Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Biofuel Thread pt 6

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Biofuel Thread pt 6

Unread postby eclipse » Tue 07 Feb 2017, 18:27:07

Hang on, he's already doing it. He has an open source model for others to replicate.

But he's not the peer-reviewed paper I'm discussing about the 9% of the world's oceans. He's definitely in the shallow, nutrient rich farming environment. Nutrients are simply NOT a problem for this guy's farm! ;-)

The open ocean farms are here, and it's a doozy of a read. If replicated across 9% of our oceans, it's ALL our energy and ALL our CO2 emissions solved. If you don't imagine 9% of the oceans being farmed, just add whatever mix of renewables and nuclear you think will make it reasonable: half and half, a third of each, whatever. Read the paper. It's amazing how energy efficient their seaweed conversion to energy system is. They don't want to waste energy dragging the seaweed out of the oceans, drying them, and cooking them up. Not at all! And there I was thinking they'd dry it out and biochar it. They're got something far more energy efficient in mind!
http://www.psep.ichemejournals.com/arti ... 57-5820(12)00120-6/abstract
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Biofuel Thread pt 6

Unread postby eclipse » Sun 26 Feb 2017, 03:05:30

The peer-reviewed paper below shows that we could farm 9% of the world's oceans because the nutrients are recycled in situ. Only 2% of the oceans are nutrient rich, so how is kelp farmed across an extra 7%, which is obviously in the 'oceanic deserts', the nutrient poor areas of the open ocean? The kelp is farmed with a view to using some of the vast space and time of the oceans, for the most energy efficient, easy to collect manner. So when the kelp is ready for harvest, it is slowly hauled in a 6km radius to massive submersible bladders where they are biodigested over 135 days. Then the methane is collected from the top, and the kelp 'compost' is recycled in situ with drip hoses and little nutrient rich 'tea-bags' that are used to grow the next harvest of kelp. So obviously this starts in the nutrient rich 2% of the oceans, and gradually expands out, crop by crop. Thus kelp can be grown in what are now oceanic 'deserts', the nutrient poor areas of the majority of our oceans. The following bullet points then emerge:-

* half a kilogram of seafood per person per day, to feed a world of 10 billion people!
* all the biofuels and biogas we could need to replace fossil fuels and provide the ultimate backup to wind and solar power
* remove ocean acidity
* restore our atmosphere to 350ppm by 2085
In other words, seaweed is a silver bullet to feed the world, save the oceans, and save us from climate change, all in this free PDF. "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation". Just register, and download it for free.
http://www.psep.ichemejournals.com/arti ... 57-5820(12)00120-6/abstract

On top of all this, such a VAST amount of kelp would also give us other benefits. OK, so vat-grown meat is a thing.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/la ... opped.html
But what if the feedstock is unsustainable? Could we use processed kelp as a feedstock for all our meat and chicken and turkey needs, so that we would never have to kill real live animals for protein again? Anyone know any biochemists that might work in this field?
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Sydney

California Cars Are Running on Restaurant Grease

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 24 Oct 2017, 10:48:26

California’s battle against climate change is being fought more fiercely in fast food restaurants than in Tesla Inc.’s car factory in Fremont. Seven years after the Golden State began offering credits to producers of low-carbon fuels, cities and companies across California are using diesel brewed from fats and oils to fuel everything from fire trucks to United Parcel Service Inc. delivery vehicles. Now, the value of the credits exceed those from electric vehicles fourfold and are second only to ethanol. The company that’s benefited most from California’s embrace of renewable diesel is based 6,000 miles away in Helsinki. Neste Oyj started sending tankers of the fuel from its refineries in Singapore and Europe around 2012. It’s now the biggest supplier, according to Ezra Finkin, policy director at the Diesel Technology Forum, a Frederick, Maryland-based advocacy group. The market “is definitely growing,” Dayne Delahoussaye, Neste’s head


California cars running on kitchen grease
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6073
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: California Cars Are Running on Restaurant Grease

Unread postby jedrider » Tue 24 Oct 2017, 14:03:55

A benefit of 'trickle-down' economics.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2665
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: California Cars Are Running on Restaurant Grease

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 24 Oct 2017, 15:43:58

Why bother with such nonsense instead of focusing on EV's, batteries, solar, wind, etc?

