 | Biomass Ethanol + Plug-in Hybrids = 95% less emissions? | The Oil Drum: Local | News From the Week: 10/20 |  |
75 comments on Ultra Low Sulfur Emission Diesel
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
75 comments on Ultra Low Sulfur Emission Diesel
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
What crap are you talking about. Khosla is focussing on non-fossil fuels. And you want him to focus on diesel? Maybe Chevron and Devon energy will give him a few hundred million to drill a hole next to their hole in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. A nice diesel gusher 15 billion barrels per year worth - an infinite reservoir.
If my employer paid me to hand around TOD I would be here more.
why did he leave?
This is pretty chilling data he has collected (as usual). He gives credit to khebab as well. Both are listed in this series...I recommend reading for it's 40-50 (hubert curve) charts from around the world (oh shit!).
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/
This isn't for the faint of heart.
Google - Jeffery Brown (aka WESTEXAS) for more good reading.
Best D.
Someone sent me this e-mail this morning:
I almost wrote a satirical piece in response to ChemE questioning your integrity with your ties to big oil. I would have said something to the effect you seemed to be also promoting energy efficiency, mass transportation and plug in hybrids. All these would hurt big oil profitability and go against our non-negotiable rights as Americans to grow and consume. I suspect you are operating as a double agent.
In my response, I said that those with the most extreme biases are the ones who are accusing me of bias.
What crap are you talking about. Khosla is focussing on non-fossil fuels. And you want him to focus on diesel?
Actually the conversation was on biodiesel, and the general fact that the diesel engine is more efficient. But I wouldn't expect you to ask for clarification before conclusion jumping.
If my employer paid me to hand around TOD I would be here more.
Yeah, and it's double-time for a Sunday morning. I will have to remember to put it on my time card.
Final questions: Do you have anything of actual value to add? Didn't you learn anything from the responses you got to your last attack on my integrity?
I am not even sure about the wisdom of any biomass used for fuel (including various flavors of biodiesel). Energy conversion of solar radiation is probably going to most to be most efficient from
(i) direct conversion of impinging solar radiation (e.g. phovoltaics)
(ii) elec. generation through heat/turbines (use the radiation to heat water or something)
(iii) secondary effects (e.g. wind power, wave motion (ultimately sourced from the sun's energy)). Looks like there is a lot of momentum behind wind power.
I think that biomass in any form is not efficient and harmful to the the soil. Therefore the ideal solution for personal auto-type transportation is a plug in hybrid with back-up provided by a biomass fuel - non-fermentation type (e.g. biomass to syn-gas to some liquid burnable). Char/ash to be returned to the soil to return micronutrients.
--
I don't know Khosla though have heard of him by reputation through is co-founding of Sun Micro.
Following the debate here it seems to me that what he wants is
(i) Access to oil interest distribution for distributing biomass based fuels
(ii) A very modest sliding scale pricing subsidy to prevent oil interests from destroying the industry by temporarily dropping the price of fossils
(iii) A very very modest royalty from Oil/Gas extracted from public propery in California to fund development of renewables.
If Khosla indeed intends to use corn-based ethanol he is soon going to be priced out as the price of corn & other inputs escalates.
Oil interests are fighting the proposals tooth and nail.
My 2 cents & my last words.
I agree with you that a biomass solution for our energy needs does not work unless you want to turn the whole planet into one big farm.
If you give it some more thought you may dcide we need to expand electrified mass transit on a massive scale. I think RR may have also said this.
Are you a big oil mole?
Figure 90% availability of convential, so steady 900 GW at peak (min demand 300 GW, average demand 500 GW).
2000 GW wind x .32 capacity factor = 640 GW average output.
50% of generation is used directly, when produced.
50% goes into pumped storage, with 0.81 cycle effiency for hydro pumped storage. So 320 GW into pumped storage, 259 GW out. This gives an AVERAGE output of 579 GW versus a need for 500 GW. Spare capacity for a less windy year (wind varies little year to year) and for seasonal changes in demand & output.
Some of the excess could be put into less efficient pumped air (~60%) in depleted natural gas field (massive storage) for seasonal shifts in demand.
