DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4357--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 17, 2016, 3:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Elephant Grass and Prairie Switchgrass: Second
Generation Biofuels to Power American Cars
HTML http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/xig/ojx/xigojx6KT.png[/center]
Tim Radford, Climate News Network | January 17, 2016 11:21 am
In tomorrow’s world, it won’t be just the corn on the great
American plains that is as high as an elephant’s eye. It will be
the elephant grass as well.
To deliver on U.S. promises to reduce fossil fuel use, American
motorists in future will drive on miscanthus—as elephant grass
is also known—and prairie switchgrass.
[center]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/biograss750.jpg[/center]
[center]Elephant grass has a high biomass yield and grows
rapidly to over three metres tall.
Photo credit: Tony Atkin / Wikimedia Commons[/center]
Researchers led by Evan DeLucia, professor of biology at the
University of Illinois, report in a new journal, Nature Energy,
that to exploit biofuels—which recycle carbon already in the
atmosphere, and are therefore technically
“carbon-neutral”—Americans will have to think again about how
they manage the change away from fossil fuels.
Right now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable
Fuel Standards foresee that by 2022 American motorists will
start up their cars with 15 billion gallons (57 billion liters)
of ethanol from corn. But this could be augmented by 16 billion
gallons (60 billion litres) of biofuel derived from perennial
grasses.
Energy Source
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/muscular.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-013.gif
The switch to the prairie’s native switchgrass (Panicum
virgatum) and Eurasian elephant grass (Miscanthus giganteus)
will be necessary because there are problems with corn as a
source of energy.
One is that, in an increasingly hungry world, it reduces the
overall levels of food available. The second is that corn
requires annual planting, fertilizing and harvesting. Perennial
grasses simply grow, and can be mown once a year.
So by turning over surplus land to swift-growing grasses, and at
the same time reducing the levels of carbon dioxide released
from cultivation, the U.S. could meet its target of a 7 percent
reduction in its annual transportation emissions by 2022. If
farmers went on gradually to switch from corn to the grasses,
the reduction could get as high as 12 percent.
Professor DeLucia said: “Greenhouse gas savings from bioenergy
have come under varying levels of attack, and this paper goes a
long way to showing that, contrary to what some are saying,
these savings can be potentially large if cellulosic biofuels
from dedicated energy crops meet a large share of the mandate.
“This is a viable path forward to energy security, reducing
greenhouse gases and providing a diversified crop portfolio for
farmers in the U.S.”
The researchers used a climate model to test what would happen
if land now being used to grow corn (Zea mays) for
ethanol—currently, 40 percent of the corn harvest is used for
biofuel—was switched to the two candidate grasses.
Store More Carbon
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png
“Our results were staggering,” Professor DeLucia said. “Since
both of those plants are perennial, you don’t till every year.
The grasses also require less fertilizer, which is a source of
nitrous oxide, and they store more carbon in the ground than
corn.”
The switch could turn the U.S. Midwest from a net source of
greenhouse gas emissions to a “sink” absorbing them. The study
assumed that, rather than the most productive soil, the
low-yielding land would be converted to grasses for biofuel.
It also factored in some of the other consequences: if the extra
billions of gallons of fuel led to a fall in fuel prices, would
Americans drive more, and eliminate the carbon savings? Even if
that did happen, such a change has the potential to reduce U.S.
emissions overall.
But growers have to be sure that energy policies will be
consistent, according to the paper’s co-author, Madhu Khanna,
professor in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer
Economics at the University of Illinois.
--- Quote ---
> “The moral of this whole story is that we need to find a way
to expand the production of second generation biofuel crops and
maybe even displace corn ethanol,” she said.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/17/second-generation-biofuels/
Agelbert NOTE: Nice article.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/computer3.gif
Unfortunately, the mandatory baloney from a fossil fueler
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif
gets spewed out
every single time the benefits of ethanol are pointed out in an
article... ::)
--- Quote ---
> rusty hesson
> With a 7-30 % reduction in fuel milage Ethanol never has or
will "replace oil".
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif
--- End Quote ---
[color=purple]Agelbert responds to propagandized idiot:
That has ALWAYS been a lie fostered by the fossil fuel industry.
Once engines have the proper compression ratio, E100 (100%
ethanol) gives the same or better mileage with LESS engine wear
BECAUSE there is LESS waste heat from the combustion process.
The alleged "greater energy density" of gasoline versus ethanol
is based on enthalpy calculations that measure EXTERNAL
combustion (i.e. boiling water in an OPEN flame). It is true
that gasoline produces more raw heat. BUT, a significant portion
of that HEAT is WASTE HEAT that merely increases engine wear and
DOES NOT translate to mechanical energy in INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINES. Not only must gasoline combustion waste heat be
SUBTRACTED from it's energy density, the INCREASED FRICTION
created by that WASTE HEAT must be subtracted as well.
--- Quote ---
> .. the irrelevancy of Btu as a measurement of ethanol
performance compared to gasoline that gets into a lengthy
dialogue about what a Btu measures and a discussion on engines.
“The whole creation of Btu rating and understanding was to
determine what it takes to heat water one degree. This was
important (and still is important) when dealing with steam
engines or water heaters or cooking using fire. Btus have no
importance in internal combustion engines. Engine optimization
is the key.
HTML http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/12432/ethanol-chronicles-launches-blog-to-answer-fuel-critics
--- End Quote ---
Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots
Believe Them
HTML http://renewablerevolution.http
://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg26/#msg26
The truth that the fossil fuel industry propaganda wishes to
hide by erroneously claiming ethanol is not a better fuel than
gasoline [I](even though Thomas Edison and the U.S. Naval
Laboratories said ethanol WAS A BETTER FUEL way back in 1906!)
[/I] goes way beyond mere fuel economy.
Modern technology from studies HERE and in Brazil have
determined the following inconvenient (for the fossil fuel
industry) FACTS:
1) A high compression engine designed specifically to run on
ethanol is at least 33% lighter because the alloys do not have
to be engineered to handle the high waste heat of gasoline. Said
engine will have BETTER mileage because of the consistency of
the fuel (ethanol is only one consistent chemical compound at a
consistent and predictable combustion temperature, unlike
gasolene) reduced weight, lower maintenance and longer life from
running consistently at lower temperatures. Of course, using
gasoline in it would be prohibited. Running on the witches brew
of volatile organic compounds, industrial solvents ([I] up to
40% of a gallon of NON-hydrocarbon content of gasoline that
dissolve plastics quite well) and various DIFFERENT long chained
hydrocarbons called gasolene would ruin such an engine.[/I] So
you can see how the fossil fuel industry would not be happy
campers about allowing such an engine to be manufactured in, or
imported to the USA. In fact, your beloved fossil fuel crooks
and liars have made it a LAW in the USA that ethanol MUST have a
certain amount of gasoline in it in the USA. The threadbare
excuse is "to prevent people form drinking unlicensed booze"
(LOL!). Brazil is not amused. They use E100 without ANY
difficulty whatsoever.
2) Ethanol DOES NOT require REDUCING the amount of crops grown
for food, either for people or animals. WHY? Because crops such
as switchgrass, Hemp and SEVERAL OTHERS can be grown on NON
chemically fertilized land considered NON arable land for food
crops.
3) As Abengoa has demonstrated, the cellulose refuse from food
crops, hitherto thrown out (stalks and roots from corn) CAN be
processed into ethanol without making a dent in the acreage used
for food crops. So the crocodile tears from the fossil fuel
industry about ethanol taking food out of people's mouths is
ANOTHER LIE.
GASOLENE is a WASTE PRUDUCT from the refining of crude oil. John
D. Rockefeller used to poison horses and cows that drank in the
rivers of Pennsylvania (downriver from his refinery) in the
late nineteenth century when he would flush it down the river at
night (the farmers tried to mob him for it!) when his main
product was lubricants. Rockefeller began the Fossil fuel
tradition of "externalizing costs" FROM THE START.
It was John D. Rockefeller that convinced Henry Ford to MODIFY
his Model T engines so they run on gasoline instead of what they
ALREADY ran on, ethanol.
It was John D. Rockefeller who FUNDED efforts at Prohibition
that ended up FORCING farmers to run their tractors on gasoline
instead of ethanol. Yes, sports fans, Prohibition WAS NOT really
about booze. It was REALLY about cornering the fuel market on
behalf of Jon D. Rockefeller's, WASTE product.
[center]
HTML http://quotespictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/competition-is-a-sin.jpg[/center]
It was John D. Rockefeller's fossil fuel Standard Oil empire
that introduced LEADED gasoline (tetra ethyl lead additive from
Du Pont) when ethanol was accidentally on purpose
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>outlawed as an engine fuel during Prohibition [I](ethanol has
a
higher octane than gasoline so a replacement was needed for high
compression engines) [/I] .
For those who say that leaded gasoline has been outlawed so that
is no longer a problem
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif,
let me
enlighten you.
TO THIS DAY, internal combustion engine powered small aircraft
in the USA STILL use LEADED GASOLENE when the technology to run
those engines on E100 has been available for several decades. It
is LEGAL to run that green died stuff called avgas containing
TETRA ETHYL LEAD.
Every single bit of damage to humans and other life forms in the
biosphere from leaded gasoline going all the way back to
Prohibition, including the children of people living under the
approach path to runways of general aviation airports is an
"externalized cost" that we-the-people have been FORCED to
subsidize for the benefit of fossil fuel industry profits.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif<br
/>It's time to return gasoline to the category of WASTE PRODUCT
again. It's time for the fossil fuel industry to PAY WHAT THEY
OWE we-the-people for the environmental DAMAGE caused by its
waste products, ALL OF THEM.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif
Prosecute Exxon For Deliberate Climate Denial
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg3873/#msg3873
Renewable is the cheaper energy option without fossil fuel and
hidden nuclear subsides.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-u-s/msg3369/#msg3369
#Post#: 4358--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 17, 2016, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> the growth of the petroleum industry in the 1860s was greatly
aided by the heavy federal tax on its primary competitor .The
myth that petroleum was at first a dramatic deliverance from the
darkness, and then the only important fuel for the horseless
carriage, indicates the extent to which oil industry historians
have been influenced by the rhetoric of the technological
sublime. In fact, early automotive inventors resorted to both
petroleum and alcohol spirit lamp fuels as readily available
energy sources.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/about-bk/research/henry-ford-charles-kettering-and-the-fuel-of-the-future/
HTML http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/about-bk/research/henry-ford-charles-kettering-and-the-fuel-of-the-future/
--- Quote ---
> [b]U.S. Congress Lifts Alcohol Tax in 1906
>
> American farmers watched the growing use of alcohol fuel in
Europe with great interest. Their markets were glutted with
grain surpluses created when vast new tracts of virgin prairie
were plowed under to produce bumper crops. To absorb these
surpluses, many looked to the market for liquid fuels created by
the widespread acceptance of the automobile. It seemed logical
to replace their declining market for horses by growing fuel for
the horseless carriage.
