Request for Info on Ethanol Incentives and Biomass Sources
I need to gather some information. I know that some of you will be quite knowledgeable about certain aspects of what I am looking for. I was in London this weekend (found myself standing next to Jesse Jackson at one point) having a look at a promising cellulosic ethanol technology. I will not go into details, because they don’t want to release details yet, but they have asked for my assistance in developing a business plan and helping work through technical hurdles. It is not the first time I have been asked to do something like this. It probably isn’t even the 100th. But there have only ever been 2 or 3 that I saw and thought “This could be something.” And this could in fact be something. It is an entirely unique approach to the cellulosic ethanol problem – and I have no doubt that this technology will handily beat the economics and energy returns of the current cellulosic plants being built.
Here is what I am looking for. While this technology already looks like it could compete right now on equal footing with corn, corn ethanol has been heavily subsidized. My counsel is that it would be very wise – looking mid to long term – to first determine who – states, federal governments, and/or foreign countries – are offering incentives for locating a cellulosic ethanol plant. It doesn’t have to be limited to incentives for cellulosic ethanol, but again it has to compete with the established corn guys. There are certain areas of the country – such as the coasts, where I think this can beat the corn guys right now. But you look first to the incentives that are being offered and take advantage of those (not to say I have changed my mind about these subsidies; I still think this system is incredibly inefficient and attempts to pick technology winners).
The second think I need to know is where there are massive quantities of biomass coming into a point source. The New York City dumps have always seemed like good candidates. But I don’t know if there are far better sources (quantity, uniformity) of biomass. For all I know New York recycles all of their paper and there isn’t much biomass to be processed at their dump. (I doubt it, though). An additional benefit would be to find waste biomass that currently requires tipping fees for disposal.
So, to summarize I am looking for 1). Who is offering attractive incentives for cellulosic ethanol?; and 2). Where are very high volume sources of biomass coming into point sources? Again, I ask that you don’t request specific details, here or through e-mails. If you want to speculate, that’s fine. I think this has enough potential that tomorrow I am going to lobby my company to allow me to assist. If we can come to an agreement that this specific application does not present a conflict of interest or an ethical issue, I will be working with these guys. If not, then maybe a wink and a nod can put them on the right path.
What This Is Not
One thing I want to address is that this is absolutely not a silver bullet. What it is, I believe, is something that could be a significant silver BB. I think this technology could be used to realistically displace a fair fraction of our gasoline usage. But we are still talking about less than 50% in all probability. Even if this works out to the most optimistic forecasts, we are still going to have to conserve in a major fashion.
Personal Note:
In 10 days, I will be reunited with my family for the first time in 5 months. At that time, I will be taking an extended break from writing. I have some time that I must make up, so instead of coming home from work and writing, I am going to make a point not to write, and use that time to experience Scotland with my family. It is an understatement to say that the past 5 months have been the most difficult of my life. If you have children, you can imagine what it would be like to spend 5 months apart. My heart goes out to those in the military who are routinely separated from their children. I have filled the void in my life by writing, and I have been on a rampage for the past 5 months. But the void is about to be filled by family, and I doubt I will ever again participate in the same way that I once did.
Good that you have your family back and good that you plan to take off and spend time with them. You will never regret spending time with your family.
You say that this technology could displace less than 50%. Well, 49% would be a definite signal we don't have to conserve. I think the United States, at least, is very much subject to Say's law, supply creates its own demand. Provide the fuel and they will come, with their SUVs, their Hummers, their Tundras, their ORVs, their snowmobiles. If what you say is true, this will have a major impact on prices, which will have, unfortunately, a major impact on demand.
You also have not said what the carbon impact of this technology would be and guess you can't or won't. As a certified member of the anti global warming crowd, any bullet or bb, regardless of its abundance, is a loser if it does not address the ghg issue.
Regardless of whether or not this cuts into oil, if it just lets us continue happy motoring into the indefinite future, I think one needs to be skeptical that this is another faustian bargain.
But then, we have no details, so I guess we just have to wait until all is revealed.
You seem to be mainly talking about biomass that would otherwise be land filled. If that is the main source, that sounds better than harvesting our grass, prairie land, conservation areas, and forests.
What you say seems to support the view of GM CEO wagoner who says that biofuels are the great hope for the future of the autombile industry, cutting oil consumption, and dealing with global warming. This will encourage those who have no intention of doing anything serious about consumption.
One thing is for damn sure, anyway, this probably beats the crap out of CTL, something that's getting a lot of support in congress right now, including the notable Obama.
You also have not said what the carbon impact of this technology would be and guess you can't or won't.
