Biomass

[tolworthy]

I don't understand the energy crisis. If we obtain most of our fuel from biomass, we can just regrow it every year. Every gram of carbon that is released is then reabsorbed by the next generation of plants. The technology is already here - a significant minority or car users already rely either wholly or partly on corn oil. So where is the catch? As far as I can see, there is no need to rely on fossil fuels, no need to invest billions in fuel cells or fusion, no need for nuclear power, and solar and wind power can remain niche fuels. So where is the problem?

 

The political problem is obvious - we have invested (wasted) billions in other directions. There might be technical barriers that I don't know about - maybe biofuel creates the wrong kinds of molecules for some uses? Or maybe growing plants do not re-absorb all the toxins created by burning?? What exactly is the problem?

 

I am perplexed.

[Fishteacher73]

The first problem is that the carbon cycle is not running in perfect synch. It is based off of CO2 repiration, nit thousands of tons of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere through compustion, so there is a large back log of CO2 in the atmosphere that is not being rapidly being converted back into the biomass of plants (the population of plants is drasticly being reduced through clear cutting and slash and burn practices).

 

That being said, I see no valid course to continue in your argument, bio disel is a viable alternative in terms of production issues in fossil fuels, but not in terms of emissions.

[UncleAl]

Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

 

Area, mi^2 Modality

====================

1000 biomass

300 wind

60 solar

0.3 nuclear

 

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

 

Prof. David Pimentel of Cornell University calculated energy consumed in growing corn, processing the grain, and distilling ethanol versus the energy generated by its combustion. It requires 131,000 British thermal units (Btus) to produce one gallon of ethanol, which yields 77,000 Btus of fuel energy. That's a 70% net energy *loss.* The federal government paid tens of $billions of tax credits and subsidies to ethanol producers like agri-giant Archer-Daniels-Midland.

 

Photosynthesis is very optimistically equivalent to producing 15 bbl/day-mile^2 of diesel fuel and ignoring all energy inputs.

 

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Saccharum_officinarum.html

 

Fat is so cheap that it makes biodiesel only costing two or three times as much as the real thing. If there were any demand for fat as fuel the price would skyrocket, as waste fat is well used as it is.

 

The most efficient uses of bio fuel burn corn in a stove designed to burn wood pellets. Heating with corn at $2.50 a bushel is the same as using $(US)0.64/gallon propane. The best deal is to burn the anhydrous ammonia and not bother planting the corn. You must have a way to condense the exhaust and store the nitric acid for resale, and you have to keep it burning so it produces nitric acid and not merely nitrogen oxides. That one makes money.

 

The Brazilian ethanol economy requires de facto slave labor to do all the laboring - no equipment burning fuel. Land is free from clearing jungle (ooooh! RAIN FOREST!). No fertilizer. Farm for three years, destory the land's productvity, then clear more jungle. Maybe they build government-subsidized condos on the irreversibly laterized land.

[tolworthy]

Thanks for the replies. Let me see if I understand them.

 

1. Biomass does have zero emissions, but is not better than zero. Well, I wasn't expecting ''better than perfect' :naughty:

 

2. Biomass is relatively low yield? Yes, but not as low as the oil industry would like to think. http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Add the fact that anybody can produce biomass (low technology, grows anywhere) and we have a perfect market, leading to a greener planet. Imagine all those third world countries replanting their deserts for profit...

 

3. Higher demand would cause costs to increase? In the short-term, yes. But in the medium and longer term, the same demand would cause prices to fall. Look at the early years of the oil industry: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

 

4. Slave labor and destructive practices: these are fundamentally inefficient and are only exist because of market distortions, but that is a topic for another thread.:hihi:

 

The bottom line is that, in Britain, I can fuel my car for 90p per liter (fossil fuels) or 35p per liter (corn oil at the supermarket). Yes, I know there are issues with taxes and fuel grades, but 35p versus 90p gives a lot of wiggle room.

[Tormod]

4. Slave labor and destructive practices: these are fundamentally inefficient and are only exist because of market distortions, but that is a topic for another thread.:hihi:

 

Hey, are you trying to say that fossil fuel is bad? You kilt-sporting nitwit, you! :naughty:

 

(Greetings from fossil-fuel-loving Norway).

[tolworthy]

Hey, are you trying to say that fossil fuel is bad? You kilt-sporting nitwit, you! :naughty:

 

(Greetings from fossil-fuel-loving Norway).

