Calling All Ethanol Proponents
Posted by Robert Rapier on June 11, 2007 - 12:02am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: biofuel, biomass, cellulosic ethanol, ethanol, ethanol subsidies [list all tags]
Request for Info on Ethanol Incentives and Biomass Sources
I need some help gathering 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.
This 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 a 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. And this isn't just a sketch on paper. They are deep into R&D on this thing.
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 – is 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. This is the low-hanging fruit. 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 put in a request to 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 (20% was my back of the envelope calculation - but that is much greater than the 0% that I currently foresee from cellulose). 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 take 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 and Europe with my family. It is an understatement to say that the past 5 months have been the most difficult of my life. 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, and I doubt I will ever again participate in the same way that I once did.
http://www.wipapercouncil.org/history.htm
and similar ideas. See: http://www3.uwm.edu/Dept/shwec/links/uwgb/papermill.htm
Landfill mining
Solid waste from large manure processing plants - need to check if cellulose is preserved after biogas is produced (competition: fertilizer)
Yard trimmings from distributed recycling plants (competition: composted fertilizer, mulch)
Vegetable agricultural wastes (competition: hay, silage, fertilizer)
Robert:
Your posts and comments have been a wealth of information and a great way of educating many of us on TOD. your contributions are truely appreciated. I hope you can still provide posts & comments on frequent basis.
As I commented on the Drum Beat a major source for cellulose could be municipal waste streams. Many cities have programs to separate the yard waste (plant clippings, wood and leaves) from the trash. If you could throw in paper and cardboard that is now part of the trash, the amount would be even greater.
The incentive for cities to fully deal with supplying such material must be monetary, such as federal funds. Plus the EPA could issue regulations on how to handle the waste to boost the cellulose stream going for this fuel industry. Put a federal tax on every ton or cubic meter going into a land fill, then refund the tax to cities to help them handle the proper sorting of the waste and direct it to the proper ethanol users.
Right now some cities are hauling garbage by train and truck for many miles to dump it at landfills out of their ares. Instead of hauling it to landfills, send it to a cellulostic ethanol facility.
Main problem is getting the public to cooperate (separate the usable from the nonusable). But $8 a gallon gas would help in that regard. Also the ethanol producers paying for the waste might help the cities cope with more complicated trash sorting and handling of larger amount of material.
Looking at a cellulosic feedsouce...think pulp and paper mills,or lumber,small sawmills straw from grasseed here in ore its burned,for that matter any manure,feedlot,or grass based industry.Waste from pulp and paper may be your best bet
Read this article: "Brazil May Become First to Produce Economically Viable Cellulosic Ethanol" at this link: http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/06/brazil_may_beco.html
They are already gathering the feedstock but won't switch to cellulosic until the price of the enzymes falls another 60% or so. You may have the missing piece of the puzzle. Keep in mind they have a vast amount of feedstock. I don't know if they are willing to subsidize, but frankly, if your method is promising enough they have an incentive to play ball. Good luck.
Well, sounds very secretive. Forgive my cynicism but I have a few questions:
1. Since most of the biomass we want to convert to fuel is produced by using fossil fuels how sustainable is this really? Ok, great, we can now use the cornstalks as fuel, but we still have to grow them in prodiguous amounts.
2. If you are talking about using waste cellulose(paper,etc) then this will dry up the recycled paper market. No more packaging made from recyled products, we'll just burn it in our engines instead.
3. On a similar note as 2 above, are we now not going to plow the waste agricultural cellulose(cornstalks, etc.) back into the earth, or are we now just going to use every bit of the plant for our use? I would think that this would demand a lot more fertilizer than even now.
4.What is going to stop people from just using any cellulose? Why not mow down the forest and turn it into ethanol?
5. If you are just using non-recycled waste from cities then there is a problem. As oil production declines and living standards drop there will be less and less waste to use.
I'm not the brightest guy in this group but even I see this for what it is. Bandaid. And dangerous. I can see us talking about peak ethanol 10 yrs from now when Brazil has cut down 50% of the rainforest and can't cut it down any faster...
"Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat"
Big Oil Executive
I'm not the brightest guy in this group but even I see this for what it is. Bandaid. And dangerous.