You know me. If this didn't appear to address all of my major concerns, I would not have glanced in their direction. I had exchanged dozens of e-mails with them and seen a lot of details before I agreed to go and check it out.
It is basically just cellulosic ethanol, but with a very unique twist. The EROEI is going to beat corn ethanol - which probably beats current state of the art cellulosic technology by a long shot. And it isn't going to mean cheap fuel, or abundant fuel. It will just mean "another source of fuel." And we need some fuel, especially renewable fuel.
But even though it does appear to me to be something special, the way my brain works is that I am constantly turning it over and over and thinking "What have I missed." But that's the reason they said they came to me. In fact, they said that when they were working on a business plan, they kept hitting on some of the ethanol essays I have written. That's when they decided to see if it could pass my skeptical sniff test.
If you ever get in the position, keep this idea close to yourself and develop an impeccable line of reasoning, use Hemp. It produces tons of fibre and is easily grown with low input in terms of farming and fertilizer. (it is a weed afterall)
I question the unique twist. What is it? Watch out for hidden extra energy inputs not documented. It's good they are reaching out.
I question the unique twist. What is it? Watch out for hidden extra energy inputs not documented. It's good they are reaching out.
I would love to tell everyone about it. Hopefully I can before too long. I can honestly say that I had never heard anyone propose this before. I said "That's freaking brilliant." Don't worry about hidden inputs. You have no idea how paranoid I am that I will miss something, and skeptical of ever claim.
Oh, and hemp was definitely discussed (but not smoked). Hemp has a further advantage in that it produces oil.
I think my request will be a standalone thread later in the day. That way I can easily keep up with suggestions.
RR
Is the process capable of using a variety of cellulosic material? Other than forests, and I really hate to see us go there, I really think if there is a promising cellulosic process (and I also hope it doesn't involve bacterial gene splicing), that it needs to be on a smaller local scale which would use a variety of materials, specific to the region, or most usefully, city. This would help lessen the logistical transport problems both of the raw material and of the product. Currently, every city collects tons of leaf waste, grass clippings, brush and branches, much cellulosic waste goes down garbage disposals, and enormous amounts of lumber and other left over building materials go into land fills, etc. Storm damage unique to a region can produce tons of cellulosic waste, as well. Since Bloomberg's on a roll, start with a plant near a NYC landfill. Perhaps regional farms could add appropriate waste products, as well. I am curious whether this process would require dry storage of the material. If not, that could be a big hurdle out of the way. Anyway, thanks for giving of your time to yet another project inquiry and good luck.
NYC landfill was a theme I kept coming back to. Right now these landfills a leaking loads of methane into the atmosphere - and we know that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It seems like a win all the way around to me.
No gene-splicing to my knowledge. But one of my vulnerabilities here is that there is a part of the process I have not seen. This is a black box to me, and I have told them that it is important that I take that box apart. This is the only thing that keeps me from saying "This is truly revolutionary." There could be a perpetual motion machine hiding in there, but I think I can sniff out a fake pretty well. These guys did know their stuff.
and we know that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2
Recall methane is a feedback enhancement, not a primary, mechanism. The reason is the timescale... methane content is more or less a function of other parameters due to its short equilibration time. The reason CO2 is so significant is its longer time scale. See the intro articles on RealClimate for more detail.
"Methane is transient in the atmosphere, so if the anthropogenic source stays constant, the methane concentration stays constant. This is different from CO2, which accumulates. Methane is well-mixed in the troposphere. Gets oxidized by OH in the troposphere and zapped by UV light in the stratosphere. Gases don't sink out very much in the atmosphere because it circulates so quickly. You can measure gravitational settling of gases in stagnant columns of air like in firn above ice cores, but in the atmosphere, gases don't really settle out. The atmospheric measurements are straightforward, replicated, reliable."
Natural methane may be a feedback mechanism, but rice paddies, landfills and pipeline leaks are not. If we can reduce atmospheric methane by turning landfill gas into electricity and feeding our livestock differently, that's changing a human greenhouse contribution.
That's very true... unlike with CO2 there is no significant delay hence methane doesn't accumulate in the way CO2 does. I don't remember the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere, but ...(google)... it's about a century for CO2 and about a decade for CH4. The latter figure is long enough for CH4 to be well mixed and short enough that even with increased input the effective sinks keep the concentration in equilibrium. The response (eq conc as a fn of forcing) is nonlinear, but in this case the nonlinearity is stabilising (i.e., you don't get explosive growth without a catastrophic event).
Those interested should google on these things a bit, there is lots of interesting stuff on the net. It is easy to stick to scientific (or just multiple) sources.
