THE Biofuel Thread pt 3 (merged)

[bruin]

Seems like the hopes of BioFuels (from corn or whatever) is going to be limited by available fertilizer. In fact, one could argue BioFuel is simply repackaged fossil fuels after all fo the ferilizer used.

Or am I missing something?

[0mar]

Pretty much spot on with the concepts.

[The_Virginian]

unless we turn to Industrial HEMP. Weed has no need for much Fertilizer, nor for great soil...just add water (ok one little issue).
Even Hemp won't fill our energy needs, but it can help fill in...for that oh so lovely SLOW decline.

[Licho]

Here, rape seeds are used - no fertilizers at all..

And btw. you don't need to make fertilizers from natural gas!!
I'm repeating it all the time! Germany employed process of nitrogen extraction from atmosphere as early as in WW1 to keep producing ammunition.

[0mar]

It's not as high yielding nor is it as cost-effective.

[Ludi]

Germany employed process of nitrogen extraction from atmosphere as early as in WW1 to keep producing ammunition.

What was the method? What energy source did they use to power the extraction process?

[Licho]

Ludi: it's the method that is still in use.. I don't know how is the name of it in English, you simply pressurize air until it becomes liquid and then use fraction distillation to get nitrogen out. (Simple small facilities that do it are near many hospitals here, to provide oxygen and nitrogen for them. It's usually tall cylinder with some small box nearby, I bet you have seen it too).

Once you have nitrogen, you mix it with hydrogen in high pressure and you get ammonia for fertilizing.

It's as simple as that.. No high tech neccesary..

Right now, the process used for ammonia/nitrogen production is still the same, only source of hydrogen differs, because in most countries it's cheapest to get hydrogen from natural.

So in reality, fertilizer production doesn't depend on fossils. Just hydrogen production keeps using nat. gas. Not because it's only way, but because it's cheapest..


And after all, rape seeds do not need fertilizers, they are widely used here as a fertilizer plant with secondary use for oils/biodiesel/animal feeding.

[0mar]

In one way or another, fertilizers are derived from fossil fuels. There aren't very many sources of hydrogen that are readily available, actually there are exactly zero. The only way to get hydrogen is to free it from a chemical compound. Electrolysis of water needs electricity, which is made by a vast majority by fossil fuels. Any method that involves lots of energy (and that is everyone of them) needs fossil fuels. Lower the supply of fossil fuels and lower the supply of fertilizers, either directly or indirectly.

[Ludi]

Thanks Licho. I looked up the Haber process but the info didn't say what power they used to pressurize, etc. I'm thinking coal probably.

[Licho]

Yes, it was most likely coal back then.. Now, energy that powers it is your favourite energy mix of fossils/nuclear/renewables..

[BiGG]

Dirty Filthy Oil =

Used for growing corn/grain for animal feed = Used for making Fertilizer needed for growing the corn/grain = Used for farm machinery fuel needed for growing the corn/grain = Gas/Diesel costs Americans at least $5.38 per gallon right now! Oil sucks and we are getting screwed by big business but that is finally changing ...

Lovely Ethanol Lots of great graphics & information on this link …..Renewable Fuels Association



Clean Burning Lovely Ethanol made from Corn/Grain =

Water soluble, non-toxic, much lower CO2 emissions, and biodegradable!

Used for cars & farm machinery fuel needed for growing the corn/grain!

Byproduct used for natural animal feed + other things like corn oil for cooking!

Byproduct also used for natural fertilizer replacing oil based fertilizer!

Ethanol production only uses the corn/grain’s starch, the protein, minerals, fat and fiber are concentrated during the production process to produce a highly valued and nutritious livestock feed. The majority of feed is then dried and sold as Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS). However, approximately 20-25% of the feed is shipped wet locally, reducing energy input costs and providing another market for producers.

Historically, over 85% of DDGS has been fed to dairy and beef cattle as a high-quality, economical feed ingredient. With continuing research, DDGS use in swine and poultry diets & pet foods is expanding also. Today, the U.S. exports approximately one million metric tons of DDGS!

Ethanol wet mills also produced approximately 426,400 metric tons of corn gluten meal, 2.36 million metric tons of corn gluten feed and germ meal, and 560 million pounds of corn oil.

Ethanol adds huge amounts of money to farmers & the local economy instead of the Middle East!

Ethanol is a win-win period anyway you look at it and I hope everybody here starts supporting this wonderful product like it deserves. Look at how much “fuel” we will be getting out of current animal feed and still be able to use it for animal feed pus other things like corn oil! Very Cool!

Edit: Adding Exciting News!

Two plants now being built in the United States & United Kingdom that produce Ethanol at a 50% cost reduction over current fermentation-based methods! Another WOW!

Triton and Starbourn Announce Alliance

“…………. indicate the cost to produce high-grade ethanol is almost 50 percent less than current fermentation-based methods………..”.

“ ………system that can use a variety of alternative fossil-based or waste-sanitary biomass feed stocks to generate high-test ethanol at a greater volume and at a lower cost per gallon……”

Edit: Adding Exciting News!

See page three for new Ethanol/Biodiesel Production!

[lorenzo]

Ethanol is a net energy loser.

[Bytesmiths]

Ethanol is a net energy loser.

In it's currently popular form in the US, I agree. It's basically part of a farm subsidy to get midwestern politicians re-elected.

However, I believe it could be made in a sustainable manner. Brazil is having success using sugar cane, which is MUCH better suited to ethanol production than corn.

I don't know if BiGG said anything useful -- he's on my "Ignore" list. Keeps the blood pressure down. :-)

[lorenzo]

However, I believe it could be made in a sustainable manner. Brazil is having success using sugar cane, which is MUCH better suited to ethanol production than corn.

