2 big problems stand in the way of biofuels:

1.) The do very little or nothing to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

2.) They require the INPUT of fuel in order to produce them. What is the net GAIN in energy potential with this new technology?

Until and unless these new fuels are used in fuel cells rather than internal combustion engines, then we will continue to race headlong into a climate change disaster. And we cannot allow ourselves to fall victim to an energy shell game, where use of fossil fuels is simply hidden within the production of some other, ostensibly “green” energy source.

One thing I do agree with here: A single, dominant source of energy, pervasive throughout our lives and economy, exposes us to price shocks, environmental imbalances, and economic uncertainty.

The do very little or nothing to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

I disagree. They’re carbon neutral, being that they’re drawn from biological sinks with short retention times rather that fossil ones.

2 big problems stand in the way of biofuels

What about the “require large amounts of arable land” one that everyone seems to forget? Compound that with the net input of petrochemicals needed to grow the monoculture crops that are the feedstock, and the resulting land degradation and deforestation for plantations, and you have a less rosy picture of biofuels.

Hemp for Victory!

Arable land not a biggie. Petochemicals not needed. If rotated properly will feed people a couple years, and fuel them in others.

40 acres and a mule.

Oh, and a full freeze in population growth. That would be the deal breaker. Pure idiocy.

Hemp for Victory!

heh, never saw that one coming.

a full freeze in population growth. That would be the deal breaker

Yeah, the cowards never mention the population thing (Gore actually touched on it in An Inconvenient Truth, which is how I knwo he isn’t planning on running for prez).

Population freeze is an operational theory.

Implementation is the tricky part.

Obviously it’s a huge third rail for politicians, theologians (like I give a fuck), corporations of couse, and the young and lustful. Probably missed a few bases, but the point is made, eh?

Babies are teh new nigger of the world.

I would’ve thought like Nullbull that these are still damaging the environment. I was told by my chemistry teacher that some cuold in fact transform in worse polluants after combustion.

Snark, can you explain to me the life of butanol carbons and give me more details about your statement?

Notice how even God doesn’t wish to comment on the overunning of the Planet she/he cares so much about by humans?

It’s a third rail for God too!

What about the “require large amounts of arable land” one that everyone seems to forget?

The Indian guy I saw on Dateline was proposing using waste products from things like paper manufacturing. It seems to me that other sources could include waste products from any industry that processes organic materials, since what’s needed is fermentation. Yeast will eat almost anything, if you have the right strain.

Snark, can you explain to me the life of butanol carbons and give me more details about your statement?

Doesn’t have much to do with butanol carbons. It’s the retention time of the carbon sink. The carbon given off by burning biofuels was part of the atmosphere very recently; it was taken up by a growing plant and converted into biomass. It’s part of the active carbon cycle, and as such does not represent a net addition of carbon to the atmosphere. Fossil fuels, in contrast, are long-term carbon sinks, and releasing them into the atmosphere does consititute a net addition, because the climate system has equilibrated without it actively cycling through atmospheric and biomass sinks.

I was told by my chemistry teacher that some cuold in fact transform in worse polluants after combustion

No worse than those given off by fossil fuel burning, and in many cases biofuel burns much cleaner. Biodiesel gives off lots of nitrous oxides and particulates, but that’s easily solved by a particulate filter and urea injection.

Water power, maybe it’s possible?

Recent Local Fox News report, on some guy reinventing Browns Gas

Another take on it in the 80’s=

Xogen promo reel=

The Indian guy I saw on Dateline was proposing using waste products from things like paper manufacturing. It seems to me that other sources could include waste products from any industry that processes organic materials, since what’s needed is fermentation. Yeast will eat almost anything, if you have the right strain

Absolutely. Using waste to generate fuel is a no-brainer and should be something in place already (at the very least for methane). The problem still remains that no combination of these biofuels and other energy sources will be sufficient to make a transition from declining oil (and natural gas) smooth. Until people like those who write these articles start admitting that we need to reduce demand (including that of the rapidly industrializing countries), there is a problem with the whole conversation. I fear that coal gasification is going to be the solution that wins out, at huge environmental expense, so that we can continue in our overconsuming ways for a few more years.

including that of the rapidly industrializing countries

Unfortunately, to suggest that they do so has been judged dreadfully politically incorrect- for some reason.

I knwo. I found this map from a tlaloc link rather interesting.

the real question is, whatever happened to the electric car?

sis didn’t you write something that illustrated the “bang for the buck” that petroleum delivers versus a number of the alternatives?

If not, it’s worth making a point, as I don’t think people realize the scale.

That map also makes great points in a number of directions.