I'm not sure forests cannot generate point source biomass. A new craze in Australia is 'fuel reduction burning' http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20934343,00.html to reduce the intensity of wildfires. Rather than torch the undergrowth perhaps it could be mechanically harvested and rendered by pyrolysis. This could help the parks service in different ways
1) the forest gets its historical thinning
2) they won't get sued for medical bills by asthmatics
3) the fire can't escape and burn houses
The Eucalypt forest on the eastern coast of Australia is adapted for (by 60,00 years of fire-stick farming by the Aboriginal inhabitants) and now requires regular burn offs. This removes the dry bark and undergrowth, which has built up over a five or so year period and removes a lot of the insect parasites. The burns offs are done on calm winter days and cause some temporary smoke haze and very little inconvenience and zero damage to the trees of ecology.
When idiots insist on it not being done, due to ignorance and NIMBYism, the biomass builds up you get massive dangerous fires that kills people and the trees.
It would be almost impossible economically or physically to harvest this biomass and the turn it in to ethanol – it is far too dispersed in the trees and shrubs.
I think this issue may be settled, unless anyone can come up with a better option than Los Angeles.....
http://www.citymayors.com/environment/la_green.html
Quotes:
Los Angeles produces 8,000 tons of garbage every day. With limited landfill space, LA was an early pioneer of curbside recycling. Currently, 62 per cent of waste is diverted from landfills and the goal is to increase that percentage to 70 per cent by 2015 through increased recycling programs and proposals to divert green waste to ethanol production facilities.
www.lacity.org/mayor/indexright/ mayorindexright243045238_05152007.pdf
Quotes:
“Shift from Waste Disposal to Resource Recovery. Recycle 70% of trash by 2015
Catalyze the Growth of the Green Economic Sector
Promote local research, development and production of green technology
Strengthen global economic relationships to secure investment in Los
Angeles’ green sector and help environmentally-focused companies
penetrate local and foreign markets
Identify locations for green businesses and offer effective incentives for the
growth of these businesses
Train residents of low and middle income communities, local university
students and participants in adult education programs for jobs in the green
economy.
http://www.crra.com/crranews/articles/pdf/adc.pdf
There is a bit of an “Alternative Dialy Cover” controversy going on in LA, as Waste Management and some other waste disposers have been allowed to put a certain amount of “green waste” they collect on landfills as “ground cover” and get credit for it as though it were not being disposed of at landfills. Apparently, this system has been abused as they have used it as a method of waste dumping for green waste that they cold not otherwise easily dispose of. What this means in practical terms is that LA actually has more “green waste” for other use than the stats have been making it look like.
Given the market size of L.A. for llquid fuel, it's long history of support for "green" industries, top notch education system, and closeness to massive venture capital and investment possibilities, I can't imagine a better place.
And I am from Kentucky, so if anything I would be biased against L.A.
But fair is fair, they win the first consideration, hands down.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
not very sustainable, your taking a substance that was traditionally put in the compost heap so it can be returned to the land so you can continue to grow things. if you don't your not going to be growing very much past the second year without massive fossil fuel inputs from fertilizer.
Abundant, renewable biomass is the key. The distillation at this time is of secondary concern. I would love to find a location that a lot of biomass is flowing into for disposal.
Bagasse was discussed at length. In fact, probably more than any other source. I would like to know what the true bagasse waste picture is in Louisiana.
BTW, downriver barges use a bit over 200 BTUs per ton-mile. Add a quarter to that # since they do not go in a straight line (only a/c can) but a 25% penalty over rail & truck.
Upriver "varies" but double that # for first estimates.
Being close to good rail connections and water transportation will be key post-Peak Oil.
How about the leftovers from papermills or wood-product or paper-product manufacturers?
Maybe a specialized "industrial park" that only allows facilities that will be producing cellulose wastes and has conveyors or train cars or something that haul it away for free to the central ethanol processing plant?
In other words, don't go to them - bring them to you.
Some of my favorite memories are from our trip in 1990 to Scotland and Yorkshire, especially exploring the tidal ponds at Robin Hood's Bay in Yorkshire.
A song that rings true to this father of a 25 year old graduate student--who only "yesterday" promised me that she would always stay three years old:
(Malvina Reynolds, Harry Belafonte & Allen Greene)
Where are you goin' my little one, little one?
Where are you goin' my baby my own?
Turn around and you're two
Turn around and you're four
Turn around and you're a young girl
Going out of the door
Turn around
Turn around
Turn around and you're a young girl
Going out of the door
Where are you goin' my little one, little one?
Little Dirndles and petticoats, where have you gone?
