DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4427--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 30, 2016, 9:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Palloy link ---
>
> I am sure that the ERoEI of bio-mass to ethanol is a different
thing from the ERoEI of ethanol to miles motored, and a
different thing again from the ERoEI of oil to miles motored. We
want to know the ERoEI of bio-mass to miles motored. Since we
can't do that without first doing the other two, wouldn't it be
sensible to do bio-mass to ethanol first? If my figures say 1.2
and yours say 10, we have to stop and line the factors up and
see where the huge difference arises. If it turns to all come
from your ERoEI for fossil fuels being different from mine, then
we will have got somewhere.
>
> I'm not playing dumb, but I do seem to be having a lot of
difficulty in getting you to be focussed on solving something.
And you do know you are being insulting all the time, don't you?
That doesn't help.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 4428--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 30, 2016, 9:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Golden Oxen link ---
>
> [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.
>
--- End Quote ---
Not taking sides in this argument, it is over my head, but just
have to comment on Agelbert's utterly amazing postings and the
facts he makes us aware of.
This is just one of the amazing rabbits he pulls out of his
brainy cap. A true font of knowledge and critical out of the
box thinking on these matters.
His point of we being constantly brainwashed and bombarded by
Bull **** from the Fossil Fuel crowd is one of validity however
in my opinion, this is but one excellent example of their
"Forked Tongues"
AG, You missed your calling in life, you would have been a Top
Shelf professor.
[center]
HTML http://inkandvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/critical-thinking.jpg[/center]
[/quote]
Thank you, GO. I was a great flight instructor, aviation
meteorology instructor and air traffic control teacher in the
FAA. At least all my students said so. ;D
I always did enjoy teaching. I feel the fossil fuels versus
renewable energy is not really an energy or industrial
civilization issue, like Palloy does. I feel it is an ethical
issue. Perhaps that why both Palloy and I accuse each other of
dancing around the nitty gritty and, as Palloy alleges, my "lack
of focus".
I'm quite focused.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/> I am, at least at the moment, willing to forego the ethical
stuff with Palloy. But he wants to reduce everything to a fixed
quantity of energy density or ERoEI. He gave me a data dump of
energy units per mass for different materials. He wants me to
accept that, for example, steel or copper or neodymium rare
earth, etc. in a long list of industrially mined, refined and
marketed metals have a fixed amount of REQUIRED (and IMPOSSIBLE
TO SUBSTITUTE WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY) fossil fuel input component
AND a FIXED energy input.
His hypothesis is that the present is unsustainable so it must
collapse. I agree the status quo is unsustainable but I do not
agree it must collapse from lack of energy. I believe it WILL
collapse from climate change if we do not transition to 100%
clean energy.
Palloy believes that the main issue is lack of cheap fossil fuel
energy, not climate change, and pulls out his stats and energy
math to defend his position.
The figures of required energy inputs for metals are something I
cannot agree with because a huge percentage of those metals that
we need to maintain our civilization are no longer mined, but
recycled from scrap. His figure will take the "full energy life
cycle" that includes raw materials mining. That's slanted data,
yet he claims I am not "focusing".
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
Also, Amory Lovins, a scientist who certainly knows a thing or
two about ERoEI and all things energy, has plainly stated that
we CAN maintain our PRESENT level of industrial civilization
with only 20% of the energy INPUTS we now wastefully apply. And
all this simply by improving the efficiency with KNOWN
scientific technology about turbulent flow in pipes, computer
load balancing with renewable energy and, of course biofuels.
Palloy will scoff. but I think Amory is right.
Palloy, to show you what I mean about I what I perceive you
(incorrectly) feel about biofuels, I am posting a hit piece that
ridicules, disdains derides and otherwise insults the
intelligence of readers in general and Amory Lovins in
particular. :(
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Tell me if you can spot the disingenuous use of energy terms in
this article. I suspect that you will agree with MR. Bryce's
clever back door defense of fossil fuels. I will provide a
rebuttal to MR. Bryce's hit piece later.
Biofuels Are a Bad Idea
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/> ;)
8, 2014 8:03 AM EDT
By Robert Bryce
SNIPPET of defamatory sniping and grossly exaggerated claims
about ethanol (see: using CORN ethanol as the be-all-end-all
feed stock) required energy and acreage.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
--- Quote ---
>
> Supporters of biofuels claim that someday they will provide a
significant share of energy in the U.S. Amory Lovins, the
co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and his co-authors
of "Reinventing Fire," for instance, argue that by 2050, the
U.S. will get 23 percent of its total energy from "non-cropland
biofuels."
>
> This is ludicrous. To grow enough biomass to produce that much
energy, the U.S. would need to set aside about 219 million acres
of land, an area the size of Texas, New York and Ohio combined.
>
> Biofuels, we have been repeatedly told, are the magic bullet,
the
energy-independence-punish-the-Arabs-anti-terror-better-than-standard-diesel-fuel
miracle elixir. It isn't true. It's never been true.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-08/biofuels-are-a-bad-idea
HTML http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-08/biofuels-are-a-bad-idea
#Post#: 4430--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 31, 2016, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: K-Dog link ---
>
> I regard Lovins as a tool of the powers that be. One of the
crowd who imagines we can find technical solutions to our
resource depletion issues. In other words a technarcissist.
>
> In his defense perhaps he is trying to kiss political ass but
big brains who think we can innovate to a cornucopian future do
the rest of us a huge disservice. There is no way our nation
can endure without citizens making huge lifestyle and attitude
changes and since that is not going to happen without a poke and
a prod purveyors of hopium like Lovins must lead us to a very
bad end. Technology is part of the answer but it is a thin
slice of the solution pie and that fact should be screamed from
the rooftops by those who pray to the Technology God for
deliverance. Especially by those who have influence.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 4431--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 31, 2016, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Palloy link ---
>
> I used to be a fan of Lovins, back when I thought solar panels
were a good idea. But when I realised what the ERoEI of solar
panels is, and that the EI is all up front while the ER is a
trickle over its lifetime, I stopped promoting solar, and
started seeing Lovins as a Techno-Utopian. He remains popular
because Techno-Utopianism is a much more comforting meme to hold
on to than Doomerism.