 

Heck, no! I live in the Scottish Highlands, where half the people burn peat. Peat is wonderful fertilizer, and peat bogs are a precious ecological resource. So we do three ecological sins in one: we burn unsustainable fuel, destroy a green resource, and destroy the environment in one go. And best of all, we do it in rustic crofts so these sins become virtues. :hihi:

 

Seriously though, I think the solution to the world's problems is economic justice, not environmentalism. But biomass has always interested me...

[tolworthy]

(Greetings from fossil-fuel-loving Norway).

Just for the record, congratulations on being Norwegian. Scandinavians are the best people in the world. (Come on guys, we may as well admit it.) Although I wasn't born Scandinavian (oh cruel fate), I do live within site of Orkney, in a land of Viking place names.

[Qfwfq]

My granny was born in Shetland, that was Norwegian till the mid 17 hundreds!

 

They burn an awfy lot of peat up yonder too!

[karlfreak]

the reson why the government and idusties don't use alternitive fuel or sources of energy is because the oil industy's own every thing other wise i think that using an alternitive source of power or fuel would be quit good as long as it is cheaper and cleaner for people

[Errin OH]

"1. Biomass does have zero emissions, but is not better than zero. Well, I wasn't expecting ''better than perfect' "

 

No Biomass has plenty of emmisions. Some are actually worse than dino, most are not.

 

"2. Biomass is relatively low yield? Yes, but not as low as the oil industry would like to think. http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Add the fact that anybody can produce biomass (low technology, grows anywhere) and we have a perfect market, leading to a greener planet. Imagine all those third world countries replanting their deserts for profit..."

 

The oil industry has nothing to do with it. It is called reality. To till, plant, protect, and harvest say a soybean crop (veg oil). You will directly input about 7 gallons of fuel. We not even going to count the fuel required to build the machines your using. That crop is going to yeild (by the acre), on avg, 60 gals of raw oil, at a 80% conversion 48 gal of bio. The cost to get it; seed - $15-30, fert $3-5, land 50-100. Best case $68 (more like $110) for 41 (48-7) gal. Bout $1.65. Add the processing cost upwards of 1.25 (JTF is a joke, find a real site and get good info. This is one of the better ones, http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/groupee/forums/a/cfrm/f/498605551 ) puts you in the $2.85 range (yes I have and do make Bio from WVO, regardless what Kieth over at JTF, arrogant little SOB that that lives in his own world) says, no labor (all YOU) or any equipment figured in. At least it is somewhat offset by the pulp. Now lets get back to the land issue, you just spent a whole year making enough bio on 1 acre to fill up your Dodge Ram one "1" time. If you fill weekly, you will farming, you now have to have 52 acres set aside just to run your truck. It will not fill up a modern tractor, combine, or semi. Figure the tractor at 50, filled once a month, the combine using about 100 or so a season, and the semi at 150 a year. Now you have to farm 73 acres to just run your operation (50*12+100+150/41) and you haven't provided one drop to anyone else or made a dime farming. And yes you need those things to plant, harvest, and hual your crop (not a choice unless you go back to horses and PETA may have something to say about that).

 

BTW - What good would it do to plant in a desert :surprise: There is a reason nothing grows there.

 

"3. Higher demand would cause costs to increase? In the short-term, yes. But in the medium and longer term, the same demand would cause prices to fall. Look at the early years of the oil industry"

 

Product wise you are correct. As bio fuels increase eventually the price of bio will come down. But you forget all the items that will not. In fact will rise because of the competition for the raw resources. What is going to happen to all those products that are now competing for the veggy oil. Algie you say. The cost of the water itself as now you are taking it from a city full of poeple? Water consumption alone will price out desert algie ponds. They are working so hard on yeild, high sun light areas, they are not even looking at harvest and maintence cost.

 

4". Slave labor and destructive practices: these are fundamentally inefficient and are only exist because of market distortions, but that is a topic for another thread."

 

Actually they are very relevant to Bio production. The much bantered 40, 60, 80 cent a gallon bio is built on slave labor. Yours! You collect/hual/process it. But it is convently left of of the equation. It does not count your cost. Figure that "living" wage thing into it. It quickly becomes a very expensive prop. Same with destructive. JTF, and others, speak of pouring gly by product on the ground and/or simply dumping it a land fill. Where they don't, they speak of openly burining it. Ever hear of "acrolein"? They quietly disregard the little nasties that go with it. In # 2 from above you will have roughly 600 gallons of this stuff to dispose of. Thats just you. Can I pour it in your yard? It will kill the grass, but hey you won't have a dust problem....

