Joined: May 28, 2007 Posts: 125 Location: Tempe, AZ
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:21 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
New York Times Article wrote:
We must determine the carbon impacts of each method of making these fuels, then mandate fuel blending that achieves a prescribed greenhouse gas reduction. We have the knowledge and technology to start solving these problems.
I still am skeptical about the greenhouse gas reducing abilities of bio fuels like ethanol. For example, I know that the feed stock for ethanol, which is corn in the US right now, consumes CO2 and produces oxygen while it is growing. However, burning it is something new. Until recently, corn has only been used to feed humans, animals, etc. I don't think that the current uses for corn produce nearly as much CO2 as the projected bio fuel uses will.
If these bio-fuels are used in hybrids, then there is a true CO2 savings. Even better, with the use of ethanol, there is a huge reduction in other poisonous gasses. Unfortunately, there is also a reduction in fuel economy associated with ethanol. This is not the case with bio-diesel, but bio-diesel is not as clean as ethanol. It remains to be seen whether or not engineers can use the higher octane rating of ethanol to make ethanol burning engines as efficient (from a miles per gallon point of view) as gasoline burning engines. Even gasoline engines are only about 36% efficient at best though, so even this is not a very impressive goal.
I, like optimist, am... well, optimistic about bio fuel's potential future ability to substantially reduce foreign oil consumption, or maybe, just maybe, replace it all together. I am still not convinced that it will decrease CO2 emissions enough though
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:28 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
xrotaryguy wrote:
I, like optimist, am... well, optimistic about bio fuel's potential future ability to substantially reduce foreign oil consumption, or maybe, just maybe, replace it all together. I am still not convinced that it will decrease CO2 emissions enough though
there are 56 pages of previous posts and debates right behind this page that suggest your optimism might just be misplaced.
What do you say you take a peak up there, above this post in the upper left corner. Try pushing one of those web link buttons that says Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 54, 55, 56 etc. etc.
Then come back here and make a fool of yourself _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: May 28, 2007 Posts: 125 Location: Tempe, AZ
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:30 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
Quote:
It is impossible to power our industrial agriculture infrastructure with the fermented byproduct of that system. Corn juice is never going to power the farm tractors and ethanol fermenters, much less drive Mom and the kids to soccer practice. That would be thermodynamic voodoo
It has been done before, and it can be done again. During the great depression, many farmers turned to ethanol and bio-diesel-like home-made fuels to fuel their farm machinery. Converting farm machinery to run on ethanol is not terribly difficult. Making machinery run on bio diesel requires little to no modification depending on the "bio-diesel". I believe that the opposite of your statement is true. Farms are the ideal place for such conversions.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
xrotaryguy wrote:
Quote:
It is impossible to power our industrial agriculture infrastructure with the fermented byproduct of that system. Corn juice is never going to power the farm tractors and ethanol fermenters, much less drive Mom and the kids to soccer practice. That would be thermodynamic voodoo
It has been done before, and it can be done again. During the great depression, many farmers turned to ethanol and bio-diesel-like home-made fuels to fuel their farm machinery. Converting farm machinery to run on ethanol is not terribly difficult. Making machinery run on bio diesel requires little to no modification depending on the "bio-diesel". I believe that the opposite of your statement is true. Farms are the ideal place for such conversions.
wow. thanks for the attribution
You need to look a little further back in this forum and report back to me on the problems with biofuel including: diminished net energy, zero-to-minus EROEI, scalability, solutions-in-isolation, lack and loss of arable land, depleted aquifiers, diminishing grain harvests, food-to-fuel inequities, corrosive nature of ethanol, seasonal availability of biofuels, dispersed collection and distribution systems, waste disposal of byproducts, etc.
Then we can have a discussion. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
pstarr wrote:
It is impossible to power our industrial agriculture infrastructure with the fermented byproduct of that system. Corn juice is never going to power the farm tractors and ethanol fermenters, much less drive Mom and the kids to soccer practice. That would be thermodynamic voodoo
Pstarr, how can you accuse others of ignorance when you make such statements?
You know perfectly well that traditional agriculture is powered by feeding animals with the products of traditional agriculture. What difference does it make to feed an animal or a machine?
Well, the main difference is that the machine is a bit more efficient, because it's been designed as an agricultural machine, as opposed to an animal, that does a lot more moving around aimlessly (aimless, from the point of view of the farmer, not the animal). So agriculture with machines powered by biodiesel should be more effective than traditional agriculture.
Stop making claims that are so obviously false, please.
