Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Angus on August 08, 2007, 08:05:09 AM
-
I promised this.
I am reading up on alternative sources of energies than fossil fuels. So, the thought is to try to stall the increased CO2 with some alternatives.
E85 might be a part.
Hydrogen from various sourced power plants might also.
And since it's all the cow's fault anyway, here's what you do:
(Got to stick to my name in a positive way :D)
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/erlent/frett.html?nid=1284323
So remain civil, and on topic, will you...
-
I dont think ethanol is the way to go.......
Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’
David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.
Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".
link (http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm)
-
A reminder, Hydrogen is an energy STORAGE device, not an energy PRODUCING device. So's petroleum, of course, but the energy stored in oil was put there millions of years ago instead of right now for Hydrogen. So you still need a power source that can crack water and compress the hydrogen, and that's a net negative energy operation.
Nuclear power is currently the answer. Pebble bed reactors make safe & cheap generators possible, and even the founder of Greenpeace has made peace w/ how clean nuclear is compared to what we're using now.
On the last mile part of the problem, I think ethanol is going to be a stop-gap measure, but the longer term liquid fuel needs is going to be stuff that runs in diesel engines. A diesel is much more fuel agnostic than any gas engine. A diesel-hybrid could run on just about anything potentially, and easier than a normal diesel because you wouldn't have the 'cold fuel' issues that diesels running vegetable oil have right now (presumably, if you have big honkin batteries for your hybrid, you can spare a couple amps in the beginning to warm up the fuel until the engine is at operating temperature).
-
Corn ethanol is one of the worst. They like to lump it in with the other ethanols like sugar ethanol with is much cheaper to produce and better burning. However corn ethanol is nothing more than a sham being pushed by the powers that be.
As far a bio diesel's..yea I agree they will likely have to switch big trucks and so on over to that in the future. One of my uncles has a bunch of property here in Florida. I'm talking several thousand acres.
He has a bunch of fish farms and does a lot of work with the university of Florida. I haven't talked to him in a long time, but I heard he's in some testing program that is using algae to produce a type of biodiesel. (Algae Oil)
You can research the technology here http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Biodiesel_from_Algae_Oil
I'm not on the up and up on it, but it seems to be one of the best solutions I've seen to date, for the amount of product that can be produced per acre of ground.
You will notice also corn is the worst of all the natural grown fuel sources, according to the charts on that page.. yet it's what our govt is trying to push. (gotta love big money lobbyists) Yet I've never seen any of them mention Algae Oil and it seem to be the best of the bunch from what I've read.
-
there are much better crops than corn to make ethanol from, but i'm too lazy to look them up.
-
The reason corn is mentioned so much is because... it grows here... unlike sugar beets and sugar cane... do we want to be dependent on brazil and cuba instead of arabs?
I do think it is quite amusing tho that the greenies who have stopped all the building of nuke plants are now being hoisted on their own petard.
lazs
-
If we as a nation decided to be energy independent in 10 years, made it a national goal in the same vein as Kennedy's reach for the Moon, it could be done.
First would be a goal to make 80% of our commercial and residential power come from nuclear power. The pebble-bed high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) is the logical vehicle, as it is inherantly safe (the laws of physics make it literally impossible for the reactor to melt down), scalable, and offers the unique feature that the spent nuclear fuel is impossible to weaponize (making it an excellent means to dispose of old nuclear weapons as well). A concerted and apolitical effort would be required to streamline the nuclear regulatory process to get this leg of the plan on-tap, but it is emminantly do-able. The technology is relatively mature.
Second, quit pushing corn ethonal, instead pushing for hydrogen powered cars, as well as more efficient sources of diesel substitutes, such as algea-oil. This would require government leadership and incentives to encourage states to build the infrastructure, and for the automotive industry to accelerate their efforts to produce H-powered cars.
Third, revamp environmental laws to allow the US to more easily access the vast reserves of clean coal, oil, and natural gas we're currently ignoring, such as ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico, and off the east and west coasts of the US. These would be time-limited access agreements, lest the oil companies get too comfortable with the arrangements.
-
Originally posted by FBBone
I dont think ethanol is the way to go.......
link (http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm)
Ahhhh, the Pimental report.
