[BiGG]

EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) that many here keep talking about in regards to ethanol for instance is completely debunked here Biomass-To-Ethanol

See what I mean? This article doesn't even mention EROEI one time! And you claim it completely debunks the criticism.

Lets look at the quotes I listed for you from that artical again ....

Quoting the article: "Until we developed this new technology, the chemical makeup of biomass prevented it from being used to make ethanol economically," Ingram said. "Biomass is a much cheaper source of ethanol than traditional feedstocks such as corn and cane syrup.

"The new technology will allow ethanol to become economically competitive with fossil fuels for the first time," he said. "Until now, all the world's ethanol has been produced by yeast fermentation, which converts sugars into ethanol, carbon dioxide and other by-products."

"Instead of using corn or grain to make ethanol fuel, they'll be used to feed people," said BCI Executive Vice President Clinton Norris. "With this new technology, we can provide a source of energy by utilizing waste from farm crops -- not the crops themselves. In this way, we're helping solve the problems of hunger and our endangered environmental resources."

What part of this are you not getting? Is it the part saying used to make ethanol economically competitive? Was it other things in that post like cheaper fuel than gasoline Was it the part showing oil usage is not needed for any of it?

[MonteQuest]

"Cast not your pearls before the swine."

I tried. On to better things...

[rerere]

[Hydrocarbons are no longer finite? Ok, if you say so.

BiGG is disconnected from reality, you've seen this in past posts. Why try setting her straight?

[MonteQuest]

[Hydrocarbons are no longer finite? Ok, if you say so.

BiGG is disconnected from reality, you've seen this in past posts. Why try setting her straight?

Oh, she is hopeless. My comments are for the readers who might buy in to her obsession of a techno-fix reality.

[CarnbY]

modern biotechnology and genomics, have now shown that living methane generating, microbial consortia are present and actively forming methane. I don’t see anything “finite” about that at all.

Quote, notice the “organic” part here: It has long been known that certain microorganisms are "methanogens" -- microbes that generate methane by metabolizing organic materials including various hydrocarbons. While it has also been generally accepted that many of the known methane deposits were produced by such organisms, most of this production was thought to have occurred millions of years ago, when the hydrocarbon deposits were less mature and closer to the surface of the earth. I’m pretty sure “organic” matter is not “finite”.

So you're saying there is an infinite amount of hydrocarbons for these microbes to turn into methane? How can there possibly an infinite amount of something in a finite space?

[BiGG]

"Cast not your pearls before the swine."

I tried. On to better things...

I’ll just bet you are tired! Your pseudo banter of nonstop doom has been clearly debunked over and over here. The sky is falling, the SKY IS FALLING! Too bad others reading the links from the knowledgeable professionals I posted can see you have just one little opinion that cannot see very far. “Scalability” is ridiculous and EROEI has been clearly debunked. The technologies listed are the replacement for oil and you claiming it ain’t so only shows you know nothing about them from what I see.

Lots of people have always sat around preaching about what we can’t do and they even get many others too buy their books, speeches, & videos, but people don’t normally invest money with that crowd, they invest their money with those who say what we can do as they are the ones always making it.

[rerere]

My comments are for the readers who might buy in to her obsession of a techno-fix reality.

Her goal here is similar to the goal of the posters who pop up out of nowhere and defend companies like Monsanto. - She wants to believe her own truth and posts it over and over.

The people who WANT to believe that 'things will be fine' are the same ones who will read the BiGG posts and go "SEE! I'm right!!!" If the readers understand simple economics, they will walk away from BiGG posts knowing she does not understand economics. If the reader understands science, they will know that BiGG is full of BiGG hot air, sound and fury which signifies nothing.

She wastes alot of time here posting. How she's being paid well by someone to post here.

[Agren]

BiGG:
Questions:

1) Is the earth of finite mass?
1a) If YES, how can anything that transforms one physical entity to another be infinitely repeatable?
1b) If NO, well?

2) Does the earth have a finite landmass?
2a) If YES, how come EROEI does not mean anything?
2b) If NO, well?