>
> I guess this is the difference between myself and AG too. He
believes the FF industry will do ANYTHING to preserve their
wealth and influence, and I agree, but he also believes that
Lovins (et al) would never do the same, while I think that is
exactly what they will do.
>
> Anyway, there are many things that mathematical tools can't
solve, but ERoEI is one where it can, and it can be
life-changing because you discover that there is no solution to
the energy problem.
>
> This so-called data dump that AG keeps focussing on wasn't a
data dump at all. It was just a list of factors that have to be
quantified before you can work out the ERoEI of bio-mass to
ethanol. It didn't contain any data - that is to be supplied by
the scenario writer. When you cut the crop and take it away,
you are taking away nutrients, hence impoverishing the soil.
For sustainability, you must at least replace those nutrients,
and it would probably be beneficial to be improving the soil
over time. So: how much fertiliser (tonnes/hectare); how much
energy to make fertiliser (MJ/tonne); how much crop
(tonnes/hectare); are all necessary numbers in the calculation.
In fact in the reports Farrel analyses, the N, P, K, Lime,
herbicides and pesticides represent about 18.5% of Energy
Returned of the ethanol.
>
--- End Quote ---
[center]
[img
width=300]
HTML http://memecrunch.com/meme/5L3XX/spiderman-bullshit-detector/image.jpg?w=544&c=1[/img][/center]
#Post#: 4432--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 31, 2016, 2:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Eddie link ---
>
> How much land and human slave labor does it take to raise
enough substrate (using organic farming) and process enough
biofuel to power one private automobile?
>
> Is there a spread sheet for that?
>
> Reminds me of that old cartoon of a Roman Galley. You probably
remember it:
>
> "The good news is that everyone gets an extra ration of grog.
The bad news is that after lunch the Captain wants to water
ski."
>
--- End Quote ---
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-111214174727.png[/center]
#Post#: 4433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 31, 2016, 2:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
K-Dog is into assuming renewable energy is the same scam as
fossil fuels
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png<br
/>- SEE: FALSE EQUIVALENCE. K-Dog's technofix concerns are
valid,
but ONLY if he wishes to discuss ETHICAL considerations (i.e.
the CRIMES of the fossil fuel industry in comparison with any
perceived Renewable energy technofix limitations), something he
most certainly DOES NOT wish to discuss objectively, along with
the champion of the Capitalist profit motive, Eddie
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif.
Granted, Lovins is a
Capitalist and he plays their game. BUT, he is trying to make a
POSITIVE difference, not perpetuate profit over planet
stupidity. To label that as "hopium" is sour grapes, not
objectivity.
People here making false comparisons between clean energy
technologies and dirty energy technologies in general, and
defamatory remarks about a serious scientist like Amory Lovins
in particular, who actually FORCED mechanical engineering
textbooks to be rewritten with a new turbulent flow
thermodynamics characteristics formula he discovered, with
instruments he designed in the 1980's, is sour grapes and worthy
of pity.
It is CLEAR that both Eddie and Palloy are SOLIDLY in agreement
with the Bryce hit piece on biofuels.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png
That is not a new revelation to me, of course. But it is
refreshing to see them make their "there is no replacement for
the 'high energy density' fossil fuels so civilization MUST
collapse" positions clearer and clearer. ;)
This interesting comment by Palloy is of note in the pretzelian
logic of the status quo defenders:
--- Quote ---
>
> I used to be a fan of Lovins, back when I thought solar panels
were a good idea. But when I realised what the ERoEI of solar
panels is, and that the EI is all up front while the ER is a
trickle over its lifetime, I stopped promoting solar, and
started seeing Lovins as a Techno-Utopian. He remains popular
because Techno-Utopianism is a much more comforting meme to hold
on to than Doomerism.
--- End Quote ---
Palloy is attempting to make a case that Lovins, more a champion
of pipe airflow characteristics, building efficiency, pump
redesign, grid efficiency, building insulation, Computer load
balancing from PV, wind or any other source that is renewable
(and so on) than all things photovoltaic (though he certainly
DOES applaud their extensive use IN COOMBINATION with other
renewable energy technologies.), somehow did not do the proper
math on PV.
I will not again address the spurious, defamatory and baseless
charge of "Techno-Utopian". That's all part of the MO the fossi
lfuel industry has been using for at least 40 years with their
"sounds wunerful but it ain't ready for prime time" PRoPi
(profitable Return on Propaganda Invested
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp).<br
/>Name calling is lots of fun but, other than align Palloy with
the fossil fuel tool Bryce in the biofuels hit piece above,
doesn't prove a thing.
The really curious thing about Palloy's allegation that
"Doomerism is a more realistic approach to responding to our
present plight", is that HIS response to our plight it is to
discount the value of proposed solutions by claiming they are
"pie in the sky" even though many of these technologies, like
wind and PV, already have an excellent record of causing demand
destruction for fossil fuels poisoning our atmosphere. Any
discussion of their effects when they are truly scaled up is
simply not acceptable to Palloy because, uh, something about the
PAY BACK TIME.
Let's study WHY Palloy makes that claim. Palloy claims to be
taiking about ERoEI. He says, " I realised what the ERoEI of
solar panels is, and that the EI is all up front while the ER is
a trickle over its lifetime, I stopped promoting solar."
Well, the about statement is, when analyzed correctly, about
MONEY returned on MONEY invested, not ENERGY returned on ENERGY
invested. Palloy KNOWS that the MONEY you get BACK from the life
cycle of fossil fuels (excluding externalizations like coerced
subsidies from we-the-people, tax loop holes, flaring toxic
gases, poisoned wildlife and sick poor kids living downwind of
refineries, etc.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)<br
/>is FASTER with fossil fuels.