>
> In 1906, the farm lobby found an ally in President Theodore
Roosevelt, a bitter foe of the oil industry. Although embroiled
in other disputes at the time, Roosevelt sent a message of
support for the repeal of the alcohol tax to the House of
Representatives, saying it provided a possible check to the
depredations of the oil trust.50 In April, 1906, a bill to
repeal the alcohol sales tax sailed through the House on a 224
to 7 vote with widespread support from farm-belt
representatives. Additional support came from the Temperance
Party, which saw in alcohol fuel a beneficial use for a
pernicious commodity.
>
> When the Senate Finance Committee
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg<br
/>attempted to table the “Free Alcohol” bill
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif,
the president of the
Automobile Club of America said that he was considerably
surprised and disappointed at the Senate committee, although he
did not think Standard Oil would oppose the bill.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
“Gasoline is
growing scarcer, and therefore dearer, all the time… Automobiles
cannot use gasoline for all time, of that I am sure, and alcohol
seems to be the best substitute that has yet appeared.”51 U.S.
Senator Champ Clark of Missouri, however, placed “the
Rockefellers”
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif
squarely
in the opposing camp as attempting to retain the tax on a
potential competitor.52
>
> The Senate passed the bill May 24, 1906, and the New York
Times again noted the low cost of alcohol (14 cents from corn,
nine and a half cents from molasses) as compared to the high
price of kerosene and gasoline (18 and 22 cents, respectively).
“The new fuel and illuminant will utilize completely an
important class of agricultural crops and byproducts thus
benefiting in a double sense the farms and villages throughout
the country,” an editorial said.55 Roosevelt signed the bill
June 8, 1906.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/about-bk/research/henry-ford-charles-kettering-and-the-fuel-of-the-future/
HTML http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/about-bk/research/henry-ford-charles-kettering-and-the-fuel-of-the-future/
Agelbert Observation: In the light of the setback in
Rockefeller's bought and paid for Senate, Plan B (i.e.
Prohibition funding) was initiated. Rockefeller did profit
extensively from gasoline sales when the ethanol fuel market was
destroyed by Prohibition.
But, the tax on alcohol after the Civil War is PRECISELY what
enabled the big switch to kerosene lighting in the USA and the
quick growth of Rockefeller's fortunes.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
He was ALREADY used to
crowding out alcohol for lighting AND engine fuels. Yes, sports
fans, there were engines that ran on alcohol in Europe during
the 19th century (long before the Model T). Just go to this
link
HTML http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/about-bk/research/henry-ford-charles-kettering-and-the-fuel-of-the-future/<br
/>for all the details. From (at least) 1900 until Prohibition,
the
scientifically proven (Thomas Edison and the U.S. Naval
Laboratories) supremacy of ethanol over gasoline as a fuel was
being shouted from the roof tops (and the New York Times too
;D).
--- Quote ---
> Adocates have seen in alcohol fuels the potential for
revolutionizing agricultural economics, for dispelling city
smog, and for curbing the power of the petroleum industry over
the economy. In addition, the idea that agriculture and
biological resources could be primary sources of energy, the
idea that humankind could live on solar “income” rather than
fossil fuel “capital,” has held a fascination for several
generations of automotive and agricultural engineers. Proponents
could see in ethyl alcohol the potential to help strike balance
between city and farm and the prospect of civilizing and
humanizing industrial machinery.
>
>
HTML http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Muse.jpg
> For example, this hope is graphically depicted in the
symbolism used at the 1902 Paris alcohol fuel exposition. On the
cover of the exposition’s proceedings, a muse with an
overflowing bouquet of roses looks down over the steering wheel
with a confident smile. She is a portrait of wisdom and beauty,
firmly in control of a gentle machine which seems appropriately
located in some lush flower garden. 8
--- End Quote ---
You see, most Americans labor under the view that the OIL
refinery WASTE product, gasoline, was CHEAPER than ethanol.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
So,
therefore, gasoline was better able to COMPETE with ethanol.
That is a LIE! From the start, the LAW is what priced the
competition out and made the "hard working Capitalist"
Rockefeller his fortune. The LAW was a back door SUBSIDY from
the start! Efficiency, superior thermodynamic output, energy
density and the fuel characteristics did not have ANYTHING TO DO
WITH IT. Ethanol was, and still is, the better fuel.
Rockefeller temporarily lost his "competitive edge" in 1906.
Rockefeller found himself on a level energy competition playing
field. Rockefeller, the model for all fossil fuelers from then
on, disliked fair play intensely. He was, as are ALL fossil
fuelers in the USA, fervent Capitalists.
Ethical behavior is a weakness to be abhorred by true
Capitalists. So, Plan B was set in motion to, once again, obtain
the "competitive edge" for fossil fuels.
[center]
HTML http://quotes.lifehack.org/media/quotes/quote-John-D.-Rockefeller-competition-is-a-sin-42310.png[/center]
[center]The Great Scheme: Alcohol-based fuels, Ford,
Rockefeller, and Prohibition. [/center]
--- Quote ---
> One of the many bits of information I gleaned from my
discussions with Tapahpunja yesterday has to do with the
prohibition of alcohol. This is a multifaceted issue that
concerns spirituality, social control, energy production, and US
History. From the standpoint of a Hindu, alcohol consumption is
forbidden. This makes sense in the context of social
interaction. There is no debate that alcohol abuse contributes
to many of our social problems today. Having had ample
experience with alcoholics, I know firsthand what addiction can
do to relationships. Many domestic incidents and other types of
criminal activity involve the use of alcohol. Meanwhile, there
is much evidence that alcohol negatively affects more organs of
the human body than any other legal or illegal drug. Despite all
these possible consequences, I have no plans to stop consuming
alcohol. I believe there are some positive social effects that
occur with its moderate use, and there is some scientific data
that demonstrates that it can be consumed healthily.
>
> But there is an entirely different dimension to alcohol that I
wasn't even aware of. Alcohol may be an option in dealing with
the impending energy and environmental crises of the
Twenty-first Century. It is a little known fact that Brazil is
the world leader in the production of bioalcohol fuel. Because
of recent concerns of rising gasoline prices, President Bush
visited Sao Paulo (on March 7, 2007) to sign agreements on
importing alcohol fuel and its technology. Vehicles using this
fuel were actually widespread in the late 1970's in Brazil, but
gasoline reclaimed its market share in the 1980's. With
anxieties about the world oil supply once again in the forefront
of many minds, this option has become increasingly attractive.
>
> The advantages of alcohol-based fuels are multi-faceted. They
burn completely and efficiently and produce 100% less carbon
monoxide emissions because the byproducts of their consumption
include only carbon dioxide, water and heat. Interestingly,
although alcohol-based fuel produces as much CO2 emission as
gasoline, its effect is counterbalanced by the fact that CO2 is
actually drawn from the environment in the process of its
production. Therefore there is no modern net release. While much
of the efforts concerning the manufacture of these types of fuel
involve corn... there are much more efficient raw crop materials
available. Sugar beets (for example) contain less cellulose, and
their waste fibers raise the alcohol yield. So why do so many
Americans sing the praises of corn-based biofuel? ??? For that
answer you have to research the political and economic
ramifications of our corporate farming monoculture. That lies
beyond the scope of this post.
>
> But the most fascinating aspect of the connection between
alcohol and fuel use concerns a little known (or discussed)
aspect of American history. To understand this relationship, one
must examine some contextual information of the early Twentieth
Century. Most people are not aware that Henry Ford's Model T
came in a variation that allowed the driver to switch the
carburetor to run the engine on farm-made ethyl alcohol. This
allowed the operator to stop at local farms (equipped with
stills) to refuel his/her car during long trips through the
backcountry. After all- the gas station wasn't exactly as
ubiquitous in those days, as it is now. The Standard Oil Company
and its industrialist-founder John D. Rockefeller wasn't too
happy with this arrangement. After all, Rockefeller's company
had a virtual monopoly on gasoline at this time in our nation's
development.
>
> It should be evident to any serious student of history that
John D. Rockefeller was no political progressive. His fights
with muckraker Ida Tarbell are legendary. She was ultimately
responsible for the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust in
1911. Not that this actually hurt Rockefeller- his wealth
actually increased after Standard Oil broke up. Rockefeller held
significant interests in the resulting companies, which included
the precursors of today's Seven Sisters oil companies. The
break-up of Standard Oil actually made him the wealthiest man in
the world, as the share values of most of these companies
doubled. Yet Rockefeller would find benefit once again within
the reform movement that he considered his enemy. Since the late
1800's there had been a growing Alcohol Temperance Movement
developing among reformers. Rockefeller saw an opportunity in
this. It is well-documented that local efforts to curb alcohol
consumption were expanded to the national level when
high-profile figures like Rockefeller joined in the anti-alcohol
efforts. Was he so concerned with the social problems that abuse
of alcohol was said to cause?
>
> No... John D. Rockefeller was not concerned with family
dynamics in the working classes. But he was influential in
changing the goals of the movement from temperance to
prohibition. As we know, his contribution to the outlawing of
the production and sale of alcohol was successful. Of course,
Rockefeller and the oil companies reaped tremendous profits as a
result. Remember that the period covered by the 18th Amendment
(1919-1933) coincided with the huge rise in the sale and
operation of automobiles. America was on the move, and all of
these cars were now operated solely on gasoline. By the time
that the 21st Amendment was passed, ending the prohibition of
alcohol, the standard was already set and worked completely in
the favor of the Rockefeller family.
>
> These events have had a tremendous development on the American
economy, foreign policy direction, and the environment. In fact
the consequences are worldwide. It is easy to lose sight of the
big picture, and concentrate on the many subplots involving
Detroit's suppression of alternative fuel technologies. The
chapters being written in today's tumultuous climate are indeed
the continuation of a story started long ago.
