[OilWatch]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html

AND I QUOTE

"Conclusion

Ethanol has enjoyed some success as a renewable fuel, primarily as a gasoline volume extender and also as an oxygenate for high-oxygen fuels, an oxygenate in RFG in some markets, and potentially as a fuel in flexible-fuel vehicles. A large part of its success has been the Federal ethanol subsidy. With the subsidy due to expire in 2008, however, it is not clear whether ethanol will continue to receive political support. Thus, the future of ethanol may depend on whether it can compete with crude oil on its own merits.

Ethanol costs could be reduced dramatically if efforts to produce ethanol from biomass are successful. Biomass feedstocks, including forest residue, agricultural residue, and energy crops, are abundant and relatively inexpensive, and they are expected to lower the cost of producing ethanol and provide stability to supply and price. In addition, the use of corn stover would lend continued support to the U.S. corn industry. Analysis of NREL technological goals for cellulose ethanol conversion suggests that ethanol could compete favorably with other gasoline additives without the benefit of a Federal subsidy if the goals were achieved. Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose appears to have the most potential for achieving the goals, but substantial reductions in the cost of producing cellulase enzymes and improvements in the fermentation of nonglucose sugars to ethanol still are needed.

The ban on MTBE in California could provide additional incentives for the development of cellulose-based ethanol. If ethanol were used to replace MTBE in Federal RFG, demand for ethanol in California would increase by more than 550 million gallons per year. California has vast biomass resources that could support the additional demand. In addition, the cost of transporting Midwest ethanol would allow cellulosic ethanol to compete favorably in the market. Ultimately, ethanol’s future in RFG could depend on whether Congress eliminates the minimum oxygen requirement included in the CAAA90. Without the minimum oxygen requirement, refiners would have more flexibility to meet RFG specifications with blending alternatives, such as alkylates, depending on an individual refinery’s configuration and market conditions. Ethanol would still be valuable as an octane booster, however, and could make up for some of the lost volume of MTBE.

Significant barriers to the success of cellulose-derived ethanol remain. For example, it may be difficult to create strains of genetically engineered yeast that are hardy enough to be used for ethanol production on a commercial scale. In addition, genetically modified organisms may have to be strictly contained. Other issues include the cost and mechanical difficulties associated with processing large amounts of wet solids. Proponents of biomass ethanol remain confident, however, that the process will succeed and low-cost ethanol will become a reality."

And here is a company that has accomplished what this study has said was the only barrier to mass producing ethanol on a sustainable basis.

http://www.iogen.ca/HTML/3000.html

[OilWatch]

So this company uses "waste" that we are currently throwing away from farms or burning, and turns it into a renewable, sustainable fuel. Therefor our food supply remains intact, and at the same time we create a fuel using the waste.

The energy in biomass comes from the Sun and nutrients in the ground, a renewable resource. Fertilizer is needed, however, the energy put into the fertilizer cannot be remotely compared to the final energy stored in the food from the sun.

[dmtu]

the numbers are pretty weak. http://www.iogen.ca/HTML/2600.html


How many tons of refuse can a tractor trailer pack around? I'm sure a farmer can answer that, I'm guessing 20 if the feedstock is highly compressed

What is the scale of a commercial facility?
The size of a commercial facility is dependent on local conditions, but Iogen envisions plants will process more than 2000 tonnes per day of feedstock and produce more than 220 million litres per year (58.2 million gallons)

Drop in the bucket. I calculate and, please correct me if I'm wrong that Americans consume over 300 million gallons a day.

You would need more than 365 of these plants in the complete absence of oil. Even as a supplement to gas lets say of 100 plants you still need 730,000 tones of feedstock for each plant per year. Simple mathematics says this isn't a sustainable plan.

Feedstock isn't free it still has to be harvested and transported.

Hell; I'm a fence sitter and not horribly impressed with this.

Also, the cost page was 404.

Edit: did the math in a rush, 365 plants would generate about 58 million gallons a day, if we need 300 million gallons a day of course 365 would have to multiplied by by five, 1825 plants, 36.5 plants per state.

[OilWatch]

You see, this is how your arguments fail.

You said it could not replace all of oil. That was never the idea, nor is it the problem with peak oil. The idea is to ween off it, following the demand down so the price remains relatively stable and this is one solution of many to come. The argument that there are no solutions has been proven false, stay tuned, the alternative fuel sector is going to explode in the coming decade.

[OilWatch]

Hey dmtu, find me how much agricultural waste is produced each year in the US and Canada?

Secondly find me any sort of proof, that 20 tonnes of agrgi-waste transported by a tractor trailor and converted into bioethanol will not produce more fuel than used in the process. That includes all the fertilizer, the harvesting etc.

I doubt anybody on earth has done that calculation and further can prove to me that its not sustainable. If one field of potatos can produce enough alcohol to harvest 100 fields, than surely this formula for bioethanol can potentially be sustainable. The energy in the agri-waste comes primarily from the sun, so I don't know how you can write it off as not sustainable.

[OilWatch]

http://www.changingworldtech.com/agriculture.html

Here's another one, thermo depolymerization. 12 billion barrels of oil per year can be produced using the waste from agriculture in the US alone. Seems like a hell of alot more than a drop my friend.

[Pops]

There is no “waste in agriculture”.

If you don’t put back as much as you take out, you are simply “mining” the soil.

There are alternatives.

Mining the soil isn’t it.

Pops

[Atr0p0s]

Right.
Being 15 and having taken Earth science recently, the fertile material and main contributor to topsoil is humus. Humus consists of biological waste. If there is no humus formed by the presence of biological waste, then you will be farming the stony fragments of bedrock.

[dmtu]

Hey dmtu, find me how much agricultural waste is produced each year in the US and Canada?

Secondly find me any sort of proof, that 20 tonnes of agrgi-waste transported by a tractor trailor and converted into bioethanol will not produce more fuel than used in the process. That includes all the fertilizer, the harvesting etc.

I doubt anybody on earth has done that calculation and further can prove to me that its not sustainable. If one field of potatos can produce enough alcohol to harvest 100 fields, than surely this formula for bioethanol can potentially be sustainable. The energy in the agri-waste comes primarily from the sun, so I don't know how you can write it off as not sustainable.

The larger problem in my opinion is the harvesting, the transport is secondary. That site specifically states that they "could" produce enough to replace 10% of Canada's gasoline. On top of that you have the dirt issues.

Personally I'm a Fan of TD but you should look into the physics of entropy.

Lastly I'm just playing devils advocate. These issues will certainly have an effect on my son and I, as I have said in a previous post I'm looking for ideas and more info here and perhaps a healthy debate or two.

My best guess is (it's not worth much) is for peak around 2020 with alternatives ramping up from now on. If you bother to look into He3 you will find the source to alleviate all your worries, that is if you believe the USGS oil predictions. Personally I don't.

On the other hand I'd as soon be half assed prepared as to be slapped in the face if chicken little is right.

[Aaron]

12 million barrels is nothing... a drop in the global bucket.

[Atr0p0s]

12 million barrels is nothing... a drop in the global bucket.

Aaron,

It depends if we're going to jealously guard it for ourselves (which there is no doubt about) and if we can committ to carefully rationing the supply to support essential industry. I find it more likely that anything produced goes directly to the pumps, and consumers willing to pay exorbidant prices.

[Aaron]

Even if we horde... same difference. There is no escaping entropy.

[OilWatch]

Pops of course there is waste in agriculture. What do you call animal carcases, animal feces, stalks of corn etc.?

What about all the municipal waste that fills landfills? What about human waste? Right now we're doing nothing but burying it today. Imagine turning all of that waste back into a fuel, that'll extend oil use way into the future. Probably at least a hundred years or more. Here's a good technical apendix. By then, oil will be all but gone from use in our society.

http://www.changingworldtech.com/pdf/Na ... _11_04.pdf

There is no “waste in agriculture”.

If you don’t put back as much as you take out, you are simply “mining” the soil.

There are alternatives.

Mining the soil isn’t it.

Pops

[dmtu]

I think the size off 730,000 tones eludes you. It doesn't elude me because I move tones for a living. It takes four 12 hour shifts to move that many tones of dirt using about forty two 240 ton haul trucks and three P&H 4100s.

http://cmms.cat.com/cmms/servlet/cat.dc ... way+Trucks

That's dirt, not carbon based life forms. Also, that site is speaking in metric tonnes which is slightly lighter than a long or short ton.

[Pops]

I concur OilWatch.

And we have been depleting the soil for generations.

Snip…
“According to the U.K. Telegraph, scientists at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) are warning that the world is running out of fertile soil. Already one-tenth of the world's arable land has been severely damaged and land degradation - already a serious problem in Australia, China and parts of the U.S. - now threatens modern civilisation as surely as it menaced long-vanished societies, the scientists say.”

Now if were debating sustainable futures, it would seem we should be putting more organics back on our cropland – not taking more off. In fact recently, there have been many fertilizer plants taken offline due to the steep increase in Nat. gas prices – some permanently. If nat. gas is in decline as Matt Simmons has said, we better start worrying about how we are going to feed the billions next year. Or they may not make it to the “cliff”.

Pops