To bring this (biofuels) to meaningful scale re the size of the global demand for transportation would take so much land and energy that it would compete with the resources needed to feed the world.

But CA loves headlines that "show" they're green, regardless of the real world costs.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: THE Biofuel Thread pt 6

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 12:55:50

As has been known for quite some time
It's Final -- Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 6ebe9567d3
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10958
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Biomass Thread

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 09 Jan 2018, 16:49:38

Graeme wrote:Here's a little more on the history of the Drax power station.

'Converting Drax to burn biomass required new supply chain'

Graham Backhouse, head of supply chain and logistics at the UK’s largest power station, said it was necessary to create new port facilities, new rail wagons and extra storage facilities.

Backhouse said the move was driven by the government’s stated goal to move away from coal and Drax started experimenting with biomass fuels in 2003.

“It was the right thing to do, to consider the future and the skills and infrastructure at the power station, which lent themselves to biomass,” he said.

Backhouse joined Drax in 2008 after it was decided to ramp up the use of biomass. In that year the station used a couple of hundred thousand tonnes of biomass – a mixture of timber and agricultural by-products – but by 2010 it was burning more than one million tonnes a year.

At that time the company’s intention was to convert its six boilers to run on a mix of coal and biomass, known as co-firing, to take advantage of government renewable energy subsidies. This would require around seven million tonnes of biomass and five million tonnes of coal each year.

However, in 2012 government policy changed and subsidies for co-firing were cut. This meant to get the same level of subsidy as before, Drax would have to convert boilers to run purely on biomass. “On that day our share price tumbled immediately by 25 to 30 per cent within an hour of the government announcement, because no one had ever converted boilers on the scale Drax has here,” said Backhouse.


supplymanagement


In light of the above have a look at this, much more plus pictures and graphs at link below quote.

A loophole in carbon-accounting rules is spurring a boom in burning wood pellets in European power plants. The result has been a surge in logging, particularly in the U.S. South, and new doubts about whether Europe can meet its commitments under the Paris accord.

It was once one of Europe’s largest coal-burning power stations. Now, after replacing coal in its boilers with wood pellets shipped from the U.S. South, the Drax Power Station in Britain claims to be the largest carbon-saving project in Europe. About 23 million tons of carbon dioxide goes up its stacks each year. But because new trees will be planted in the cut forests, the company says the Drax plant is carbon-neutral.

There is one problem. Ecologists say that the claims of carbon neutrality, which are accepted by the European Union and the British government, do not stand up to scrutiny. The forests of North Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi — as well as those in Europe — are being destroyed to sustain a European fantasy about renewable energy. And with many power plants in Europe and elsewhere starting to replace coal with wood, the question of who is right is becoming ever more important.

Since 2009, the 28 nations of the European Union have embarked on a dramatic switch to generating power from renewable energy. While most of the good-news headlines have been about the rise of wind and solar, much of the new “green” power has actually come from burning wood in converted coal power stations.

Wood burning is booming from Britain to Romania. Much of the timber is sourced locally, which is raising serious concerns among European environmentalists about whether every tree cut down for burning is truly replaced by a new one. But Drax’s giant wood-burning boilers are fueled almost entirely by 6.5 million tons of wood pellets shipped annually across the Atlantic.

Some 200 scientists wrote to the EU insisting that “bioenergy is not carbon-neutral” and calling for tighter rules to protect forests and their carbon.