Turn around and you're tiny
Turn around and you're grown
Turn around and you're a young wife
With babes of your own
Turn around
Turn around
Turn around and you're a young wife
With babes of your own
Turn around
Turn around
Turn around and you're a young girl
Going out of the door
Where are you goin' my little one, little one?
Where are you goin' my baby my own?
You might contact the major timber companies in the US and Canada to find locations where there are active sawmills that do not have access to a pulp chip market and do not already have a biomass cogeneration plant. The lodgepole pine region in the interior northwest might have a lot of opportunities with all of the bark beetle outbreaks in low value timber.
The timber companies are definitely an option, but I didn't know if they have a large enough volume of truly waste material. That would provide the best EROEI. If we have to start cutting down and chipping standing trees, I think the advantage could be lost. Not certain, but looks that way to me.
Right now the timber companies in Texas leave the limbs and needles/leaves to rot on the ground, same way with people bulldozing mesquete. If an economic incentive is high enough, I'm sure the companies would bring it in. but it would be a lot more labor and some capital expense for wood chippers and trucks.
"Right now the timber companies in Texas leave the limbs and needles/leaves to rot on the ground,"
Which is where it belongs. Most of the plant nutrients that are embodied in a tree are in the smaller limbs/twigs, and leaves/needles. They need to go back into the soil. Unless of course, you don't plan on growing trees there sustainably.
First bit of reason I have seen on this article. Don't see any comment about this from Robert.
As well I would think that this process would need to be a lot cheaper than current oil prices, otherwise we just use it and oil as usual. It would have to beat production cost of oil otherwise they would just reach a point of equilibrium and we get increased CO2 and the business of growth as usual.
If I am wrong about this I would truly appreciate seeing where my thinking is incorrect.
The tallgrass prairie developed its rich soil in spite of, or perhaps even because of, regular fires which destroyed most of the above-ground organic matter. All the soil got back was the ash, containing mostly the potassium and phosphorus (also sodium, silica, etc). Grazing also took most of the organic matter away, returning mostly the elemental nutrients.
I don't see any great difference between burning, grazing and cutting for bio-energy extraction so long as those essential elements are recycled or replaced. Do you have evidence (not handwaving or mysticism) to the contrary?
Grazing also took most of the organic matter away, returning mostly the elemental nutrients.
Engineer-Poet, come on you can do better than that.
Just go MOOO and figure out where you would, as a buffalo, stop going MOOO, or just go POO for that matter and consider the tiger lilies of those fields.
About taking most of the organic matter away by fire even if I agree that every year the prairies would burn to the ground and leave nothing but a little white ash, there still would be that white ash. There isn't if you take it away and burn it a thousand miles away in your SUV.
If you have ever set any fires in the prairies and as a kid, my friends and I did ... scared the bejesus out of us at times, getting them put out again, there was lots of carbon besides ash left.
As well I guess you never heard of roots, as a few days later all would be green and growing again, a little carbon lost to the air which would be snorted up little green leaf noses in short order. Okay there you are, no hand waving, no mystical passes, just the nature of things.
... even if I agree that every year the prairies would burn to the ground and leave nothing but a little white ash, there still would be that white ash. There isn't if you take it away and burn it a thousand miles away in your SUV.
I'll spell this out for you, because you're slow:
The chemical formula of ethanol is C2H6O. It consists solely of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. If you process biomass, remove ethanol and return the rest, none of the potassium or phosphorus leaves with the product.
Depending on this processing, it may yield yeast as a byproduct. This could be used as feed, and wind up as... manure! Now, what's the difference again?
As well I guess you never heard of roots
I guess you can't read, because I clearly wrote "fires which destroyed most of the above-ground organic matter."
It's clear that you can write grammatically, but you do not take the care required to understand even semi-complex sentences. If you can't do better, you should give up trying to participate.
Try answering my original question, William S. Not only do you call us kettles black in misreading mine(and possibly deliberately so) but you do it without style. We will not talk of your grammar, as I do not wish to put you to that added embarrassment.
As far as your argument for ethanol, unless of course there is real magic and not just hand waving and arcane and mystical knowledge inherent in Robert's system, it does not sing truly as does the prairie Meadow Lark (can't find many of these little fellers anymore; they are likely drunk in a ditch somewhere from all the ethanol). Maybe you should catch up on things -- I would suggest you try MSM, they don't tax the imagination.