Here, from Wiki:
"Skeptics caution, however, that these potential benefits are balanced, and possibly offset, by a significant cost in the form of farmland. It has been estimated that the land area required to operate a motor vehicle for one year on pure ethanol, 11 acres, could feed 7 people over the same timeframe.[2] The logical consequences of these competing land uses are that widespread use of ethanol would lower food production from existing agricultural land, potentially inflating food prices due to less supply. Alternatively, the agricultural industry could maintain existing levels of food production and create more farmland — through deforestation — upon which to grow crops for energy production. Ironically, this could lead to the acceleration of the greenhouse effect as well as the loss of biodiversity.
It should be pointed out though, that many of these concerns are derived from studies by a single author (Pimentel) which have been rebutted by several reports.[3][4] Pimentel's argument, for example, is based on long-outdated technology, understates the energy costs of refining and transporting petroleum fuels, and neglects to account for the energy value of the byproducts of the ethanol production process, including that of the high protein cattle feed."
Pimentel's stuff is in short....rubbish.
BTW, I know a farm who's main output is liquor. They however feed dozens of cattle from the rests, since it's high quality protein feed. If you leave such major things out of the equations, youre not worth your salt.
Have fun with the article reading, and especially the part of E85 being used in race engines :D
linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85
-
so angus.. if the one study done on corn to ethenol is flawed... show us some info that it golden.
I think that a lot of mexicans right now might argue that ethanol production is indeed harmful to food production.
In brazil... the whole country has had to turn to nothing but sugar production for ethanol.
Nope.. we need nukes and we need more supplemntal solar panels on homes to take the load off the grid.
With the increase of solar for home use and the nuke plants there is no reason that we couldn't have electric for almost nothing.
Once you have abundant and almost free power... whole worlds open up that we can only imagine.
If I could charge one for free... I might build an electric two seater that did o-60 in 4 sec with a range of only 60 or so miles.. fun to run errands with.
hydrogen would become practical (or more so) with free power generation.
oil demand would drop.
The key is cheap electricity. The key to that right now is nukes... and domestic solar. Solar for each house to take the load off the grid.
right now.. a solar system for a home costs about $30,000 and cuts dependency on outside agencies to about 10% or less of what it would normally cost. This price will continue to go down.
That doesn't take a computer model to see.. not in 100 years either.. in 20 or less it will be half as much money. No global climate model puts this in.
You will be able to buy systems that make you free of power companies at your local home depot for a few thousand dollars soon enough.. a decade... maybe two...
plugging in an electric vehicle will become an attractive proposition.
lazs
-
Some error here:
"In brazil... the whole country has had to turn to nothing but sugar production for ethanol."
Brazil=Coffee.
"https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html#Econ"
And from Wiki:
"The country produces a total of 18 billion liters annually, of which 3.5 billion are exported"
More:
"Coffee, soybeans, wheat, rice, corn, sugarcane, cocoa, citrus, beef"
Main agricultural products. And they ain't starving....
As for nukes...it's mostly Uranium.
It's not endless...says Wiki:
"The ultimate supply of uranium is believed to be very large and sufficient for at least the next 85 years[32] although some studies indicate underinvestment in the late twentieth century may produce supply problems in the 21st century.[39] It is estimated that for a ten times increase in price, the supply of uranium that can be economically mined is increased 300 times"
And the sun? Producing Ethanol is one way of harnessing the suns energy, - through photosynthesis. But as you say:
"With the increase of solar for home use and the nuke plants there is no reason that we couldn't have electric for almost nothing.
Once you have abundant and almost free power... whole worlds open up that we can only imagine."
Well, basically your roof on a private home would support the energy needs for your home. Anyway, here I agree with you on a good purpose.
And a whole world opens up. Personally I think it's not that simple many things need to contribute. Panels. Windpower. Bio-fuels. Deep drilling. etc etc.
So let's roll up the sleeves and do some calculations and try to dig up some numbers, the thread was aimed at that and not for debating.
Solar panel output pr. sq?
Wind power? I have incredibly misleading numbers there, and always wanted to use an alternator (from tractor) as a testbed. Thoughts? Numbers?
-
http://www.electricvehiclesusa.com/ some of the Warp series motors .
We have heard of uses of this motor, developing over 2,000 hp
read somewhere some guys drag race electrics.
http://store.solar-electric.com/
http://store.solar-electric.com/wind.html hmm where'd did I see the other one. oh yeah
http://www.windstreampower.com/Wind_Whisper_500.php nice amount of watts output.
-
Like I said.. stop reading wiki... brazil had converted most of its agriculture to growing sugar to make ethanol... they live in a place that this is practical. It is not so for places that can't grow sugar crops as easily as say... corn.