In September, some 200 scientists wrote to the EU insisting that “bioenergy [from forest biomass] is not carbon-neutral” and calling for tighter rules to protect forests and their carbon. Yet just a month later, EU ministers rubber-stamped the existing carbon accounting rules, reaffirming that the burning of wood pellets is renewable energy.

Under the terms of both the UN Paris climate agreement and Europe’s internal rules, carbon losses from forests supplying power stations should be declared as changes to the carbon storage capacity of forest landscapes. But such changes are seldom reported in national inventories. And there is no system either within the EU or at the UN for reporting actual changes in carbon stocks on land, so the carbon is not accounted for at either end — when trees are cut, or when the wood is burned.

Wood burning is turning into a major loophole in controlling carbon emissions. The U.S. could be the next country to take advantage. A federal spending bill that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year directed the Environmental Protection Agency to establish policies “that reflect the carbon neutrality of biomass” and to “encourage private investment throughout the forest biomass supply chain,” paving the way for a boom in American pellet burning.

I have tracked these developments for the past two years; first traveling with Drax to see its U.S. pellet operation, and then investigating the criticisms leveled by European and U.S. forest campaigners. The debate is not clear-cut. Burning wood may be close to carbon neutral in some situations, such as where it is clear that cut trees are replaced with the same trees, one for one; but in others it can emit even more carbon than coal. The trouble is that regulators are ill-placed to tell the difference, which will only be clear decades after the presumed emissions have been tallied — or not — in national carbon inventories.

The one certainty is that if things do not go according to plan, Europe’s promises for meeting its Paris climate commitments will go up in smoke. And the U.S.’s own CO2 emissions could resume their upward path even quicker than President Donald Trump intends.

Europe’s forests have for centuries been cut for household fuel and, in the past century, for local heating plants. But what is happening now is on a very different scale. The change has been fueled by new technology that converts timber into wood pellets that have been heated to remove moisture and compressed, which makes long-distance transportation practical and economic.

Roughly half the cut wood in the EU is now being burned to generate electricity or for heating. And there is growing evidence that the logging is damaging forests and reducing their ability to store carbon.

One region at risk is the Carpathian Mountains, stretching from Austria to Romania. It contains the continent’s largest surviving old-growth forests outside Russia, which are home to up to half the continent’s brown bears, wolves, and lynx.

Widespread illegal logging has been reported in Romania, with the timber exported for burning in power stations in Austria and Germany.

In Romania, Greenpeace and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) have reported widespread illegal logging, with much of the timber exported for burning in power stations in Austria and Germany. The EIA has accused Schweighofer, a company owned by one of Austria’s richest families, of processing illegally-harvested wood from Romania. Its investigator Susanne Breitkopf told me there is “a clear link between illegal logging in Romania and the EU wood pellet market.” The company says it “makes all possible efforts” to keep illegal timber out of its supply chain.

On a visit to the region, I saw strong evidence of a threat to forests in eastern Slovakia, where there was widespread felling of beech forests inside the Poloniny National Park. The roads to the park were all being widened, using EU infrastructure funds, to improve access for heavy vehicles that bring out the timber.

My guide was Peter Sabo of Wolf, an NGO campaigning to protect the country’s forests. He estimates from Slovakian government data that 10 million cubic meters of wood is logged in the country each year, against a sustainable yield of 6 million cubic meters. The difference is almost entirely accounted for by the 3.5 million cubic metres burned for Slovakia’s energy and heating. Yet nowhere do the carbon emissions from this burning turn up in the carbon accounts of Slovakia or the EU.

Sabo and I tracked logs from Poloniny to a power station in the medieval town of Bardejov. The station’s owners insist that, like Drax, the plant only burns low-grade timber that would otherwise go to waste. But on the day I visited, the yard adjacent to the power plant was full of logs a meter or more in diameter being chipped and placed on a large pile within meters of the station’s boilers. Later, in an email, the company’s manager, Stanislav Legat, insisted that “we only use chips. Logs whom you see on the courtyard is not ours [sic].”