You know, I appreciate the ability that some of you have to jump to conclusions based on very limited information. It is admirable. I possess no such ability. I find myself going through one of these proposals after another before deciding whether something is a good idea. And as I said, I have been through at least a hundred of these. So while I can certainly understand the cynicism – because I am a cynic myself – all I really need is information on concentrated biomass sources.
One thing I didn’t make clear is that the process is not dependent on biomass coming into a point source. I am looking for this as the fastest way of proving it commercially. Something like farmed miscanthus may work out later on (is one of the best at leaving nutrients in the soil). I would also point out that the process has been commercially proven – in another industry. So there isn’t a question of whether it works. It does. It also won’t deplete the soil. In fact, I made it a point to cover this topic in depth.
I reiterate. I did not just fall off of a turnip truck. I have been around the block many times. And I have said that this is not a silver bullet. It is a technology that can add to the diversity of our energy supply. We need that. I won’t have my kids growing up in a world that we sat around and watched go to hell without making some serious attempts at mitigation. And just because I have been very critical and skeptical of grain and cellulosic ethanol, does not mean that I would not like to see them succeed in a sustainable manner.
As I said, I will not be answering specific questions. If I ever get the thumbs up, I will detail the process. Right now, as you might imagine, they don’t want this getting out. But this isn’t a bunch of guys sitting around in their living room. They have research labs, a pilot plant, a number of Ph.D. scientists on staff, and lots of funding.
For those who have contributed information, thank you. I am logging it all.
'I won’t have my kids growing up in a world that we sat around and watched go to hell without making some serious attempts at mitigation.'
Except we are not just sitting around, and watching the world go to hell, essentially everyone reading and posting at TOD is actively participating in that process right now, though obviously in differing amounts. (I would consider myself average on that scale, by the way.)
I don't think that saving IC powered automotive infrastructure counts as useful effort - in fact, a fairly convincing argument can be made that it makes life worse for those spending significant time each day in cars - like children being toted from school to sport to shopping to 'play dates.'
To the extent that a significant fraction of our current social/economic structure is totally reliant on many individuals driving IC powered automobiles, watching that structure go to hell doesn't concern me that much - whether now or in a decade isn't that important to me either.
Here would be the point to quote something pithy, but why bother?
However, the news that the TGV now goes through Karlsruhe was a big deal in this region, where Mercedes has a major presence - A-Klasse, Unimog, and trucks are manufactured around here. Who knows, maybe in a decade, the U.S. could actually start celebrating electric powered high speed rail, instead of worrying about how much a tank of gas costs - or in that time frame, where they can find gas to tank.
Addicts never want to quit their addiction, as stopping is their greatest terror. However, quitting is not exactly the same as having the addict's world go to hell, regardless of what the addict might think beforehand - especially as generally, the addict's world is hell to non-addicts.
Edit - thread was in Drumbeat
Except we are not just sitting around, and watching the world go to hell, essentially everyone reading and posting at TOD is actively participating in that process right now, though obviously in differing amounts.
I completely, absolutely, 100% disagree with that statement. Unless regularly declaring "We are all doomed" is what you mean by "actively participating." In case you haven't noticed, there is a fair amount of that around here and I don't find it particularly helpful. But I agree that there is a lot of good participation here. There is also a lot of "we are doomed no matter what." I don't accept that.
I don't think that saving IC powered automotive infrastructure counts as useful effort...
Really, I don't know why I bother sometimes. I knew that when I posted my request, I would get some of this. But it is fairly annoying that people go to such lengths to misrepresent what I actually said. "Less than 50%" becomes "50%". Despite giving no details, this is "mining topsoil" and "dangerous." And I have gotten a good deal of what you posted above - despite the fact that I said that this would only be one more option in the arsenal and the displacement would be modest. Anyone who knows me knows that I believe things have to change.
But we are going to need some liquid fuels. We are going to need a diverse supply of energy. If you are happy to see that come from tar sands and coal to liquids, good for you, because that's what's going to happen on the trajectory we are currently on. Bemoaning our current transportation infrastructure will not change that.
If one totes up the "essential" uses of liquid transportation fuels (fire & ambulance should make everyone's list, agriculture, minimal rural transportation (go to town every other Friday if the weather is good), expanded barge use, air travel at 10% to 20% of today's levels, some military use, postal delivery twice a week, local truck delivery, plumber & related trades, etc.), we have a "hard core" need for at least 10% of our current demand. (If theory says 20%, reality means that we will be DAMN lucky to get 10%).