I don't have the numbers for power per square foot for solar but the systems that anyone here can buy right now... can bring your power bill down to $0 yep... zero zip nada.
They cost about $30,000 and have ten year warranties. There are 10's of thousands of them up and running.
The price will go down every year.
This is a practical application... for the domestic grid.. for laterals not mains. point of source use. It gets much murkier when you try to build solar generating plants for entire cities.
But who cares? the real problem is electricity for homes on the grid. factories and such can be supplied from close by nuke plants. The grid is the problem and the solution is looking us in the face.. it is inevitable.
It will happen.. just as you couldn't prevent everyone from having a home computer and the internet or cell phones... everyone will have cheap power from solar panels on every building... we will simply take it for granted in a few decades.
lazs
-
lazs is right about the sugar in Brazil actually.
Heck...my clients who grow cane for sugar production are now taking a serious look at ethanol also.
-
Yes but beets are grown all over this country. We are also one of the largest producers of sugar in the world.
-
Anyone who has been to the South, read that Louisiana and surrounding areas, knows that both sugar beets and sugar cane grow "here".
The use of corn for ethanol has, in it's infancy already had a negative impact on the economy of this country and Mexico. The price for corn has gone up causing a shortage in Mexico for human food purposes and is directly responsible for the price increases in all food products related to corn in the US. Have you priced the cost of a gallon of milk in the last few months vs last winter? The same for the price of corn oil, corn meal and even beef since corn is used as feed and the very corn used for feed is the same as used for ethanol.
IIRC it wasn't the govt that started pushing ethanol, it was the "greens" as a viable energy alternative. It is short sighted and at best a stop gap alternative for petro fuel in transportation alone and will never be able to carry the transportation load that petroleum does now.
That also applies to bio diesel. Where do you thing that the bio mass comes from? One large source is corn oil in the form of cooking oil. Now we have 2 competing oil alternatives all vying for the same agricultural product, corn. There isn't enough farm land in the US to produce Independence from petroleum using agricultural products and that includes farm residue. Several industrial applications already use non food farm / agricultural residue to power machinery as part of their recycling. Once competition starts in the use of the same material it will cause a corresponding increase in the price of goods and production of them. It also takes energy to produce fuel from the biomass.
Anyone who thinks that it's possible to produce food at the current prices and also produce biomass in adequate amounts to replace petro fuel in addition to the infrastructure needed to provide it has never taken an economics class. It's the old beans vs bullets example from econ 101 with the limitations on the economy and methods of production of both.
We need a viable alternative that will produce usable fuel without crippling other parts of the economy or reducing the supply of food. That is assuming we are going to remain using the same kind of transportation engines we have today. A new means of powering transportation would reduce the need for petroleum dramatically in a matter of 10 to 15 years. It will take time as the current means of transportation will not be replaced overnight. The infrastructure for a transition does not exist and the choices currently in use will need to be used until it does. It will also require the use of current technology until wear out to avoid a crippling stop of credit / money in the economy. Imagine being told you must turn in your current car / truck / motorcycle for a govt. stipend of pennies on the dollar (if that much) and buy a replacement "green" vehicle at full cost.
-
Alternative energy is nice to read about but untill we run out of cheap fossil fuels all these 'other' energy sorces are really just a pipe dream.
-
Ethanol cant be stored long term... All the ethanol craze has done is to raise the price of corn and everything made with corn.
The damned traitorous speculators on wall street would corner the market on blood if they could sell it.
We need a "Moon shot" type program to build MANY nuclear reactors, drill domestic sources for oil, including the Alaskan reserves, offshore of florida (China is drilling the area at the behest of cuba) Oklahoma and Cali.
I think we should all be more mindful of waste... I mean if no-one is watching the TV, turn it off, If you can, plan shopping trips, etc to eliminate trips later. Insulate, Shut all blinds and curtains in the summer to make the cooling more efficient. I learned these lessons a few years ago when I had a few months without work and had to stretch every penny to survive, literally.
-
Too bad the SCORE engine didn't hit the development threshold needed before being sold off, a diesel-capable Wankel engine would be pretty handy for the small engine market, maybe good for hybrids.
-
Ethanol can be stored longer than both or fossil fuels or nukes will last :D
Anyway, just asking, - Kcal pr. liter of gasoline?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ahhhh, the Pimental report.