>
> We venerate the capitalist captains of industry (like
Rockefeller) without any examination of what they have cost the
nation and the world. If we don't re-evaluate our contemporary
thinking in light of the events of the past, we are headed for
times in which alcohol may be our only escape from a harsh
reality. Maybe we have been pouring it in the wrong place all
along.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/treeswing.gif
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://dgrim.blogspot.com/2007/06/great-scheme-alcohol-based-fuels-ford.html
HTML http://dgrim.blogspot.com/2007/06/great-scheme-alcohol-based-fuels-ford.html
Agelbert NOTE: Ethanol use as a fuel for cars (instead of
polluting gasoline) has ALWAYS been a threat to fossil fuel
industry profits.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__smokelots.gif<br
/>
Consequently, they have nearly a century of disinformation,
doubletalk and bold faced lies about ethanol from the crocodile
tears about land being "removed" from growing food crops to
"corrosive" effects along with gamed mileage numbers and
enthalpy happy talk.
Here is an example of the TOTALLY INACCURATE spurious, but quite
clever, baloney FUNDED by the fossil fuel industry crooks and
liars:
--- Quote ---
>
> David Frazier Johnson Jr
> Prohibition banned the manufacture and sale of alcoholic
beverages specifically, not ethanol. Many types of alcohol were
still then and have always been used for industrial
applications. Don't fall prey to fringe conspiracy theory, it
makes all of us people pushing for renewable energy look stupid.
Rockefeller supported prohibition because he believed it caused
crime and affected the workplace. Even he admitted it was a
failed attempt to curb this by the end.
--- End Quote ---
What a dazzling array of lies mixed with half truths mindfork!
And didn't you just LOVE that part about appearing to SUPPORT
Renewable Energy? They know their propaganda!
Here's another gem of disinformation:
--- Quote ---
>
> Anonymous
> Ethyl alcohol actually is far less efficient than gasoline and
gives your car worse gas mileage meaning you have to burn more
of it to get somewhere (This is why you get worse gas mileage
filling up in a city that has ethanol mixed with the regular
fuel). And the pollution caused by harvesting the corn and
making it into ethanol causes large amounts of carbon
emissions...so yes, politics are always involved but there are
scientific reasons we haven't switched over as well.
--- End Quote ---
And finally, among those with a bit more education and
vocabulary, the old "ethanol is hygroscopic so it will corrode
your fuel lines and gas tank" claim. Yes, alcohol mixes readily
with water, UNLIKE gasoline. Do you know what that REALLY means?
It means the water vapor in your fuel tank WILL MIX with ethanol
there, INSTEAD of, as in a tank containing gasoline, condensing
at night when your car is parked and, because water is denser
than gasoline, going straight to the bottom, where ANY oxygen
trapped between the wall and the water will ACCELERATE metal
corrosion from oxidation. THAT is why gasoline tanks have
corrosion treatment from the factory, even though the fossil
fuelers conveniently neglect to tell you about that. So the
metal corrosion risk is LOWER with ethanol than with gasoline.
The fossil fuelers know that. So, true to their Machiavellian
modus operandi , they accuse ethanol of the weakness that,
actually, gasoline has! Clever bastards, aren't they?
The only actual 'downside', if you want to call it that, that
ethanol actually has (the water content in the fuel when it
reaches the combustion chamber is easily controlled and DOES NOT
"reduce mileage") is that anhydrous (the kind used for fuel, not
booze) ethanol, as a drying agent (see hygroscopic = attracts
and absorbs surrounding water molecules), attacks rubber seals
by sucking water out of them, which makes them less flexible and
more prone to crack from vehicle vibrations. Gasoline does
degrade rubber too, but not as much or as fast.
Since 1980 (yes, that far back! And ONLY because Brazil
championed it!) the rubber seals in fuel systems have been
modified to handle ethanol. Brazil, of course, has been a leader
in this. The USA, of course, has dragged its regulatory feet
creaming and crying all the way. But it's a reality now in EVERY
car post 1995 or so (i.e 99.999% of the cars and trucks on the
road!). So please call BS on anyone that gives you a line about
corroded fuel tanks, lines or cracked rubber seals from ethanol
use.
In fact, the non-hydrocarbon solvents (about 40% of the content
of a gallon of gasoline) in gasoline ATTACK plastics, requiring
special plastics connected with gasoline powered car fuel
systems. Ethanol DOES NOT, and never has, caused cracked and
embrittled plastics, PERIOD.
The "treatment" that the USA has forced flex-fuel vehicles in
the USA to prevent "ethanol mediated corrosion" is a sham. In
fact, if cars were prohibited from running on gasoline, the
tanks would NOT need the corrosion treatment they all get now.
The fuel system could use plastics liberally without durability
or reliability concerns. And as to rubber seals, specialized
rubber seals are already used to prevent alcohol caused cracked
seals, so that is a given.
For those who want to know the truth about gasoline versus
ethanol, please go HERE. It is a thread I dedicated to all
things ethanol. You will find a wealth of OBJECTIVE information
HERE.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg26/#msg26<br
/>I don't make a nickel from spreading the truth. I just hate
how
the fossil fuel industry crooks and liars resort to consistently
unethical means to make money at the expense of we-the-people
and the biosphere.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
#Post#: 4363--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 18, 2016, 7:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Palloy link ---
>
> When the Abengoa process is taken in isolation, the Abengoa
business might make sense, but you have to look at the Full Life
Cycle, which includes it making sense for the farmer, the
harvesters and the road maintainers (usually local authorities,
backed by the local people's taxes). Downstream the fuel has to
meet quality standards if it is to meet user expectations -
without regulation, gas stations would be selling us all kinds
of crap. Farmers in the early days would put dirty ethanol in
their tractors without caring about the long-term consequences
for the engine. Nowadays the machines cost so much money that
you really can't afford to do that.
>
> The process itself is in several phases - digesting the
cellulose into sugars, fermenting the sugars into alcohol,
distilling the water/alcohol mix into "pure" alcohol, and
finally polishing the alcohol into ultra-pure alcohol. Each
requires careful temperature control, and the distilling phase
requires lots of energy to be input to reverse the "entropy of
mixing". The resulting fuel has a high tendency to undergo that
entropy again, which you acknowledge, but you failed to mention
that the atmospheric water vapour which enters the fuel, has to
be turned to steam in the engine, using the heat of the burning
alcohol itself, and is then dumped out the exhaust without that
energy (latent heat) being recovered. That is all a drag on the
useful work that the alcohol can do for you.
>
> Australia's CSIRO did a Full Life Cycle study on turning
molasses from sugar cane processing (and some other sources)
into ethanol, and its use as E10 fuel. Bear in mind that
molasses doesn't need the extra cellulose digestion stage, and
the energy cost of molasses is subsidised by the main co-product
of sugar cane processing, crystallized sugar.
>
> So E10 has a GHG saving of 5.1%, and E100 would have a 51%
saving. In other words, half the energy of ethanol is actually
the energy of the fossil fuels to make it, mostly in the form of
diesel fuel for heavy machinery, but also transport, pesticides,
fertilisers, and processing. Ethanol can only be made at these
efficiencies while embedded in a fossil fuel-powered economy.
>
> As for bio-gas, you passed quickly over the bit about "methane
can be separated out". Bio-gas is a mixture of lots of things,
depending on the feedstock and the degree of digestion. It
contains a lot of water vapour, which is a drag on the heating
value of the fuel, like water in alcohol. It also contains a
lot of CO2, which if removed takes energy to reverse the entropy
of mixing, and if not removed simply dilutes the heating effect.
There will also be some Hydrogen and some Ethane, which can
remain in there as they are fuels themselves, but not if you are
selling the gas by energy/litre. It may also contain Hydrogen
sulphide, which is poisonous if inhaled, or produces Sulphur
Dioxide if burnt - SO2 produces acid rain.
>
> If the feedstock is human sewage, then you also have the
problem of Fluorides from medicinal compounds, hormones from
contraceptive pills, and anti-biotics that may poison the
digestion process. They all have technical solutions, but
fixing inherent problems with technical fixes after the event,
eats away at the economic and energy budgets.
>
> None of this matters in third world India, where they have
been producing bio-gas for centuries, but in the first world
with planning regulations and opposition from residents who
don't want to live next door to a sewage treatment plant, this
will be hard to get off the ground.
>
--- End Quote ---
[center] [img
width=440]
HTML http://memecrunch.com/meme/5L3XX/spiderman-bullshit-detector/image.jpg?w=544&c=1[/img][/center]
Palloy said,
--- Quote ---
>
> So E10 has a GHG saving of 5.1%, and E100 would have a 51%
saving. In other words, half the energy of ethanol is actually
the energy of the fossil fuels to make it,
--- End Quote ---
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>[/center]
Shame on you for spouting such bold faced mendacity! Have you
not read ANYTHING I have posted here on ethanol? Don't you GET
the fact that ethanol EROI is lowballed (while the GHG output is
EXAGGERATED!) because of the enthalpy fun and games of TWISTED
energy output thermodynamics by the fossil fuel industry? Do you
NOT understand what WASTE heat does to mechanical output? Do you
not understand that ethanol, as compared with gasoline, DOES NOT
HAVE WASTE HEAT!!? Your Australian molasses/sugarcane/etc.
numbers for E10 are mostly irrelevant, both in GHG emission
output and processing costs BECAUSE 90% of that is gasoline!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Your negative assumptions about E100 are grossly in error.
Brazil does not use ANY fossil fuels to grow their sugarcane,
decorticate it and process it into ethanol! They burn PLANT
MATTER and run their farming and processing equipment on
ETHANOL! It's ALL renewable because it is ALL grown. The GHG
output is in balance! And when solar panels are used to help in
the processing (electrical power demands), there will be a
REDUCTION in GHG output overall.
But it is a waste of time to try to get you to see that. And
DON'T quote any more stats from Australia on this
channel.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
That
government is so in the thrall of fossil fuels that ANYTHING
they publish is suspect, PERIOD.
And on biogas, Have you not read about what Grand Junction,
Colorado is doing with biogas? You want hair split about
processes of biogas and ethanol production while BLATANTLY
ignoring the COST of the HIGHLY POLLUTING CHEMICAL PROCESSES
involved in refining fossil fuels! Your lack of objectivity is
breathtaking. You are, once again, exposing your bias for fossil
fuels.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/budo.gif
[center]
HTML http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwx7wy0tIK1qd9a66o1_500.jpg[/center]
In your clever dissertation you left QUITE A BIT out of your
VERSION of the "full life cycle". When I see you talk about the
FULL LIFE CYCLE of fossil fuels INCLUDING the BIO-REMEDIATION
costs and pollution cleanup costs, I'll begin to take your "full
life cycle" assessments seriously.