What original question? You posted in agreement with sgage, who said that biomass should be allowed to rot on the ground instead of being tapped for its energy. I said that the energ
Request for Info on Ethanol Incentives and Biomass Sources
I need to gather some information. I know that some of you will be quite knowledgeable about certain aspects of what I am looking for. I was in London this weekend (found myself standing next to Jesse Jackson at one point) having a look at a promising cellulosic ethanol technology. I will not go into details, because they don’t want to release details yet, but they have asked for my assistance in developing a business plan and helping work through technical hurdles. It is not the first time I have been asked to do something like this. It probably isn’t even the 100th. But there have only ever been 2 or 3 that I saw and thought “This could be something.” And this could in fact be something. It is an entirely unique approach to the cellulosic ethanol problem – and I have no doubt that this technology will handily beat the economics and energy returns of the current cellulosic plants being built.
Here is what I am looking for. While this technology already looks like it could compete right now on equal footing with corn, corn ethanol has been heavily subsidized. My counsel is that it would be very wise – looking mid to long term – to first determine who – states, federal governments, and/or foreign countries – are offering incentives for locating a cellulosic ethanol plant. It doesn’t have to be limited to incentives for cellulosic ethanol, but again it has to compete with the established corn guys. There are certain areas of the country – such as the coasts, where I think this can beat the corn guys right now. But you look first to the incentives that are being offered and take advantage of those (not to say I have changed my mind about these subsidies; I still think this system is incredibly inefficient and attempts to pick technology winners).
The second think I need to know is where there are massive quantities of biomass coming into a point source. The New York City dumps have always seemed like good candidates. But I don’t know if there are far better sources (quantity, uniformity) of biomass. For all I know New York recycles all of their paper and there isn’t much biomass to be processed at their dump. (I doubt it, though). An additional benefit would be to find waste biomass that currently requires tipping fees for disposal.
So, to summarize I am looking for 1). Who is offering attractive incentives for cellulosic ethanol?; and 2). Where are very high volume sources of biomass coming into point sources? Again, I ask that you don’t request specific details, here or through e-mails. If you want to speculate, that’s fine. I think this has enough potential that tomorrow I am going to lobby my company to allow me to assist. If we can come to an agreement that this specific application does not present a conflict of interest or an ethical issue, I will be working with these guys. If not, then maybe a wink and a nod can put them on the right path.
What This Is Not
One thing I want to address is that this is absolutely not a silver bullet. What it is, I believe, is something that could be a significant silver BB. I think this technology could be used to realistically displace a fair fraction of our gasoline usage. But we are still talking about less than 50% in all probability. Even if this works out to the most optimistic forecasts, we are still going to have to conserve in a major fashion.
Personal Note:
In 10 days, I will be reunited with my family for the first time in 5 months. At that time, I will be taking an extended break from writing. I have some time that I must make up, so instead of coming home from work and writing, I am going to make a point not to write, and use that time to experience Scotland with my family. It is an understatement to say that the past 5 months have been the most difficult of my life. If you have children, you can imagine what it would be like to spend 5 months apart. My heart goes out to those in the military who are routinely separated from their children. I have filled the void in my life by writing, and I have been on a rampage for the past 5 months. But the void is about to be filled by family, and I doubt I will ever again participate in the same way that I once did.
Good that you have your family back and good that you plan to take off and spend time with them. You will never regret spending time with your family.
You say that this technology could displace less than 50%. Well, 49% would be a definite signal we don't have to conserve. I think the United States, at least, is very much subject to Say's law, supply creates its own demand. Provide the fuel and they will come, with their SUVs, their Hummers, their Tundras, their ORVs, their snowmobiles. If what you say is true, this will have a major impact on prices, which will have, unfortunately, a major impact on demand.
You also have not said what the carbon impact of this technology would be and guess you can't or won't. As a certified member of the anti global warming crowd, any bullet or bb, regardless of its abundance, is a loser if it does not address the ghg issue.
Regardless of whether or not this cuts into oil, if it just lets us continue happy motoring into the indefinite future, I think one needs to be skeptical that this is another faustian bargain.
But then, we have no details, so I guess we just have to wait until all is revealed.
You seem to be mainly talking about biomass that would otherwise be land filled. If that is the main source, that sounds better than harvesting our grass, prairie land, conservation areas, and forests.
What you say seems to support the view of GM CEO wagoner who says that biofuels are the great hope for the future of the autombile industry, cutting oil consumption, and dealing with global warming. This will encourage those who have no intention of doing anything serious about consumption.
One thing is for damn sure, anyway, this probably beats the crap out of CTL, something that's getting a lot of support in congress right now, including the notable Obama.
You also have not said what the carbon impact of this technology would be and guess you can't or won't.
You know me. If this didn't appear to address all of my major concerns, I would not have glanced in their direction. I had exchanged dozens of e-mails with them and seen a lot of details before I agreed to go and check it out.