Here, from Wiki:
"Skeptics caution, however, that these potential benefits are balanced, and possibly offset, by a significant cost in the form of farmland. It has been estimated that the land area required to operate a motor vehicle for one year on pure ethanol, 11 acres, could feed 7 people over the same timeframe.[2] The logical consequences of these competing land uses are that widespread use of ethanol would lower food production from existing agricultural land, potentially inflating food prices due to less supply. Alternatively, the agricultural industry could maintain existing levels of food production and create more farmland — through deforestation — upon which to grow crops for energy production. Ironically, this could lead to the acceleration of the greenhouse effect as well as the loss of biodiversity.
It should be pointed out though, that many of these concerns are derived from studies by a single author (Pimentel) which have been rebutted by several reports.[3][4] Pimentel's argument, for example, is based on long-outdated technology, understates the energy costs of refining and transporting petroleum fuels, and neglects to account for the energy value of the byproducts of the ethanol production process, including that of the high protein cattle feed."
Pimentel's stuff is in short....rubbish.
BTW, I know a farm who's main output is liquor. They however feed dozens of cattle from the rests, since it's high quality protein feed. If you leave such major things out of the equations, youre not worth your salt.
Have fun with the article reading, and especially the part of E85 being used in race engines :D
linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85
Hold the phones, I give you a World renowned Cornell University Scientist, and you give me wiki? Plus you seemed to overlook the efficiency (or lack thereof) of ethanol. Anyone who's ever been to the drag strip knows the potential of alcohol to produce power, the only thing is you need LOTS of it to do so.
This from The University of Arkansas.........
The data indicated that E-85 has more horsepower generating potential than 87 octane unleaded
gasoline, but has a higher consumption rate. On November 2, 2004 the price of E-85 was $1.81
and the price of 87 octane unleaded gasoline was $1.88 at the Petro Plus Station in Garnett,
Kansas. At these fuel prices the cost to produce one horsepower per hour with E-85 is $0.31 and
is $0.15with 87 octane unleaded gasoline. Thus, 87 octane unleaded gasoline is more efficient in
small gas engines. For E-85 to be more efficient the price per gallon of E-85 would have to be
nearly 50 percent of the price per gallon of unleaded gasoline. Future plans include running
engines for extended periods of time then disassembling the engines and measuring the internal
parts to compare them for any differences in wear. This project will serve as a model for future
undergraduate research.
LINK (http://aaae.okstate.edu/proceedings/2005/Articles/556.pdf)
Even if initial production costs are lower, the overall cost is higher given its lower output/lb, making ethanol a bad choice.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
All the ethanol craze has done is to raise the price of corn and everything made with corn.
If this is going to raise the price of Elijah Craig, I say **** the planet.
http://www.internetwines.com/mh201194.html
-Sik
-
Sooner or later, it WILL. Look at the price of corn products in the grocery stores now. If you have kids you already know that cereals, milk (because cows eat corn) have already been hit by corn now being traded as an energy commodity.
-
Does the govt still pay farmers NOT to grow corn? (I realize it HAS been necessary at various points in the past, but no govt program EVER goes away)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Does the govt still pay farmers NOT to grow corn? (I realize it HAS been necessary at various points in the past, but no govt program EVER goes away)
I'm not sure it HAS been necessary. Price controls suck, centralized control is communistic, and the market has historically been better at self regulating than the ham-fisted machinations of economists.
-
Oh, we can grow sugar here.. I have seen it done and it is done but... it is not an optimal crop... we don't get the yield that say a cuba or a brazil gets.
I am all for adding 5% alcohol to our fuel if it doesn't deplete food crops and it doesn't cost more.
lazs
-
Ethanol and biodiesel, without biomass and algae respectively, are limited.
According to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook report for 2006, biofuels are projected to provide 4 percent or 7 percent of global road-fuel demand by 2030 depending upon two analyzed scenarios. In both scenarios, the United States, the European Union and Brazil account for the bulk of the increase and remain the leading producers and consumers of biofuels. Ethanol is expected to account for most of the increase in biofuels use worldwide, as production costs are expected to fall faster than those of biodiesel. The share of biofuels in transport-fuel use remains far and away the highest in Brazil -- the world’s lowest-cost producer of ethanol.
According to the report, a primary limiter is the fuel or food usage About 35 million acres of land are now used for the production of biofuels, equal to about 1 percent of the world’s currently available arable land. This share rises to 2 percent in the Reference Scenario and 3.5 percent in the Alternative Policy Scenario. The amount of arable land needed in 2030 is equal to more than that of France and Spain in the Reference Scenario and that of all the OECD Pacific countries -- including Australia -- in the Alternative Policy Scenario.
