinking or science fiction. That’s how many
people lived as early as 1908. The first mass-produced car — the
Ford Model T — was designed as a tri-fuel vehicle capable of
running gasoline, ethanol, kerosene, or a mix of the three. It
allowed for competition in the fuels marketplace, keeping the
price of fuel low and ensuring drivers weren’t charged a premium
to fill up. That’s how the world used to work, and how, ideally,
it could work again. That’s what fuel choice was.
Unfortunately, despite Ford’s conviction that biofuels like
ethanol would be the “fuel of the future” because it was a
higher-octane, cleaner fuel and could be made easily in farms
across the nation, that was not to be. Through a combination of
dirty market tactics from the oil industry and the introduction
of toxic lead instead of ethanol as a gasoline additive, ethanol
was strong-armed out of our fuel infrastructure, and the
American people lost the ability to choose and make their own
fuel.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
However, a century later, America is finally in a position to
fight back.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210614221847.gifThere<br
/>are 19 million flex-fuel vehicles in the U.S. that can run
both
ethanol and gasoline, and gas stations are adding more ethanol
(E85) pumps every day. But that alone won’t be enough to give
back the right of fuel choice to all Americans.
To do that, Americans like you and me need to work together. We
need to tell our local gas stations that we want them to sell
[size=14pt]ethanol. [/size]We need to check our vehicles to see
if they’re already flex-fuel capable. And if we’re in the market
for a new car or truck, we should consider a flex-fuel capable
model. We need to start converting our existing vehicles to be
flex-fuel capable. We need to send a message to the fuel
retailers, to the car manufacturers, and to the oil companies
that says: We want our fuel choice back, and we want it now.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif<br
/>
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png
Related posts:
These customers love E85, for very different reasons
Americans need fuel choice
Cellulosic ethanol has finally arrived
Next step for Volt, Green Car of the Year, should be E85
capability
Tags: E85, Economy, Ethanol, FFV, flex fuel, flex-fuel vehicle,
Ford, fuel choice, Gasoline, kerosene, Model T, Oil Addiction
HTML http://www.fuelfreedom.org/fuel-choice-lost/
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page