It is basically just cellulosic ethanol, but with a very unique twist. The EROEI is going to beat corn ethanol - which probably beats current state of the art cellulosic technology by a long shot. And it isn't going to mean cheap fuel, or abundant fuel. It will just mean "another source of fuel." And we need some fuel, especially renewable fuel.
But even though it does appear to me to be something special, the way my brain works is that I am constantly turning it over and over and thinking "What have I missed." But that's the reason they said they came to me. In fact, they said that when they were working on a business plan, they kept hitting on some of the ethanol essays I have written. That's when they decided to see if it could pass my skeptical sniff test.
If you ever get in the position, keep this idea close to yourself and develop an impeccable line of reasoning, use Hemp. It produces tons of fibre and is easily grown with low input in terms of farming and fertilizer. (it is a weed afterall)
I question the unique twist. What is it? Watch out for hidden extra energy inputs not documented. It's good they are reaching out.
Can you keep us updated?
I question the unique twist. What is it? Watch out for hidden extra energy inputs not documented. It's good they are reaching out.
I would love to tell everyone about it. Hopefully I can before too long. I can honestly say that I had never heard anyone propose this before. I said "That's freaking brilliant." Don't worry about hidden inputs. You have no idea how paranoid I am that I will miss something, and skeptical of ever claim.
Oh, and hemp was definitely discussed (but not smoked). Hemp has a further advantage in that it produces oil.
I think my request will be a standalone thread later in the day. That way I can easily keep up with suggestions.
RR
Is the process capable of using a variety of cellulosic material? Other than forests, and I really hate to see us go there, I really think if there is a promising cellulosic process (and I also hope it doesn't involve bacterial gene splicing), that it needs to be on a smaller local scale which would use a variety of materials, specific to the region, or most usefully, city. This would help lessen the logistical transport problems both of the raw material and of the product. Currently, every city collects tons of leaf waste, grass clippings, brush and branches, much cellulosic waste goes down garbage disposals, and enormous amounts of lumber and other left over building materials go into land fills, etc. Storm damage unique to a region can produce tons of cellulosic waste, as well. Since Bloomberg's on a roll, start with a plant near a NYC landfill. Perhaps regional farms could add appropriate waste products, as well. I am curious whether this process would require dry storage of the material. If not, that could be a big hurdle out of the way. Anyway, thanks for giving of your time to yet another project inquiry and good luck.
NYC landfill was a theme I kept coming back to. Right now these landfills a leaking loads of methane into the atmosphere - and we know that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It seems like a win all the way around to me.
No gene-splicing to my knowledge. But one of my vulnerabilities here is that there is a part of the process I have not seen. This is a black box to me, and I have told them that it is important that I take that box apart. This is the only thing that keeps me from saying "This is truly revolutionary." There could be a perpetual motion machine hiding in there, but I think I can sniff out a fake pretty well. These guys did know their stuff.
and we know that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2
Recall methane is a feedback enhancement, not a primary, mechanism. The reason is the timescale... methane content is more or less a function of other parameters due to its short equilibration time. The reason CO2 is so significant is its longer time scale. See the intro articles on
RealClimate for more detail.
"Methane is transient in the atmosphere, so if the anthropogenic source stays constant, the methane concentration stays constant. This is different from CO2, which accumulates. Methane is well-mixed in the troposphere. Gets oxidized by OH in the troposphere and zapped by UV light in the stratosphere. Gases don't sink out very much in the atmosphere because it circulates so quickly. You can measure gravitational settling of gases in stagnant columns of air like in firn above ice cores, but in the atmosphere, gases don't really settle out. The atmospheric measurements are straightforward, replicated, reliable."
--David Archer on RealClimate
ciao,
Bruce
Natural methane may be a feedback mechanism, but rice paddies, landfills and pipeline leaks are not. If we can reduce atmospheric methane by turning landfill gas into electricity and feeding our livestock differently, that's changing a human greenhouse contribution.
Methane is transient in the atmosphere, so if the anthropogenic source stays constant, the methane concentration stays constant.
On the other hand, if the anthropogenic source were to lessen, then the concentration would lessen, wouldn't it?
That's very true... unlike with CO2 there is no significant delay hence methane doesn't accumulate in the way CO2 does. I don't remember the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere, but ...(google)... it's about a century for CO2 and about a decade for CH4. The latter figure is long enough for CH4 to be well mixed and short enough that even with increased input the effective sinks keep the concentration in equilibrium. The response (eq conc as a fn of forcing) is nonlinear, but in this case the nonlinearity is stabilising (i.e., you don't get explosive growth without a catastrophic event).
