Posted by Paul on August 6, 2005, 9:36 pm
According to this on the DOE pages, biomass can be converted to fuel.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/thermochemical_platform.html
> JoeSixPack wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know all the details. But rice straw in California is just burned
>>> and causes lots of pollution. I read that there is only so much that
>>> they
>>> can plow back in.
>>
>> It's not something that's produced on an ongoing basis, just once a year.
>> The straw can carry leaf diseases and weeds over to the next crop, and
>> the
>> straw is very resilient to breaking down in the soil, therefore burning
>> is
>> necessary.
> They banned burning rice straw in California a few years ago. I know
> somebody
> that built one of those straw bale houses and they got their bales for
> $2.50
> delivered about 75 miles from the source near Sacramento. I got a couple
> of
> bales to use as litter in my chicken coop and I say there is no finer,
> softer
> straw than rice for animal litter or garden mulch.
>>
>> Plans for an ethanol plant have fallen through. Feeding it to cattle is a
>> problem because of it's poor quality. Burning it for fuel is a fine
>> idea,
>> except that it produces the same pollution as burning it in the field,
>> except that it doesn't happen all at once.
> This whole problem of getting energy from biomass I think hinges on us
> getting
> better at the chemistry of gasses. We would be much more efficient if we
> simply
> burned biomass, tar sands, and oil shale in a furnace to generate
> electricity
> and dealt with the effluents. Business has always fought pollution
> regulations
> because they imposed costs on their economic model.
>>
>>>
>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have heard that corn, wheat and rice stalks stalks can be processed
>>>>> to produce fuel. You still have the food and you have fuel.
>>>>
>>>> But what do you think those stalks are doing now? They either get used
>>>> as
>>>> straw, or they rot back into the land. If you use it for fuel, you
>>>> _still_
>>>> have to add extra inputs back to the land - can you do better than
>>>> break
>>>> even?
>>>>
>>>> I'm absolutely convinced that biofuels are a vital part of any energy
>>>> strategy, I'm just not convinced they'll ever replace fossil fuels.
>>>> --
>>>> derek
>>>
>>>
>
Posted by Paul on August 9, 2005, 1:06 am
Here is a good place to start on biomass fuels.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID 6
> JoeSixPack wrote:
> ...
>> Two mistakes here Ed. First, biofuels currently require more
>> conventional energy to produce than they deliver.
>> http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/150152_tcm24-124818.pdf
> I didn't bother to read the entire study because your conclusion that
> all biofuels require more energy to produce than they deliver is
> obviously wrong. It's quite possible to farm, either on land or water,
> various biofuel crops without massive inputs of energy other than
> sunlight.
>> They also contain carbon, which gets released to the atmosphere just like
>> it does with gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas or coal.
> Biofuels are carbon neutral. That means that the plants which you grow
> absorb as much carbon as they release when you burn them. No added
> carbon to the atmosphere.
> Anthony
Posted by Ed Earl Ross on August 9, 2005, 11:25 am
Corn, soybeans, switchgrass, etc. are a good start, even though
they can never be the solution. Fresh water and land restrict the
amount of these crops far below that needed for petroleum
replacement. Nonetheless, using these crops to produce fuel will
create a market and encourage entrepreneurs to find a better
solution, probably marine algae.
Paul wrote:
> Here is a good place to start on biomass fuels.
> http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID 6
>
>
>>JoeSixPack wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>Two mistakes here Ed. First, biofuels currently require more
>>>conventional energy to produce than they deliver.
>>>http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/150152_tcm24-124818.pdf
>>
>>I didn't bother to read the entire study because your conclusion that
>>all biofuels require more energy to produce than they deliver is
>>obviously wrong. It's quite possible to farm, either on land or water,
>>various biofuel crops without massive inputs of energy other than
>>sunlight.
>>
>>
>>>They also contain carbon, which gets released to the atmosphere just like
>>>it does with gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas or coal.