I would MUCH prefer to see a non-GHG source for that 10% than CTL and tar sands.
Yes, there is a political risk that TPTB will proclaim that ALL of our oil problems are solved. However, I trust that RR will remind people that is simply NOT true. And if he is in a pivotal position to "make this happen" he will be heard.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I like Burgundys comments from yesterday.
An Open source solution could be what TOD evolves into. The intellectual capitol here is world class and when PO enters the public consciousness IMO this will snowball along with the financial capitol.
I no longer have any faith in the Capitalist System. Sorry Robert but you may want to explore alternative structures for pushing this new project. Otherwise given the current state of Global economics I for one don’t see your project coming to fruition
It’s time for a new approach and if you truly don’t believe what I propose is possible then we really are screwed.
But I’m just an old troll and you can tell me to consume feces and cease to exist.
Robert.
You know that the vast majority of us respect you and I respect your need for secrecy at this point. So, if someone takes this opportunity to debate ethanol at this point, don't take it personally.
One problem, though, is that you used the phrase less than 50%. Well, that includes 49% and 49% is not modest. So, I don't think you should conclude that people were unfair to conclude that the displacement might be more than "modest". "Modest" is more like less than 20%.
And, of course, you are right to point out that this should be better than CTL and tar sands.
But really, the same Senators, like Obama, who are touting the glories of ethanol (in his state) are touting the glories of "clean" CTL (in his state).
Damn right that many of us out here are cynical, but not just about the efficacy of ethanol. We are cynical about the ability of politicians and the American people from restraining themselves. When it comes to supply, we want it all; damn the consequences.
But, yeh, it is obvious that none of us are in a position to evaluate the specific technology that you have in mind.
Having said that, this whole alternative fuels deal is like Pandora's box. Unfortunately, we open it up and get the good with the bad. On top of that, we are not very adept at discriminating the good versus the bad so we take it all.
Peak oil is a curse, not just because there will be less oil around. It is a curse because of all the alternatives that we will puruse in trying to mitigate the problem. Your alternative may be relatively good, but it will just be a part of a big arsenal, not all good.
Alan's comments are in the direction I meant.
The people posting at TOD are generally people living a typical lifestyle for members of an industrial society - which means, we are the ones driving, buying frozen food, and living in air conditioning while making sure the grass stays green year round.
Ethanol isn't a solution - it is part of the problem, an attempt to keep the gasoline motor running, because for many, the alternative seems worse - or unimaginable. And we will, to use Leanan's perspective, burn everything, before we change how we live. A concrete example - our use of oil today will likely be met with the same incomprehension as we have looking back to 1850, when the planet's whales were burnt to provide lighting at night for a couple of decades.
Obviously we will 'require' liquid fuels - which is why biodiesel/straight plant oil seems reasonable - no need to create any new farm equipment, keeps construction machinery running, fire trucks, etc.
Ethanol is fundamentally a fuel intended to keep our current lifestyle rolling - and the underlying problem is how we live, not what we put in our fuel tanks.
I also read the Choren web site - they seem to be just on the edge of suggesting that clear cutting forests would be a practical alternative to using oil - or that any plant material left on the ground is waste.
That we will burn everything seems an ever more realistic prospect. And the tragedy is that it is so unnecessary. But there is no real profit to be earned in having people walk or bicycle - and meeting other people, instead of watching ads on a screen - so we will continue to invest our children's future in today's equivalent of a whaling ship - which also represented a major capital investment, where the owners were obviously entitled to earn wealth from a product that customers were clamoring for.
Robert, I want to clarify what you mean by a "process not dependent on biomass coming into a point source." There's no central processing facility to make the ethanol?
Glad you are keeping away from turnip trucks, but I am skeptical about any claims of "not depleting the soil." This would be a reinvention of agriculture and I hope you are right!
Perhaps the major problem with agriculture is that soil carbon is lost during cultivation. If you can use a mix of perennial crops, harvest the above ground biomass only, and make sure all animal and manufacturing byproducts based on that harvest go back to the land...perhaps the process is sustainable.