 

"The bottom line is that, in Britain, I can fuel my car for 90p per liter (fossil fuels) or 35p per liter (corn oil at the supermarket). Yes, I know there are issues with taxes and fuel grades, but 35p versus 90p gives a lot of wiggle room."

 

I can't speak to the prices you mention, but here in the US dino $2.20-$3.00 gal, with veggy (new) $4.00-$5.00 a gallon (from supermarket). I would like to know though, what your dio would cost with no taxes or your veggy with taxes. While it varies by location here, figure 45 cent a gallon road tax where I am. Putting the veggy at $4.50-$5.50 with road tax. Don't know about there but you don't want to get caught here avoiding road taxes out side the allowed limit (4 or 600 gal year personal use) for alternatives.:gift:

[Michaelangelica]

Heck, no! I live in the Scottish Highlands, where half the people burn peat. Peat is wonderful fertilizer, and peat bogs are a precious ecological resource. So we do three ecological sins in one: we burn unsustainable fuel, destroy a green resource, and destroy the environment in one go. And best of all, we do it in rustic crofts so these sins become virtues.

 

Seriously though, I think the solution to the world's problems is economic justice, not environmentalism. But biomass has always interested me...

 

Beautiful peat

I remember peat

Can only get awful coco -peat now.

Not as good as peat for cuttings.

How come we can't buy it to use in the garden and you burn it!?

 

Modern wildcatters see gushers of green

Researchers have high hopes that a tropical grass known as a 'superweed' will one day replace crude oil

 

Rick DelVecchio, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

Monday, June 11, 2007

. . .

According to Caveny's analysis, the new energy gold isn't black, it's green, and the new energy wildcatters aren't sitting on gushers, they're standing in them.

 

Caveny demonstrated as he waded among rows of miscanthus, a tropical "superweed" so tough and prolific that it looks to him like a good bet to make mountains of cellulose -- and bundles of cash for farmers.

 

"The glitter on this crop is so bright that there are some people, the wildcatters, who are putting their money where their mouth is," said Caveny, a small grower known locally for his grain-fed turkeys.

 

The scene in Caveny's field in the heart of prairie country about 2 1/2 hours southwest of Chicago was a glimpse of the emerging bio-economy, where government and private investments in a post-oil future are creating a rush for sources of renewable carbon and the means to turn them into fuel and chemicals.

 

It was also a glimpse of the potential impact of UC Berkeley's partnership with the nearby University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the $500 million Energy Biosciences Institute funded by British oil giant BP.

The institute is being set up this summer to support hundreds of scientists in a push to create cheap, abundant vehicle fuels from sources of renewable carbon including farmed trees, manure, garbage and customized energy crops like Caveny's grass.

Modern wildcatters see gushers of green / Researchers have high hopes that a tropical grass known as a 'superweed' will one day replace crude oil

[Qfwfq]

The first to use bio-diesel was Rudolf Diesel. At the 1900 World Exhibition in Paris, he demostrated his engine by running it on peanut oil, to show it would be viable even where there weren't petrochemical industries. In fact the Diesel design was specifically to make use of a wide variety of fuels possible.

 

The reason against using it in modern cars is that they are designed for use with the less volatile fraction of petroleum, mainly the fuel line and the injectors are designed for this but there are ways to overcome the problem, starting from just mixing in a reasonable percentage with regular Diesel oil.

[Rev]

two words

 

electric cars

 

IMO the only way, with the ethanol and biodiesel for road and rail commercial transport.

i have an old lead acid scooter with a 40km rangeand im impressed enough that i want to upgrade when the new german one come out - a nice lithium ion one that does full scooter speed and has a range of 150km

 

edit: did i mention $0.04/ km? :shade: goodbye fuel and we can buy or make green power to feed it in entirety. we can all recharge while we work and while we sleep

 

i cant link yet but theres a place called blade elctric vehicles that retrofits cars in australia

 

and the big o/s car companies have some sweet looking models coming down the line

 

again i cant link but if you read ReNew magazine by the ATA there was a beautiful writeup a few months ago

[diazotrophicus]

Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

 

Area, mi^2 Modality

====================

1000 biomass

300 wind

60 solar

0.3 nuclear

 

 

 

Prof. David Pimentel of Cornell University calculated ......

 

The Brazilian ethanol economy requires de facto slave labor to do all the laboring - no equipment burning fuel. Land is free from clearing jungle (ooooh! RAIN FOREST!). No fertilizer. Farm for three years, destory the land's productvity, then clear more jungle. Maybe they build government-subsidized condos on the irreversibly laterized land.

