<A Digest of This Week's StoriesThe Oil DrumThe Human Cost of Gonu>
<DrumBeat: June 9, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: June 11, 2007>

271 comments on DrumBeat: June 10, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on June 10, 2007 - 9:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on June 10, 2007 - 10:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gilgamesh on June 10, 2007 - 11:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on June 10, 2007 - 12:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kalpa on June 10, 2007 - 1:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on June 10, 2007 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bruce Scott on June 10, 2007 - 3:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on June 10, 2007 - 3:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Mriswith on June 10, 2007 - 6:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bruce Scott on June 10, 2007 - 7:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Boof on June 10, 2007 - 5:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LeGorfou on June 11, 2007 - 2:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on June 10, 2007 - 10:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

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

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.