[gg3]

Holy Cow, will y'all please stop getting hung up on BiGG's use of the word "infinite"...? This is reminding me of the discussion where someone tried talking about regenerative braking on locomotives and was ridiculed for promoting perpetual motion. (Did anyone apologize after that?)

For the thousandth time: Nothing less than *everything* is truly sufficient. One size does not fit all. Future energy needs will be met by a huge diversity of sources. Nuclear and wind and PVs and biomass and geothermal and waste-to-energy and biodiesel and new-tech vehicle powertrains and negawatts and gigabytes and on and on and on goes the list, unending.

If this idea of using bugs to make methane is any good, we can use it on spent oil wells to convert the unrecoverable oil into natural gas. Wonderful! Excellent! Yes of course there's a global warming issue, but on the overall scale of things we need all the transitional strategies we can get. Nuclear reactors don't pop up overnight, and natural gas is still part of the picture. Meanwhile, allocate R&D money (whether public- or private-sector) and see if it works.

Would you rather get your natural gas from an oilfield bioreactor in Texas, shipped via pipelines in gaseous form; or via LNG terminals in coastal port cities, with the risk that one day a tanker might detonate like a small atomic bomb...?

[Madpaddy]

Hey maybe there is an infinite source of energy

From Braveheart

“No, William Wallace is seven feet tall.” William looked straight back in the face at him and said, “Yes, I’ve heard. He kills men by the hundreds and if he were here, he would consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightening from his arse!”

If we can resurrect William Wallace we are sorted. Or maybe we can harness the emissions from the bungholes of some of the posters (one of the posters, can you guess who) here.

[BiGG]

Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert, Pat Robertson ….. you name it, they all preach compelling tales regarding their very limited take of the Bible and it focuses much on doom & gloom threats of Hell and how you will find yourself squarely in the middle of it for eternity if you don’t listen to them, while others don’t see Hell at all in the Bible and interpret things much differently. Same for the Qur’an, same for Peak Oil.

C.T. Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses preached the end of the world for years but those prophesies were quickly reinterpreted when the end of the world did not come.

Many prominent people supposedly in the know preached the end of the world December 31 1999 @ 1 second after 11:59 pm but the end of the world did not come.

Some preach doom & gloom on the ramifications of Peak Oil just like Jerry, Jimmy, & Pat do for the Bible, but just like Jerry, Jimmy, & Pat, they only preach what backs up their version of doom & gloom where others look at Peak Oil and see things very differently.

Preaching things like “EROEI” {Energy Returned On Energy Invested) & “Scalability” sound very impressive but only too those who cannot conceive the BiGG picture. The doom regarding “EROEI” {Energy Returned On Energy Invested) has already been debunked with existing technology using biomass waste for one thing. Scalability is a joke as its no harder implementing biomass technology along with all the other current technologies then it was implementing oil technology.

So we build biomass plants like we built oil refineries, yawn ….lots of jobs & money will be created in a new era just like they were in the past. Some move forward, some stay stuck in the past. Some spent years preaching how the horseless carriage could never replace the horse and some were seeing air conditioned horseless carriages along with all the other amenities the horse could never provide.

Economies cannot change overnight and there is no need for them to change overnight. Those only seeing doom have no idea what leading 6+ billion people is all about and how it’s done. In a nutshell, it’s done slowly and concisely just like what is happening today with energy for a reason. We are in the middle of replacing infrastructure on a grand scale which takes time but its happening nonetheless and will continue until none of use need a drop of antiquated oil for anything.

No need for all the doom & gloom some preach as simply looking around one can quickly & easily find many others that see things in a much greater light and have their own set of “facts” backing them up. Those facts are the realities of today, not some pipedream some others make them out to be.

Look around people, yes you may see a recession or depression in your lifetime but realty says you will be driving your cars & enjoy all of the other luxuries we now know + many more till you die short of something like nuclear war. The return to the Stone Age ain’t happenin’. Look at what the United States & Great Briton alone are in the middle of and start looking everyplace else you can think of as I’m sure you will see much besides the doom & gloom the naysayer’s preach.

