Biofuels

[Padraic]

Here's an interesting program on biofuels. The 3 major sources of biofuels are compared; corn, grass and organic waste.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18800996

 

[tabasco_joe]

Yes and most biofuel analysis don't include the impact of fertilizer production and cleanup of the waste effluent. Not to mention the other impacts like planting and harvesting.

Last year when someone I work with was talking up the benefits of corn ethanol I did a quick analysis. If you plant corn in all the arable land in the US you only get enough energy to run our automobiles for about 45 days. And as I mentioned above I didn’t include the fertilizer and waste treatment.

Biofuels are a way of converting solar energy into chemical energy that then gets converted into mechanical energy when burned in an engine. A very inefficient process. Oil and coal are similarly chemical energy that was converted from solar energy over periods of many millions of years. (And yes even less efficient than biofuels.)

So to have truly renewable energy sources we would need to produce as much energy each year as we use. Almost impossible with the technologies we have today.

 

[Maurice]

tabasco_joe wrote:
Yes and most biofuel analysis don't include the impact of fertilizer production and cleanup of the waste effluent. Not to mention the other impacts like planting and harvesting.

Last year when someone I work with was talking up the benefits of corn ethanol I did a quick analysis. If you plant corn in all the arable land in the US you only get enough energy to run our automobiles for about 45 days. And as I mentioned above I didn’t include the fertilizer and waste treatment.

Biofuels are a way of converting solar energy into chemical energy that then gets converted into mechanical energy when burned in an engine. A very inefficient process. Oil and coal are similarly chemical energy that was converted from solar energy over periods of many millions of years. (And yes even less efficient than biofuels.)

So to have truly renewable energy sources we would need to produce as much energy each year as we use. Almost impossible with the technologies we have today.

Well...so I guess thats it....why even try.

We used to say the same thing about film in the printing industry. Turns out the people who got in on the ground floor were the ones who survived the evolution of the industry. Now there is no film (or very, very little) and the people who didn't retrain are left holding the bag.

The evolution of science based technoligiesare an expensive process but usually in the long-run the benefits outweigh the risks.

 

[Padraic]

Tabasco,

Did you listen to the program? The commentator makes the same points you do. The grain and switch grass ideas were criticized because of it. The waste gasification, however, shows great promise because it's material we need to produce anyway. The waste biofuel is produced from food waste and other organic waste that we would need to produce (such as food, scrap lumber, paper, packaging... etc.) Plus, it is much more productive, since the energy that is needed to produce it can be created from the inputs themselves (after a bit of a startup "spark")

In any event, the program gives an interesting overview of where we are on the development of these technologies. As Maurice points out, in the history of everything that does work is a long period of time where it didn't.

 

[tomgamber]

We pay enough subsities to an good number corporate and other farms NOT to produce corn and other crops...if we' just make them do what they are supposed to be doing, farming, then there would be enough to sustain this kind of endeavor...will the price of corn go up? Probably...in my mind its still better to pay American farmers to grow corn then to not grow corn...its also WAY better than paying foreign governments and companies for their oil....

 

[tabasco_joe]

Maurice wrote:

Well...so I guess thats it....why even try.

We used to say the same thing about film in the printing industry. Turns out the people who got in on the ground floor were the ones who survived the evolution of the industry. Now there is no film (or very, very little) and the people who didn't retrain are left holding the bag.

The evolution of science based technoligiesare an expensive process but usually in the long-run the benefits outweigh the risks.

I'm not saying we shouldn't put some effort into alternate energy sources. But they should be practical and we should have reasonable expectations. Biofuels are only a supplimental source of energy. The physics just doesn't support anything more.

 

[tabasco_joe]

tomgamber wrote:
We pay enough subsities to an good number corporate and other farms NOT to produce corn and other crops...if we' just make them do what they are supposed to be doing, farming, then there would be enough to sustain this kind of endeavor...will the price of corn go up? Probably...in my mind its still better to pay American farmers to grow corn then to not grow corn...its also WAY better than paying foreign governments and companies for their oil....

Well your right about the fact that politics and subsidies, either for growing or not growing, are not based on sound problem solving. It is simply based on buying votes.

How much more are you willing to pay to run your car and heat your house to keep your money from going to foreign entities? Two or three times as much? Oil and coal still rule because the price per BTU is far less than other sources. It's only when a source is identified that has similar cost per BTU on the same scale that breaks the dependence.

 

[Acristickid]

$1 Billion dollars in oil profits leave the United States everyday. Shame.

I don't know anything about the science behind the fuel situation.

Seems to me it must not be good business or you would have Wall Street and Private equity investing in them. That's when you can tell companies get legs.

 

[Padraic]

tabasco_joe wrote:

How much more are you willing to pay to run your car and heat your house to keep your money from going to foreign entities? Two or three times as much? Oil and coal still rule because the price per BTU is far less than other sources. It's only when a source is identified that has similar cost per BTU on the same scale that breaks the dependence.

tabasco,

It's a good program, realy you should listen to it. The waste gasification manufacturer estimates that the cost of the waste biofuel would be a $1/gallon.

 

[ryanh]

Gents,
Biofuels are a loosing game. You need to invest huge amts of resources to get the material, and invest huge amts of resources to refine it and at the end of the day is a less efficient fuel than what is currently out there. What perhaps is the most daming is that it takes out of play prime land currently being used for food production. It is not an issue now but it will be by the time that we need the fuel.

We have some other ideas. One is recycling existing crap. check out http://www.deltaenergy.com/

They are a spin off from my company. The have a process that takes used tires (and there are millions of them) and through a simple chemical process it spits out carbon black (a marketable product) steel and oil. The oil is currently being used as fuel for industrial operations. It can also be used in home aplications.