Those interested should google on these things a bit, there is lots of interesting stuff on the net. It is easy to stick to scientific (or just multiple) sources.
ciao,
Bruce
I'm not sure forests cannot generate point source biomass. A new craze in Australia is 'fuel reduction burning' http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,20934343,00.html to reduce the intensity of wildfires. Rather than torch the undergrowth perhaps it could be mechanically harvested and rendered by pyrolysis. This could help the parks service in different ways
1) the forest gets its historical thinning
2) they won't get sued for medical bills by asthmatics
3) the fire can't escape and burn houses
The Eucalypt forest on the eastern coast of Australia is adapted for (by 60,00 years of fire-stick farming by the Aboriginal inhabitants) and now requires regular burn offs. This removes the dry bark and undergrowth, which has built up over a five or so year period and removes a lot of the insect parasites. The burns offs are done on calm winter days and cause some temporary smoke haze and very little inconvenience and zero damage to the trees of ecology.
When idiots insist on it not being done, due to ignorance and NIMBYism, the biomass builds up you get massive dangerous fires that kills people and the trees.
It would be almost impossible economically or physically to harvest this biomass and the turn it in to ethanol – it is far too dispersed in the trees and shrubs.
It looks like L.A. would be the winner....
I think this issue may be settled, unless anyone can come up with a better option than Los Angeles.....
http://www.citymayors.com/environment/la_green.html
Quotes:
Los Angeles produces 8,000 tons of garbage every day. With limited landfill space, LA was an early pioneer of curbside recycling. Currently, 62 per cent of waste is diverted from landfills and the goal is to increase that percentage to 70 per cent by 2015 through increased recycling programs and proposals to divert green waste to ethanol production facilities.
www.lacity.org/mayor/indexright/ mayorindexright243045238_05152007.pdf
Quotes:
“Shift from Waste Disposal to Resource Recovery. Recycle 70% of trash by 2015
Catalyze the Growth of the Green Economic Sector
Promote local research, development and production of green technology
Strengthen global economic relationships to secure investment in Los
Angeles’ green sector and help environmentally-focused companies
penetrate local and foreign markets
Identify locations for green businesses and offer effective incentives for the
growth of these businesses
Train residents of low and middle income communities, local university
students and participants in adult education programs for jobs in the green
economy.
http://www.crra.com/crranews/articles/pdf/adc.pdf
There is a bit of an “Alternative Dialy Cover” controversy going on in LA, as Waste Management and some other waste disposers have been allowed to put a certain amount of “green waste” they collect on landfills as “ground cover” and get credit for it as though it were not being disposed of at landfills. Apparently, this system has been abused as they have used it as a method of waste dumping for green waste that they cold not otherwise easily dispose of. What this means in practical terms is that LA actually has more “green waste” for other use than the stats have been making it look like.
Given the market size of L.A. for llquid fuel, it's long history of support for "green" industries, top notch education system, and closeness to massive venture capital and investment possibilities, I can't imagine a better place.
And I am from Kentucky, so if anything I would be biased against L.A.
But fair is fair, they win the first consideration, hands down.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Does sewage count?
I don't think the cellulose content will be high enough.
If it has to be cellulose...Japan is using rice husks.
There are quite a few high cellulose wastes from food production.
Husks of grains, seeds and nuts or pulp from some juice/oil pressing (apple has fairly high cellulose, as does seed pulp) might be worth checking out.
not very sustainable, your taking a substance that was traditionally put in the compost heap so it can be returned to the land so you can continue to grow things. if you don't your not going to be growing very much past the second year without massive fossil fuel inputs from fertilizer.
I have already sent you information on a low cost energy source to distill low proof ethanol. Do you need more information ?
They may also have limited quantities of tree thinning biomass.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Alan,
Abundant, renewable biomass is the key. The distillation at this time is of secondary concern. I would love to find a location that a lot of biomass is flowing into for disposal.
Perhaps they have something here for ya
http://www.bioenergywiki.net/index.php/Main_Page
(via the gassifyer mailing list gasification@listserv.repp.org)
What about sugar cane bagasse ? Close to water transportion as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagasse
Some Louisiana industrial incentives and a domestic (in state) ethanol incentives passed a couple of years ago from memory.
Alan
Bagasse was discussed at length. In fact, probably more than any other source. I would like to know what the true bagasse waste picture is in Louisiana.
I will check next week.
Alan
BTW, downriver barges use a bit over 200 BTUs per ton-mile. Add a quarter to that # since they do not go in a straight line (only a/c can) but a 25% penalty over rail & truck.
Upriver "varies" but double that # for first estimates.
Being close to good rail connections and water transportation will be key post-Peak Oil.