[rerere]

Preaching things like “EROEI” {Energy Returned On Energy Invested) & “Scalability” sound very impressive but only too those who cannot conceive the BiGG picture.

The 'BiGG' picture? This would be the one that is too cheap to pay for the military?

Yea, no sane and rational person should see your position as credible.

The doom regarding “EROEI” {Energy Returned On Energy Invested) has already been debunked

Provide where. And when. In your head does not count hun.

[zant]

hehe...stupid girls turn me on...want to get together BiGG?

[NevadaGhosts]

I've seen people in denial, but this is getting ridiculous.

[BiGG]

I've seen people in denial, but this is getting ridiculous.

Instead of spending all your time being a troll like your friend her majesty rerere, do you have anything intelligent to say on any of these subjects? Anything even remotely intelligent? Did you read the article this thread is about or is the troll-a-thon like your friend rerere all you have? I expect it out of her, but you also?

[nth]

Okay, there are solutions propose to solve PO. This maybe one of the solutions, but this does not debunk EROI; this is not an infinite energy source; this does not violate laws of thermodynamics.

EROI cannot be debunked. The method that one uses to calculate EROI maybe wrong, but EROI by its definition has nothing to debunk.
It is simply calculating energy you get after you putting in energy. According to Physics, this means you will always get less energy in return than you put into it. Creating and producing oil is not a positive EROI. What people are using to calculate EROI for oil is the amount of energy needed to harness oil's energy. The energy to create oil is not used to calculate. That is how EROI for oil looks so nice.

Problems with other energy source is that you need a source of energy to be harnessed. Your example of methanogens can be positive EROI if you don't calculate the energy in the food use to feed these microbes. So, you can say positive EROI.

Infinite energy source as far as we know cannot happen. What is more important is that is the energy source abundant enough to satisfy our needs? The answer has to be maybe, cuz if you are using the unlimited economic growth model, there is no way anything can satisfy the energy needs of that model. If current energy needs stay flat, then this microbe with additional technical breakthroughs may sustain for 100 years based on energy sources it can utilitze- old oil wells and oil sands.

Ken Deffrey said there is about 2trillion barrels of oil equivalent in oil sands. He doesn't believe there will be technology within next 10 years to harness this. But if this microbes can, then we are talking about 2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent methane.

Monte brought up the issue of scalability. Can we built the infrastructure to produce enough of this? If PO is this year, then answer is not fast enough. Scalability in this instance is just a factor of time. If given enough time and money, we can built enough bioreactors to give us enough energy.

Again, if the energy requirements we are forecasting is the same used by EIA, then the answer is no. They are using an unlimited growth model. I don't believe any scientist believes Earth has an infinite carrying capacity.

[ArimoDave]

nth wrote:

Problems with other energy source is that you need a source of energy to be harnessed. Your example of methanogens can be positive EROI if you don't calculate the energy in the food use to feed these microbes. So, you can say positive EROI.

One of the problems that comes to my mind with these microbes, is that are they essentially eating oil to produce methane. It would appear that they do.

Now, what happens if some of these get loose into other oil deposits when we are not ready to contain them?

Devil has a thread in which he discusses why we shouldn't use natural gas (methane). See: peakoil.com/fortopic7468.html

What kind disaster would loose microbes cause? (rehtorical question)

Though there is the capability to retrieve energy from the otherwise unharnesable sources, care needs to be observed so that we don't create a problem even worse than we already have.

ArimoDave

[nth]

ArimoDave,

These microbes will probably die or revert to aerobic metabolism. Methane production only occurs anaerobicly.

Oil metabolizing microbes are found in most oil sites that scientists have survey, so if this gets released, it should not be that bad. Plus, this whole process have to occur in a bioreactor. The non-bioreactor method- I don't think that is proven to work, but I didn't read the links carefully.

If you are interested in microbial energy, I think Hydrogen production is a better solution, but requires more technical breakthroughs. They are using photosynthetic microbes in anaerobic conditions will produce hydrogen gas.

The chief energy source is Sun, but it still needs nutrients, etc.
Not sure what the EROI is, but sounds a good solution for energy and environment. No idea about scalability.