I agree. But let's not forget the recent news that the Amazon's deforestation rate is going up. Culprit: soy and sugar cane plantations.

Biodiesel from oil palm, coconut and jatropha is more sustainable, I think.

[RonMN]

Corn ethanol is a net energy looser...But CELLULOSE ethanol is an energy gainer! I believe the current stats are 3:1 energy gain...now i realize this is nowhere near oil & will not save us...but hey, it's a start. Too bad we weren't taking cellulose ethanol more seriously a few decades ago.

[BiGG]

Ethanol is a net energy loser.

You need to update your information and stop repeating urban myth claiming Ethanol is a net energy loser. Here is some information debunking your assertion I posted earlier …

FACTS: Ethanol...........

Tad Patzek wrote that paper with David Pimentel, let’s see what their “peers” had to say “Only Dr. Pimentel disagrees with this analysis. But his outdated work has been refuted by experts from entities as diverse as the USDA, DOE, Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State University, and the Colorado School of Mines. While the opponents of ethanol will no doubt continue to peddle Pimentel’s baseless charges, they are absolutely without credibility.”

A United States Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol. "We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24"

"For every BTU dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34% energy gain... Only about 17% of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 BTU of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 BTU gain."

"Ethanol production is extremely energy efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125%, compared to 85% for gasoline. Ethanol production is by far the most efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels According to USDA, each BTU (British Thermal Unit, an energy measure) used to produce a BTU of gasoline could be used to produce 8 BTUs of ethanol."

New study confronts old thinking on ethanol's net energy value, 3/28/2005 Ethanol generates 35% more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent study by Argonne National Laboratory conducted by Michael Wang. The new findings support earlier research that determined ethanol has a positive net energy balance, according to the National Corn Growers Association. That research was conducted by USDA, Michigan State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other public and private entities. A USDA study released in 2004 found that ethanol may net as much as 67% more energy than it takes to produce. Argonne is one of the US Department of Energy's largest research centers.

April 14, 2005 Mike Milliken also reports on Novozymes and NREL Reduce Cost of Enzymes for Biomass-to-Ethanol Production 30-Fold!

Nobel Prize winning physicst Steven Chu argues for biomass using cellulose.

"The US already subsidizes farmers to grow corn (like we subsidize oil & gas) to turn into ethanol, but $7bn in the past decade has been wasted because the process isn’t carbon-neutral. “From the point of view of the environment,” explains Chu, “it would be better if we just burnt oil.”

“But carbon-neutral energy sources are achievable. A world population of 9 billion, the predicted peak in population, could be fed with less than one third of the planet”s cultivable land area. Some of the rest could be dedicated to growing crops for energy. But the majority of all plant matter is cellulose—a solid, low-grade fuel about as futuristic as burning wood. If scientists can convert cellulose into liquid fuels like ethanol, the world’s energy supply and storage problems could both be solved at a stroke.“

[BiGG]

Ethanol is a net energy loser.

In it's currently popular form in the US, I agree. It's basically part of a farm subsidy to get midwestern politicians re-elected.

However, I believe it could be made in a sustainable manner. Brazil is having success using sugar cane, which is MUCH better suited to ethanol production than corn.

I don't know if BiGG said anything useful -- he's on my "Ignore" list. Keeps the blood pressure down.

Maybe during all that whining you can look into all the subsidies oil, natural gas, & coal are getting and have been for years. It’s about time Ethanol started getting some, it's a win-win no matter what you know-nothings say about it.

[pip]

Somewhat off topic, but that chart is exactly why I don't think anyone will starve post peak. Food use of corn is 13.2% of the total. Food is the highest priority and the US grows 7 times more corn than it needs. That is a lot spare capacity.

[BiGG]

I agree. But let's not forget the recent news that the Amazon's deforestation rate is going up. Culprit: soy and sugar cane plantations.

Biodiesel from oil palm, coconut and jatropha is more sustainable, I think.

For one thing, Amazon's deforestation rate has zero to do with this subject so take that elsewhere and just so ya know ….. coconuts & palms don’t grow so well in most of the United States.

On top of that, the byproduct of corn/grain ethanol production is used for animal feed and I’m pretty sure the same cannot be said for coconut’ & palms. Hello? We already grow corn/grain for animal feed and making ethanol out of it before feeding to the animals solves two problems, again hello?

Considering you know nothing about any of this, what you “think” is totally irrelevant banter. Read the link and learn something for a change.

[lorenzo]

You're obviously new to the subject.
Sugar cane is the preferred feedstock for ethanol, not corn.

Brazil is the world's biggest ethanol producer (and they make it from sugar cane and bagasse, been doing so since long before you were even born - and US production means nothing compared to theirs), with major export ambitions and plenty of bilateral agreements in its pocket (Brazil - Japan; Brazil - EU; Brazil - China; Brazil - Australia), so their experiences may be worth looking into. Moreover, the world's ethanol market is being opened up, with both the FAO, the IEA, and the WTO pushing for trade reform of the flow ecological goods, including ethanol. So we'll soon be facing a global market. This means the Matto Grosso and the Amazon are right in your backyard, whatever narrowminded American hole you're from.

(In fact, last year, a famous American company, Cargill, planned to import 63 million gallons of Brazilian sugar cane ethanol, because it's 70% cheaper than American corn ethanol. So there).


But you're obviously not interested in learning anything about the subject. Just keep dumping your garbage on these forums, Bigg. I'm done with you.

I'm following Bytesmiths' good advice. Click.