So, he pulls out his pay back time for an investment formula and
plugs in PV panels.
Sounds like fossil fuels win, right?
Nope. WHY? Because the ORIGINAL premise is that this is about
ERoEI, not MONEY return on MONEY invested. Of course fossil
fuels looks fine and dandy due to the FACT that the laws are
GAMED to make it so. The PITTANCE that PV gets in subsidies is
something Palloy will claim to argue that since BOTH
technologies get subsidies, it don't matter. The gargantuan
difference in subsidies in not in Palloy's math, for some
reason.
And here is the most salient error in Palloy's "logic" that led
him to stop promoting solar. UNLIKE fossil fuels, the ENERGY
harvested from the sun by a solar panel EXCEEDS ALL THE ENERGY
used to mine the materials and manufacture that solar panel BY
SEVERAL MULTIPLES. RE went nuts when I first pointed the
Columbia University study that PROVED that.
And that was BEFORE the more efficient panels over the last two
years! :o
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png
Fossil fuels, as of this writing, ACTUALLY have ERoEI's BELOW
1:1. The only reason they are "profitable" is because of the
corruption of the laws that regulate their extraction, refining
and marketing.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
Let me be clear, so Palloy does not misinterpret me here.
Discounting pollution costs, 50 years or more ago and earlier,
gasoline DID have an EroEi above 1:1.
But TODAY, from the energy required to
explore for crude oil and
extract it somewhere
to transport to the refinery
to the pre-refining oxygen stripping
to drying
to the cracking towers refining
to the storage TEMPERATURE control
to the synthesis of and addition of 40% non hydrocarbon solvents
to the transportation to the gasoline station
to get one gallon of gasoline exploding in your combustion
chamber, the KINETIC ENERGY your vehicle gets from that
combustion is LESS than was INVESTED in all the above steps
required to make it and get it to the combustion chamber,
PERIOD.
You NEED MORE ENERGY to get that gasoline to your combustion
chamber than you get in the movement of your CAR!
And THAT does not even include the pollution costs!
I agree with Palloy that the upfront MONEY costs of PV are a
barrier to scaling it up because the pay back (MONEYWISE- NOT
ENERGYWISE) is slower than with fossil fuels powered plant and
equipment. WHO'S FAULT IS THAT!!!? Corrupted Governments! Energy
"density" or ERoEI has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The FACT that the ENERGY pay back of PV includes an ERoEI ALWAYS
greater than 1:1, even if it does take 5 or six years for a
panel that functions reliably for 25 PLUS years, is NOT an
excuse to "stop supporting PV". PV HAS an ERoEI HIGHER than
1:1, PERIOD!
The shorter time needed to extract the energy from gasoline (a
product with an ERoEI BELOW 1:1) from the well to the combustion
chamber does not justify continuing to use it.
Solar panels represent just ONE part of the DOABLE transition to
100% Renewable energy. After this post, I'll present a rebuttal
to the "Biofuels are bad idea" hit piece attacking ethanol.
I'm still waiting for Palloy to tell me how much volume of
flared gas is burned per barrel of crude or equivalent mass of
fracked "natural" gas. I guess I'll have to dig up that
embarrassing (for fossil fuelers) info myself. 8)
[move]
Now for some DOOM news, along with the SOLUTION that the K-Dogs
and Palloys of this world call "techno-Utopian". [/move]
[center]Is Humanity On the Eve of Extinction?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1593.gif<br
/>[/center]
Jan. 21, 2016 1:23 pm By Thom Hartmann
According
HTML http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?_r=0<br
/>to NASA and NOAA scientists, 2015 was the warmest year ever
for
global land and ocean surfaces, dating all the way to 1880.
And it's not just American scientists who are reporting that
last year was the warmest on record, British scientists reported
that it was the warmest year since 1850, and Japanese scientists
reported that it was the warmest year since 1891.
Keep in mind, 2014 had set the previous record for global
surface temperatures, and 2015 just beat that record by a
longshot.
HTML https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/20/its-official-2015-smashed-2014s-global-temperature-record-it-wasnt-even-close/<br
/>
Part of what's going has to do with an unusually warm Pacific
Ocean due to an El Nino that's going on right now, but that
doesn't explain it all.
As Dr. Michael Mann explained to the New York Times,
HTML http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?_r=0<br
/> if the global climate weren't warming, the odds of setting
two
back-to-back record years would be about one chance in every
1,500 pairs of years.
He added though, that because the planet is warming, the odds of
setting back-to-back record years is really closer to one in ten
now.
The really scary part though, is that there's good evidence that
this is nothing compared to what's to come.
[center]
HTML http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VY482b7kWY0/VF8_p83XgAI/AAAAAAAAPUc/gmkoWO3GUec/s1600/Vostok3.png[/center]
[center]Just as William F. Ruddiman argued in a paper from 2003,
even though humans hadn't industrialized, we had already started
having a major impact on the Earth's atmosphere and its natural
cycles as far back as 8000 years ago.[/I][/center]
And that makes sense, because 8000 years ago is about the time
that early agriculture appeared in Eurasia and humans started
clearing, and burning, forests to make more space for
agriculture and human settlements.
In his research,
HTML http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160107151738.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook<br
/> Ruddiman points out that based on the natural Earth's natural
cycles for methane and carbon over the last 400,000 years, we
should see a decrease in both gases starting roughly 11,000
years ago and continuing for another several thousand years.
Instead, we see that carbon dioxide and methane levels started
to rise in the atmosphere starting about 8000 years ago, marking
a sharp movement away from what had occurred for over 400,000
years of Earth history.
Recent research from the Anthropocene Working Group at the
University of Leicester shows that humans have almost always had
a noticeable impact on the planet's natural cycles, but our
impact has been exceptional since the start of the industrial
revolution.
In fact, the 24 co-authors argue that we've entered a new and
distinct geological era, just within the last 50 years.
They call it the "Anthropocene era" from the greek word
"Anthropos" meaning "man".
The authors argue that even though we've been having an impact
on our planet for thousands of years, it's only been during the
last 50 years that human activity became the main factor driving
almost every single natural process on Earth.
And that brings us back to the relationship between global
surface temperatures, methane, and carbon dioxide.
Because as these
HTML https://www.aip.org/history/climate/xMethane.htm
charts
HTML https://www.aip.org/history/climate/xMethane.htm
show,
HTML https://www.aip.org/history/climate/xMethane.htm
if atmospheric
temperatures continue to follow the same sky-rocketing trend
that methane and carbon dioxide have during the last century,
[i]we could very well be approaching the eve of extinction.
And none of this is taking into account the greenhouse gases
that are trapped in the Antarctic Ice Sheet, which could be up
to 21 quadrillion grams of organic carbon, and up to 400 billion
tons of methane gases.[/I]
If we continue on this course, if we continue to spew methane
and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the pursuit of cheap
and short sighted economic growth, we can guarantee that our
planet will continue to warm.
And, as the planet warms, the Antarctic Ice Sheet (Nature
International Weekly Journal of Science: Potential methane
reservoirs beneath Antarctica )
HTML http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7413/full/nature11374.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureClimate<br
/> will begin to rapidly melt, which means that up to 21
quadrillion grams of carbon, and up to 400 billion tonnes of
methane would be released into the atmosphere.
At that point, if humans are even still around, there will be
literally nothing that we can do to stop a planetary mass
extinction and to save humanity.
More and more scientists agree that natural processes don't
drive the climate anymore, human activity does.
And it's only human activity that can stop our march towards
planetary extinction.
Which means we need to put a price on carbon.
And [i]we need to aggressively convert our energy system to one
that's 100% renewable, and we need to find [b]carbon and
methane-neutral ways of transporting our goods, building our
infrastructure, and constructing our cities.
The technology to achieve all of those goals [i]already exists,
and we now face a choice as a global society.
We'll go extinct if we keep doing what's easy, and what's
comfortable.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mog.gif
But we can save the planet, if we make bold decisions and take
immediate action to minimize human impact, and thus restore the
planet's own natural processes and the balance that existed for
hundreds of thousands of years before the first human
settlements.
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/01/humanity-eve-extinction#sthash.FoBR5OHQ.dpuf
HTML http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/01/humanity-eve-extinction#sthash.FoBR5OHQ.dpuf
#Post#: 4437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 1, 2016, 2:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Palloy link ---
>
> You have really wasted your time trying to argue:
> [quote]The really curious thing about Palloy's allegation that
"Doomerism is a more realistic approach to responding to our
present plight", is that HIS response to our plight it is to
discount the value of proposed solutions by claiming they are
"pie in the sky" even though many of these technologies, like
wind and PV, already have an excellent record of causing demand
destruction for fossil fuels poisoning our atmosphere. Any
discussion of their effects when they are truly scaled up is
simply not acceptable to Palloy because, uh, something about the
PAY BACK TIME.
--- End Quote ---
- because that isn't my point at all. Once more, for the
record:
To calculate ERoEI, (which is a single number, and hence not
very expressive) you first have to identify the full life-cycle
energy budget - the components of EI and the components of ER.
But to investigate the scale-up of a technology OVER TIME, you
also have to include when the components of EI and ER occur in
time.
Let's do it first with algebra, and then we can plug in some
real numbers.
Let the Lifetime of the panel be L, and the ERoEI be E.
And let's assume that ALL the EI is up front, from T=-1 to T= 0,
and the ER is from T=0 to T=L.
So the Energy Payback Time is L/E,
and the Energy Payback Per Year is Y% = (100 * E/L).
So any growth in the panel industry that is faster than Y% is
going to need an energy subsidy - from the existing energy mix,
which is mostly FFs.
So if you want to cut back on the use of FFs, you have to grow
the PV industry at less than Y%, and you have to divert ALL the
ER to the next year's EI. (Actually that's impractical, but I
will allow you declare electricity is fungible with FFs, so
panels on roofs will do.)
OK, so when does the PV industry as a whole start to make an
energy profit, bearing in mind you will be requiring increasing
amounts of EI as time goes on?
There isn't a simple formula for it, but if you lay it out in a
spreadsheet, year by year with Y% growth per year, it is easy to
total the EIs and the ERs, and the answer is 2 * L/E.
Plugging in some real numbers:
L = 25 years
E = 3
Y = 12%
Time to a positive total PV energy profit = 16.7 years
And THAT is why you can't have a scalable PV industry.
Yes, you can make a start on the transition, but you can NEVER
finish it.
Note: not a single $ sign anywhere - this is nothing to do with
money.
In the real world, which runs on money, of course money does
have a lot to do with it, but that's not MY argument. It
doesn't matter how much in subsidies the FF industry gets, and
it doesn't matter how much in subsidies PV gets in MY argument.
I'm not in league with the FF conspiracy, and I'm not in league
with the PV conspiracy.
The fact is none of them are a solution, and the same goes for
nuclear and bio-mass. We're doomed.
[/quote]
[center]
HTML http://josephnewton.com/images/sized/images/work/Aug6o9_Savage_Mislead_LG-440x501.jpg[/center]
[center]
HTML http://williamsburgsoftball.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/forest-for-trees.jpg[/center]
You are totally wrong in your claim that "PV cannot be scaled
up". Not only can PV be scaled up quite well, but as we speak,
PV is being scaled up THANKS TO INCREASING INVESTMENTS YOU WISH
TO IGNORE THAT ARE NOW BEING MADE TO ACHIEVE THAT.