There's a paper in Nature by Tilman and others from Univ. of Minesota on the biomass of praire ecosystems and the potential for sustained harvests. The key is to NOT focus on one productive crop, but used a mixed species system.
I am not sure whether I should wish you luck or hope for a complete failure!
A little OT but since you brought it up.
Nitrogen can be produced by lightening and other artifacts of nature, I read. Letting land lie fallow is also a means of reinvorigating it.
As I have stated elsewhere we had NO fertilizer except for animal manure back in my youth on the farm so we had a very large mix. Sheep,ducks,geese,cows,pigs and mules. We gathered hay on a field then not for several years.
We lived without those chemical nutrients and did ok.
HOWEVER there was NO lime. Today the lands are kept to certain PH levels by hauling and spreading lime.
Thinking about that I realized that entirely different varieties of hay were grown then. Ones that I no longer see.
My point is that very much is going to have to change. Way way back to what it was like back in the 30s and 40s.
I am agreeing with you on this. Many think of farming as just not too complicated. Its gotten real complicated and returning to the past is going to likewise be very complicated , if we can do it at all or let nature take its course, which might mean far far too long.
I speak of the upper south Mississippi valley region.
Calif and others are far different I would suppose.
Airdale-we have a big big turnaround if this country loses chemical nutrient inputs and I believe it will do so
As I understand it, Brazil's ethanol industry poses little threat to rainforest, as sugar cane does not grow well in the same soil types and climatic conditions. The threat that I have seen mentioned is the conversion of U.S. soy crops to corn crops, which has driven up the demand for imported soy - largely from Brazil, and rainforests are very much at threat from soy production. However it's hard to find verifiable facts from reputable sources on the issue.
I've thought quite a lot about municipal solid waste. Here in Seattle the dumps contain something like 80% construction debris. Of that, probably half is stuff like gypsum board. What is not construction debris is very low grade. I don't know if there are areas with "better" garbage, so to speak, but it really seems to me that garbage is hard to deal with.
Any kind of fresh vegetative biomass with high water content is hard to transport even very short distances, so we are sort of down to wood byproducts (sawdust, mill scraps, perhaps some direct line on sorted construction debris, and paper).
What about tree services? Does anyone know how many tons of wood chips are removed per day from a large city? Where do they go? Do they get paid for the chips, or are they a disposal problem? Large infrastructure projects always rip out large numbers of trees - where do they go?
Big construction firms pay huge dump fees. They can recycle clean wood, but perhpas if one were to allow free dumping of non-clean wood it might encourage them to supply you, but then how could you deal with it? How can one grind up a big timber that is full of bolts, drift pins, steel brackets, and is covered with lead paint?
One thing that has crossed my mind several times is whether there are specialty institutions that have better waste streams? Prisons? Postal service? Old phone books? Somewhere there is the ticket, but the trick is to find it.
I have said several times over the past few days that I have seen a least a hundred of these proposals, and only 2 or 3 of them looked like very good ideas. Of the 2 or 3, one of the other good ideas is your proposal. That's why I have helped you with it - I think it can succeed. I think the Choren process in Germany - and I have had a lot of interactions with them - has high potential but I think the capital costs right now are out of sight. And that process may fall victim to receding horizons. So while it is a good idea in principle, it may not be ultimately feasible.
There are other processes, like Robert Rohatensky's SHPEGS system:
http://energytower.org/
That appear to me to be good ideas. But I don't have the expertise in that particular area to judge it. So you won't hear me weighing in on that one. I mostly just watch from the sidelines as the merits are debated. But no doubt, at least 95% of the stuff I see is immediately discardable. No further evaluation required.
In my experience, talking to the lay public, 99.999999% of ideas they throw at you will not work for any given field of science.
With scientists/eng/doc its closer to 99% non working ideas.
Cursory glances at even ideas I come up with; typically tossing away 9/10 of what I come up with.
/edit, i am heavily biased towards ideas i come up with ;)
/edit, i am heavily biased towards ideas i come up with ;)
So am I :-)
Best Hopes for Rational, and not Ego driven, Analysis,
Alan
(Repeat post from Drum Beat request, referring to Los Angeles CA as best potential location made by other posters. Some of the links have interesting data)
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
Richard Branson is nominally spending 3billion dollars on ethanol projects,
and supporting innovative R&D and applications.