 

Hi,

just to correct a few errors:

In Brazil sugarcane is NOT grown on clearcut rain forest land, but has been grown for centuries in the state of Sao Paulo, south of the Brazilian mountain range known as cerrado.

 

And the soils in these canaviais get better from year to year, and have done so for centuries on end. You are 1500 miles off. Consult a world map, or a map of Brazil.

 

Or google for "Milton Maciel". He has laid this out nice and clear in English. He has grown organic sugarcane in Brazil for decades. He knows what he is talking and writing about.

 

By the way, the photosynthetic efficiency of sugarcane in Brazil is 4.8 percent. Pimentel is wrong on this one as well. By a factor of fifty or so. (Seems to be his standard margin of error).

 

The energy balance of corn as grown in the US is negative all the time, no matter if you turn it into chicken feed or ethanol. Stupid chemical agriculture is stupid chemical agriculture.

 

There are better ways. Sweet sorghum from Icrisat in India comes to mind.

diazotrophicus

[Rev]

i know what you mean about the cane

the Cane in australia is grown on ex lowland rainforest

 

but that happenned a long time ago and cane farmers are starting to realise that rainforest species around the margins of the fields as opposed to grasses reduce rat numbers, reduce disease pools, and at the same time allow passage for species like cassowaries

 

Another innovation is rotational cropping. Peanuts with cane

i saw it on landline a while back and the farmers were quite keen as some said they hadnt seen cane yeileds like they got on the following crop for decades

 

cane makes a huge amount of biomass. so much that it can be safely exported from the field. and if teh bagasse got charred and returned en mase to the fields it would probably help alleviate the acid sulphate soils that a lot of cane grows on , and whose leachates threaten rivers and reefs

 

Personally i think that land comparison chart is bollocks

it fails to take in the reality of land uses

 

from the bottom up,

nuclear is a multinational concern. aside from small grade reactors for medical isotopes, and experimnetal reactors for physicists - it benefits no-one

and has no benefit to the biosphere. therefor ethe 0.3 = 0.3 of complete wasted space. Nobody wants it in their backyard, nobody knows how to handle the everlasting waste

 

Solar. It takes a 60, but that 60 can be doubled up over our existing urban infrastructure. On houses, by the sides of highways, on factories and over all those hard surfaces we love to make, which also double up as catchment for urban rainfall resources.

 

Wind. Is the same for rural areas. On a windswept hilltop or coastline a wind farm does not use land exclusively. Native heathland, sheep grazing or even alley cropping between the turbines means the land that is already in use for those functions now has 2 sustainable uses.

 

1000 biomass. We already capture biomass and we waste most of it

landfill, hot burns, agricultural wastes

and we inhibit its efficient formation as well

through wasting our effluent, our stormwater, by overgrazing and lack of rainfall harvesting strategies in the broader landscape

 

I think that the renewables rather than making new problems will help us to solve existing problems. like inefficiency of land use, and lack of incentive for rural and regional investmnet and employment, and by diversifying the income streams of these communities so they become environmnetally and also economically viable in the long term

[Rev]

in addition id like to put up my hand for wave power for the big winner

 

theres a team working on a pilot project in perth headed by and ex oil man who is using all teh knowledge and expertise from that offshore industry to develop a new kind of modular generator that creates both electricity and osmostically purified water at teh same time, with emphasis on using leading edge non toxic and durable materials

 

as all our major cities are coastal and australia has one of the largest Maritime Exclusive economic zones in the world i can see the ocean floor as a major powerhouse in the coming centuries

and unlike wind those waves just keep on rolling - all day and all night 365 and a 1/4days a year

 

and on a broader level those seabed leases could double as marine reserves, as obviously with generators in place they cant be trawled

so apart from giving us clean water, electricity they will also help increase our fish stocks back to their original bounty

[freeztar]

Although a bit offtopic, I can't resist a reply. :)

 

and on a broader level those seabed leases could double as marine reserves, as obviously with generators in place they cant be trawled

 

Generators are not permeable. Just ask the salmon from the Columbia River.

I'm not aware of any ecological study specific to wave power. Anyone have any links or info on this aspect?

 

so apart from giving us clean water, electricity they will also help increase our fish stocks back to their original bounty

 

I don't think putting a giant steel "windmill" in the ocean would do anything to benefit fish stocks, but again, I know of no studies documenting the impacts to local ecology. It just makes sense from my ecological-gut. ;) I'm sure it's possible to engineer a mutually beneficial solution. Perhaps one of these companies on this extremely resourceful list could prove the winner:

Directory:Ocean Wave Energy - PESWiki