Of course, PV will NEVER be scaled up in a centralized energy
"business model" the predatory bastards on this planet prefer;
it will MOSTLY be DECENTRALIZED, making it DIFFICULT for the
leaches that want to control the energy spigot. But, as far as
the PERCENTAGE of gobal energy harvested for industrial
civilizaton, within ten years it WILL be at over 25% (I'm being
conservative - over 50% is probably more realistic. ;D ). I do
believe 25% of the whole energy enchillada is considered SCALED
UP, even by you.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/> That means that even your money argument is losing its
validity
too!
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
As to your PV energy figures, LOL!
WHY? Because fossil fuels NEVER produce MORE energy than it
takes to get them! WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? And
you have the BALLS to claim a long pay back time energy wise is
a valid excuse to "NOT SUPPORT" PV!!!? WTF!!!?
Ah, yes, the "real world", most loved by the MKing's of this
world as a defense of their empathy deficit disordered "business
model", that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with THERMODYNAMIC
efficiency or ACTUAL ENERGY RETURN on ENERGY INVESTED, is
brought up BY PALLOY as a fig leaf for a failed ERoEI argument.
Which confirms, despite Palloy's DENIAL that MONEY is his only
argument, that money IS his argument, NOT energy. And he NEEDED
to AVOID mentioning or actually doing the math on SUBSIDIES to
make his money argument (when you want an positive number in an
equation result, Palloy learned at an early age that variables
that subtract from the resultant number are to be avoided
whenever possible...). Consequently he makes the fascinatingly
inaccurate claim that " It doesn't matter how much in subsidies
the FF industry gets, and it doesn't matter how much in
subsidies PV gets in MY argument."
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>[center]
HTML http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg[/center]
Palloy's allusion to me being a "conspiracy theorist" doing a
"wild eyed branding" of him as part of a conspiracy against PV
(I.E. "Palloy the prudent mathematician suffering spurious
accusations by the unwashed and ignorant Agelbert" ;)
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)<br
/>was a nice touch. I'm sure some brainwashed fossil fuelers
fell
for it. ;D
And the obligatory "balanced" statements that admit the truth
about distributed PV on rooftops is another clever touch placed
there to convince me and all of you readers that Palloy is being
"objective" about PV.
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png[/center]
Palloy, you are study in clever sniping, hyperbole and
irrelevancy. You are somewhat entertaining but consistently
inaccurate. But thank you for helping to jack up the views here.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191456.bmp:
NOW for the rebuttal of the defamatory remarks and deliberately
inaccurate ethanol acreage requirements and energy efficiency
figures in the "Biofuels are a bad idea
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp"<br
/>hit piece by the TOOL of the fossil fuel industry (Bryce -
which
makes arguments which are almost identical to the ones Palloy
makes to claim Renewable Energy based ethanol cannot replace
gasoline for transportation):
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-034.gif<br
/>BUSTING THE ETHANOL MYTHS
Myth #1: It Takes More Energy to Produce Ethanol than You Get
from It!
Most ethanol research over the past 25 years has been on the
topic of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Public
discussion has been dominated by the American Petroleum
Institute’s aggressive distribution of the work of Cornell
professor David Pimentel and his numerous, deeply flawed
studies. Pimentel stands virtually alone in portraying alcohol
as having a negative EROEI—producing less energy than is used in
its production.
In fact, it’s oil that has a negative EROEI.. Because oil is
both the raw material and the energy source for production of
gasoline, it comes out to about 20% negative. That’s just common
sense; some of the oil is itself used up in the process of
refining and delivering it (from the Persian Gulf, a distance of
11,000 miles in tanker travel).
The most exhaustive study on ethanol’s EROEI, by Isaias de
Carvalho Macedo, shows an alcohol energy return of more than
eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study
accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make
the steel for tractors.
But perhaps more important than EROEI is the energy return on
fossil fuel input. Using this criterion, the energy returned
from alcohol fuel per fossil energy input is much higher. In a
system that supplies almost all of its energy from biomass, the
ratio of return could be positive by hundreds to one.
Myth #2: There Isn’t Enough Land to Grow Crops for Both Food and
Fuel!
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. has
434,164,946 acres of “cropland”—land that is able to be worked
in an industrial fashion (monoculture). This is the prime,
level, and generally deep agricultural soil. In addition to
cropland, the U.S. has 939,279,056 acres of “farmland.” This
land is also good for agriculture, but it’s not as level and the
soil not as deep. Additionally, there is a vast amount of
acreage—swamps, arid or sloped land, even rivers, oceans, and
ponds—that the USDA doesn’t count as cropland or farmland, but
which is still suitable for growing specialized energy crops.
Of its nearly half a billion acres of prime cropland, the U.S.
uses only 72.1 million acres for corn in an average year. The
land used for corn takes up only 16.6% of our prime cropland,
and only 7.45% of our total agricultural land.
Even if, for alcohol production, we used only what the USDA
considers prime flat cropland, we would still have to produce
only 368.5 gallons of alcohol per acre to meet 100% of the
demand for transportation fuel at today’s levels. Corn could
easily produce this level—and a wide variety of standard crops
yield up to triple this. Plus, of course, the potential alcohol
production from cellulose could dwarf all other crops.
Myth #3: Ethanol’s an Ecological Nightmare!
You’d be hard-pressed to find another route that so elegantly
ties the solutions to the problems as does growing our own
energy. Far from destroying the land and ecology, a permaculture
ethanol solution will vastly improve soil fertility each year.
The real ecological nightmare is industrial agriculture.
Switching to organic-style crop rotation will cut energy use on
farms by a third or more: no more petroleum-based herbicides,
pesticides, or chemical fertilizers. Fertilizer needs can be
served either by applying the byproducts left over from the
alcohol manufacturing process directly to the soil, or by first
running the byproducts through animals as feed.
Myth #4: It’s Food Versus Fuel—We Should Be Growing Crops for
Starving Masses, Not Cars!