[edit my addition]Neither of these scenarios take into account potential breakthrough technologies such as cellulosic ethanol or the production of biodiesel from algae, which could generate 5,000 US gallons per acre compared to 48 gallons with soy; 127 gallons with rapeseed (canola); and 635 gallons with palm oil.[end my addition]
Crude oil is expected to undergo a moderate easing in adjusted prices during this time relative to today, barring any major geopolitical disruptions.
These are realities. 4 percent or 7 percent is neat, but not a solution. And, biofuels are still not cost competitive and this is not a market driven solution.
In the US, its either limited E85 or national E10 - not both. maximum agricultural capacity is about 15 billion gallons per year. That's coming straight from the mouth (literally, over the phone) of several major ethanol producers and ethanol associations. The biodiesel folk are shooting for 5 percent on road displacement by 2015.
The only viable solution is a real alternative to the internal combustion engine and /or a huge sociality shift in fuel consumption patters. This is for a reduction in emissions. For no reduction in emissions, we still have a ranges of alternative petroleum options that are viable when crude is over $40 a bbl. But as the report I quoted above notes (in other areas) there is certainly no guarantee of that regardless of the past few years.
Charon
-
DUPE POST
-
Well the problem is, I don't think we will ever be able to replace fossil fuels with the one "magic bullet" fuel.
The reason gas/diesel are the dominat fuels are because they work so well. There has always been alternatives, but nothing with the same usability as gas/diesel.
The only one fuel I could see taking the place, is hydrogen but it has it's own problems and seems for what ever reason no one wants to really push it.
Natural gas is a great fuel source and can be burned in a normal car engine with modifcations. However we just can't get enough to supply the world.
Same with electric cars.. It's great for around town, but will never replace the gas engine. Then add to the fact to get the full benifit you would need solor power plants otherwise you aren't doing much to help the consumption problems.
So it comes down to the point, that people are going to have to make a drastic change in the way they live. Simply because we will likely no longer have our cake and be able to eat it too.
-
Two words: Oil Shale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale)
The technology to extract it is there, it requires a significant investment to make happen. The largest deposits are here in the USA. Trillions.
Just imagine
-
This is interesting out of Germany.
http://biopact.com/2007/05/green-designer-coal-more-on.html
They are creating man made coal and or petroleum.
-
FPBone: Pimental OMITTED the entire restpoduct.
Or as Wiki puts it:
"Pimentel's argument, for example, is based on long-outdated technology, understates the energy costs of refining and transporting petroleum fuels, and neglects to account for the energy value of the byproducts of the ethanol production process, including that of the high protein cattle feed"
And that is both minerals and protein, which is of high value.
The restproduct from extracting ethanol from various herbs can be used STRAIGHT for high quality animal feed.
The rests from barley, for instance, and the straw can be burned STRAIGHT for heating. Or used in compost.
An error like that is way to big to omit. The guy is not worth his salt, and in this case I speak from agricultural experience and education, - don't need Wiki to explain it to me. I have these figures in my hands every day.
-
Originally posted by bustr
This is interesting out of Germany.
http://biopact.com/2007/05/green-designer-coal-more-on.html
They are creating man made coal and or petroleum.
Man, that's something :aok
-
FPBone: Pimental OMITTED the entire restpoduct.
Or as Wiki puts it:
"Pimentel's argument, for example, is based on long-outdated technology, understates the energy costs of refining and transporting petroleum fuels, and neglects to account for the energy value of the byproducts of the ethanol production process, including that of the high protein cattle feed"
In a best case scenario -- assuming critics are correct -- you are only talking about an energy balance shifting from the negative 0.75 unit of energy produced per unit used in production to about 1.3 per units of "positive" energy produced. Petroleum generates about 5 units of energy for each unit used in production. Biodiesel is actually about the same, though they have a "spin" equation that knocks the petroleum number down based on crude not being renewable. True, but only important really when you start running out of petroleum. And even then, you have the limitations of conventional agriculture that cannot offer anything even remotely close to a 1 to 1 replacement option. And currently, neither biofuel can exist in the free market without government support. Feedstock and transportation issues add too much cost, though that could ease with more volume and infrastructure -- to a point.