One might count on (depends on area) 5% to 10% of wind being available at peak of 900 GW. So 700 to 800 GW of pumped storage (hydro + air) needed.
To sum 1,000 GW convential generation can be replaced by 2,000 GW of wind turbines and 700 to 800 GW of pumped storage (most hydro, some air).
This is basically how it is done.
Best Hopes,
Alan
So massively more conservative. But it's not clear we have the foresight, the England-Scotland interconnectors, nor the environmental will, to build lots more pumped storage (it would have to be in environmentally protected valleys in Wales and Scotland).
That said, if you assume a load factor of 0.3 (which with offshore wind as well as onshore is credible) then
8760 hrs p.a. X 0.3LF X 25GW = 65.7TWhr = 18.8% of current UK annual demand
UK current capacity is 1GW, but Spanish and German is c. 12GW, which gives you a measure of what is achievable-- the UK could go to 12GW onshore and 12GW offshore relatively quickly (by 2020).
In practice, the other 20GW of backup thermal power already exists, it would just be mothballed. You would only max out on that power 5 days a year or less.
Key factors to success of wind power:
- availability of storage (pumped etc.)
- size and capacity of grid - the US is in a particularly favourable position, as it has more than one 'wind zone', so if the grid is big enough, you can move power from the Midwest to the NE, and vice versa
- at the moment, subsidy however this is because we don't tax CO2 as an effluent. If we tax/ permit CO2, as the US does SO2, then suddenly wind looks like the cheapest of the mass power systems, rather than the most expensive
- cost of interconnections. The existing customers need to be made to share in the costs of new interconnections to wind power stations whereas many utilities are currently taking the view that it is not their problem
If one looks at the direct and indirect subsidies poured into nuclear power and fossil fuel generation, then none of the above is impossible.http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/windforce-12-2005
Do you know if anybody has put $ numbers on these ideas in terms of capital investment and $/kwh generated? I have seen cost numbers for wind turbines alone and they look good and more so when you factor in the negative externalities of burning fossil fuel. But I have never seen costs when you factor in backup power, storage, and additional long distance transmission (as from the windy Midwest to the NE) I like the idea of pumped storage versus batteries but wonder where it will go. Protected valleys as Valuethinker points out are going to be a hurdle. Here in Maine we have been removing some hydrodams to bring back Atlantic salmon runs.I suspect all valleys will be considered protected. We also have some excellent wind resource, but it is on mountain tops and ridges and there is concern about the effects on migrating birds. Until it becomes a desperate situation I suspect projects will be slow to be implemented because of environmental, property rights and aesthetic considerations. We won't be making the transition in time.
Why is Europe so far ahead of this than we are? Is it just that the average person is more enlightened?
The short answer, in the UK is that total additional system costs are less than 1p/kwhr, v. 4-5p kw/hr wholesale pool prices.
I know Texas is going big for windpower. I think population density is a big factor (Spain is the least densely populated country in Europe).
Also the historic presence of big structures like windmills. In Crete, no one seems particularly bothered if they stick them on top of hills- Cretans are pragmatic, and their current eneergy supply is almost entirely oil fired (pllus solar water heat).
And in the case of the Danes and the germans, a national decision to go for it.
Generally electricity is expensive in Europe, and all our energy is imported, be it gas or coal. So wind looks better economically.
In addition, our political parties, even our right wing ones, and our media, generally believe man made global warming is real. In the US, the media is still addicted to 'balance' and so global warming sceptics get equal time. Of course the President met with Michael Crichton and praised him publicly, so we know what he thinks about man made global warming, I think he called it 'a conspiracy against American prosperity'.
I generally find Americans think there is a global warming debate ie whether the world is warming up, and whether humans are causing that. Americans also think America should do nothing unless China and India agree to do something. Informed Europeans think the debate is about how fast we have to act, and how far we are willing to go in those actions in terms of changing our lifestyles. Al Gore comes as a shock to Americans, whereas in European circles there was much less impact.
When I read that nearly 50% of Americans don't believe in the theory of evolution, I am concerned that we just may never get there on doing something about this.
There is a lot of debate about migratory birds and bats. I note a lot of people suddenly have become bird lovers, who were unlikely bird lovers. The reality is except in a few circumstances, no one has shown they are particularly deadly vs. say, lit up office buildings.
however there are 2 species of migratory bats that seem to have a particular problem.
As with DDT (the ban on), I think a lot of people of a more conservative or libertarian bent hate wind power on general principle, because culturally they see it as associated with environmentalists, greens, green people, restrictions on their way of life. Another iteration of the 'culture wars' (yes we ahve them over here, too)
Plus, we think wind mills are cool. They figure prominently in
Spain's self image (Don Quijote).
I have ridden many busses through the windy central plains,ç
and I have always loved to see those long lines of sleek,
slowly turning wind mills up the hills. I think that they
look amazing. I am mystified that someone can think that
they are ugly.
Not in My Back Yard. NIMBY.
My letter from the Ramblers (lobby group for those who walk in hills) is 'spoiling the views from the National Park of the distant Cairngorms'.
Translation: we are walking through the national park in Perthshire, Scotland (half the land area of the UK, 10% of the population), where windmills are banned. We can see windmills on private land in the far distance.
This is ruining our view. (allegedly) Therefore they must be banned (they have been).
And so Perthshire County Council has a perfect record of rejecting wind power projects, on arguments like those.
The Ramblers are, of course, 'not opposed to local and community wind power, only to large wind stations' ie build it in someone else's back yard (where it is not economic) but don't spoil our walking.
page 5:
UK Onshore wind cost 3.2p +/- 0.3p
Offshore 5.5p
additional system cost 0.17p
good explanation of difference between 'Load Factor' (per cent. of rated capacity over a year that a turbine runs at)
and 'Capacity Value' (Capacity Credit): credit the National Grid Co gives for the wind capacity (about 20% ie 5GW of wind capacity offsets 1GW of theoretical capacity, which is about 1.1GW of CCGT gas (90% capacity credit) and somewhat lower of nuclear (about 75% capacity credit).
The lower storage reservior is usally an existing storage dam structure or a lake that can fluctuate a bit. One in Japan uses seawater, but car must be taken on the upper end and everything must be corrision resistant.
TBM drilling is getting cheap and drilling some distance is possible. All a matter of economics. Best sites are built first of course.
Hope this helps.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I am sorry people are questioning your integrity.
I have read your posts here, and on your own website, and find them to be objective and balanced.
Yes you have the biases of an oil industry engineer. So what? 'Objectivity' is a myth: everyone has biases. My impression of you is not someone who is grinding their axe to ramp some dodgy NASDAQ stock you have loaded up on your personal account.
What your position gives you is a unique level of technical understanding, which informs your postings. If I were a colleague of yours, I would rely on you for objective advice on an issue, even if that advice was not necessarily in your own best interest.
Yours Sincerely
Valuethinker (remove 'at' in email address to reply by email)
PS I liked your Europe blog too-- quite accurate about travelling in Europe.
I am trying to find more time to work on that. I have about 15 essays that are done; I just need to format them, insert links, and maybe some pictures.
Thanks for the other comments.
Because our economy depends so highly on diesel powered freight transportation for 98% of all goods/products/materials moved (except for pipelines), Kosla should be interested in renewable diesel from rapeseed, canola, soybeans or jatropha seeds. All of these have a much higher EROEI than corn ethanol. But he is not interested in any of this.
Without short term solutions to the escalation of diesel fuel prices and future shortages caused by peak oil, the economy of the US is headed for a fall worse than the great depression.
One of my customers is a major fuel distributor/retailer in the upper Midwest. His company sells hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel (gas and diesel) per year and he has withdrawn from the ethanol portion of the business. His current efforts at inovation are BIODIESEL. He has built a small processing plant that recycles old cooking oil from area restaurants and powers his company vehicles (cars and pickups) with the biodiesel. His fleet of tanker trucks still run on conventional diesel.
A solution must soon be found for the decline in oil production, and if part of that is conservation through the use of more diesel engines, then renewable diesel fuel should be an energy priority.
If he wants to a make biomass based burnable liquid fuel (may be but not necessarily ethanol) let him. For the rest see the earlier post.
If some other VC feels like you that biodiesel is the way to go let her/him fund it.