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
Doly wrote:
Well, the main difference is that the machine is a bit more efficient, because it's been designed as an agricultural machine, as opposed to an animal, that does a lot more moving around aimlessly (aimless, from the point of view of the farmer, not the animal). So agriculture with machines powered by biodiesel should be more effective than traditional agriculture.
Biological systems (farm animals) are far more efficient in converting chemical energy into useful work, than any imaginable farm machinery is.
No farm machine, save a steam engine powered one, can use plant biomass as a direct source of power either.
Conversion of biomass (say cellulosic waste) into useful fuel is also low yield process in energy terms.
Rapeseed oil may be a better bet and such scheme could work in principle, but net energy efficiency will not be very impressive either and a lot of land will be used to deliver a little excess of fuel only.
Corn & ethanol is a total nonsense in that context.
So in terms of energy based economy tractors cannot compete with oxen.
They are only competing, because less of expensive human supervision per unit of job done is required.
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
No farm machine, save a steam engine powered one, can use plant biomass as a direct source of power either.
What do you mean by biomass?
Btw- rape seed isn't exactly the best oil producer around. O.k. for colder climates, but near the equator there are far better alternatives based on yields projected by Purdue horticulture. _________________
Joined: May 07, 2007 Posts: 434 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:25 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
xrotaryguy wrote:
Quote:
It is impossible to power our industrial agriculture infrastructure with the fermented byproduct of that system. Corn juice is never going to power the farm tractors and ethanol fermenters, much less drive Mom and the kids to soccer practice. That would be thermodynamic voodoo
It has been done before, and it can be done again. During the great depression, many farmers turned to ethanol and bio-diesel-like home-made fuels to fuel their farm machinery. Converting farm machinery to run on ethanol is not terribly difficult. Making machinery run on bio diesel requires little to no modification depending on the "bio-diesel". I believe that the opposite of your statement is true. Farms are the ideal place for such conversions.
With a population to feed and power half the size of that which we now have. Are you advocating biofuels with a die-off in mind, OR are you advocating it with the expansion of the population base in mind?
Then again, not being able to drive because all available biofuels are going to farming should assist with a die-off. It could work. No-where near as many mouths to feed ...
Joined: May 07, 2007 Posts: 434 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:30 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Doly wrote:
Well, the main difference is that the machine is a bit more efficient, because it's been designed as an agricultural machine, as opposed to an animal, that does a lot more moving around aimlessly (aimless, from the point of view of the farmer, not the animal). So agriculture with machines powered by biodiesel should be more effective than traditional agriculture.
Biological systems (farm animals) are far more efficient in converting chemical energy into useful work, than any imaginable farm machinery is.
No farm machine, save a steam engine powered one, can use plant biomass as a direct source of power either.
Conversion of biomass (say cellulosic waste) into useful fuel is also low yield process in energy terms.
Rapeseed oil may be a better bet and such scheme could work in principle, but net energy efficiency will not be very impressive either and a lot of land will be used to deliver a little excess of fuel only.
Corn & ethanol is a total nonsense in that context.
So in terms of energy based economy tractors cannot compete with oxen.
They are only competing, because less of expensive human supervision per unit of job done is required.
Not to mention required maintenance, repairs when things break, spare-parts, lubrication, etc.
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3444 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
Judgie wrote:
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Biological systems (farm animals) are far more efficient in converting chemical energy into useful work, than any imaginable farm machinery is.
No farm machine, save a steam engine powered one, can use plant biomass as a direct source of power either.
Conversion of biomass (say cellulosic waste) into useful fuel is also low yield process in energy terms.
Rapeseed oil may be a better bet and such scheme could work in principle, but net energy efficiency will not be very impressive either and a lot of land will be used to deliver a little excess of fuel only.
Corn & ethanol is a total nonsense in that context.
So in terms of energy based economy tractors cannot compete with oxen.
They are only competing, because less of expensive human supervision per unit of job done is required.
Not to mention required maintenance, repairs when things break, spare-parts, lubrication, etc.
You act as if the tools which were animal powered in the past are indestructible!
Any labor saving device which is animal powered has just as many issues with reguards to maintenence as do ICE driven machine. TANSTAAFL! _________________ Oxygen: - An intensely habit-forming accumulative toxic substance. As little
as one breath is known to produce a life-long addiction to the gas, which addiction invariably ends in death.--Isaac Asimov
Joined: Mar 19, 2007 Posts: 162 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
With only a steady input of biomass and water, momma and poppa draft animals provide useful work and replacement parts by way of baby draft animals.
Momma and poppa tractors don't make baby tractors. You can't eat them either.
Maintenance on the equipment driven by organic or mechanical power plants is about even.