Forest cover in Europe is increasing, and the forests are acting as a growing carbon “sink.” But an EU report last year forecast that the growth of Europe’s forest sink will be reduced by more than 30 percent between 2005 and 2030 because of cutting for pellet burning and other changes in land use. It said that “biomass and land use change can be identified as key drivers” in the predicted decline, with pellet-burning plants clearly playing a large part. Yet so far, the resulting releases of carbon to the atmosphere are not included in EU carbon accounting.

Foreign forests have also been targeted to fuel European power stations. For several years, the Swedish state power company Vattenfall imported wood chips from old rubber trees on the giant Firestone rubber plantation in Liberia. The project, part-funded by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a U.S. federal agency, had originally promised to light homes in the West African nation. But that never happened, and after the project collapsed in 2012, the wood chips began being shipped to Sweden.

Drax buys on a small scale from Canada and has plans to buy Brazilian wood. But the U.S. has become Europe’s biggest foreign supplier, and Drax has become the test case for whether wood pellets can be a genuine low-carbon energy source. So how does the case stack up?

The Drax power station, which converted from coal to wood fuel, has become a test case for whether pellets can be a low-carbon energy source.

Following conversion of its boilers, two-thirds of the power from the 4,000-megawatt power giant on the east coast of England now comes from burning pellets. The pellets mostly come from three American mills run by the Drax Group — at Amite in Mississippi, and Morehouse and LaSalle in Louisiana — and purchases from other U.S. suppliers, notably Enviva, which has in the process become the world’s largest producer of wood pellets.

Drax says the only carbon footprint from burning those pellets is from the harvesting, processing, and transporting of the wood. It reckons that, overall, converting its power plant from coal to wood saves 12 million tons of CO2 emissions a year, making Drax “the largest carbon-saving project in Europe,” according to its CEO Andy Koss.

The EU and the U.K. both accept that analysis. The British government last year gave the company the equivalent of about $720 million in subsidies to make further conversions to burning wood so as to reduce the country’s carbon emissions in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement.


LINK
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16136
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Biofuel Thread pt 6

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 18 Jan 2018, 15:18:04

BIOMASS UNDER FIRE
Is wood a green source of energy? Scientists are divided.

..Yet moves by governments around the world to designate wood as a carbon-neutral fuel—making it eligible for beneficial treatment under tax, trade, and environmental regulations—have spurred fierce debate. Critics argue that accounting for carbon recycling is far more complex than it seems. They say favoring wood could actually boost carbon emissions, not curb them, for many decades, and that wind and solar energy—emissions-free from the start—are a better bet for the climate. Some scientists also worry that policies promoting wood fuels could unleash a global logging boom that trashes forest biodiversity in the name of climate protection.


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/wood-green-source-energy-scientists-are-divided

Cleaner Than Coal? Wood Power Makes a Comeback
Converting from power plants from coal- to wood-fired may not deliver environmental benefits as advertised.


Canada already sends wood pellets abroad for power generation, but it is now leveraging the resource on a large scale in its own backyard. Atikokan will be the largest commercial power plant in North America to convert from coal to biomass, a trend that has caught on worldwide, especially in Europe.

The retrofit is part of Ontario's plan to be the first jurisdiction in North America to shut down its coal fleet. In Europe the drive to retrofit coal-fired power plants to biomass comes from the European Union Renewable Energy Directive, which calls for 20 percent of energy to come from renewables, including biomass, by 2020. Much of Europe's wood pellets are being imported from private forests in the southeastern U.S. as well other parts of North America.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wood-power-makes-comeback/

North America appears to be exporting a considerable amount of carbon to Europe in the form of biomass chips and pellets. Unfortunately this is thinning the forest floor and removing even more carbon in the soil, which becomes another source of atmospheric carbon dioxide not being accounted for in power plant emissions calculations.