Snark, is there a direct and closed relationship between the amount of carbon “sinked” (yeah, it’s a verb now) by the growth of raw material which leads to biofuels and the amount the release when burned? I’m doubtful, since, in order to become a biofuel, a raw material (such as switchgrass or corn), must go through secondary, tertiary, etc. chemical processes in order to become a biofuel. This also doesn’t address one of the basic fallacies of the whole “carbon sink” concept: that the C02 imbalances worldwide are a single-input, constant system. In other words, growing corn at elevation XX in Iowa, then burning the resulting biofuel in high concentrations in Mexico City doesn’t amount to a zero-sum game for the climate and environment.

Snark, is there a direct and closed relationship between the amount of carbon “sinked” (yeah, it’s a verb now) by the growth of raw material which leads to biofuels and the amount the release when burned?

As far as I’ve been able to tell, yes- at least when the chemical processes required to create that biofuel are biologically mediated. Biodiesel requires lye and methanol, as well as heating, to be created, which isn’t the greatest. However, ethanol production is basically a microbial process, and apparently this biobutanol process is too. And there’s an interesting way to crack vegetable oil into biodiesel by essentially mechanical means- filtering it through some sort of crazy nanotech material. However, as far as I can tell, any net carbon addition from biofuels is negligibly small, as long as you’re burning pure biofuel.

Of course, note that I’m totally ignoring the transportation and storage requirements of biofuel, which could be problematic.

When I get to work, I’ll try to track down a paper I found on this question a while ago.

This also doesn’t address one of the basic fallacies of the whole “carbon sink” concept: that the C02 imbalances worldwide are a single-input, constant system.

I honestly hadn’t considered that point, and it’s a good one. I think that, eventually and on long time scales, it’s possible to consider greenhouse gas addition to be a single-input system, due to atmospheric mixing. It is definitely a non-homogenous effect, though, especially on short time scales.

Move Over, Gasoline: Here Come Biofuels

Excerpt :

Biofuels can slash global warming pollution. By 2050, biofuels — especially those known as cellulosic biofuels — could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year. That’s equal to more than 80 percent of current transportation-related emission

Biofuels can provide major air quality benefits. Biofuels contain no sulfur and produce low carbon monoxide, particulate and toxic emissions. Using biofuels should make it easier to reach air pollution reduction targets than using petroleum-based fuels.

Hemp for Victory!

The hydrocarbons in hemp can be processed into a wide range of biomass energy sources, from fuel pellets to liquid fuels and gas. Hemp seed oil can be chemically combined easily with 15% methanol to provide a premium diesel fuel substitute. This hemp bio-diesel fuel burns 70% cleaner than petroleum diesel in soot and particulate pollution. By burning cleaner, hemp fuel would help to reduce acid rain. Furthermore, the industrial use of fossil fuels increases the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere; however, hemp flues maintain the earth’s natural O2/CO2 balance. Finally hemp is renewable very quickly, while fossil fuels take thousands of years to renew. Development of hemp based biofuels could significantly reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Hemp may also be used to produce ethanol (grain alcohol.) The United States government has developed a way to make this automobile fuel additive from cellulosic biomass. Hemp is an excellent source of high quality cellulosic biomass.

sis didn’t you write something that illustrated the “bang for the buck” that petroleum delivers versus a number of the alternatives?

Hmm, there are a few things that come to mind, none that I actually wrote. This one has some good info on energy source “value” and EROEI:

Getting a decent return on your energy investment

What I think you are referring to is an article I recall that compares the energy output of different liquid fuels while neglecting the input to extract/create – a caloric or “ghost slave” comparison. I know it exists, but can’t seem to find it right now.

But here is the link (in PDF) to Professor David Pimental’s paper finding Ethanol to be a net energy loser

why is it that there are only six people on here that actually talk about this stuff? good stuff anyway guys…

why is it that there are only six people on here that actually talk about this stuff?

Because everyone else is obsessed with 911.

sis …

Thanks.

The article on EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) was the one.

It clearly illustrates the ‘bang for the buck’ question.

Biodiesel still comes in ahead of most, if not all, of the renewables.

Biodiesel- 3:1
Coal- 1:1 to 10:1
Ethanol- 1.2:1
Natural Gas- 1:1 to 10:1
Hydropower- 10:1
Hydrogen- 0.5:1
Nuclear- 4:1
Oil- 1:1 to 100:1
Oil Sands- 2:1
Solar PV (2) – 1:1 to 10:1
Wind (2) – 3:1 to 20:1

EROEI turns out to be one of the most important measurements in the history of humanity.

The EROEI for oil from the 1950s, when it was very easy to find, pump and refine, was as high as 100:1. Remember that each gallon of gasoline is like having a slave work for you for 600 hours — it contains a lot of energy. The tremendous energy return of early oil partly explains why it was possible to rebuild Europe and Japan so quickly after World War II. It also explains why *the global population has leapt from about 1.5 billion people when the first oil well was drilled in the United States in 1859, to 6.5 billion today.*The high EROEI of petroleum has made it possible to grow enormous amounts of food, transport raw materials and goods all over the world, and create dense urban communities across the globe.

For better and for worse, the EROEI for fuels in the future will not be as high as it has been in the past. The liquid petroleum that we been pumping from the ground now for 150 years (one trillion barrels has been pumped, one trillion barrels remains; we are half-way through the original supply) was a one-time inheritance of concentrated energy; when it’s gone it’s gone forever.

In fact the EROEI for gasoline has already dropped precipitously, from the previously mentioned initial high of 100:1. It fell to 25:1 by 1970, and stands at about 10:1 today. This is because the size of the oil fields is shrinking, the depth at which oil is being found is growing deeper, and the quality of the oil that is being pumped is decreasing.

That population thing is the biggest elephant in the room.

The future appears very bleak, when held in contrast to the past.

Thanks for these! What were the footnotes for solar and wind?

That population thing is the biggest elephant in the room.

Just an open-ended question…what’s everybody’s thoughts on the sustainability of the present population without a favorable EROEI for petroleum?

Footnote:

2. Wind and solar power have the potential to offer respectable EROEI ratios and should be very helpful in our energy transition. They cannot though help us out of the near-term challenges we face of having agricultural and transport systems that require very large amounts of petroleum, the global production of which is soon to peak, and then decrease annually.

Full Article/Bulletin

“Just an open-ended question…what’s everybody’s thoughts on the sustainability of the present population without a favorable EROEI for petroleum?“

It has been suggested that if certain, painful, wholesale changes were made, then it will fall into the perhaps category.

Otherwise, I’d say as the supply declines, so will the population until a form of equilibrium is reached based on a sustainable EROEI.

Just my opinion.

It doesn’t matter much if nuclear fusion reactors were a reality or if an alien device would pump out the energy of a star. We would still be producing heat. We need to plan ahead for negative growth and get rid of the old economic model.

“2 big problems stand in the way of biofuels:
1.) The do very little or nothing to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
2.) They require the INPUT of fuel in order to produce them. What is the net GAIN in energy potential with this new technology?” I’d say one big problem for biofuels is misinformation like this. If this blogger would do a little research instead of spouting nonsense, he’s find that biofuels can result in enormous reductions of greenhouse gases like CO2, if you’re silly enough to worry a lot about such things. Take for example the life cycle of gasoline versus as poor a biofuel as ethanol. Cite : Dr. Michale Wang, Argonne National Laboratory,2005. To produce 1 million BTUs from gasoline requires the expenditure of 1.23 million BTUs of energy. To produce the same energy from ethanol only requires .74 million BTUs. Let’s assume the input energy is all fossil fuel based, which is not correct, since at least 20% plus of US electricity, a large component, is generated by nuclear and hydroelectric systems. Notice that we generate 2.23 million fossil fuel (CO2 producing) BTUs while using gasoline, but only .74 million fossil fuel (CO2 producing) BTUs while using ethanol. We’ve reduced our CO2
output by two thirds!!! If butanol were used instead, the reduction would be much larger. Some of the younger self styled environmentalists have
the silly notion that we want to eliminate ALL CO2 emissions. We cannot survive on this planet without a lot of CO2 in the air, else all food sources would disappear.
Remember, the main grenhouse gas is wator vaopr, which acounts for 95% of
all greenhouse gases. CO2 and methane mainlt accountfor the rest. Sulfer dioxide
emissions (which neither ethanol nor butanol produce) prevent the warming of the planet, since they shield the earth. All of the emissions from burning coal and gasoline are NOT greenhouse gases.

I’ve been over this too many times on this site to repeat it all again. Let me just say that even the well informed among you seem to envision problems for biodiesel that are not actually problems. Especially this concern about enough farm land.

And since I’m planning on going into business with biofuels I’m done trying to convince folks about the product outside of marketing campaigns. Why encourage competition before I’m off the ground? Once it’s clearly obvious that the fuel is a good option and my business is rolling along I’ll renew my efforts to alert folks to the real deal, and I’ll be sure to include the top misunderstood issues I keep seeing and explaining away on this site.

In the meanwhile you all can debate how we’ll be falling off the edge of the flat earth if we keep heading this way.

Areola – It has been suggested that if certain, painful, wholesale changes were made, then it will fall into the perhaps category…

Yeah… too bad we as a race aren’t known for making painfull, wholesale changes without being forced to…