You do not seem to understand decortication as a function of
lignin presence. You do not seem to understand that there is a
lignin tradeoff in cellulose product processing associated with
costs; MORE lignin = MORE costs while LESS lignin and more
starches = LESS costs.
You do not seem to understand that there are a PLETHORA of plant
species (e.g. Lemna minor) out there, available and easily grown
WITHOUT chemical fertilizers, pesticides or plowing (in the case
of duckweed, shallow ponds on non-arable land work quite nicely
for the fastest growing angiosperm on earth), that have LOW
lignin, thereby changing RADICALLY (i.e. much lower processing
costs) the ENTIRE "life cycle cost" calculations you seem to be
STUCK on.
What Abengoa is doing is making a go of one of the WORST
POSSIBLE products (corn, corn stalks and roots) for ethanol
production. Good for them. Bad for you that you don't see that
corn is a horrendous choice for ethanol production costs. Bad
for you that you do not see that is QUITE DELIBERATE in the USA
because of the fossil fuel industry influence.
Furthermore, MANY of these plants (that are even better than
sugarcane and beets!) do not need to be processed into ethanol
at all, thereby eliminating a lot of your "life cycle" costs.
they can be sun dried and pelleted for use as fuel or animal
feed! But you just cannot see the VASTLY superior energy
REsource that plant matter is and the TREMENDOUSLY DAMAGING
effect the fossil fuel based economy is having on our biosphere.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Until then, WHAT PART OF the following reality do you not
understand?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
[center]Porter Ranch Methane Leak Spreads Across LA’s San
Fernando Valley :P
[/center]
Lorraine Chow | January 15, 2016 9:36 am
It now looks like the catastrophic Porter Ranch gas leak, which
has spewed more than 83,000 metric tons of noxious methane for
nearly three months, has spread across Los Angeles’s San
Fernando Valley.
On Wednesday, Los Angeles City Councilman Mitchell Englander
called on the Southern California Gas Co. to extend residential
relocation assistance to residents in Granada Hills, Chatsworth
and Northridge who live near the Aliso Canyon gas leak above
Porter Ranch. These residents reported symptoms related to the
exposure of natural gas such as nausea, vomiting, headaches and
respiratory problems.
[center]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/porterranchgasleakmap.png[/center]
The researchers have developed the Valley’s first comprehensive
map of methane exposure. Photo credit: HEET
This latest development compounds with a new analysis from Home
Energy Efficiency Team (HEET). The Cambridge-based nonprofit
sent Boston University Professor Nathan Phillips and Bob Ackley
of Gas Safety to take methane measurements around the San
Fernando Valley for several days and their findings were
disturbing.
As the Los Angeles Daily News wrote, “the researchers recorded
elevated levels of the main ingredient in natural gas—10 miles
away from the nation’s largest gas leak.”
--- Quote ---
> “It’s not just in Porter Ranch, it’s going all the way across
the [San Fernando] Valley,” Ackley told Inside Climate News.
>
--- End Quote ---
According to HEET, the researchers drove a high precision
GIS-enabled natural gas analyzer down the roads around the gas
leak to create a comprehensive map of the leak around San
Fernando Valley. The red on the map indicates where they drove
and the levels of methane they found is shown by the height of
the peaks.
Their monitors showed methane levels at 3.4 parts per billion,
about twice the level of natural clean air, the Los Angeles
Daily News reported. Another measurement showed 127 ppm, or an
astounding 67 times above normal.
“Whatever else may be in the gas—benzene
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif,<br
/>toluene
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif,<br
/>xylene
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif—that<br
/>is what people may be breathing,” Phillips told Inside Climate
News. “Even though we’re not measuring things other than methane
;), there is a legitimate concern that there is that other
nasty stuff in there.”
As Inside Climate News observed: “The findings challenge
assurances from the
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg<br
/>South Coast Air Quality Management District , the regional air
pollution control agency, and the state’s Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that the leak hasn’t
increased residents’ exposure to toxic gases.”
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>
Dozens of public health and environmental advocates and experts
will rally at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
headquarters in Washington, DC tomorrow to press for federal
action on the Porter Ranch leak.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/15/porter-ranch-methane-leak-spreads/
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/15/porter-ranch-methane-leak-spreads/
Agelbert NOTE: The is something you should know that you will
not hear about in the six o'clock news:
"The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2" by
Archer and Brovkin .
"The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in
the public at large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2
release will only persist for a few centuries. This conclusion
has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon
cycle, which we review here.
The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time
scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant
fraction of the fossil fuel CO2, ranging in published models in
the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a thousand
years or longer.
Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of
thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in
public perceptions with nuclear waste.
The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice
sheets and sea level respond dramatically to
millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are also
potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including
methane hydrates in the ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost,
that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel CO2
in the atmosphere."
HTML http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1#/page-1
HTML http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1#/page-1
The prolonged existence of atmospheric CO2
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/future-earth/msg4261/#msg4261
[move][I]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate Trashing, human
health depleteing CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but since they have
ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to
AVOID [/color] DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't
let them get away with it! Pass it on!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif[/I][/move]
#Post#: 4366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 19, 2016, 7:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Palloy link ---
>
> But you are assuming that I can't do at least as good a job on
debunking the fossil fuel industry. I didn't bother doing that,
as that wasn't what your article was about. None of these
"solutions" will solve our energy problems. ALL of them will
only make the problems worse.
>
> Brazil only makes ethanol because of slave labour cutting cane
by hand, (try it sometime), while the aristocracy owns all the
land, and the means of production, and sells into the US market
to earn foreign exchange, to import luxuries for themselves.
That's not sustainable.
>
> China can only make the world's cheapest solar panels because
of their version of slave labour, and imported raw materials and
energy, and selling to rich people who don't understand or care
about the environmental impacts.
>
> There is NO SOLUTION for industrialised civilisation, that's
why it will implode, without the need for revolution. But there
probably will be a revolution, and when it's won, everybody will
want to live like the rich did. It can't be done.
>
> There is a possible solution in subsistence farming and
hunter/gathering, but only for a much smaller population, in
certain places where the climate and soils are good, and ONLY
for people that can survive without the trappings of
industrialised society. I'm living in such a place now. There
isn't a square metre of open ground on my block, not even on my
driveway - that's why I have just had to buy a secondhand
ride-on mower after the last one died 2 years ago, to keep a 4
metre slot open to the world. My block extracts about 600 tonnes
of CO2/year from the atmosphere, so I am still doing my bit for
the planet. If I was young again, I could be out there growing
my own food in the heat and humidity and mosquitoes, instead of
being stuck in here, sat at my computer, drinking cold beer and
generally enjoying my retirement.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes there is a solution to industrialized civilization. But you
may be right in that it will not be adopted. But that won't be
because there is no solution. And yeah, you SHOULD bother to
debunk the fossil fuel industry happy talk. That happy talk is
PRECISELY what has us in the polluting status quo we find
ourselves in.
When comparing sources of energy, it is necessary to discuss and
compare everything that is out there on an apples to apples
basis. Otherwise, we continue down the path of custom and
prejudice
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp,<br
/>as opposed to truth hand logic.
For example, this sort of thing happens on a regular basis, yet
is considered an "acceptable" cost of "doing business" by the
fossil fuel industry.
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]blast at Alberta Long Lake oil sands project leaves
one dead[/center]
>
> Nicolas Torres January 19, 2016
>
>
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/blast-alberta-long-lake-oil-sands-project-leaves-one-dead/
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/blast-alberta-long-lake-oil-sands-project-leaves-one-dead/
>
--- End Quote ---
It's not. And Renewable energy does not present that level of
occupational hazards or dangerous pollution of the biosphere. So
all they've got is the baloney that their products are "more
competitive". They are not. I am working on an article about
flaring at oil and gas extraction sites, both on land and in the
oceans AND at the oil refineries all over the planet as well. I
am convinced that, if flaring was banned and they had to
capture, process and safely store the toxic and carcinogenic
gases they now flare when extracting raw product at the rig
sites and subsequently when they process that product to make it
market ready at refineries, they would not be able to compete,
period. That is why they fight so ferociously to keep flaring
from being banned. Without flaring, never mind the CO2 from
their products, they DO NOT HAVE a viable business model. It
should be ready in a week or less. 8)
Agelbert NOTE: I deal with Disinformation on ethanol internal
combustion engine fuel (E100) pushed by fossil fuel Industry
TOOLS/FOOLS in the following thread. When an objective person
requests a potential solution, I propose it AND explain why,
despite the fact that the knowledge and technology is out there,
that solution has not been implemented.
rusty hesson
With a 7-30 % reduction in fuel milage Ethanol never has or will
"replace oil".
Agelbert reply to brainwashed rusty hesson
That has ALWAYS been a lie fostered by the fossil fuel industry.
Once engines have the proper compression ratio, E100 (100%
ethanol) gives the same or better mileage with LESS engine wear
BECAUSE there is LESS waste heat from the combustion process.
The alleged "greater energy density" of gasoline versus ethanol
is based on enthalpy calculations that measure EXTERNAL
combustion (i.e. boiling water in an OPEN flame). It is true
that gasoline produces more raw heat. BUT, a significant portion
of that HEAT is WASTE HEAT that merely increases engine wear and
DOES NOT translate to mechanical energy in INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINES. Not only must gasoline combustion waste heat be
SUBTRACTED from it's energy density, the INCREASED FRICTION
created by that WASTE HEAT must be subtracted as well.
--- Quote ---
> .. the irrelevancy of Btu as a measurement of ethanol
performance compared to gasoline that gets into a lengthy
dialogue about what a Btu measures and a discussion on engines.
“The whole creation of Btu rating and understanding was to
determine what it takes to heat water one degree. This was
important (and still is important) when dealing with steam
engines or water heaters or cooking using fire.
> btus have no importance in internal combustion engines. Engine
optimization is the key.
HTML http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/12432/ethanol-chronicles-launches-blog-to-answer-fuel-critics
--- End Quote ---
Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots
Believe Them
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg26/#msg26
The truth that the fossil fuel industry propaganda wishes to
hide by erroneously claiming ethanol is not a better fuel than
gasoline [I](even though Thomas Edison and the U.S. Naval
Laboratories said ethanol WAS A BETTER FUEL way back in 1906!)
[/I] goes way beyond mere fuel economy.
