<Sir David King’s View on Peak OilThe Oil DrumThe House is poised to debate and pass an Energy Bill this week...get your thoughts in...UPDATED>
<DrumBeat: July 31, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: August 2, 2007>

271 comments on DrumBeat: August 1, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

theantidoomer on August 1, 2007 - 1:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Wow, truly awesome story. This along with the LS9 story combined are very hopeful.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/ls9-promises-renewable-p_b_5...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
redcoltken on August 1, 2007 - 1:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

LS9 - Its good that an "aware" person posted a simple reply

1. what is the acre-yield
2. what is the EROEI
3. what is the cost
4. what are the additional pros/cons

Any bio fix would have to pass the four hoops just to get out of the gate.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on August 1, 2007 - 1:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yup. How often have we seen these miracle solutions touted, only to have cold, hard reality smack them down? Sometimes it's "receding horizons." (Thermal depolymerization, now called thermal conversion, AKA the turkey parts plant.) Sometimes, it's fraud. (DeBeers' biodiesel from algae scheme.) Sometimes it's in that murky area between ignorance and fraud (Citizenre, Steorn).

I'll believe it when I see it.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 1, 2007 - 2:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But only one of them has actual research going into the matter.

But I don't know why you are 'awed' by LS9 - when
a 200-horsepower car engine the size of a suitcase could power a vehicle four times around the world on a single tank of water.
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~userwho/aquarian/nl-220.html
or
batteries the size of a briefcase to drive your car 1000 miles at highway speeds on a single charge, without gasoline.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9951,baard,11218,1.html

As long as you are 'the anti doomer' - feel free to show how these promises of the past are just about to become products!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Starship Trooper on August 1, 2007 - 4:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Te first and second laws of thermodynamics NEVER take a holiday on the macro scale. And until someone produces the energy balance and the entropy calculations, it seems a little like buying a box of "instant water." Just add water.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
theantidoomer on August 1, 2007 - 5:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

How is converting biomass violating the 2nd law? LS9 has simply stated that their enhanced bacteria can convert biomass to fuel that is 50% more dense than ethanol and can be done with 65% less energy. Even the most pessemistic people agree that the EROEI for Corn Ethanol is about 1.3. So if you increase the density of the fuel by 50% and decrease the energy used by 65% you're talking about a significantly better EROEI. I know its not cool here to talk about being part of the solution, but hey I'm not trying to be cool.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gilgamesh on August 1, 2007 - 6:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

EROEI is independent of mass.

if you mean for transportation then fine, but dont' confuse people.

what is this chemical which is 50% denser? (this only improves specific energy)

a 65% decrease in energy costs is good, however if further processing is required, or the time to process the fuel goes up, we are screwed again!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 1, 2007 - 8:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Try again. You did not answer:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2835#comment-221144

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
theantidoomer on August 1, 2007 - 8:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Another important note about the LS9 biofuel is that it will be able to be transported by pipeline, unlike ethanol, that in of itself will be a huge energy savings.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on August 2, 2007 - 8:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Do you have a reason you are dodging a direct question to you?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2835#comment-221144

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on August 1, 2007 - 8:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Even the most pessemistic people agree that the EROEI for Corn Ethanol is about 1.3.

Incorrect. Some, like David Pimentel of Cornell, think the EROEI of corn ethanol less than one. IOW, it's a net energy loser.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on August 1, 2007 - 9:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Even the most pessemistic people agree that the EROEI for Corn Ethanol is about 1.3.

Right Leanan, and that statement does not make any sense. "1.3" does not mean anything. Perhaps you meant 1.3 to 1. I have heard that figure by ethanol optimists, not pessimists. .7 to 1, I think, is what Pimentel says.

Ron Patterson

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
theantidoomer on August 1, 2007 - 9:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Please everyone knows that Pimentel was using data from 30 years ago when he calculated that number. The USDA did a more comprehensive study using modern farming technologies and came up with 1.8 to 1.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on August 1, 2007 - 9:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Once again, incorrect. Pimentel simply disagrees with other scientists on what should be considered energy inputs (and outputs). For example, he considers the oil it takes to build tractors. Others do not.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
theantidoomer on August 1, 2007 - 9:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01b.htm

I feel like this study pretty convincingly showed that the USDA was far more accurate that Pimentel. The guy is a biofuels hater for other reasons, so of course he skewed his data.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on August 1, 2007 - 10:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Look at the date on that. 2001! That's six years ago. Ancient history.

There have been more recent studies done, by Pimental and others. One as recently as this year, I believe.

If the study you linked to was "convincing," would they still be doing new studies to prove him right or wrong?

I feel like this study pretty convincingly showed that the USDA was far more accurate that Pimentel. The guy is a biofuels hater for other reasons, so of course he skewed his data.

And the USDA is of course entirely impartial.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.