The fact remains, that the biggest front line supporters of biofuels acknowledge that without major breakthroughs in cellulosic biomass ethanol or algae for biodiesel, were limited to a single digit replacement of liquid fuel demand. Should those breakthrough occur, it would likely take at least a decade to start seeing real production ramping up.
Charon
-
well... there is a way we can increase our crop yields.. we can add co2. with luck... the current warming trend will continue also and we will have longer growing seasons... I don't hold out much hope for that tho since solar activity is down and we should see a global cooling soon.
Fact is.. once you burn through all the doom and gloom and alarmist scenarios.. there is lots of good news out there for humans... electricity will become cheap to almost free for most of us... in a few years.. a couple of solar panels will give us an "all you can eat" electric bill that will be about 10% of what it is now. Just like internet service.
oil shale.. nukes.. improved home solar and wind and synthetic coal from garbage... ethanol for higher octane for our hot rods... free electric cars to get to walmart in... hydrogen..
It's not the end of the world by any means.
lazs
-
Boils down to the price, and the price boils down to---taxes.
Where I live, the gas (petroleum) is almost 2$ per LITER.
Unfortunately I can't grow rape for the seed (too cold), and I don't have a distillery of proper size, but if I did it would pay off.
Out of one ha. of barley I would get some...errrr....(1650*3000)/4100 litres, - that makes 1.207. Litres of fuel (old brewer's rule is one litre per kg of sugar, just remembered that, - the litre being 80%, and 1650 is the kcal pr kg barley vs the 4100 (or was it 4300) kcal pr kg of sugar)
Had I the distillery, I could run the whole farm, all private use, all energy input costs etc on some 10-20 ha. I still have the excess food from the barley, and ca. 10 pr ha bales of straw.
And the crops here are a joke compared to EU or the US, and it's being claimed theirs is a joke compared to S-America.
BTW, the farm is then used up to 5%. Some years back, the EU was paying substities to up to 10% of farmland for NOT being used. Mad isn't it!
-
so angus... you are saying that.. as a farmer.. with the land.. you can't make it work for you econmicaly even tho you are being taxed into the dirt by your government on your current fuel source?
And yet..... you suggest that we somehow provide you with ethanol for cheap?
lazs
-
I could actually make it work, if I afforded the investment, and fighting interest rates is also a concern.
We are actually taxed into the dirt through fuel, becase it's a "directed" tax.
It goes for building roads. Few soals+long distances=a lot of road per soal.
However the prices are high as well in Europe. Not much lower, if at all.
The USA is the western world country with a different policy, and if you compare the prices, it normally was a gallon in the USA=1 litre in EU...roughly.
There is different taxing on agricultural fuel, so it's blue, and cheaper. That would make the competition tougher, and as well, - those diesels don't run on ethanol.
I grow green with envy on the climate just in sweden/denmark, for they strive for the magic goal of 3000 kg's of rapeseed per ha,- plus a lot of sideproduct /biomass). Here the season is too short for that.
From that you just need a basically simple mechanism to squash the oil out. The restproduct is animal feed. Or rather the main product. I need more numbers there (litres pr ha), but you can use the crude product straight on a diesel engine. Better if you mix it a bit, especially in cold times though. I'll look.
-
Ahh, found one link. But not enough:
http://www.cyberlipid.org/glycer/biodiesel.htm
-
Out of memory, and I belive I have mentioned it before, that rapeseed oil can be used directly, and the magical crops number was 3 tonnes pr. ha of seed. My memory said that something like a ton of oil would come out of there. That leaves you with 2 tonnes of high quality food, and a whole heap of biomass as well, since rape grows several feet high.
Well, finally found it:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html#ascend
Almost 1.200 litres pr. ha. not bad, for the quality is very close to diesel.
Farmers in Sweden are beginning using this straight.
-
Very interesting website. I have to repeat my question for Lazs, what would happen to the oil companies if growing energy would cut a 5% slab of their cake every year for 10 years.....
:noid
-
Any fuel that needs farmland will never take over as it does not make any sense except for those that wants to feel better about what they put in their tank
-
There's a new Hydrogen mfg. method just found in Japan, based on wood cellulose. I don't have the link atm, but could dig it up if anyone is curious about the details. The H output is pretty clean.
-
We grow lots of uneccecary stuff on farmland. Tobacco :D
And feeding humans needs less farmland if we eat less...meat.
We destroy a lot of farmland in the wild race of making things cheaper than they really are, - coffe and beef for instance.