Organic engines are more suited to working on otherwise marginal agricultural land.
Draft animals are not an anachronism, but a key resource to be re-developed. _________________ If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research. ~A. Einstein
TANSTAAFL ~R.A.H.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today. ~Chinese proverb
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
DavidFolks wrote:
With only a steady input of biomass and water, momma and poppa draft animals provide useful work and replacement parts by way of baby draft animals.
Momma and poppa tractors don't make baby tractors. You can't eat them either.
Maintenance on the equipment driven by organic or mechanical power plants is about even.
Organic engines are more suited to working on otherwise marginal agricultural land.
Draft animals are not an anachronism, but a key resource to be re-developed.
It is a lot less efficient than using tractors. One tractor can harvest more crops than a team of bulls. Also, you have to raise lil babies before they can contribute. You also have to worry about them getting sick and when they do die, you have to find replacements. It is easier for society to keep a spare tractor than a spare bull walking around.
The solution is to change farming practices to a no till and minimal labor farm. We are seeing some organic farms doing this. It is too little too late, though, imo.
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3444 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
DavidFolks wrote:
With only a steady input of biomass and water, momma and poppa draft animals provide useful work and replacement parts by way of baby draft animals.
Momma and poppa tractors don't make baby tractors. You can't eat them either.
Maintenance on the equipment driven by organic or mechanical power plants is about even.
Organic engines are more suited to working on otherwise marginal agricultural land.
Draft animals are not an anachronism, but a key resource to be re-developed.
IMO you have no real world experience in how much labor is involved in raising draft animals/livestock, especially in a resource constrained situation! It takes a lot of pasture to keep draft animals well fed, not to mention the work of shifting them from one pasture to another fairly frequently, maintaining all the fences to keep them from wandering off, the effort needed to provide suitible water, the vet bills to keep them healthy and helop safely deliver those baby draft animals you are so confident in receiving. None of which covers the costs of raising and training those draft animals to start with, keeping the machinery they pull for you in good repair, tack and harnesses, lubricating oil/grease, bindertwine/bailing wire and about a zillion other things.
Yes the Amish manage even today, but you would probably be surprised in how often they have their 21st century equiped neighbors help them plow, sow and reap with modern equipment in exchange for a share of the crop or other consideration.
I'll say it again TANSTAAFL! (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) _________________ Oxygen: - An intensely habit-forming accumulative toxic substance. As little
as one breath is known to produce a life-long addiction to the gas, which addiction invariably ends in death.--Isaac Asimov
Joined: Mar 19, 2007 Posts: 162 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
Don't think I said anything about a free lunch, and I do have some limited experience with livestock, pasture maintenance, fencing, mucking stalls, etc.... Rolling 6 foot round bales through the snow at -20 C in the winter is no fun at all. Neither is having a playful Oldenberg lean on you when you're cleaning his hooves. Maintaing clean yards, feed and water supplies is just good practice, and goes a long way towards avoiding visits from the vet.
The point I was trying to make was that a team of draft animals is more sustainable than a tractor.
There are a lot of "advances" in agriculture that have had an overall detrimental effect on food production, and this is not the forum to discuss them.
But in the context of biofuels, I believe that animal power is one of the most efficient and sustainable ways of converting biomass into useful work.
As for the cost of raising and maintaining livestock, don't you think there are similar costs to maitaining tractors? Give me a break.
At least with livestock, you can grow a good percentage of your fuel. You can invest time to train instead of cash. And a well trained horse in a managed wood lot will replace a man and a tractor, and do less damage to boot!
Pollutants from your livestock are several orders of magnitude less than those of deisel belching engines, and their wastes are a valuable input to your agricultural efforts.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, but you sure do get a good return on your livestock investment, if you exercise any common sense at all.
And if you're in a resource poor situation, why on earth would you invest in a machinery that is going to become obsolete when you run out of liquid fuel to drive it. Wouldn't you be better served investing in an infrastructure that would do the work with the resources available, and could increase over time?
I can already hear the arguements about efficiency, scalability, output and how we can't grow enough food to feed everyone with animal labour. I think the point is, however, that we're not likely going to be able to continue using tractors if we run out of fuel.
Oh, as an interesting aside, have you ever seen a tug of war between an atv, and a pair of Clydesdales? Haven't seen the Clydes dragged away yet, and that's only 2 horsepower! (yeah, yeah, 1hp=550lbs 1 foot in 1 second. Just a joke people) _________________ If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research. ~A. Einstein
TANSTAAFL ~R.A.H.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today. ~Chinese proverb
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