As with uranium mining/refining and coal production and transport, biomass and wood chip production will abruptly cease when petroleum fuels become unaffordable. As attractive an idea as it is to convert a coal plant to biomass burning, it is in fact merely setting us up for an even more intense crash when petroleum fuel production tapers off. (Or "crashes to near zero" if you favor the Seneca Cliff scenario.)

It seems to me that a case can be made for local consumption of the waste biomass after the usable wood is fashioned into structures and furniture, effectively sequestering carbon for the life of such durable goods, and minimizing the fuels used to transport the wood. But the biomass ashes and remaining nutrients need to be returned to the forest after being treated to reduce acidity, and fertilizers are needed to replenish those lost to burning. Just how much fertilizers are diverted to forests versus food crops is an interesting calculation.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Biofuel Thread pt 6

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 18 Jan 2018, 17:03:46

However the biomass is consumed - energy production or lawn fertilizer - the net result would appear to be (especially in the case of slow growing hardwoods) that hundreds of years of slowly grown dense wood have been consumed in the past few years.

Frankly, understanding the whole carbon cycle in forests is a little daunting. I do actually believe that for the sake of the environment, we should be returning a considerable amount of our cleared lands to forest biomes. In the coastal areas of Lake Michigan I am focussed on, there are some quite attractive parcels that are fundamentally second growth forest. These were clear-cut in the early 19th century from primordial forests of mixed hardwoods and evergreens. Then they spent decades - sometimes more than a century - as cattle pastures producing dairy products. This caused more rapid erosion on the Western banks of the Lake. As populations grew in the MidWest, these areas became more valuable as homesites - thus the second growth forests. Not enough of them - I'd prefer that we had a solid mile or so of forest around the lakes - but a fair amount.

Now for some speculation. The use of human wastes for fertilizers is a dangerous practice, as they contain traces of heavy metals and antibiotics and a whole slew of other substances. It is probably not a sound practice to use such wastes for the fertilization of food crops. Is there not an opportunity here to re-grow forests and replenish soil carbons from human-sourced fertilizers?

OTOH, we do produce things such as maple syrups and honey from forests, and I for one love such naturally flavored sugars. I don't know if it's a sound long term practice, but even if we only did so for a short while, we could give reforested areas a jump start with human fertilizers. Once we have a sustainable form of forestry going, we could use the wood ashes from energy production to amend the soils and stimulate continued growth.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Biofuel Thread pt 6

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 18 Jan 2018, 20:56:31

KaiserJeep wrote: Once we have a sustainable form of forestry going, we could use the wood ashes from energy production to amend the soils and stimulate continued growth.
I have to doubt that the ashes from a wood burning facility returned to the forest land the wood came from would be sufficient to increase growth or the health of the ecosystem. A rotting log laying on the forest floor returns every molecule it contains to the forest floor and the host of life forms that depend on it. The same log burned in a power plant loses much of it's nutrients up the smoke stack and it's ashes as valuable as they are are not a complete substitute for the natural system of leaf fall and decomposition of fallen timber.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 11925
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Biofuel Thread pt 6

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 18 Jan 2018, 22:19:40

Yes, I agree with that. Organic supplements are needed. Lawn clippings, other yard wastes, cut brush, etc. could be used, as such organics do not belong in landfills. Here in Silicon Valley, we have general rubbish collection (landfill), mixed plastics/metals/glass/clean fiber recycling in another can, and yard wastes which get composted at high temperatures that supposedly sterilize the weed seeds. That last is heaped at the curb, scooped up by a machine, and collected on a seperate truck.

