<The Onion: Coal Now Too Expensive To Put In Christmas StockingsThe Oil DrumA good review of Chinese developments>

84 comments on November IEA global production

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dipchip on December 22, 2005 - 10:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The US gasoline consumption is 9.5 million barrels / day, 9.5 * 365 * 42 = about 145 billion gallons annually. The US annual corn crop harvest is 10 billion bushels. 10 * 2.5 = 25 billion gallons of ethanol. Ethanol yield is about 2.5 gallons per bushel. 25 / 145 = about 17% If we used the entire annual corn crop to produce ethanol, 10% could be used for gasohol while the other 7% would be consumed by increased demand before the new ethanol plants came on line.
In addition to corn I have been looking at some numbers on soybeans and potatoes.
The US harvests about 2.5 billion bushels of soybeans annually, and about 23 million tons of potatoes. Potatoes yield about 25-30 gallons of ethanol/ton or 688 million gallons of ethanol about .5% of our gas consumption.
There has been much talk about bio-diesel from soybeans. The only numbers I can find are that soybeans yield about 9.5 to 10 pounds of oil/bushel. How much bio-diesel will 10 pounds of soybean oil yield?? 1.5 Gallons max, that would make 3.75 billion gallons of bio-diesel. Our annual distillate consumption is 4.5*365*42=69 billion gallons. Soybean bio-diesel would only supply 5.4% of our distillate needs. 3.75/69=.0543.
I hope this can put in perspective our alternate liquid fuels problem. There is no way the USA can ever supply even 10% our liquid fuel with ethanol & biodiesel.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on December 22, 2005 - 11:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am growing increasingly skeptical about biofuels as a solution.  In addition to the issues you bring up, it appears that there are serious environmental impacts due to soil depletion and possible nutrient removal (especially if we try to use the leftover biomass so as to preserve the edible portions of the plant), as well as the incentive for deforestation.  And there is the EROEI issue.

Other than massive nuclear and wind and solar, I don't see what the energy source is going to be once oil goes into serious decline, and that does not address the transportation fuel issue unless we replace our transportation infrastructure.  And we have not started yet.  Using less energy is the only solution.  If we have 20 years, maybe we can do it, but if the top of that curve keeps tipping over....

But don't worry, because I heard on the radio this morning that the Saudis have been pumping like mad, and have produced so much oil that they expect to throttle back early next year, and the gas prices will go down further (back up to $2.29 this morning), and the economy will take off.  But there's no need to worry about inflation in spite of all the jobs that will be created. The FCC really needs to work on blocking those broadcasts from other dimensions....

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NC on December 22, 2005 - 3:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Twilight,

I'm with you on biofuels.  Love the concept.  Just can't get the numbers to add.  It's a last resort idea and requires huge reduction in total fuel consumption.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dipchip on December 22, 2005 - 6:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Twilight:  Agreed, but then there is another problem with bio-diesel. Currently an average to excellent soybean yield is about 50 bushels/acre. At $6.00 a bushel that is a $300 annual/acre crop, However at best it will yield about 75 gallons of oil and 60 gallons of bio-diesel. That means with zero capitol and processing expense, the bio-diesel has a crop cost alone of $5.00 per gallon.
I understand that Minnesota has enacted a 2% bio-diesel law that requires nearly all diesel fuel to be blended with 2% bio-diesel. Now I don't know how much nearly is, but here is a web-site to explain it further.
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/biodiesel/b2/default.htm
Here is a web-site of oil yield for oil-bearing crops.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html#ascend
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
george in vermont on December 23, 2005 - 4:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Just thought I'd note this development for the group:

Vermont Gets Hydrogen Car Grant
Vermont will take part in a federally-funded project to demonstrate the practicality of hydrogen-powered cars.

The technology is expensive, but Vermonters involved in the project say there's good reason to move ahead with it.

"There's a lot of science behind this," Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, told reporters at a press conference where he brought representatives of non-profit groups and entrepreneurs involved in the project.

Sanders announced a nearly one-million dollar grant from the Dept. of Energy for one of several demonstration projects around the country aimed at moving the nation off fossil fuels. Already, the first hydrogen fueling station in New England is under construction near the Burlington Electric Department headquarters on Pine St. It will take power from a nearby B.E.D.-owned wind turbine, taking the hydrogen out of water and using the gas to power a car.

So we're moving from the theoretical to the practical, at least as a demonstration. Here's the rest.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on December 24, 2005 - 2:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Don't use the words "practical" and "hydrogen" in the same sentence until you have calculated the energy throughput.

You get about twice as much energy from wind to wheels using batteries compared to using hydrogen.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
george in vermont on December 24, 2005 - 10:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
OK but I did say as a "demonstration."

If what you say is true, then we are heading down a dead end. Why are smart people throwing time and money away on hydrogen if batteries are the answer? Is it that they just don't know? Do you have a link to a source that proves what you say? I'd like to know because then I'll pass it along to the folks downtown who are building this project.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on December 24, 2005 - 11:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Why are smart people throwing time and money away on hydrogen if batteries are the answer? Is it that they just don't know?
It's because hydrogen is relatively good for carrying energy from fossil fuels, and the fossil-fuel interests have made certain that the research money favors their products.  The people who want to do development have to go where the money is.
Do you have a link to a source that proves what you say?
There are dozens (the calculations are simple), but you might want to start with Future  Pundit's roundup before you take my word for it.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
george in vermont on December 24, 2005 - 1:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Great web site you have there, thanks. Very thorough. Something else for me to spend hours poring over instead of working, which is what I should be doing.

I try to retain some sense of optimism about all of this, that either by building an abundance of new nuclear power plants we'll be able to have enough electricity AND stay warm; that Stirling engine solar farms will deliver the solar promise without the drawbacks of traditional PV; that hydrogen will replace kerosene to keep our air fleet flying; that electric cars will keep us all in motion... but when you think of the folly, the stupidity, the blindness, the corruption, the deceit and the wishful thinking that is going on everywhere, I can't help but think, We Are So Totally Screwed. Anyway, it's Christmas Eve, so Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you. I've got to get into my Jeep and go to the bank 15 miles from here to deposit a check so I can buy some plastic crap for the neighbors' children while looking at Christmas lights which I used to enjoy which I now know are using up coal that we're all going to need in the future and wondering all the while just how much my house is going to drop in value when fuel becomes so expensive that people abandon the countryside and flock to the cities to stay warm and earn a living under futuristic Dickensian conditions from which we'll never escape. Merry Christmas!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on December 24, 2005 - 2:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am growing increasingly skeptical about biofuels as a solution.
And rightly so, but check out my calculations here and tell me if I've got something wrong.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on December 22, 2005 - 1:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Biofuels are not a solution to current consumption patterns. We can, however, produce enough biofuels to operate those industries that depend upon liquid hydrocarbon fuels such as mining. Commuter transportation has to move to electric. Whether that's electric cars, light rail, or whatever matters less than just moving to electric and being done with it. Overland cargo transport needs to move to a combination of waterways again (rivers and canals) and electric trains.

Even the use of sustainable cellulose residue (instead of food crops) can only achieve 14.5 billion gallons (345 million barrels) of ethanol annually. The clear message here is that liquid fuels consumption has to go down. The clearest way to achieve that is migrating to electric transportation which can be supported by solar, wind, nuclear, and clean coal electric generating processes.

We can achieve a sustainable yet advanced technological civilization with what we know today. No, it won't look like what we have today but it's still better than the alternative of collapse. The only question is whether we will do so or not?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NC on December 22, 2005 - 3:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree with your assessment completely.  

However what if sugar cane, coconut and date palms WORLD WIDE gets shunted into fuels.  This has already started in Indonesia and Brazil.  We already import gasoline and ethanol and we have a big appetite for transportation fuels.  I agree again with you that this still won't replace a very large percentage of petroleum.  But it could mask declines for awhile in the reports.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BioDiesel on December 22, 2005 - 8:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
DP

Do you have numbers for Canola or Mustard seed?
Soy beans is the worst example to give and in my mind, are a net-energy loss or close to it.
The numbers that I have seen (from coastal areas) say both canola and mustard yield close to 100 gallons per acre.  And they also are a great rotation crop for wheat to replenish the soil, so farmers must grow these (or something else) anyway.

There is no way the USA can ever supply even 10% our liquid fuel with ethanol & biodiesel.

This is a very bold statement.  We haven't even begun to tap ethanol from wood yet and it is an energy gain and can be processed from existing paper mills, but a cheaper method must be worked out.  The average car also get 21 MPG, if this number ever got to 42 (and it will with price) 10% would be more like 6-7% currently.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dipchip on December 23, 2005 - 10:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Biodiesel: Perhaps you could read a post from pomona96 on jumping on the tech bandwagon from Sun Dec 4 concerning wood product bio-diesel.
Here is a web-site of oil yield for oil-bearing crops.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html#ascend
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BioDiesel on December 23, 2005 - 4:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well now you see my issue.  Canola and Mustard seed yield almost 3 times the amount of oil that soy beans put out.  Yet you always use the soybean example.  Just showing we can both come to a conclusion and use the "data" to back up our claims.
Really though it's all speculation, countries that currently use ethanol/biodiesel to power a large % of their combustion, will start to have problems if you are right.  OTOH they will suceed and keep showing economic growth if I am right.
Brazil will be the first test case, 40% of their transportation fuel comes from ethanol.  Results will come foward shortly.  Same with France and Germany who use close to 5% biodiesel.  (and they don't use soy)
I'm sure Pomona has data and I can point to many other engineers with data as well.
Just like peak oil, no one really knows when and everyone can use data to claim they know.  But claiming the US will never have ethanol/biodiesel power 10% of our transportation, is a rather bold call when other countries have surpassed or are closing in on that number.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.