We do not use all farmland. The EU has been paying substities for farmland not being used because of overproduction of food in that area.
We have arable land that we are not even looking at because of short term costs.
We also have lots of land that is not being used particularly because of location, politics etc.
Us earthlings, yes
-
angus...I am not sure what your question is about. You asked what would happen to oil companies if they lost half their market share in 10 years.
How can I answer that question? why would they lose half their share? plastic and all sorts of things need oil and will for quite some time but... say they did..
If they were smart they would simply take their money and put it into something else.
I don't really care. I don't care what happens to the oil companies other than if they are really stupid and cause problems in the stock market and the economy. I can't imagine that they wouldn't just invest in something else.
lazs
-
Half their market shares in all fuel powering agriculture, cities powerplants, and industires alike, as well as the local gas-station.
Not plastics.
-
Still not sure I understand the question... Are you saying that they wouldn't be able to find something else to do with that money that would return em 9%?
lazs
-
Their cake starts at 100%. So, imagine next year 5%off, that leaves 95%, etc for 10 years. how do youo think their economy would be?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, imagine next
Angus is shooting for scientist status. :)
So was Lennon
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
-
The oil companies only stand to lose about 2-5 percent of the petroleum volume by 2030-2050 to biofuels according to estimates from both the biofuels industry and the oil industry. Should cellulosic ethanol or algae biodiesel come through, they will no doubt be major players in that technology, especially given their current development efforts in those areas.
Charon
-
You see if we do build cars that rely on a farm-produced item like corn, then the pollution we produce will cause more global warming...which will ruin crops and reduce our fuel output. ;)
To quote Jurassic Park: God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs... Dinosaurs eat man. Woman inherits the earth...
:D
-
angus.. I am sure the oil companies can find new and profitable things to invest in 100 years from now.
I don't think they are too worried about any alternative fuel.
do you think they quashed a 200 mpg fuel system for cars too?
lazs
-
Electrical powered cars are much more efficient and reliable than H powered ones. With the Li-Po batteries, a 50 kg battery holds around the same energy than 50 kg of diesel fuel. A range of ~100 miles is more than 80% of the trips we make. The downside of course is the time needed to perform a full recharge. However, the electricity distribution system already exists and recharge stations could quickly be installed in a lot of place: at home (obviously) but also where you're working and in parkings. The investments to adapt infrastructure are limited.
For longer trips, the japanese are working on a 2nd gen hybrid: big battery and electrical engine, small but efficient diesel engine that reloads the battery when needed (like a diesel-electric submarine). The goal is to use almost exclusively the electrical propulsion and to recharge the battery on charging station.
The diesel engine could run on biofuel of course.
As a bonus, electrical engines have a high torque and are very reliable and need very few maintenance
Fuel-cell (powered) cars are less interesting: less efficient (especially when outside temp is low), much less reliable, they need a lot of maintenance and, most of all, they need H stations ALL OVER the country to be usable everywhere. The insvestments are huge but of course the oil industry is lobbying to adopt this solution as they could fit in the niche (with the electrical power, they are completely left out).
Finally, fusion power could be the next step after nuclear fission: the technology is already mature enough to produce energy when using He3 as fuel. the problem is that there is almost no He3 on earth. He3 is expelled by the sun but is blocked by the Earth atmosphere or magnetosphere (I don't recall which one). However, the lunar missions have showed that the rocks brought back from the surface of the Moon are relatively rich with He3.
This is so promising that apparently Nasa but also the russian and chinese agencies are boosting their programs to send the man back on the Moon.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
With the Li-Po batteries, a 50 kg battery holds around the same energy than 50 kg of diesel fuel.
I call shenanigans. Can you provide a citation?
-
none of that can be true because the government did not make it happen.
lazs
-
Semi-OT:
Space oil (http://www.neofuel.com/), more than the Earth can consume, in an asteroid belt near you... If nothing else, it soothes the dread of running out of fuel for our gasoline hotrods :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I call shenanigans. Can you provide a citation?
Oopsie... you're right. I remember having read that in a RC helicopter manual and I swallowed it hook, line and sinker without checking.
Li-Po battery has an energy/weight of 300 Wh/kg (source) (http://www.answers.com/topic/lithium-polymer?cat=technology)
Gasoline has an energy/weight of... 13,200 Wh/kg (source) (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ArthurGolnik.shtml)
To be honest, it must be pointed out that an electrical engine is much more efficient than a combustion engine (wasting a lot of E as heat), and usually lighter. Regenerative braking is another plus for the electrical vehicle.
An interesting read (http://www.answers.com/topic/battery-electric-vehicle)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus.. I am sure the oil companies can find new and profitable things to invest in 100 years from now.
I don't think they are too worried about any alternative fuel.
do you think they quashed a 200 mpg fuel system for cars too?
lazs
Was that the answer?
If I was them, and thinking in short term, I would say that an alternitive farm-grown fuel, expanding, getting reputation, eating up markets like firstly domestic markets (farmers growing for themselves), then expanding into things like powerplants, heavy transport, and finally entering the dome of the home-car owner.....would be a thing to worry about. I think seriously. In short terms meaning, which is the way that drives short term profit. It's like thinking that maybe your children will live, - who cares about great-grand children?
I think that the Europeans are way ahead there, since they tax fossil fuels. Swap the numbers a bit, and suddenly bio-fuel is quite cheap.
I think that particially the oil companies global-warming propoganda comes from this "threat"
I think that there is an absolute possibility for stable energy, i.e. us humans using energy without having to add anything to to the atmosphere.
I think that the possibility of massive and increasing bio fuel production is real.
What would that do to some of the biggest dealers today?
-
angus... so your solution is to tax cheap fuel so much (and give the money to government) that it suddenly becomes attractive to use a fuel that is not as efficient or cheap?
Your solution is to put a burden of thousands of dollars a year on each and every one of us to solve a problem that will eventually solve itself anyway?
How long has this advanced civilization "yur-0-up" been taxing its citizens into oblivion on cheap oil and what has it gotten them in return?
seems that they have been taxing oil to the point it is almost prohibitive to use for many many decades... generations have paid their artificial price...
And what has it got em? a bigger gas bill for everyone.. people forced to drive cars that are not what they want in order to simply keep their head above water....
Now you say that we should join em? for how many decades/generations?
I say that we are doing the right thing... as oil gets more expensive.. alternatives will become more attractive. shale/coal/biofuels...
Why paint such a gloomy and desperate picture? are you just an pessimistic person?
lazs
-
Lazs: I carry the burden of Diesel above 1$ pr LITER as well as gas for some...1.8? (being domestic and driving tractors mostly I usually just ride the bicycle for keeping fit while shopping). Anyway, the "BuURDEN" does not bend me, nor should it bend anybody....but a sissy :D
Efficient or cheap, - that is a matter of time. WE KNOW that we will run out of fossil fuel anyway. Tic-Tac, the clock is going. There are two parameters though.
1. When we run out of fossil fuels, so that anything bio is suddenly cheaper.
2. When the crap has hit the fan, and Global warming has an acceleration on it's own that makes co2's output look like a joke.
Either way, in a short term profit cruise, all agricultural grown fuel is bad news for the same hand that pays "Göbbels" to try to maintain the same business...for a while.
So, - which camp are you?
-
The most recent examples of large scale industrialized central planning are less than inspiring, Angus. The Soviet Union was based on the model you propose, where the government's power is used as a club to beat people into doing something ideological. The 5 year plans of China are the same way.
Taxing fuels to force industry to change makes a big undampened feedback loop, and the natural state of a feedback loop is a device that shakes itself apart.
-
angus.. well... first of all.... you have to believe a lot of pretty pessimistic things like...
We are gonna run out of oil and it will be very soon... so soon that no alternative way of generating power or of powering our cars will be invented/get cheaper.
you have to believe that the environmentalist whack jobs are not pulling another of their typical cons on us.
You have to believe that big oil will wither and die if they don't sell oil... that their power and money will evaporate and that they won't control whatever alternative comes down the pike.
You have to believe that we are doomed unless big government takes us all by the hand and saves us.... that only environmentalists running government can save us... even tho.. it was environmentalists who lead big government by the hand that got us into this mess in the first place with their bans on nukes and new refineries and oil exploration and off shore drilling.
You have to believe that hippies on 20 acre farms will be powering our zero emissions cars and not giant agribusiness which will be bought out by oil companies... the refineries will be bathtub stills and not huge facilities owned by BP or chevron.
lastly... I like not having energy taxed... it shouldn't be... it lowers peoples standard of living... there is no need to do it other than to make government bigger which I think is a negative.
sooo.. the "burden" is twofold... you lose income you could be using for yourself and others and... you grow government to make your life more restricted and less free.
Why would I do that to myself? why would I wish such a thing on myself or my fellows?
lazs