Such compost, amended with waste wood chips and bark, plus the aforementioned ashes, plus carefully selected chemical supplements, could be used in forests. I'd like to say "natural forest management", but that really is more applicable to unoccupied parklands than the medium density populated areas around lakes, many of which are of manmade origin in the first place.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Trump pushes Big Corn and Oil to break biofuels deadlock

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 22:06:21


U.S. President Donald Trump urged representatives from the rival oil and corn industries on Thursday to break a deadlock in talks over the future of the nation’s biofuels policy by accepting a deal involving reforms sought by both sides. FILE PHOTO: The Philadelphia Energy Solutions oil refinery is seen at sunset in front of the Philadelphia skyline in Pennysylvania, U.S., March 24, 2014. REUTERS/David M. Parrott/File Photo Trump has arranged a series of talks between Big Corn and Big Oil since late last year amid rising concern in the White House over the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a law requiring refiners to mix biofuels such as corn-based ethanol into their fuel. The decade-old policy was intended to help farmers and reduce petroleum imports but has increasingly divided farmers and energy companies - two of Trump’s most important constituencies. Refining company Philadelphia Energy


Trump pushes Big Corn and Oil to break biofuels deadlock
Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.

StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6073
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: What happened to the 'Mother of all Biofuels Debate' thr

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 06:16:53

My own problem with the biofuels is that - at least in the case of the ethanols - they are making either human food or cattle/chicken food into fuels. I have an ethical problem doing this in a world with starving people. I would much rather use switchgrass or wood chips or lawn trimmings to make methanol and burn that.

It's just another example of what Ibon calls the "overshoot conundrum". I really should celebrate the diversion of millions of tons of grains into US fuel tanks, as it hastens TEOTWAWKI in the rest of the World. But my heart melts when I see starving kids in refugee camps, who have already faced TEOTWAWKI in their homeland. Yes, I know they are the real problem with the World, which is too many people, the one problem that underlies all other problems.

But they are starving human children.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: What happened to the 'Mother of all Biofuels Debate' thr

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 09:31:01

KaiserJeep wrote:My own problem with the biofuels is that - at least in the case of the ethanols - they are making either human food or cattle/chicken food into fuels. I have an ethical problem doing this in a world with starving people. I would much rather use switchgrass or wood chips or lawn trimmings to make methanol and burn that.

It's just another example of what Ibon calls the "overshoot conundrum". I really should celebrate the diversion of millions of tons of grains into US fuel tanks, as it hastens TEOTWAWKI in the rest of the World. But my heart melts when I see starving kids in refugee camps, who have already faced TEOTWAWKI in their homeland. Yes, I know they are the real problem with the World, which is too many people, the one problem that underlies all other problems.

But they are starving human children.


Except cattle are not well adapted to a high grain diet, they are much healthier when allowed to graze naturally. There is also the fact that when you grind the corn kernels and allow the yeast to eat the starches you leave behind the protein of not only the grain but also the dead yeast which is high protein itself. In effect you are converting the high starch grain into high vegetable/yeast protein that is in its own fashion excellent feed for most livestock and pets. While it is true the total food calories is reduced by the extraction of the starch it is not zeroed out by a very long stretch, something like 40% of the caloric value exists in the combined spent brewers grain/yeast compound at the end of the process.

Of course using such a poor starch source as grain is stupid, but that is due to government policy encouraging growing maize instead of growing good ethanol crops like sweet potato, sugar beets and sugar cane which can be grown and produce much more abundant ethanol supply in the same areas where maize are grown in the north and rice is grown in the south.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16136
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: What happened to the 'Mother of all Biofuels Debate' thr

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 11:05:17

But I just don't see an "except" there. If 40% of the calories remain, then 60% were converted to fuels via fermentation. The spent yeast and grain has always been used as animal feed, it never was wasted. Also, the corn has been specially developed to yield not only starch but high fructose syrup, which significantly boosts the alcohol production.

The other downside is that the high fructose corn syrup is so cheap that it is being added to almost all human packaged foods, because this causes it to taste better to people, increasing sales of such food. The downside is these syrup calories are empty of nutrition yet stimulate the appetite, and soaring rates of diabetes and obesity are the result.

Then the government piously tells you to eat healthy food, while pursuing the agriculture policies that produce the massive overabundance of grain and high fructose syrup.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests