Will the USA green up its act?

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by mora
The idea of the pro-biofuel people is that the growth process has tied up the carbon from CO2 of the atmosphere, so there's no extra CO2 emission as there is when burning fossile fuels. In short, the CO2 turns to C during the growth process and back to CO2 when you burn the plant. The refining process doesn't take nearly as much energy as refining crude, but it takes considerable energy nevertheless.

You are right about about the farming pesticides etc. That's the reason why biofuels suffer from terrible "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI). At best it's around 3:1 in the case of biodiesel, and 1:6 in the case of ethanol, and some people(and the EU) thinks it's a good idea to burn ethanol to power vehicles!! I don't have anything against biofuels, but they aren't going to provide a cheap alternative to fossile fuels, ever.

[/B]

I knew about the low CO2 emissions using biofuel; I did not know the EROEI ratios ... good information.
 

Of course they are the way to go, but sadly the focus in development has lately been towards safety instead of economics. If the cars would be designed towards low weight and fuel efficiency they would consume half of what they do now. Not hard to achieve at all if there would be will to do it. But there's no point to scrap your existing vehicle to buy a new one.

[/B]

I don't mind driving a smaller, more fuel efficient car, so that some working stiff in Thailand or China can afford to ride her Vespa to work.   We are one planet, and a large disparity between the have, and the have nots, is neither desirable or stable.  Care must still be taken not to go overboard, lest the manufacturing cost of fuel efficient cars, negates the fuel savings of operating those cars.
 

I totally agree with you. However I'm not worried at all because I trust peak oil to take care of this issue(if there's anything to be done). It's a 100% binding "contract". We will all lose, but the biggest losers will be those who consume most.

To be honest, I am worried about this one, and the reason is coal.  As I'm sure you know, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.  Twenty-five percent of the worlds coal reserve sits in the hills of Wyoming and Montana.   As long as oil is in the $40, $50, $60 per barrel range, it is cheaper, and more energy efficient, for us to pump it out of the middle east.  Somewhere around the $80, $100, $120 per barrel range, that will no longer be the case.  We will start liquefying our coal, and using the energy from our coal, to produce biofuel. The coal will last for hundreds of years, and the CO2 emissions will go through the roof.


-Rotax447

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Rotax447
We will start liquefying our coal, and using the energy from our coal, to produce biofuel. The coal will last for hundreds of years, and the CO2 emissions will go through the roof.
-Rotax447

It would be more efficient to burn the coal directly, (Coal is like 40% or better of the electrical energy produced in the USA anyway) and using the Fischer-Tropsch method as is being used in China, South Africa, and a pilot refinery in the Powder River Basin, we can produce liquid fuel for vehicles.

The break even price I have seen is about $50/bbl, so we should be able to do it now.

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It would be more efficient to burn the coal directly, (Coal is like 40% or better of the electrical energy produced in the USA anyway) and using the Fischer-Tropsch method as is being used in China, South Africa, and a pilot refinery in the Powder River Basin, we can produce liquid fuel for vehicles.

The break even price I have seen is about $50/bbl, so we should be able to do it now.

It looks like FT synthesis will produce diesel fuel at a cost about ten percent higher than the middle eastern blend.  You are right.  Somewhere around the $50, $60, $70 per barrel range, the US will kiss the Saudi royal family goodbye.  I am sure that they are well aware of this, so I expect they will keep the price down.

There is a downside to this.  That ten percent difference in price will result in increased CO2 emissions.  We would have to convert our automobiles to stronger, more expensive diesel engines.  Build dozens of synthesis plants.  Mine more iron and cobalt as a catalyst for FT synthesis.  Out CO2 emissions would certainly go over thirty percent.  Beetle would have a stroke.  After a hundred years or so, the hills of Wyoming would be as flat as Nebraska, and Nebraska would be under water from the melting of the polar ice caps.  Oh well, such is progress:-)

On the bright side ... what do you all think of ITER?  I know it is some fifty years off, still, considering the processing power required to keep the magnetic containment field in place, that time frame seems reasonable to me.


-Rotax447

[storch]

Originally posted by Rotax447
It looks like FT synthesis will produce diesel fuel at a cost about ten percent higher than the middle eastern blend.  You are right.  Somewhere around the $50, $60, $70 per barrel range, the US will kiss the Saudi royal family goodbye.  I am sure that they are well aware of this, so I expect they will keep the price down.

There is a downside to this.  That ten percent difference in price will result in increased CO2 emissions.  We would have to convert our automobiles to stronger, more expensive diesel engines.  Build dozens of synthesis plants.  Mine more iron and cobalt as a catalyst for FT synthesis.  Out CO2 emissions would certainly go over thirty percent.  Beetle would have a stroke.  After a hundred years or so, the hills of Wyoming would be as flat as Nebraska, and Nebraska would be under water from the melting of the polar ice caps.  Oh well, such is progress:-)

On the bright side ... what do you all think of ITER?  I know it is some fifty years off, still, considering the processing power required to keep the magnetic containment field in place, that time frame seems reasonable to me.


-Rotax447

so....where do you predict the beachfront property will be at?

[Ripsnort]

Beet has been beat and has left the room >>>>>>>>>>>>

[beet1e]

Rotax - I said peanut OIL, not peanut BUTTER!

No, I am not an engineer and never was. What I find funny is that you seem quite dismissive of any sort of exploration with regard to the peanut oil possibility, and yet seem to have both feet firmly planted in the camp which is trusting W to come up with two miracles - the miracle to find a new energy source when all the oil is gone, and the miracle to solve global warming. The peanut oil/bio-diesel might alleviate the difficulties we might experience when the oil runs out, and given that some people want to see that day sooner rather than later, we might not have long to wait. You're right, and of course the burning of any type of fuel in a vehicle combustion process is going to produce CO2. I've no idea what sort of gas mileage a vehicle burning peanut oil would get, but tell me: Is it possible to make gasoline from peanut oil, or is that going to be W's third miracle? I don't claim to have the figures you want. I'm not a scientist either. ALL I said was "I would like to see further exploration of the diesel concept, with alternative fuels - eg. the bio-diesel option." - and I think that's more constructive than trusting in W's miracles.

Ripsnort tried to argue earlier that a more fuel efficient vehicle will still generate the same volume of greenhouse gas. This is bollocks. In Europe as in America, a typical car is offered with a choice of engines. The car I have is offered with a range of petrol engines going from 1.6 to 3.2 litres. Only the engine is different, drivetrain, and maybe some of the instruments and trim. The body shell is the same - so am I to believe that the 1.6 variant that burns half as much fuel is responsible for the same volume of greenhouse gas? I think not.

Hmm Rotax, I can see why it's going to be so hard to get the US to green up. First, you have a president (Reagan) whose energy policy was governed by "what would be popular". Then there was that US politician described by Sagan who thought the answer to global warming was a pair of sunglasses. There are people here who "see no reason" to limit the burning of fossil fuels. Then there are those who think that it would be a "good thing" to burn the world's remaining oil stocks in the shortest time possible. Some think that because their car has a catalytic converter that they're "doing their part for clean air", without realising that having solved one problem (toxic emissions) another has been created (greenhouse gases). And then of course there are those who mock the entire issue - reference to cow farts etc. And a large swathe of the motoring public who think that 12mpg is "reasonable". Funny how you didn't take those folks to task, but pour cold water over the mere suggestion of exploration of alternative fuels...

Ho-hum, there's only one thing to say - Toodle Pip!

[beet1e]

I just did a search through the Telegraph website, and found 1300+ articles about global warming. This one made me smile...

Arctic dwellers sue US over warming

[Holden McGroin]

No, no, Beetle, you said toodle pip.

You can't come back and post after you say toodle pip, it's bad etiquette.

[Skilless]

Originally posted by beet1e

Ho-hum, there's only one thing to say - Toodle Pip!

"Toodle Pip"??  What the heck is that??

But seriously,  the less fuel I use, the more I get charged for it.  I really think we've got to get beyond "Peak Oil" before we see any serious exploration for alternatives.  Also the "Cow Fart" joke you elude to is a very real problem.  Bovine emmisions account for a lot of the greenhouse gases we have today.  What you are suggesting is that we delay the inevitable.  I would guarentee that "Big Oil" will become "Big (insert next fuel source here)" as soon as it is no longer profitable to drill for oil.

[Skilless]

Originally posted by beet1e
I just did a search through the Telegraph website, and found 1300+ articles about global warming. This one made me smile...

Arctic dwellers sue US over warming

The possible destrution of these people's way of life makes you smile?  What kind of a sicko are you?

[mora]

Originally posted by beet1e
You're right, and of course the burning of any type of fuel in a vehicle combustion process is going to produce CO2. I've no idea what sort of gas mileage a vehicle burning peanut oil would get, but tell me: Is it possible to make gasoline from peanut oil, or is that going to be W's third miracle? I don't claim to have the figures you want. I'm not a scientist either. ALL I said was "I would like to see further exploration of the diesel concept, with alternative fuels - eg. the bio-diesel option." - and I think that's more constructive than trusting in W's miracles.

The only CO2 emissions from biofuels are from refining, farming and transportation, and equipment manufacturing. If you go fully biofuel the CO2 emissions might drop to 1/3. The only viable biofuel is biodiesel, which can be made out of just about anything, even from leftover MC Donalds frying oil. I've tested my car with straight rapeseed oil and it worked. The only problem is that if we want to run all our cars with biofuel we wouldn't have anything to eat.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by beet1e
Ripsnort tried to argue earlier that a more fuel efficient vehicle will still generate the same volume of greenhouse gas. This is bollocks. In Europe as in America, a typical car is offered with a choice of engines. The car I have is offered with a range of petrol engines going from 1.6 to 3.2 litres. Only the engine is different, drivetrain, and maybe some of the instruments and trim. The body shell is the same - so am I to believe that the 1.6 variant that burns half as much fuel is responsible for the same volume of greenhouse gas? I think not.

You think wrong. Depending on the situation a larger engine may prove more effecient. Simply stating a smaller engine burns half as much fuel exposes a very limited understanding of energy in general.

[mora]

Of course the engine should be suitable for the use of the vehicle. The efficiency of a gasoline engine is at it's best when it's operated close to it's maximum load. In a Diesel the situation is similar, but the "green" area is much wider.

The American way to build engines is very inefficient. You build an engine with huge displacement but it's usually operated far below it's maximum loading. The efficiency of the engine drops to around 15% in these situations. Turbocharging is a much better way to generate power in the rare situations when it's needed. This is also the idea of the hybrid cars. The engine is small but it's efficient when cruising, when you need extra power during accelerations the electric motor comes to help.

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by beet1e
Rotax - I said peanut OIL, not peanut BUTTER!

[/B]

Sorry, Freudian slip on my part.  After all these years, I still enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch.  I find they give me a high energy boost, with very little gas emission in return.

No, I am not an engineer and never was. What I find funny is that you seem quite dismissive of any sort of exploration with regard to the peanut oil possibility, and yet seem to have both feet firmly planted in the camp which is trusting W to come up with two miracles - the miracle to find a new energy source when all the oil is gone, and the miracle to solve global warming. The peanut oil/bio-diesel might alleviate the difficulties we might experience when the oil runs out, and given that some people want to see that day sooner rather than later, we might not have long to wait. You're right, and of course the burning of any type of fuel in a vehicle combustion process is going to produce CO2. I've no idea what sort of gas mileage a vehicle burning peanut oil would get, but tell me: Is it possible to make gasoline from peanut oil, or is that going to be W's third miracle? I don't claim to have the figures you want. I'm not a scientist either. ALL I said was "I would like to see further exploration of the diesel concept, with alternative fuels - eg. the bio-diesel option." - and I think that's more constructive than trusting in W's miracles.

[/b]

What I find hilarious is that I did not dismiss using biofuel in any post.  I asked two questions concerning the use of biofuel...

1)  What is the difference in CO2 emissions between biofuel vis-a-vis gasoline?
2)  What is the energy return on energy invested ratio between growing and refining biofuel, verses pumping and refining gasoline?

You never answered those questions; Mora did.  So you see, it is not biofuel that I dismiss Beetle, it is you that I dismiss.

Ripsnort tried to argue earlier that a more fuel efficient vehicle will still generate the same volume of greenhouse gas. This is bollocks. In Europe as in America, a typical car is offered with a choice of engines. The car I have is offered with a range of petrol engines going from 1.6 to 3.2 litres. Only the engine is different, drivetrain, and maybe some of the instruments and trim. The body shell is the same - so am I to believe that the 1.6 variant that burns half as much fuel is responsible for the same volume of greenhouse gas? I think not.

[/b]

I choose to drive a fuel efficient vehicle, so that some fellow worker in India or China can afford to ride their Vespa to work.  Ripsnort chooses to drive a less fuel efficient vehicle, so that he can tow his boat.  These are individual choices that are best left to individual Americans.  After all Beetle, what could be more American than freedom of choice?

Hmm Rotax, I can see why it's going to be so hard to get the US to green up. First, you have a president (Reagan) whose energy policy was governed by "what would be popular". Then there was that US politician described by Sagan who thought the answer to global warming was a pair of sunglasses. There are people here who "see no reason" to limit the burning of fossil fuels. Then there are those who think that it would be a "good thing" to burn the world's remaining oil stocks in the shortest time possible. Some think that because their car has a catalytic converter that they're "doing their part for clean air", without realising that having solved one problem (toxic emissions) another has been created (greenhouse gases). And then of course there are those who mock the entire issue - reference to cow farts etc. And a large swathe of the motoring public who think that 12mpg is "reasonable". Funny how you didn't take those folks to task, but pour cold water over the mere suggestion of exploration of alternative fuels...

[/b]

Beetle, I gave you 11,750,000,000,000 reasons why it is hard for the US to green up, and each and every one of those reasons are dependent on fossil fuel.  

Reagan's first and foremost policy was do not harm to the American economy.  If you had bothered to check out the economic mess that his predecessor left us in, you would understand why.

Beetle, you and I can both agree on one thing.  We both know that you are not a stupid man.  But I have to tell you, if you persist on not answering this one, simple, question, others on this board will begin to have their doubts.

The United States is burning twenty-five percent of the worlds annual fossil fuel production.  We convert the burnt fuel into $11,750,000,000,000 worth of wealth.  HOW MUCH IN THE NAME OF SAVING THE PLANET DO YOU WANT TO REDUCE THAT WEALTH?

Ho-hum, there's only one thing to say - Toodle Pip!

Adios


-Rotax447

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Vulcan
You think wrong. Depending on the situation a larger engine may prove more effecient. Simply stating a smaller engine burns half as much fuel exposes a very limited understanding of energy in general.

No, I was speaking from experience. My last car was a VW Golf, as were the two before that. The first two each had a 2.8i V6 petrol engine. My average fuel consumption for those was around 27mpg overall. The last one had a 1.9 TDi engine and was an excellent allround performer.  It averaged close to 48mpg in the time I had it. I think mora is right in what he says. The TDi engine is more efficient over a wider range of uses. Any doubts I had were allayed during the test drive. Even tootling around town I'd still get ~40mpg; In the V6, that would drop to less than 20. My current car is an Audi A3. I still have the link to the online spec. Check out the following table for the level of CO2 content emitted by all models in the range. You'll see that CO2 output is in direct proportion to engine size. http://www.audi.co.uk/newcars/range.jsp?section=/models/a3/a3

Rotax, Well I'm sorry you had to dismiss me! But let me remind you - this thread does not exist to discuss the viability of bio diesel/peanut oil/whatever. In a previous post you seized on a one line suggestion I made - that other forms of energy should be explored, and merely mentioned as an example that Rudolph Diesel himself had tried peanut oil in one his early engine, now more than 100 years ago.  

1) What is the difference in CO2 emissions between biofuel vis-a-vis gasoline?
2) What is the energy return on energy invested ratio between growing and refining biofuel, verses pumping and refining gasoline?

I think these questions are deliberately fatuous. How the hell would I know? And before you leap to the "ahhh we've got Beet, he doesn't know and therefore we can dismiss biodiesel as an alternative" stance, let me remind you once again that I simply said I'd like to see other energy alternatives explored. The answers to your questions would emerge from that exploration. Biodiesel is not the subject of this thread, but an aside. This thread is about two related issues: 1)Depletion of known oil reserves faster than new ones can be discovered; 2) The harm done to the earth by greenhouse gases. The frivolous waste of road fuel in gas guzzling vehicles exacerbates BOTH of these problems.

Ripsnort chooses to drive a less fuel efficient vehicle, so that he can tow his boat. These are individual choices that are best left to individual Americans. After all Beetle, what could be more American than freedom of choice?

Fine. I am free to make the same choices myself. But as I was able to prove earlier, it is not necessary to drive a "less fuel efficient vehicle" in order to be able to tow a boat. As I said earlier, my uncle's boat was much bigger than Rip's - 30ft against 21ft - and he just used an ordinary European car to tow it, not a land rover or some V8 monster truck. I myself have towed a 30ft glider trailer behind a car with a 1.8 litre engine - no problem at all. Also (for Lazs) guys with cars exactly like mine towed gliders up to the Long Mynd - quite a hilly region. The road to the top is about 1-in-6. There seems to be a myth amongst some Americans that a V8 monster truck is necessary to tow anything bigger than a two wheel trailer, myth being the operative word.

Beetle, I gave you 11,750,000,000,000 reasons why it is hard for the US to green up, and each and every one of those reasons are dependent on fossil fuel.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how switching to driving more fuel efficient cars would hurt the economy. The second third and fourth largest economies in the world are Japan, Germany and the UK, and none of those countries has ever needed a nationwide fleet of gas guzzlers to achieve its wealth.

Hard for the US to green up? Maybe, but as you pressed me on the biodiesel option, allow me to press you on the green up issue. This thread is not a debate about whether global warming exists - we both know it does, and that's why last week's conference in Montreal was held. But what are your suggestions on how to deal with it? Are you just going to stick your head in the sand and hope the problem will go away? Are you trusting in W's miracle technology? You're a forward looking guy - you're anxious that your children/grandchildren will have a secure future and jobs. But at the rate things are going, they won't even have a planet if we don't stop forking it up with greenhouse gases the way we are now.

I ask again - if the US is not prepared to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, then how are we to avoid the ecological catastrophe that awaits the children being born in this century?

Rotax, you and I can both agree on one thing. We both know that you are not a stupid man. But I have to tell you, if you persist on not answering this one, simple, question, others on this board will begin to have their doubts.