Modern technology from studies HERE and in Brazil have
determined the following inconvenient (for the fossil fuel
industry) FACTS:
1) A high compression engine designed specifically to run on
ethanol is at least 33% lighter because the alloys do not have
to be engineered to handle the high waste heat of gasoline. Said
engine will have BETTER mileage because of the consistency of
the fuel (ethanol is only one consistent chemical compound at a
consistent and predictable combustion temperature, unlike
gasoline) reduced weight, lower maintenance and longer life from
running consistently at lower temperatures. Of course, using
gasoline in it would be prohibited. Running on the witches brew
of volatile organic compounds, industrial solvents ([I] up to
40% of a gallon of NON-hydrocarbon content of gasoline that
dissolve plastics quite well) and various DIFFERENT long chained
hydrocarbons called gasoline would ruin such an engine.[/I] So
you can see how the fossil fuel industry would not be happy
campers about allowing such an engine to be manufactured in, or
imported to the USA. [b[in fact, your beloved fossil fuel crooks
and liars[/b] have made it a LAW in the USA that ethanol MUST
have a certain amount of gasoline in it in the USA. The
threadbare excuse is "to prevent people form drinking unlicensed
booze" (LOL!). Brazil is not amused. They use E100 without ANY
difficulty whatsoever.
2) Ethanol DOES NOT require REDUCING the amount of crops grown
for food, either for people or animals. WHY?! Because crops such
as switchgrass, Hemp and SEVERAL OTHERS can be grown on NON
chemically fertilized land considered NON arable land for food
crops.
3) As Abengoa has demonstrated, the cellulose refuse from food
crops, hitherto thrown out (stalks and roots from corn) CAN be
processed into ethanol without making a dent in the acreage used
for food crops. So the crocodile tears from the fossil fuel
industry about ethanol taking food out of people's mouths is
ANOTHER LIE.
GASOLINE is a WASTE PRUDUCT from the refining of crude oil. John
D. Rockefeller used to poison horses and cows that drank in the
rivers of Pennsylvania (downriver from his refinery) in the
late nineteenth century when he would flush it down the river at
night (the farmers tried to mob him for it!) when his main
product was lubricants. Rockefeller began the Fossil fuel
tradition of "externalizing costs" FROM THE START.
It was John D. Rockefeller that convinced Henry Ford to MODIFY
his Model T engines so they run on gasoline, instead of what
they ALREADY ran on, ethanol.
It was John D. Rockefeller who FUNDED efforts at Prohibition
that ended up FORCING farmers to run their tractors on gasoline
instead of ethanol. Yes, sports fans, Prohibition WAS NOT really
about booze. It was REALLY about cornering the fuel market on
behalf of Jon D. Rockefellers, WASTE product.
It was John D. Rockefeller's fossil fuel Standard Oil empire
that introduced LEADED gasoline (tetra ethyl lead additive from
Du Pont) when ethanol was accidentally on purpose outlawed as an
engine fuel during Prohibition [I](ethanol has a higher octane
than gasoline so a replacement was needed for high compression
engines) [/I] .
For those who say that leaded gasoline has been outlawed so that
is no longer a problem, let me enlighten you.
TO THIS DAY, internal combustion engine powered small aircraft
in the USA STILL use LEADED GASOLENE when the technology to run
those engines on E100 has been available for several decades. It
is LEGAL to run that green died stuff called avgas containing
TETRA ETHYL LEAD.
Every single bit of damage to humans and other life forms in the
biosphere from leaded gasolene going all the way back to
Prohibition, including the children of people living under the
approach path to runways of general aviation airports is an
"externalized cost" that we-the-people have been FORCED to
subsidize for the benefit of fossil fuel industry profits.
[b[it's time to return gasoline to the category of WASTE PRODUCT
again. [I[it's time for the fossil fuel industry to PAY WHAT
THEY OWE we-the-people for the environmental DAMAGE caused by
its waste products, ALL OF THEM. [/I][/b]
Prosecute Exxon For Deliberate Climate Denial
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg3873/#msg3873
Renewable is the cheaper energy option without fossil fuel and
hidden nuclear subsides.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-u-s/msg3369/#msg3369
John_B reply to agelbert
I'll go with alcohol as soon as you can make it appear out of
thin air with sunlight and water or wind and water. Really
though. Emissions from alcohol are 99% as pure as liquid
hydrogen fueled ICE cars. Of course we know the fossil fuel
people lie so skip all that and use your formidable knowledge to
seek out that prototype generation process to distill alcohol
from abundant naturally reoccurring phenomena. Most people have
it in their mind growing stuff to ferment is too time consuming
and an inefficient waste of biological life. Seat of the
pants..... It would take a hexillion acres of corn crops to
power all ICE engines with pure ethanol. Who knows though. Giant
algae farms off shore with superfast growing algae hybrids.
Something like that. Well?... You're the expert. You need tons
and tons of something biological to ferment. (I can hear the
fossil fuel-ites after their bird death dissertation. They'll
launch a cruelty to amoeba campaign)
Agelbert reply John_B
John_B said,
--- Quote ---
> You need tons and tons of something biological to ferment.
--- End Quote ---
Exactly right. You need something that grows faster than
anything else in out there. You want it to be macroscopic
instead of microscopic (algae's microscopic size makes it costly
to dry for processing, negating it's fast growth advantage).
You want it to be an almost perfect photosynthetic organism
that, in addition to doubling it's size in about a day (EVERY
day!), does not waste energy making hard to process stalks and
roots, but concentrates on making starches that have low lignin
content (cheaper to process). Now you know why ducks and fish
would love such a plant. I'm talking about Lemna minor, a
species of Duckweed.
The choice for Duckweed, that should have been made long ago, is
to place giant shallow ponds on non-arable land (once they are
filled, no added water is needed). These ponds, stocked with
tilapia and floating Lemna minor (Duckweed is the fastest
growing angiosperm - flowering plant - known to man) would go a
long way to solving our environmental problems.
First of all, no arable land would be affected, so no food would
be taken off of anybody's table, so to speak. The fish feed on
the duckweed and the fish feces fertilize the duckweed. You just
need to keep the fish population right so your duckweed
production is high. No pesticides or chemical fertilizers are
needed. If no tilapia are available, pig feces, a rather easily
obtainable "product" in most countries, is excellent fertilizer.
Using pig feces would, of course, reduce nitrogen run off from
farms to rivers, so that method of fertilization would be a
win-win for the environment.
Lemna minor has virtually no root systems or plant stalk, so 40%
of it is low lignin (less woody and cheaper to process). It is
nutritious too.
Since it floats, it is easy to harvest. It can be sun dried and
pelletized, as is, for fuel or animal feed. It can serve, and
has already been used as such, as a nutrition supplement for
humans.
Finally, it can, of course, be processed into ethanol fuel,
plastics, medicines, and textiles, thereby replacing all the
fossil fuel based sources of these products at present.
There is more. Placed in stagnant water areas polluted with
heavy metals, Lemna minor will readily absorb them, and has been
used for this purpose already. Of course that would make it
toxic and then could not be fed to animals or burned as fuel,
but it can be used to clean up polluted water inexpensively.
So, why is it not grown (except in the wild) hither and yon in
the USA? We certainly have plenty of non-arable land (THOUSANDS
AND THOUSANDS of acres) to put shallow ponds (about 3 feet deep)
on. We have plenty of pig feces polluting our rivers that could
be put to a better use too.
BECAUSE, the government wants GMO CORN, a terrible choice for
ethanol that makes both the fossil fuel industry and Monsanto
very happy, to be the feed stock for ethanol production.
It makes no sense whatsoever. But prejudice and custom,
unfortunately, often rule the affairs of men far more than truth
and logic. So it is in our country. It is time for some truth
and logic, for a change.
If you would like to learn more about Lemna minor (Duckweed)
here's some good info and a video:
Duckweed, The Little Green Plant that Could[/I].
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/plant-based-products-for-transprtation-and-building-materials/msg1012/#msg1012
Is Duckweed The Food of the Future?
HTML http://portablefarms.com/2015/is-duckweed-the-food-of-the-future/
Duckweed - a potential high-protein feed resource for domestic
animals and fish.
HTML http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/agap/frg/LRRD/LRRD7/1/3.HTM
jimmywampum
Hemp has historically been one of the top 'miracle plants' with
limitless uses, and appears to be, by far, the best crop for
bio-fuels. Synthetic gasoline and diesel appear to be the 'happy
medium' solution to moving from nasty and dirty crude oil and
REQUIRING people to buy expensive and questionable alternative
energy.
[i]Agelbert reply to history challenged jimmywampum
When you study a bit of history, not your fossil fuel happy talk
version, you will learn WHY hemp was outlawed along with high
THC Cannabis in 1937. The fossil fuel industry AND the paper
industry DID NOT WANT the competition, PERIOD.
Ethanol is not the only product that could be made from hemp.
You could, and still can, make plastics, paint, pharmaceuticals
and paper CHEAPER than you could from petroleum and wood. It
was, and is, called CHEMURGY.
Ethanol, as far back as 1906, WAS the fuel for cars and gasoline
was the ALTERNATIVE being pushed by Rockefeller. Prohibition
FORCED people to move away from ethanol, which was CHEAPER THAN
GASOLINE, to REQUIRING people to buy expensive, polluting and
questionable alternative energy, GASOLINE!
How the Promise of Chemurgy Was Dashed by Big Oil
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/how-the-promise-of-chemurgy-was-dashed-by-big-oil/msg3/#msg3
johndubose
Sorry No moonbeam energy while oil is at 30/barrell.
Agelbert replies to johndubose (throwback from fossil fuel
industry 1980's successful method of destroying Renewable Energy
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp).
You wish. LEARN about what a gallon of gasoline REALLY costs,
regardless of what you pay at the pump.
The True Cost of Gasoline is Closer to $15 a Gallon (Video)
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/electric-vehicles/msg4286/#msg4286
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/17/second-generation-biofuels/#comment-2464084476
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/17/second-generation-biofuels/#comment-2464084476
#Post#: 4392--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 25, 2016, 5:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
01/20/2016 03:00 PM
[move]Navy's Great Green Fleet Deploys With Biofuels[/move]
SustainableBusiness.com News
The first Navy ships running partially on biofuels as part of
everyday operations are at sea after leaving San Diego.
The ships are part of the Navy's Great Green Fleet - its effort
to convert to much more efficient ships that run on renewable
fuels. While initial fuel blends contain only 10% biofuels, they
are on track for 50/50 blends as prices come down, they say.
The Navy's goal is to get half its fuel from renewable sources
by 2020.
A blend of waste fats, they are considered "drop in" fuels as
they can be used without any change to a ship's engine,
transport equipment or operational procedures. And, as
instructed by Congress, they are cost-competitive with fossil
fuels.
Midwest cattle farmers and ranchers sell waste beef fat to
California-based AltAir Fuels, which blends it with diesel and
then sells it to the Navy under a contract for $2.05 a gallon.
Sailors prepare to board the USS John C. Stennis for regularly
scheduled deployment from San Diego, this time with
biofuels:(graphic at link below)
Navy Biofuels
Republicans tried to block the use of biofuels because they cost
$15 per gallon when the Great Green Fleet held its first
demonstration, but since then prices have declined substantially
as Mabus expected.
While Republicans still say it's a waste of money ;)
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp,<br
/>Mabus disagrees. "We absolutely have to have - particularly in
this constrained budget environment - a stably priced,
domestically produced alternative to fossil fuels that don't
spike based on world crises. Every time the price of oil goes up
$1 per barrel, it costs the Navy an extra $30 million."
To boost production, the Navy awarded $210 million to three
companies that are building biorefineries at Department of
Defense facilities. They come online this year, with full
production in 2017 using cooking grease and oil and other
feedstocks that don't depend on cropland.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
On the efficiency side, advances include dashboards that show
how much energy is being consumed, stern flaps that reduce drag
and the use of LED lighting greatly reduces energy demand.
Greater efficiency gives the Navy and Marines great advantages -
they can stay longer without refueling, for example. "It gives
us a strategic advantage," says Mabus. "Diversifying our energy
sources arms us with operational flexibility and strengthens our
ability to provide presence, turning the tables on those who
would use energy as a weapon against us. We won't be at the
mercy of fluctuating oil prices and oil-producing nations.
"In 2010, we were losing too many marines in convoys carrying
fossil fuels to outposts in Afghanistan, and the prohibitive
cost of oil was requiring us to stop training at home in order
to keep steaming abroad, a dangerous and unsustainable
scenario," Mabus explains. Some ships are now electric-diesel
hybrids.
Since 2009, when the program began, the Navy has cut oil
consumption 15% and the Marine Corps,
60%
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png.
The Navy
consumes about 25% of the 14 million gallons of fuel used by the
Defense Department every day - the world's biggest energy
consumer :P - according to the Defense Logistics Agency.
The Great Green Fleet honors President Teddy Roosevelt's Great
White Fleet, which helped usher in America as a global power.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
:P
This time it ushers in an era of energy innovation
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/maniac.gifin
the Navy and
Marines, they say.
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png
Read our articles, US Navy Says Biofuels Are New Normal
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25679
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26526
#Post#: 4399--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 26, 2016, 5:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: The following is a back and forth with a
(biosphere) math challenged mathematician called Palloy. He
refuses to do the math on fossil fuel pollution but pretends to
do so.
He refuses to acknowledge that fossil fuels DO NOT have an
Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI). He refuses to
acknowledge that fossil fuel industry "profits" are artificially
supported by government DIRECT subsidies, on the one hand, and
INDIRECT "subsidies" from the LACK of government regulations and
oversight on their severely polluting practices like flaring at
drill sites and refineries.
And, he refuses to acknowledge the beneficial facts and high
ERoEI of biofuels like Ethanol.
The thread includes Palloy's ridiculous claim that solar energy
harvested with PV "cannot be scaled up". He games his formulas
to conveniently leave out the advantages of Renewable Energy
over fossil fuels in order to make a case for the alleged
"impossibility" of running our civilization on Renewable Energy.
The exact reverse true. It is, in fact, impossible to run it on
polluting energy sources. It just takes a while for pollutants
to start severely degrading the biosphere. We are there. Palloy
AND the governments influenced (i.e. corrupted) by the fossil
fuel industry do not get it. >:(
I present this rather long thread with a post or two from it (in
the approriate sequence) daily for the next several days in
order for you to learn how these propagandists for the polluters
play their disingenuoos games.
Since most of it is about Renewable Energy (plant based)
Ethanol, I have placed it here.
It begins with what seems like an irrelevant topic to Palloy's
claims. But it is VERY relevant because Palloy likes to use
gamed government data and stats to back his baloney.
Of course not all government data is gamed. But the data
published for ERoEI for fossil fuels and ethanol IS gamed BY the
fossil fuel industry corruption of governments. I provide
evidence of that. Palloy plays dumb and scoffs. Enjoy.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
[center]Research highlight: Enforcement question for pesticide
laws [/center]
January 18, 2016 at 10:37 am
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260116182439.png[/center]
[center]Helicopter spraying pesticide over pond in a city with
ducks flying under it. :emthdown:[/center]
Readers will be familiar with concerns that traditional chemical
risk assessment methods give results which are either
insufficiently complete (ignoring mixture effects, for example)
or insufficiently accurate (e.g. by potentially under-estimating
risks from individual compounds).
There is also the concern that chemical regulations might be
insufficiently enforced, as highlighted in a recent paper in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (Stehle & Schulz
2015a).
In this paper, the researchers reviewed the published literature
measuring pesticide levels in EU surface waters, aggregating a
total of 1566 measured insecticide concentrations. Of these, 45%
exceeded the maximum limit as determined by their respective
risk assessments.
This paints a worrying picture of pesticide risk assessment in
the EU: even if the results of the risk assessment are
sufficiently protective (which seems doubtful), they are not
being adequately enforced. So in what sense are EU pesticides
laws sufficiently protective of the environment?
The research follows on from another study by the same authors,
published earlier in 2015, which found that more than 50% of
global surface waters contain pesticide residues exceeding the
limit determined by their risk assessments :( >:( (Stehle and
Schulz 2015b), and was covered by the Washington Post.
HTML http://healthandenvironmentonline.com/2016/01/18/research-highlight-enforcement-question-for-pesticide-laws/
HTML http://healthandenvironmentonline.com/2016/01/18/research-highlight-enforcement-question-for-pesticide-laws/
Agelbert NOTE: The INACCURATE "traditional
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/> " chemical risk assessment methods are part and parcel of the
DATA SETS that statisticians and mathematicians like PALLOY use
to make their arguments about WHATEVER.
HTML http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpg
The government published HAPPY TALK, designed to defend the
profit over planet polluting status quo, is certainly NOT
limited to CONVENIENT (for business as usual
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)
risk assessments.
The "rigorous peer reviewed studies" on energy resources, that
produce ERoEI numbers that somehow always manage to low ball
Renewable Energy sources as compared to fossil fuels, from the
bought and paid for scientists of the fossil fuel industry (e.g.
Charles Hall, et al ), are willingly embraced by the Palloy's of
this world as the, sniff, ONLY CREDIBLE standard. After
referencing a few of these "rigorous studies", the Palloy's of
this world will claim that any other claims are "not credible"
and, since they are serious mathematician/statisticians ;)
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp,<br
/>any allegations that the data sets they swear by are
inaccurate
are instantly deemed "spurious. wild eyed and worthy of
disdain". So it goes.
[center]
HTML http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg[/center]<br
/>
#Post#: 4406--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 27, 2016, 2:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML http://c767204.r4.cf2.rackcdn.com/aea013ed-b181-40c3-813f-cc3a22bfd0cf.png[/center]
Jan 21, 2016 Authors David Labrador Writer / Editor
[center]How Much Does Energy Storage Really Cost? Lazard Weighs
In.
[/center]
In November 2015, financial advisory firm Lazard released its
first-ever Levelized Cost of Storage Analysis (LCOS)[/I]
HTML https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage-analysis-10/.
Well known for its Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE)
analysis—now out in version 9.0—Lazard publishing an analysis of
storage is a major sign that [i]it considers battery energy
storage a critical technology that’s here to stay.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
But a closer look at Lazard’s LCOS shows something RMI’s October
2015 Economics of Battery Energy Storage report noted: a)
battery economics are usually evaluated on the basis of
single-use cases, b) stacking multiple uses can greatly enhance
battery economics, and c) evaluating those economics gets
difficult quickly. It’s the use cases and stacked value
streams—in addition to per-kWh cell cost declines—that offer
tremendous opportunity.
RMI’s report primarily looked at the value, not cost, of a
basket of multiple, stacked uses for customer-sited storage
systems. Lazard focused on the costs of several physical storage
technologies (including the lithium-ion studied in RMI’s report)
and not “alternative” storage options such as
building-as-storage, water heater-based storage, and other
demand flexibility options. It evaluated those storage
technologies on the basis of a variety of single-use cases such
as frequency regulation and peak shaving/demand charge
reduction. Lazard compared those costs to conventional,
fossil-fuel alternatives.
Jesse Morris, a manager at RMI and co-author of RMI’s battery
report, says, “We did not make this comparison in our Economics
of Battery Storage report for a number of reasons but Lazard’s
analysis is a great first step. It adds to a strong foundation
from which the industry can better understand multiple-use
cases.”
Morris adds, “In the end, this is the comparison that we need to
be able to make if we're going to convince regulators that a
distributed energy resource-focused future is a lower-cost
alternative.” Batteries are tricky to evaluate in part because
they aren’t strictly a demand- or supply-side solution. They’re
an arbiter of supply and demand, serving as either generation or
load depending on whether they’re discharging or charging. So
the favorable finances of storage can use all the clarity and
all the study they can get.
Shifting from single- to multi-use cases
The LCOS examined single-use cases, which is how most batteries
are deployed today. But single uses are not how RMI proposes (or
how Lazard expects) they be deployed in the future. Batteries
today are used for a minority of their useful lifetimes. They
can do much more than sit idle the majority of the time, and
increasing their utilization rate can greatly enhance the value
they provide to customers and the grid.
Jonathan Mir, managing director and head of North American Power
and Utilities at Lazard, says, “In point of fact, it will be
possible to use batteries for more than one thing, which means
their value is higher than is being captured in our study.”
Lazard advanced the practice of computing costs for renewably
generated electricity with their LCOE series and Mir says, “I
think we’re going to have to do the same thing around the
stacked use cases.”
Storage costs are dropping
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png<br
/> [img
width=100]
HTML http://g3.ykimg.com/0130391F485579567E659E02E8C87BBAEBE345-AF8A-AA04-3BED-2B9531615A6D[/img]<br
/>
Both reports find that the age of the battery is here, largely
because costs have dropped so far, so fast. Mir says, “This
reminds us very much of where utility-scale renewables were
seven or eight years ago,” when Lazard began covering renewable
costs in its LCOE series. “To us, this seems like an inflection
point where you can see external factors causing demand to
really take off and then you wind up with price declines as
manufacturing scales up,” he says. Lazard’s analysis also
predicts significant cost declines over the next five years,
based on a survey of industry experts. For example, the median
expected five-year price decline for lithium-ion storage is 47
percent below today’s costs.
The LCOS calculates the costs of eight different energy storage
technologies for ten single-use cases, half behind the meter
(including augmenting residential solar PV) and half in front
(including transmission-upgrade deferral). It compares these to
the costs of conventional alternatives like natural-gas peaker
plants or diesel generators. The study finds that the costs of
storage are within “striking distance” of conventional
alternatives for many single-use cases, including lithium-ion
batteries used for frequency regulation and flow batteries used
to defer adding a new peaker plant.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
The challenge of multi-use accounting
What the LCOS analysis doesn’t do is estimate the cost of energy
storage when it is utilized for multiple, stacked services, a
key to realizing the value of storage to customers and the grid.
Most of storage’s costs are fixed, capital costs. But variable
costs—as well as battery lifetime, potentially capacity loss
over time, and ultimately replacement—depend on the use or uses
to which a battery is put over its lifetime, especially how
often it is charged and discharged. This makes it difficult to
state the cost of a given storage technology for a variety of
multiple, stacked services. “That is our ambition,” says
Lazard’s Mir. “It’s important to capture, because we think our
study is likely underestimating the value and potential of
storage because storage would be used in more sophisticated ways
than are being illustrated,” he says, “but the quantitative
analysis and framework to illustrate that is still being
developed. It is another indicium of how immature the industry
is.”
Evaluating battery energy storage economics is hard, and RMI
sees opportunities to build on Lazard’s commendable start. The
basic problem is finding a levelized cost that can be added in
as services are stacked in different combinations. Garrett
Fitzgerald, a senior associate at RMI and co-author of the
Economics of Battery Energy Storage report, explains that, “by
combining fixed costs and variable costs—that are determined by
what services and how often they are being provided—you end up
with a total lifetime cost of providing just a single service.
It is not possible to then determine the incremental cost of
stacking other services on.” For example, “It would be incorrect
to simply add the LCOS of frequency regulation and the LCOS of
peaker replacement as an estimate of the LCOS of a system
providing both,” says Fitzgerald.
The importance of value stacking
Establishing a framework to measure the value (and cost) of
stacked use cases for storage should be possible. Mir says, “To
us, that is a natural evolution of the study.” But, he notes,
“We have not seen a good solution in the public domain for how
to demonstrate this idea, so we will come up with a framework.
We understood it as a very important qualification to the work
we were doing,” says Mir, “which is why we tried to be so clear
about it.”
Indeed, the third page of the LCOS is devoted to explaining
exactly how the energy storage value proposition depends on the
stacking of multiple uses and adding together the value streams
they create. RMI’s Morris says, “Their description is very clear
and an excellent way to think about the comparison between
stacking values and comparing different stacks of value to a
given cost.”
[center]
HTML http://rmi.org/Content/Images/blog_2016_01_21-INFO1_large.png[/center]
The Current State of Play
Lazard considered only unsubsidized costs and disregarded the
additional value created by such things as avoiding the toxic or
climate-changing emissions of conventional fossil-fueled
technologies. Nor does Lazard take into account state
incentives, such as California’s SGIP and mandatory battery
storage legislation. “Their comparison of all chemistries
performing all use cases against a gas peaker plant or a
reciprocating diesel engine (depending on the application) is
extremely helpful,” says Morris. Should subsidies for storage be
introduced at the national level, Lazard will factor them in the
same way it does for LCOE.
So what did Lazard find? Of all the permutations analyzed, only
one—lithium-ion batteries providing frequency regulation to the
grid—was cost effective when performing a single, unstacked
service today. The study also predicts that seven combinations
(all of them with batteries) will be cost effective within five
years. These include two use cases—peaker replacement and
industrial peak shaving/demand charge avoidance—for which
multiple battery chemistries will be cost-competitive with their
diesel and natural-gas alternatives.
[center]
HTML http://rmi.org/Content/Images/blog_2016_01_21-INFO2_large.png[/center]
The LCOS does contain this encouraging caveat, however: “a
number of [technology and use case] combinations are within
‘striking distance’ and, when paired with certain streams of
value, may currently be economic for certain system owners in
some scenarios.” It is these combined value streams that come
with stacked uses that need to be accurately and easily
accounted for.
The road ahead
“Costs will come down naturally with scale; they always do,”
says RMI’s Fitzgerald, but he cautions that, “storage won’t be
mainstream until there are more channels for developers or
storage owners to find revenue.” As examples of the new channels
being opened up for storage, he cites, “things like aggregated
wholesale market participation in California or distributed
system platform providers as described in New York’s REV
proceeding.”
Fitzgerald says that, “storage can do a lot for the grid, and it
can do most when behind-the-meter. Regulation is changing that
will allow distributed storage to collect revenue for these
services.” In consequence, he says, “most of the industry is
focused on opening up new revenue streams and moving toward
customer-sited and customer-focused services, such as demand
charge management or solar-plus-storage solutions.” Lazard’s Mir
adds, “We see that demand increasing pretty rapidly.”
HTML http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in
HTML http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in
Agelbert NOTE: As you can see in the following three quotes
taken from the article above:,
--- Quote ---
> Jonathan Mir, managing director and head of North American
Power and Utilities at Lazard, says, “In point of fact, it will
be possible to use batteries for more than one thing, which
means their value is higher than is being captured in our
study.”
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> What the LCOS analysis doesn’t do is estimate the cost of
energy storage when it is utilized for multiple, stacked
services, a key to realizing the value of storage to customers
and the grid.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Lazard considered only unsubsidized costs and [i]disregarded
the additional value created by such things as avoiding the
toxic or climate-changing emissions of conventional
fossil-fueled technologies.[/I]
--- End Quote ---
IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE, one that the fossil fuelers commit on a
nauseatingly regular basis, to NOT ADD the real world benefits
of NON-polluting energy sources WHEN THE FULL COST of ENERGY
SOURCES TO THE BIOSPHERE ARE figured into the LCOE data.
THAT MISTAKE is what Palloy MAKES on a regular basis :P. And
that is why, when doing apples to apples comparisons of
Renewable Energy ERoEI with fossil fuels, he comes to erroneous,
inaccurate and misleading conclusions that FAVOR fossil fuels
over Renewable Energy sources. :iamwithstupid:
An OBJECTIVE scientist MUST, for Renewable Energy sources, ADD
to their ERoEI base numbers, the real world benefits of avoiding
the toxic or climate-changing emissions of conventional
fossil-fueled technologies IN ORDER TO GET A REALISTIC ERoEI
COMPARISON of clean versus dirty fuels.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/34y5mvr.gif
I wonder why Palloy refuses to do that.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp<br
/> ;)
#Post#: 4412--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 28, 2016, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Palloy link ---
>
> Until you can actually substantiate your accusations of ERoEI
bias, this argument will never get anywhere. I propose we agree
on a methodology to evaluate Full Life Cycle ERoEI, in the form
of a spreadsheet, and I will fill in one column of figures and
you can fill in your column of figures, and we can then compare
them row-by-row and see where the discrepancies lie.
>
> The Farrel et al report labels the rows like this:
> Article title
> Journal
> Heating Value basis
> Agricultural Phase
> Nitrogen (MJ/kg)
> N Application rate (kg/ha)
> Phosphorus (MJ/kg)
> P2O5 application (kg/ha)
> Potassium (MJ/kg)
> K2O application (kg/ha)
> Lime (MJ/kg)
> Lime CaO application (kg/ha)
> Herbicide (MJ/kg)
> Herbicide application rate (kg/ha)
> Insecticide (MJ/kg)
> Insecticide (kg/ha)
> Seed (MJ/kg)
> Seed rate (kg/ha)
> Transportation of inputs, summary (MJ/ha)
> Tranport energy (MJ/kg)
> Gasoline (MJ/ha)
> Diesel (MJ/ha)
> Natural gas (MJ/ha)
> LPG (MJ/ha)
> Electricity (MJ/ha)
> Energy used in irrigation (MJ/ha)
> Farm labor (MJ/ha)
> Labor transportation (MJ/ha)
> Farm machinery (MJ/ha)
> Inputs packaging (MJ/ha)
> Total Agricultural Phase (MJ/ha)
> Biorefinery Phase
> Transportation of feedstock to biorefinery (MJ/L)
> Primary energy (MJ/L)
> Electricity (MJ/L)
> Coal (MJ/L)
> Natural gas (MJ/L)
> Diesel (MJ/L)
> Biomass (MJ/L)
> Capital (plant and equipment) (MJ/L)
> Process water (MJ/L)
> Effluent restoration (BOD energy cost in MJ/L)
> Transportation of chemicals to plant
> Totals
> Crop yield (kg/ha)
> Biorefinery yield (L/kg )
> Net ethanol yield per land area (L/ha)
> Net fuel energy yield per land area (MJ/ha)
> Agricultural energy (MJ/L)
> Biorefinery energy (MJ/L)
> Recycled biomass energy (MJ/L)
> Input energy (MJ/L)
> Reported HV of ethanol (MJ/L)
> Coproduct credits (MJ/L)
> Coproducts as % of total energy
> Output Energy (MJ/L)
> Net energy value, NEV (MJ/L)
> Net energy ratio (see Suppl. Online Material)
>
> Is that acceptable?
> I should just add, if I didn't mention it before, that the six
reports evaluated were on corn, but the spreadsheet would work
in exactly the same way for any feedstock. BTW I agree with you
that corn is not the best feedstock, whole sugar cane (not just
the molasses fraction) is probably best for areas that can grow
it.
>
--- End Quote ---
It's a start, but NO, it is not acceptable because it is
woefully incomplete. "Crop yield", for example, is one of those
loaded terms that woefully FAILS in measuring adequate nutrition
and is slanted to WEIGHT. I have posted, years ago now, about
the FACT that, with chemical fertilizers, the "yields" went UP
while the NUTRITIONAL VALUE of the crop WENT DOWN.