[center]
HTML http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwx7wy0tIK1qd9a66o1_500.jpg[/center]
Humankind has barely begun to work on designing farming as a
method of harvesting solar energy for multiple uses. Given the
massive potential for polyculture yields, monoculture-study
dismissals of ethanol production seem silly when viewed from
economic, energetic, or ecological perspectives.
Because the U.S. grows a lot of it, corn has become the primary
crop used in making ethanol here. This is supposedly
controversial, since corn is identified as a staple food in
poverty-stricken parts of the world. But 87% of the U.S. corn
crop is fed to animals. In most years, the U.S. sends close to
20% of its corn to other countries. While it is assumed that
these exports could feed most of the hungry in the world, the
corn is actually sold to wealthy nations to fatten their
livestock. Plus, virtually no impoverished nation will accept
our corn, even when it is offered as charity, due to its being
genetically modified and therefore unfit for human consumption.
Also, fermenting the corn to alcohol results in more meat than
if you fed the corn directly to the cattle. We can actually
increase the meat supply by first processing corn into alcohol,
which only takes 28% of the starch, leaving all the protein and
fat, creating a higher-quality animal feed than the original
corn.
Agelbert NOTE: Did you read that last paragraph closely? It is a
very important paragraph because it is proof that you can STILL
FEED THE CORN TO ANIMALS after you have taken 28% of the starch
out to make ethanol! You can never do that with hydrocarbons.
This gives proper corn or other biofeedstock processing for
ethanol AND animal feed a huge jump in EROEI (energy return on
energy invested).
Myth #5: Big Corporations Get All Those Ethanol Subsidies, and
Taxpayers Get Nothing in Return!
Between 1968 and 2000, oil companies received subsidies of
$149.6 billion, compared to ethanol’s paltry $116.6 million. The
subsidies alcohol did receive have worked extremely well in
bringing maturity to the industry. Farmer-owned cooperatives now
produce the majority of alcohol fuel in the U.S. Farmer-owners
pay themselves premium prices for their corn and then pay
themselves a dividend on the alcohol profit.
The increased economic activity derived from alcohol fuel
production has turned out to be crucial to the survival of
noncorporate farmers, and the amounts of money they spend in
their communities on goods and services and taxes for schools
have been much higher in areas with an ethanol plant. Plus,
between $3 and $6 in tax receipts are generated for every dollar
of ethanol subsidy. The rate of return can be much higher in
rural communities, where re-spending within the community
produces a multiplier factor of up to 22 times for each alcohol
fuel subsidy dollar.
Myth #6: Ethanol Doesn’t Improve Global Warming! In Fact, It
Pollutes the Air!
Alcohol fuel has been added to gasoline to reduce virtually
every class of air pollution. Adding as little as 5–10% alcohol
can reduce carbon monoxide from gasoline exhaust dramatically.
When using pure alcohol, the reductions in all three of the
major pollutants—carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and
hydrocarbons—are so great that, in many cases, the remaining
emissions are unmeasurably small. Reductions of more than 90%
over gasoline emissions in all categories have been routinely
documented for straight alcohol fuel.
It is true that when certain chemicals are included in gasoline,
addition of alcohol at 2–20% of the blend can cause a reaction
that makes these chemicals more volatile and evaporative. But
it’s not the ethanol that’s the problem; it’s the gasoline.
Alcohol carries none of the heavy metals and sulfuric acid that
gasoline and diesel exhausts do. And straight ethanol’s
evaporative emissions are dramatically lower than gasoline’s, no
more toxic than what you’d find in the air of your local bar.
As for global warming, the production and use of alcohol neither
reduces nor increases the atmosphere’s CO2. In a properly
designed system, the amount of CO2 and water emitted during
fermentation and from exhaust is precisely the amount of both
chemicals that the next year’s crop of fuel plants needs to make
the same amount of fuel once again.
Alcohol fuel production actually lets us reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, since the growing of plants ties up many times more
carbon dioxide than is created in the production and use of the
alcohol. Converting from a hydrocarbon to a carbohydrate
economy could quickly reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide.
HTML http://www.permaculture.com/node/490
HTML http://www.permaculture.com/node/490
While we are discussing what ethanol is, how it is made and what
the effects on the environment are, never forget that ethanol
produced from plants is COMPETITION for the fossil fuel industry
so they are not happy with the growth of ethanol as a biofuel
replacement for fossil fuels in our civilization from cars to
power plants. At present, the fossil fuel industry actually
produces about 5% of the world's ethanol from petroleum
products. So they stand to lose that product as well as all the
other energy products from bio-fuel ethanol products.
From Wikipeda:
Ethanol is a renewable energy source because the energy is
generated by using a resource, sunlight, which cannot be
depleted. Creation of ethanol starts with photosynthesis causing
a feedstock, such as sugar cane or a grain such as maize (corn),
to grow. These feedstocks are processed into ethanol.
About 5% of the ethanol produced in the world in 2003 was
actually a petroleum product.[18] Two million tons of
petroleum-derived ethanol are produced annually. The principal
suppliers are plants in the United States, Europe, and South
Africa.[19]Petroleum derived ethanol (synthetic ethanol) is
chemically identical to bio-ethanol and can be differentiated
only by radiocarbon dating.[20]
Bio-ethanol is usually obtained from the conversion of carbon
based feedstock. Agricultural feedstocks are considered
renewable because they get energy from the sun using
photosynthesis, provided that all minerals required for growth
(such as nitrogen and phosphorus) are returned to the land.
Ethanol can be produced from a variety of feedstocks such as
sugar cane, bagasse, miscanthus, sugar beet, sorghum, grain,
switchgrass, barley, hemp, kenaf, potatoes, sweet potatoes,
cassava, sunflower, fruit, molasses, corn, stover, grain, wheat,
straw, cotton, other biomass, as well as many types of cellulose
waste and harvestings, whichever has the best well-to-wheel
assessment.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
We have, for all practical purposes, an unlimited energy source
in the form of solar photons absorbed at various different
levels of efficiency to produce nutrients for plant life. What's
more, these solar photon processing units of life called plants
grow over most of our planet, particularly where humans are most
concentrated.
This is a radical departure from fossil fuels which cost
enormous amounts of money to safeguard in certain world areas
where they are concentrated. This concentration of energy, when
it is controlled centrally, as it is done by the global powers,
has led to inequality, corrupt police state type governments,
wars, and a controlling oligarchy of conscience free predator
humans lording it over the great mass of the human population.
This in turn has resulted in rampant pollution, global warming
and a great deal of human misery.
Plainly, the status quo is unsustainable so we must move to a
sustainable civilization or perish.
[center]
HTML http://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption_files/image002.jpg[/center]
[center]This was a decade ago. The piggery at the top is much
worse now. [/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060714185706.gif[/center]
#Post#: 4635--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: March 7, 2016, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260116190829.png
[/center]
--- Quote from: jdwheeler42 link ---
>
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg98643#msg98643
date=1457141307]
> ALL major industrial high thermal heat, beat and treat
processes ALREADY use electrical furnaces because those are the
most efficient for processing and manufacturing metals and their
alloys. So ALL of heavy industry, except for back up generators
than can run on ethanol, can be powered by ELECTRICITY.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think that is a real "killer app" for kickstarting demand,
making ethanol-powered ICE electrical generators. It's
something that can be done today by someone with good
engineering skills (or enough money they can hire someone with
such skills). Alas, I have neither the skills nor the money.
But one thing that makes ethanol ideal for back-up generators is
that the fuel can be stored indefinitely without special
processing; even with additives gasoline can only last a couple
years in storage. (Propane itself does not degrade with
storage, but the seals do, so you can find your tanks empty even
though you never used them.)
[/quote]
I suspect that Brazil my have some generator models that run
exclusively on ethanol. They already require their filling
stations to have at last one E100 (100% ethanol - illegal in
the USA - LOL!) pump. So if they have a large percentage of cars
running on it, it's not a big step to rig up a car engine to run
on ethanol.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://cmapsconverted.ihmc.us/rid=1K4VGT3S0-CSBGMS-WJS/BIODIESEL.cmap?rid=1K4VGT3S0-CSBGMS-WJS&partName=htmljpeg[/img][/center]
[center]
HTML http://cmapsconverted.ihmc.us/rid=1K4VGT3S0-CSBGMS-WJS/BIODIESEL.cmap[/center]
I'll check around when I get some time. To me, the ultimate
poison pill ;D or the fossil fuel industry in the USA would be
a legal internal combustion engine made with alloys that cannot
handle high temperatures (i.e. VERY cheap to manufacture due to
less tempering required and also because it requires 30% LESS
metal - weighing at least 30% less). Any gasoline use would
warp the block and/or the heads. So, they would have to be
placarded with the "ETHANOL (E!00) ONLY" warning stating that
any use of gasoline voids the warrantee.
The same thing applies to natural gas or LPG. LPG and Methane
burn cleaner than gasoline but the waste heat problem, while not
being as bad, still requires high heat handling alloys and over
engineering we have in ALL our fossil fuel powered internal
combustion engines today.
Of course the USA will be the last to allow such an ethanol only
engine across the border. The feds will arrest you for carrying
"non-fuel grade" fuel (i.e. if you can drink your fuel, Lord
Lucifer and the Fossil Fuel Government will frown on you with
extreme prejudice :evil4:).
The fossil fuelers will never admit that the waste heat of
fossil fuels, so necessary for them to claim they have a "higher
energy density" than ethanol, is useless for obtaining
mechanical WORK from an engine AND SUBTRACTS from engine power
BECAUSE some of the engine energy must be used to COOL the
engine.
Hess's Law of enthalpy of formation, the one Charles Hall adores
and the one used for just about ALL of the assumptions on laws
of thermodynamics in science today, classifies ALL heat, whether
waste heat or not, as ENERGY. This is true. But if you can't use
some of that energy to do work, and if that energy you can't use
actually INTERFERES with you doing work (i.e. SUCKS ENERGY from
the energy that is useful in order to keep the engine from over
heating), then basing ERoEI on Hess's Law is thoroughly
misleading.
Finally, Hess's Law is not used as it should be to subtract the
energy required to bio-remediate the damage that pollution
products from fossil fuels cause. Externalizing those costs as
if they did not require an energy input to assure a viable
biosphere is an insult to the laws of thermodynamics. It's
fossil fuel industry cherry picking, not science.
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010216161405.jpeg[/center]
#Post#: 5969--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: November 28, 2016, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Commodities | Mon Nov 28, 2016 | 8:09am EST
[center]
Trump faces dilemma as U.S. oil reels ;D from record biofuels
targets[/center]
By Chris Prentice | NEW YORK
The Obama administration signed its final plan for renewable
fuel use in the United States last week, leaving an oil industry
reeling from the most aggressive biofuel targets yet as
President-elect Donald Trump takes over.
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, signed into law by
President George W. Bush, is one of the country's most
controversial energy policies. It requires energy firms to blend
ethanol and biodiesel into gasoline and diesel.
The policy was designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce
U.S. reliance on oil imports and boost rural economies that
provide the crops for biofuels.
It has pitted two of Trump's support bases against each other:
Big Oil and Big Corn. The farming sector has lobbied hard for
the maximum biofuel volumes laid out in the law to be blended
into gasoline motor fuels, while the oil industry argues that
the program creates additional costs.
Balancing oil and farm interests is likely to prove a challenge
for Trump, who has promised to curtail regulations on the oil
industry but is already being reminded by biofuels advocates of
the importance of the program to the American Midwest, where he
received strong support from voters on Nov. 8.