 

[tabasco_joe]

Padraic wrote:

tabasco_joe wrote:

How much more are you willing to pay to run your car and heat your house to keep your money from going to foreign entities? Two or three times as much? Oil and coal still rule because the price per BTU is far less than other sources. It's only when a source is identified that has similar cost per BTU on the same scale that breaks the dependence.

tabasco,

It's a good program, realy you should listen to it. The waste gasification manufacturer estimates that the cost of the waste biofuel would be a $1/gallon.

I'll listen to it in entirety tonight when I have more time.

 

[MattBoyer]

I like the idea of waste gasification, and I like the idea about energy from used tires, but as far as corn ethanol goes, I can't say my conscience would be able to get on board with burning what is essentially a food product. I can imagine that if food prices continue the spike they have seen in the short time ethanol has been popular that there will be people starving for lack of food while the rest of us would be driving around burning food. Just my opinion.

Boyer

 

[albatross]

I'll second your thought Matt. Make ethanol from switchgrass or something, not form corn.

 

[Padraic]

Matt,

That's one of the main issues everyone has with ethynol. That's why I was excited about the waste gasification described in this program.

 

[PennsCreek]

Not sure if you guys watch Dirty Jobs or not but a year or so ago they had an episode about biofuels. The guy used grease that he collected from restaurants and converted it into a diesel fuel. He was producing it at a cost of 50-75 cents a gallon. He was collecting the grease from a mexican fast food joint for free, pouring it through a filter to get out the solids then going through some heating and mixing in a chemical to get out the nasties. The only thing change to the diesel engine is changing the rubber fuel line to a clear plastic polyethylene tubing because the biodiesel eats through the rubber. He was running his newer model VW diesel station wagon and a mid 80's datsun truck on it. I put a couple links at the bottom for info and cost on the system. McDonalds and other places will probably give it away for free because they are currently paying someone to dispose it for them.

Here is a breakeven analysis

system = $2000
waste oil= free
current cost of diesel (3.40-3.66) average 3.50
cost per gallon, we'll be conservative with $1.00
save 2.50 per gallon
breakeven at $2000/ $2.5 saved/gallon= 800 gallons
average diesel tank ~40 gallons (truck)
#tanks to break even =800/40= 20 tanks

The time depends on vehicle mpg.


http://www.homebiodieselkits.com/hobikit.html

http://www.greasecar.com/article.cfm?aid=19

 

[tabasco_joe]

PennsCreek wrote:
Not sure if you guys watch Dirty Jobs or not but a year or so ago they had an episode about biofuels. The guy used grease that he collected from restaurants and converted it into a diesel fuel. He was producing it at a cost of 50-75 cents a gallon. He was collecting the grease from a mexican fast food joint for free, pouring it through a filter to get out the solids then going through some heating and mixing in a chemical to get out the nasties. The only thing change to the diesel engine is changing the rubber fuel line to a clear plastic polyethylene tubing because the biodiesel eats through the rubber. He was running his newer model VW diesel station wagon and a mid 80's datsun truck on it. I put a couple links at the bottom for info and cost on the system. McDonalds and other places will probably give it away for free because they are currently paying someone to dispose it for them.

Here is a breakeven analysis

system = $2000
waste oil= free
current cost of diesel (3.40-3.66) average 3.50
cost per gallon, we'll be conservative with $1.00
save 2.50 per gallon
breakeven at $2000/ $2.5 saved/gallon= 800 gallons
average diesel tank ~40 gallons (truck)
#tanks to break even =800/40= 20 tanks

The time depends on vehicle mpg.


http://www.homebiodieselkits.com/hobikit.html

http://www.greasecar.com/article.cfm?aid=19

I saw that episode. The guy who processes that puts a lot of time into it that isn't factored in. And there is only so much waste food oil. So it works on a small scale but can't be a major contributor. Not sure I want to smell french fries every time I drive somewhere. I do think we should promote diesle engines in cars. it would improve overall efficiency and allow incremental use of biodiesel that is available.

 

[tomgamber]

tabasco_joe wrote:
I saw that episode. The guy who processes that puts a lot of time into it that isn't factored in. And there is only so much waste food oil. So it works on a small scale but can't be a major contributor. Not sure I want to smell french fries every time I drive somewhere. I do think we should promote diesle engines in cars. it would improve overall efficiency and allow incremental use of biodiesel that is available.

C'mon...I know a lot of guys who's cars small like french fries most of the time...

 

[riz]

the net gain in co2 out put with biofuel is negative when you factor everything in. plus no one is talking about the negative impact on the environment and economy. 1st 10 time more corn must be grown to decrease oil use by 5%. that's 10 time the amount of land converted to farm land, 10 times the amount of fertilizer which uses oil to make. now consider all the nitrogen run-off into the streams, this will rend many more streams rivers and estuaries lifless. think the dead zone at the mississippi delta is bad now or the upper chesapeak. hunting land will disapear. more rain forest will be burned to grow corn. millions of tons of silt will go do rivers and clog existing dam as such. less trees and plant life to give off oxygen and recover co2. and these are just things i thought of off the top of my head without really researching it. now how is that good for the ebvironment? biofuels are only good for politicians and corp. farmers.

 

[tomgamber]

The sky is falling the sky is falling!!!

There is 10 times more farmland sitting idle that could be used to grow corn instead of growing McMansions which are now being foreclosed on...

I think your mention of "without really researching it" hits the nail on the head...

 

[riz]

so tommyg you implying you are in favor of ecodestruction to supply biofuel.

at least i prefaced my remark as being off the top of my head so you can evaluate it as such. how do you preface yours? you don't, you just throw out snide, insulting remarks to someone who pointed out other dangers had not been related. and as for your research, your rebuttal, your stance, where is it? or are you just going to try and insult me again?