Alan
How about the leftovers from papermills or wood-product or paper-product manufacturers?
Maybe a specialized "industrial park" that only allows facilities that will be producing cellulose wastes and has conveyors or train cars or something that haul it away for free to the central ethanol processing plant?
In other words, don't go to them - bring them to you.
Greg in MO
There are no leftovers from papermills. Everything is either made into paper or burned for steam and power generation.
Some of my favorite memories are from our trip in 1990 to Scotland and Yorkshire, especially exploring the tidal ponds at Robin Hood's Bay in Yorkshire.
A song that rings true to this father of a 25 year old graduate student--who only "yesterday" promised me that she would always stay three years old:
You might contact the major timber companies in the US and Canada to find locations where there are active sawmills that do not have access to a pulp chip market and do not already have a biomass cogeneration plant. The lodgepole pine region in the interior northwest might have a lot of opportunities with all of the bark beetle outbreaks in low value timber.
x
The timber companies are definitely an option, but I didn't know if they have a large enough volume of truly waste material. That would provide the best EROEI. If we have to start cutting down and chipping standing trees, I think the advantage could be lost. Not certain, but looks that way to me.
Right now the timber companies in Texas leave the limbs and needles/leaves to rot on the ground, same way with people bulldozing mesquete. If an economic incentive is high enough, I'm sure the companies would bring it in. but it would be a lot more labor and some capital expense for wood chippers and trucks.
"Right now the timber companies in Texas leave the limbs and needles/leaves to rot on the ground,"
Which is where it belongs. Most of the plant nutrients that are embodied in a tree are in the smaller limbs/twigs, and leaves/needles. They need to go back into the soil. Unless of course, you don't plan on growing trees there sustainably.
sgage,
First bit of reason I have seen on this article. Don't see any comment about this from Robert.
As well I would think that this process would need to be a lot cheaper than current oil prices, otherwise we just use it and oil as usual. It would have to beat production cost of oil otherwise they would just reach a point of equilibrium and we get increased CO2 and the business of growth as usual.
If I am wrong about this I would truly appreciate seeing where my thinking is incorrect.
The tallgrass prairie developed its rich soil in spite of, or perhaps even because of, regular fires which destroyed most of the above-ground organic matter. All the soil got back was the ash, containing mostly the potassium and phosphorus (also sodium, silica, etc). Grazing also took most of the organic matter away, returning mostly the elemental nutrients.
I don't see any great difference between burning, grazing and cutting for bio-energy extraction so long as those essential elements are recycled or replaced. Do you have evidence (not handwaving or mysticism) to the contrary?
Grazing also took most of the organic matter away, returning mostly the elemental nutrients.
Engineer-Poet, come on you can do better than that.
Just go MOOO and figure out where you would, as a buffalo, stop going MOOO, or just go POO for that matter and consider the tiger lilies of those fields.
About taking most of the organic matter away by fire even if I agree that every year the prairies would burn to the ground and leave nothing but a little white ash, there still would be that white ash. There isn't if you take it away and burn it a thousand miles away in your SUV.
If you have ever set any fires in the prairies and as a kid, my friends and I did ... scared the bejesus out of us at times, getting them put out again, there was lots of carbon besides ash left.
As well I guess you never heard of roots, as a few days later all would be green and growing again, a little carbon lost to the air which would be snorted up little green leaf noses in short order. Okay there you are, no hand waving, no mystical passes, just the nature of things.
I'll spell this out for you, because you're slow:
The chemical formula of ethanol is C2H6O. It consists solely of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. If you process biomass, remove ethanol and return the rest, none of the potassium or phosphorus leaves with the product.
Depending on this processing, it may yield yeast as a byproduct. This could be used as feed, and wind up as... manure! Now, what's the difference again?
I guess you can't read, because I clearly wrote "fires which destroyed most of the above-ground organic matter."
It's clear that you can write grammatically, but you do not take the care required to understand even semi-complex sentences. If you can't do better, you should give up trying to participate.
Try answering my original question, William S. Not only do you call us kettles black in misreading mine(and possibly deliberately so) but you do it without style. We will not talk of your grammar, as I do not wish to put you to that added embarrassment.
As far as your argument for ethanol, unless of course there is real magic and not just hand waving and arcane and mystical knowledge inherent in Robert's system, it does not sing truly as does the prairie Meadow Lark (can't find many of these little fellers anymore; they are likely drunk in a ditch somewhere from all the ethanol). Maybe you should catch up on things -- I would suggest you try MSM, they don't tax the imagination.
What original question? You posted in agreement with sgage, who said that biomass should be allowed to rot on the ground instead of being tapped for its energy. I said that the energ