>>
>>Biofuels are carbon neutral. That means that the plants which you grow
>>absorb as much carbon as they release when you burn them. No added
>>carbon to the atmosphere.
>>
>>Anthony
--
Humbly--Ed
"If the man doesn't believe as we do,
we say he is a crank, and that settles it.
I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him." (Mark Twain)
Posted by BobG on August 9, 2005, 12:17 pm
Seems to me that if a truck pulled up to a pump and it said 'petro
diesel $2.50' and 'biodiesel $2.49' they would ALWAYS be sold out of
biodiesel. You could sell as much as you can grow. Its just up to some
co-op of farmers and truckers to get the production cost down so when
the retail cost is competitive, there is 3% or 5% or 10% profit to
divvy up to the partners/shareholders. Maybe this US Biodiesel company
could garner some significant percentage of domestic diesel. 10%? 50%?
Maybe the spreadsheet doesnt generate any cash flow at $2.50... just
wait a few months till its $3.00 a gal.... then start the trucks
rolling.
Posted by JoeSixPack on August 9, 2005, 3:05 pm
> Seems to me that if a truck pulled up to a pump and it said 'petro
> diesel $2.50' and 'biodiesel $2.49' they would ALWAYS be sold out of
> biodiesel. You could sell as much as you can grow. Its just up to some
> co-op of farmers and truckers to get the production cost down so when
> the retail cost is competitive, there is 3% or 5% or 10% profit to
> divvy up to the partners/shareholders. Maybe this US Biodiesel company
> could garner some significant percentage of domestic diesel. 10%? 50%?
> Maybe the spreadsheet doesnt generate any cash flow at $2.50... just
> wait a few months till its $3.00 a gal.... then start the trucks
> rolling.
If the two product were identical, you can be sure the prices would be
identical. Farmer cooperatives and oil cartels have one thing in common,
they both try to control the supply to boost prices. The oil companies have
been far more successful at this than farmers. If oil wells were run like
farms, gas would be a nickel a gallon. If farms were run like oil
companies, a loaf of bread would cost 15 bucks.
>>
>>>I don't know all the details. But rice straw in California is just burned
>>> and causes lots of pollution. I read that there is only so much that
>>> they
>>> can plow back in.
>>
>> It's not something that's produced on an ongoing basis, just once a year.
>> The straw can carry leaf diseases and weeds over to the next crop, and
>> the
>> straw is very resilient to breaking down in the soil, therefore burning
>> is
>> necessary.
> They banned burning rice straw in California a few years ago. I know
> somebody
> that built one of those straw bale houses and they got their bales for
> $2.50
> delivered about 75 miles from the source near Sacramento. I got a couple
> of
> bales to use as litter in my chicken coop and I say there is no finer,
> softer
> straw than rice for animal litter or garden mulch.
>>
>> Plans for an ethanol plant have fallen through. Feeding it to cattle is a
>> problem because of it's poor quality. Burning it for fuel is a fine
>> idea,
>> except that it produces the same pollution as burning it in the field,
>> except that it doesn't happen all at once.
> This whole problem of getting energy from biomass I think hinges on us
> getting
> better at the chemistry of gasses. We would be much more efficient if we
> simply
> burned biomass, tar sands, and oil shale in a furnace to generate
> electricity
> and dealt with the effluents. Business has always fought pollution
> regulations
> because they imposed costs on their economic model.
>>
>>>
>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have heard that corn, wheat and rice stalks stalks can be processed
>>>>> to produce fuel. You still have the food and you have fuel.
>>>>
>>>> But what do you think those stalks are doing now? They either get used
>>>> as
>>>> straw, or they rot back into the land. If you use it for fuel, you
>>>> _still_
>>>> have to add extra inputs back to the land - can you do better than
>>>> break
>>>> even?
>>>>
>>>> I'm absolutely convinced that biofuels are a vital part of any energy
>>>> strategy, I'm just not convinced they'll ever replace fossil fuels.
>>>> --
>>>> derek
>>>
>>>
>