RB's an open entrepreneur I'd imagine proposals would be welcome-
http://www.virginunite.co.uk/view_content.phtml?id=79
http://www.virginunite.co.uk/view_content.phtml?id=307
On the 10th September 2006, following Richard's commitment at the Clinton Global Initiative to invest all proceeds from the groups transport industries, Virgin Trains and Virgin Atlantic, of an estimated $3 billion over the next 10 year into Bio-fuel Initiatives Richard Branson and Virgin announced the launch of Virgin Fuels.
Virgin Fuels will be delivering Richard's renewable energy strategy by investing up to $400 million dollars in renewable energy initiatives over the next three years.
Their first investment supports the group's belief that all businesses, especially those involved in transportation, must be at the forefront of developing environmentally friendly business strategies with a focus on replacing traditional energy with energy coming from renewable sources.
This first deal in this sector is an investment in Cilion, Inc. Cilion was formed in June 2006 to build and operate ethanol plants that will be cheaper and greener than standard corn-to-ethanol plants, as they substantially reduce the need for fossil fuels in ethanol production. Cilion plans to build seven plants by 2009 with a total of 440 million gallons per year capacity. The first three plants are expected to be in California.
Records
Branson was discussed over the weekend. Khosla was discussed. I think this would be right up their alley. I think the consensus was that at some point Branson might be approached, but right now they still want to keep a tight lid on things.
Check out a radio interview with scientist David Fridley. He doesn't think any biofuel could get anywhere near the 50% displacement of gasoline, as you appear to, Robert. One amazing fact (if true) that he mentioned was that the US uses 100 quads of energy per year, mainly fossil fuels, but the amount of solar energy collected by all the plant life in the US is only up to 90 quads (that's all plant life, including crops and forest). Significant quantities appear to be a pipedream, no matter what process is used, though it might provide essential liquid fuels, once we decide just what it essential.
It's an interesting interview that covers a lot of ground, including cellulosic ethanol and the logistical problems (never mind the energy problems) of biofuels.
Tony
I just listened to that. Fascinating. He really shuts the door on biofuels.
He goes on to explain that of those 75-90 quads collected by plants, 25% is under control in the agriculture system and another 25% in human controlled forestry.
Of course this is just for the US but its still a very sobering number.
Rethin said,
“I just listened to that. Fascinating. He really shuts the door on biofuels.”
I have not listened to the interview yet (I am on dialup and it is 45 minutes long, so is still downloading, I can’t run it in streaming format, it would take all day!)
However, going by the numbers that sofistek quotes, there seems to be a lot of mixing of apples and oranges going on:
“He doesn't think any biofuel could get anywhere near the 50% displacement of gasoline, as you appear to, Robert.”
Now at this point, we seem to be talking only about gasoline. But in the very next sentence we get:
“One amazing fact (if true) that he mentioned was that the US uses 100 quads of energy per year, mainly fossil fuels, but the amount of solar energy collected by all the plant life in the US is only up to 90 quads (that's all plant life, including crops and forest).”
Now suddenly we switched to “US uses 100 quads of energy per year, mainly fossil fuels”. Suddenly we are talking about “energy” not just gasoline. That would include all energy, including oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, what renewables (solar and wind) plus our current biofuel production! So while the paragraph makes it sound like it, the U.S. in fact uses no where near 100 quads of gasoline or for that matter, any liquid fuel!
(the sentence itself gives that away with the words “mainly fossil fuels”, but as we see above, not all 100 quads are fossil fuels, and fossil fuels includes nat gas, oil and coal.
A rough guess would be gasoline use is no more than 20 to 25 quads (anyone have numbers? I am just calculating back from the total energy number given)
HOWEVER, David Fridley’s point is still very much on and to be taken very seriously. I will take his estimate of plant conversion of 90 quads at face value, it doesn’t sound far off, given the amount of the U.S. that is desert, high mountain and area covered by cities and highway. To try to replace a full 50% of U.S. gasoline use with biomass would indeed be a stretch, if possible at all, which is debatable.
The only way to even attempt making biofuel more than a marginal option would be:
(a) get more land into production of higher yielding crops/biomass
(b) recover far more biomass waste product
(c) through the use of grid based transportation with regenerative braking make the transportation system MUCH more efficient, thus reducing liquid fuel need
(d) Move to “confluence” in biomass production, i.e., using solar and wind imput as well as methane recovery.
Now what was that one other point that I was going to mention.:-?
Oh yeah, that’s it....just pour the money into solar to hydrogen production and skip this damm “death by 1000 conversions”, since it is the hydrogen in the biofuel that you are after anyway!
Interestingly, Pimental & Patzek, Honda Motor Corp and several European Community think tanks and research labs are coming to the same conclusion. However, as Robert Rapier seems to be working on, if waste that would otherwise end up in a landfill can be used rather that wasted to produce liquid fuel efficiently, that option should not be ignored. We need to close the waste loop and put all byproduct back into the productive stream if at all possible.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Why don't you just do us all a favor and actually listen to it first ok?
And if you are going to reply to my post, and write "Rethin said" can you at least have the common decency to quote me and not somebody else?
"“I just listened to that. Fascinating. He really shuts the door on biofuels.”
Rethin, wasn't that comment in your post? If you were quoting someone else, I did not see that noted.
"Why don't you just do us all a favor and actually listen to it first ok?"
I explained why I had not got to listen to it yet, or so I thought. However, the numbers given in this string concerning the interview were obviously inconsistant on the face of it.
If I had waited to mention that, this string of posts would (if other strings are any indication) been so long with fights and gibberish and long drawn out discussions about having to return to the use of horses for farming, mass starvation and the collapse into the "undoable gorge" or was it Uldoaval, or Unduvial? back to that later..... and then it would have been pointless to attempt to point up the inconsistant numbers that obviously were already here on this string of posts.
Oh, by the way,
""“I just listened to that. Fascinating. He really shuts the door on biofuels."
Just to check, are you sure that comment wasn't in your post?
(I just checked, the interview in question is getting close to a third downloaded, give it a couple of more hours, we can't all afford he newest technology out here in the country! :-)
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
I reread your post and noted that you did attribute the second set of quotes to sofistek not me. sorry. I missed that the first time through.
It would have been much clearer if you had just responded to his post when quoting him.
Quite right, Roger. Apples and oranges. It was not my intention to mislead, so thanks for putting us straight. I understand oil has the highest energy density of all the energy sources we use, so your rough figure of 20-25 quads may be well out. I seem to remember a figure that about 40% of our energy is from oil. If so, some people will be seeking to turn about half of all plant life in the US into biofuel. If that is not unsustainable, I don't know what is.
"Waste" is a word invented by humans. Nothing really goes to waste, as far as the earth is concerned. Maybe we can find a way to extract just the energy from biomass, putting everything else back into the soil we need to grow our food and our oxygen. However, I'm not too hopeful on that.
Tony
According to this it is 26.5 quads
Rethin,
Great chart, I saved that one once from somewhere and then let it get away...I will save it again! :-)
RC
Actually, that should be 39.2 Quads of oil (14.9+24.3), or about 39% of the 99.4 Quads of total primary energy use shown here.
Thanks, Sparaxis. It seems my recollections aren't way off the mark.
While your comment about nature is true, once something goes into a landfill, it is pretty much locked up away from natural processes of degradation and recycling. So, I don't think we are doing nature much of a failure by putting most of our crap in landfills.
But landfills exist, anyway, so I suppose the idea of getting some fuel from the stuff that would normally sit there in a landfill for decades, or maybe centuries would be a good idea.
Looking at the big picture, though, perhaps it would be more productive from an energy and resource standpoint, to reduce, reuse, and recycle in the first place.
Living in Boulder County, which has an excellent recycling program, I am able to recycle most of the packaging, for example, from the products I buy. However, the items I buy could be packaged in a way that used a lot less materials.
Summary:
Given the existence of crap, it makes sense to recycle or get energy from that crap.
But let's work to reduce the amount of crap.
In the mean time, I will recyle all my agricultural related "waste" back into my garden. And some clean paper products, too, for that matter. My compost bin needs the carbon.
"if waste that would otherwise end up in a landfill can be used rather that wasted to produce liquid fuel efficiently, that option should not be ignored"
Hello? HELLO?
Test, Test... one, two, three.
Is this thing on?
I am afraid that your mute button is on.
:-P
Alan