And AT NO TIME was the environmental COST of synthesizing the
fertilizers and pesticides from hydrocarbon feed stock
SUBTRACTED from those "yield" figures, to the JOY of the fossil
fuel industry that claimed we OWED them for their (FAKE) "green
revolution" of heavier, but less nutritious, crops.
And please SPARE me that data dump on different energy
calculation formulas.
1) Post what YOU think is an acceptable energy density formula.
And don't you DARE try to come up with some EXTERNAL combustion
raw enthalpy based calculation. You need a DIFFERENT formula
depending on the mechanical output obtained in the combustion
chamber. You need to COMPARE engine design alloy requirement
from operating temperatures and the maintenance costs of among
different fuels. IOW, ERoEI does not mean jack sh it if ALL the
LOSSES in energy from the combustion chamber to the kinetic
drive shaft are not SUBTRACTED. Yes, it's complicated. And its
complicated because the SAME fuel will have a different engine
efficiency, depending n the design of the engine (compression
ratio and engine weight).
2) THEN, post what you think the cubic feet of flared gas per
barrel of crude oil extracted from an oil rig in the ocean or on
land is. Also, please provide the cubic feet of flared gas per
captured marketable CH4 at a fracked gas rig site.
3) THEN, tell me what the COST of that flared gas, per cubic
feet or some metric measurement of gas you are comfortable with,
in biosphere damage and human health care. Palloy, SOMEBODY is
paying it. And SOMEBODY has done that math. DON'T tell me it
hasn't been done or that it is "impossible to quantify".
Obviously, that must be done for the full life cycle cost
computation, including the flaring caused by crude oil cracking
towers at refineries. Also, the energy cost of drying,
compressing and/or cooling of gas, along with the energy
chemical synthesis costs of making the mercaptan marking gases
must be figured in, of course.
4) When we have a CLEAR ERoEI number for fossil fuels, ABSENT
fossil fuel Charles Hall PRoPI (Profitable Return on Propaganda
Invested :evil4:), THEN we can proceed to approach Renewable
Energy in exactly the same way. I am willing to attempt to
quantify each and every energy and environmental downside that
ANY Renewable energy technology has.
BUT I WILL NOT do it in isolation. You cannot be allowed to move
the energy math goal posts around with rationalizations like
slavery in Brazil UNLESS that is THE NORMAL and ACCEPTED method
of obtaining WHATEVER. Uzbekistan has a huge slavery problem.
People are screaming about it at the U.N. The fact is, ANY
country engaging in slavery is NOT going to LIMIT it to
Renewable Energy production just to make it "cost effective".
They will USE that slavery in production of dirty energy TOO!
I just posted an article that has to do with energy and costs.
NOTICE what Lazard, an authority on LCOE, LEFT OUT of their
calculations. I will NOT let YOU leave that out.
Then we can talk about rare earth piggery and battery production
environmental piggery and ethanol "inefficiencies". Until then,
NO DEAL.
#Post#: 4420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 29, 2016, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Palloy link ---
>
> We are a long way from comparing ERoEIs - we haven't agreed on
an ERoEI for ANY renewable bio-fuel yet. Can we at least agree
on the proposed template for the methodology? I'll even allow
you to require changes to the template once we've got started
and seen how it goes.
>
> I'm not sure how to quantify having/avoiding "toxic damage to
the environment" and "climate-changing emissions", although I
certainly agree that it happens. Coal contains Mercury
compounds, amongst other things, which is measured for coals
burned in countries with legislation for it, so those things are
well-documented. The energy cost of scrubbers in the
smoke-stack might be one way to look at it.
>
--- End Quote ---
WE are a VERY long way from comparing ERoEIs. I haven't agreed
to what YOU think the ERoEIs are for fossil fuels either. I have
observed you dropping ERoEI figures here and there from time to
time as if it was accurate data. It's NOT. You should not do
that because you, by your own admission, are
--- Quote ---
> not sure how to quantify having/avoiding "toxic damage to the
environment" and "climate-changing emissions".
--- End Quote ---
The fact that you put those quotes where you put them says it
ALL.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
You labor under the view that you can divorce environmental
downsides from energy return on energy invested formulas, never
mind the energy losses from the combustion chamber to the actual
WORK produced that should be, but are not, SUBRACTED from the
fuel ERoEI.
For example, if I take a piece of wood and burn it in a chamber
in my house, I lose some of that heat energy up the exhaust. But
I lose STILL MORE of that heat energy, making the SAME piece of
wood LESS efficient (LOWER ERoEI) if I burn it under a boiler to
produce steam for locomotion. IOW, there are TWO EroEI numbers
for the SAME fuel, depending on HOW you use it.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Enthalpy calculations
NEVER MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. Therefore, USING enthalpy as a
STANDARD for ERoEI calculations in MECHANICAL DEVICES is BULL SH
IT.
FORGET Renewable Energy for a moment.
Tell me, do you think the fossil fuel industry could afford to
pay the $44 an hour or more that it NOW does on their fracking
and land and ocean oil rigs if they had to capture, process and
defang the carcinogenic and otherwise toxic gases they now
flare?
If so , WHY?
#Post#: 4426--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 30, 2016, 9:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Palloy link ---
>
> [quote]Tell me, do you think the fossil fuel industry could
afford to pay the $44 an hour or more that it NOW does on their
fracking and land and ocean oil rigs if they had to capture,
process and defang the carcinogenic and otherwise toxic gases
they now flare?
--- End Quote ---
Obviously it would be more expensive and energy-intensive to
capture and process the crap they flare. In fact there would be
a rising cost as the %age of crap cleaned up rose from 1% to
100% - just like the cost of burning coal with CCS goes up, and
only 30% clean up is a target too far. Believe me, I'm not in
favour of doing that. I want all that stopped, even though it
means civilisation collapsing.
But please don't tell me we can all have solar panels and
batteries and electric cars, when none of that new
infrastructure can be manufactured without using FFs to power
the building phase.
[/quote]
--- Quote from: Palloy link ---
>
> You've thrown quite a few red herrings in there - nutritional
content doesn't apply if we're only going to produce ethanol for
fuel, and the energy density of ethanol versus gasoline when
used in vehicle engines doesn't enter into the ERoEI of making
Litres of ethanol.
>
> I was once friends with the chief accountant of an Australian
sugar mill, and he was invited over to see the Brazilian sugar
industry first hand. The Australian sugar industry went all
mechanised after WW2, and has a sophisticated rail system for
getting wet cane to the mill. They use the waste bagasse to
fire the boilers, and to cogenerate a little surplus electricity
while the mill is running. Everything is highly researched and
documented to produce the maximum profit. His impressions of
Brazil, where cane is still cut by hand, and moved by donkey
carts to very small local mills/fermenters, was that it was
outright slavery. The internet is full of sites that back that
up.
>
> A model of that would be very different to a model for how it
would be done in US/Australia. I'm only talking about the
latter, and I'm open to directing all the sugars to the
fermenters, in fact it would be simpler without the co-product
of crystallized sugar, despite not being financially the best
thing to do.
>
> > "I am willing to attempt to quantify each and every energy
and environmental downside that ANY Renewable energy technology
has."
>
> That's all we need to do for the first try. The way
spreadsheets work means that you can always use X for anything
difficult to quantify, and run it with X=low value and X=high
value and see if it makes a big difference to the outcome. I
don't know whether gas flaring makes much of a difference or not
to the final outcome, but let's see shall we?
>
--- End Quote ---
I did not throw any "red herrings". The ENERGY needed to take
something (plant grown or mineral extracted) and make it DO
something involves everything I mentioned. There are widely
different ENERGY COST ramifications to the use of the SAME
energy source in DIFFERENT ways. That isn't a "red herring";
it's a function of complex systems. Do you have problems with a
SLIDING SCALE of ERoEI's for the SAME fuel? I don't.
That is interesting about Brazil, but considering you quoted a
ridiculously low ERoEI number for sugarcane recently, I harbor
no illusions about how you feel about that. Ethanol ERoEI is
different for every plant feed stock used. And some plant feed
stocks can be eaten by people and/or animals or burned after
drying, making the proportional use of that plant for the
process of obtaining ethanol/food/cellulose combustibles
important in determining the energy extracted from a gram of
said plant. If I use ALL of a sugar beet crop for ethanol
production, the ERoEI of said ethanol will be HIGHER than if I
used one third of it because the mechanical plant and equipment,
as well as the cost of growing the beet crop, remain the same
while the kilos of beets to be processed are reduced.
But you KNOW all this! That is why every time I have these
conversations with you, I get the distinct impression that you
are playing dumb.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp<br
/> Nevertheless, we will get to that AFTER we agree on the
formula
for obtaining ERoEI's for fossil fuels. Are we communicating?
You keep wanting to bring the subject to Renewable energy
WITHOUT talking about fossil fuels. WHAT is your problem.
Palloy?
I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow. 8)
[move]Here's the last news for today ;D:[/move]
[center]
Southwestern Energy axing 40 percent of staff, Devon Energy
plans
cuts
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/popcorn.gif
[/center]
Staff Writers January 21, 2016
Two more U.S. independents announced new rounds of layoffs this
week as upstreams continue to grapple with low oil prices.
According to Reuters, Houston-based Southwestern Energy will cut
1,100 employees, or about 40 percent of its workforce.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
The company plans to take a pre-tax charge of between $60
million to $70 million in the first quarter tied to the
reductions.
A timeline for the reductions has not been disclosed yet.
Southwestern told Reuters on Thursday it expects the cuts,
along with a smaller round of cuts last August, to save the
company between $150 million to $175 million per year.
Shares of Southwestern Energy have fallen by about 70 percent
year-over year, Reuters added.
In Oklahoma, Devon Energy is preparing for a round of lay offs
this quarter as the company looks to trim costs.
Devon Energy told NewsOK that it is “clear that layoffs will be
a necessary part of the company’s near-term cost-management
efforts.”
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif
The Oklahoma-based company has not disclosed how large the
reductions will be, but the firm said it expects to “the
majority” of its planned cuts to occur by the end of the first
quarter.
Devon, an independent exploration and production firm, produced
about 214,400 barrels of crude per day in 2014 along with about
1.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day and about 120,000
barrels of natural gas liquids per day.
The company holds acres in the Permian Basin, Barnett shale
play, Anadarko Basin, the Rocky Mountains and Eagle Ford Basin.
Devon Energy also has heavy oil assets in Canada.
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/southwestern-energy-axing-40-percent-staff-devon-energy-plans-cuts/
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/southwestern-energy-axing-40-percent-staff-devon-energy-plans-cuts/
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page