Oil groups are renewing their calls to change or repeal the
program following Wednesday's announcement, when the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set record mandates for
renewable fuels - for the first time hitting levels targeted by
Congress nearly a decade ago..
The EPA plan is "completely detached from market realities and
confirms once again that Congress must take immediate action to
remedy this broken program," said Chet Thompson, President of
the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, in a
statement.
It is unclear what Trump's plans for the program will be and his
transition team did not respond to Reuters' requests for
comment.
Both camps are expecting an administration receptive to their
demands, though both have expressed concern and uncertainty over
Trump's plans for the program, according to experts, industry
and political sources.
The installation of climate change skeptic Myron Ebell as head
of the transition at the EPA bolstered oil industry confidence
Trump will swing their way. In September, Trump appeared to
briefly echo the views of his supporter, billionaire Carl Icahn,
who expressed concern about the program.
Icahn, who owns a stake in an oil refiner, renewed those
criticisms last week, saying the ethanol credit market generated
by the program is susceptible to manipulation and harming
independent refiners.
PRO-ETHANOL CAMPAIGNING
The president-elect campaigned on a pro-ethanol platform when he
visited America's farm states and biofuels advocates expect he
will keep the RFS strong, maintaining annual targets at the
minimum set forth by Congress.
"Mr. Trump will not turn his back on the American heartland, we
believe in him," said Annette Sweeney, a former state
representative from Iowa who was a member of the Trump's
agricultural advisory committee during his candidacy.
"To a certain extent, we are on higher ground. You always want
to be on higher ground," said Bob Dinneen, head of the Renewable
Fuels Association, referring to the increase.
"We’ll be able to demonstrate the marketplace can absorb 15
billion gallons of ethanol. We can put this all behind us. As we
look to 2018... there's no reason to go back," he said.
The renewables industries have already started to emphasize
their place among American-made fuels, something experts expect
will appeal to Trump.
"There are a lot of good things to be said about
second-generation fuels, even from the new administration’s
perspective," said Harvard University professor and former Obama
administration advisor James Stock.
"All the new administration needs to do is embrace the original
... vision of the RFS," he said.
HTML http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-biofuels-idUSKBN13N0CR
#Post#: 6381--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ethanol
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 28, 2017, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jdwheeler42 link ---
>
> [quote author=luciddreams link=topic=559.msg122478#msg122478
date=1485532311]
> Ethanol would be nice I suppose, but I doubt it would keep BAU
floating along much. Plus, it's ground you are not using for
food production. However, I'm sure something could be grown
that does not require much fertility that could then be
transformed into ethanol. Maybe a restoration agriculture type
scheme where you heal the land by growing plants for ethanol?
>
--- End Quote ---
I read an article (offline) that demonstrated that Pennsylvania
could grow all the energy it currently uses, with switchgrass
being the primary energy crop. The one conclusion that was
implied in the data but that they failed to point out, however,
was that the cost of doing so would be that would mean that the
state would grow NONE of its own food. Not exactly the
trade-off I would want to make.
[/quote]
Lucid and JD,
The truth about the ethanol program that Trump wants to
permanently interrupt is that it competes quite successfully,
even with growing corn, against gasoline. So the producers of
gasoline want to kill ethanol production, period. This is not
hard. This is not a conspiracy "theory". The fossil fuel
industry is rather open about their hatred of competitors. So,
they publish a lot of half-truths about crops for food versus
fuel. The bold faced lies mixed in there are enough to make any
scientist gag. But that's the history since right before
Prohibition.
Eddie claims ethanol is a "bad" idea AS IT IS NOW OBTAINED FROM
CORN. Well, as opposed to obtaining it from low lignin crops, of
course. But NOT as a replacement for gasoline! Ethanol is a
GREAT IDEA as a replacement for gasoline. That's a rather
salient difference.
But Eddie is right IF he believes that ethanol production can be
viable and sustainable.
Lucid, you do not need ANY of the land now used for absolutely
everything that crop land and grazing land is used for to
completely replace gasoline and diesel fuels with ethanol. Yes,
you need land that, though considered "barren' (i.e. thousands
and thousands of acres of desert in North Africa, the USA,
Mexico, South America, Asia and Australia), has a desert biome
which must be preserved.
But the amount of ponded land you need to produce ethanol from
duckweed (wide temperature tolerance, virtually no root systems,
over 40% low lignin starch, no plowing, recycled water, tilapia
poop fertilized, low energy required for harvest, crop doubles
in size EVERY 48 HOURS - over twenty times the growth rate of
grass, never mind slower growing crops like corn) can do the job
sustainably WITHOUT impacting the desert biome negatively (ALL
the growth medium is in covered ponds).
YES, it would cost billions of dollars to ramp up to a worldwide
production from deserts of 23,000 barrels of ethanol per day
(approximate present world gasoline consumption). SO WHAT!!!?
Do you have any idea what those ocean going oil rigs cost to
build AND maintain in rough oceans!!!? Well, you SHOULD! AND all
those tankers? AND all those severely polluting refineries? AND
the polluted spent wells and ruined land? They ARE NOT cost
effective! They are "subsidized" out the Wazoo, and YOU AND I
ARE FOOTING THAT BILL!
A massive worldwide desert ethanol production operation would
have nearly unlimited solar energy (PV AND CSP) available to
process the product in specially built duckweed refineries (The
Chinese estimated they were competitive at $72 dollars a barrel
of oil a few years ago - BUT that totally excludes the oil
pollution costs AND the duckweed NET ZERO CO2 pollution).
I've got a very lengthy thread on ethanol and why and how
we-the-people have been suckered out of replacing gasoline with
it. It includes a lengthy back and forth with a closet fossil
fueler here that shall, for the moment, remain nameless. The
published ERoEI numbers for ethanol (yes, even CORN ethanol) are
SEVERELY low balled. The gasoline ERoEi numbers are a HAPPY TALK
JOKE!
Read more here:
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page