Wonky Gristians will want to read the entirety of Robert Rapier’s “Top 10 Energy Stories of 2008” on the Oil Drum. I’ll focus here on item No. 6: “Second-generation ethanol is delayed.”
Rapier opens by linking to a “top energy stories to watch in 2008” story from the U.S. News and World Report published a year ago. “Next-generation ethanol production begins,” the writer predicted, citing “Range Fuels’ plan to begin commercial production of ethanol from timber-industry waste late in 2008.”
Ah, plans. Rapier brings the update. “The over-promise, under-deliver meme that I have been critical of continues,” he writes. “Range Fuels had initially intended to start producing in 2008, but that was delayed to 2009 and now production isn’t forecast to begin until 2010.”
None of this dims the pie-eyed optimism of cellulosic boosters, Rapier notes. He cites the case of Coskata, which makes this claim: “Using proprietary microorganisms and patented bioreactor designs, we will produce ethanol for under US $1.00 per gallon.” Right. And they’re not doing it already because ...? Rapier links to a previous post of his that slices through Coskata’s hype.
Meanwhile, even as federal mandates for cellulosic ethanol under the 2007 Energy Act start to ramp up, construction of new plants has slowed to a trickle, despite an influx of federal cash. “[O]f the six cellulosic ethanol projects selected to receive $385 million in federal funding in February 2007, almost two years later only one plant is actually under construction (Range Fuels),” Rapier writes. Oh, right, Range Fuels—the company that keeps overpromising and underdelivering.
Comments
View as Threaded
JMG Posted 3:42 am
31 Dec 2008
http://is.gd/eiPi
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:58 am
31 Dec 2008
It's the scarcity of raw feedstock.
And scarcity of ingredients to make that feedstock.
Just not enough land, water, and fertilizer to do the job.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:08 am
31 Dec 2008
This should be a real battle of the lobbyists. Flex fuel chip E-85 touts versus plugin hybrid auto makers. GM claims it wants to be both? We'll see, if it's still around in 2010.
Tree to gas guzzler fuel projects will be very popular in devestated rust belt states like Michigan, with plenty of forests to burn and send out the tail pipe.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 6:51 am
31 Dec 2008
You have to hand it to them, the entrepreneur wanted signed commitments to plant units of 100 acres to yield "x" tons of switchgrass with a guaranteed payment, like a hedge. A hurricane (Dolly) and then falling diesel prices made everyone think twice about the deal.
So it wasn't or isn't all about cellulosic ethanol but diesel as well, but neither worked out very well and if semi-normal conditions come back, the farmers will be rotating corn, cotton, and sorghum just like the old days. Meanwhile the big story is the "winter garden" crop where many truck farmers are getting into the organic produce industry, or at least trying to get into higher niche markets (selling to Whole Foods is very tough, actually). Cool, I like that kind of story, for a redneck ole bloke of a state!
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:10 pm
31 Dec 2008
Permalink
sindark Posted 4:20 am
02 Jan 2009
While oil and water are famously difficult to mix, water mixes easily with ethanol. This makes it more difficult and expensive to store and transport. Pipelines are especially afflicted by this issue. Ethanol that has been blended with gasoline can seperate when it comes into contact with water.
Moving through pipelines and sloshing around in storage tanks, ethanol is also prone to collect various sorts of crud and impurities. These must then be filtered out at a later stage.
Ethanol is corrosive to both metals and rubber compounds. As such, it can increase the level of maintenance required in all of the machinery that comes into contact with it, as well as diminishing the lifetime of that equipment.
Ethanol has a lower energy density than conventional liquid fossil fuels. That means less distance travelled for any particular volume, as well as a larger ratio of fuel weight to total weight for vehicles with a particular range.
The volatility of ethanol is also problematic. The fact that it turns to gas easily (and has high vapour pressure) can be problematic in hot environments.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:16 am
02 Jan 2009
The real hurdle they have to get past is "where do you get all that biomass from".
I'd rather avoid making the discussion all about the other smaller hurdles, because then it provides a false finishing line.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:42 pm
02 Jan 2009
It's going to be a long time before we can plug in a 747 and fly it non-stop across the Pacific. We need a very concentrated fuel source in this case.
Personal cars, trains, city buses, perhaps even shorter-haul trucks we can power with electricity.
Right now we use about 4% of our oil for jet fuel. It seems reasonable that we can replace that smaller amount with biofuels without inordinately taxing our available land.
At so many levels biofuel doesn't make sense for personal transportation.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:58 pm
02 Jan 2009
On or near the ground water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. How much vapor the air can hold is determined by how hot the air already is. Add more water vapor and it condenses back out within hours. Remove extra vapor and nearby oceasns or seas or lakes or rivers or streams or puddles or swimming pools or whatever will evaporate a trifle faster.
But at airplane heights the air is extremely high. Depending on the weather water vapor from planes may remain for days, even weeks or months. So water vapor from planes is reponsible for at least twice the forcing of fossil fuels. To take a hypothetical case: suppose commercial planes ran on wind generated hydrogen rather than either fossil for biofuels. (I know the technical barriers to this are huge, but accept it as a hypothetical.) Additional water vapor would makes these hydrogen powered planes worse emitters of greenhouse gases than running them on fossil fuel based kerosene. Heck it be worse from a greenhouse gas standpoint than running them on palm oil you cut down rainforest to grow.
Now that doesn't mean we should actually cut down rain forests to run airplanes, or continue to run them on fossil fuel. Small amounts of sustainable biofuels for the purpose of running airplanes are possible. But, because of the water vapor, we still have to reduce total air miles, even if they run on sustainable biofuel.
There are mitigations at the edge. For example if the airplanes fly lower their water emissions are in a zone where more of them are a feedback, and fewer are a forcing. The thicker air at lower altitudes lowers their fuel efficiency, but the lower water vapor forcing more than makes up for it. Still, if we have to reduce rather than increase airplane fuel efficiency, obviously we will need to lower air miles to make up for that.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:50 pm
02 Jan 2009
Again fixing the overall problem will require a death by a thousand cuts approach. High speed rail can be electric and could get a lot of planes out of the sky. We'll still need planes for very long distance travel.
One could do the math over lower flying to cut down on high altitude vapor emissions vs. saving fuel by getting up into the following jet stream.
Permalink
hapa Posted 2:13 pm
02 Jan 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:18 pm
02 Jan 2009
Check out the Russian ground effect plane, it is a monster!
It would be good to note at this point that energy density of batteries only needs to reach 1/5 that of jet fuel to attain equivalent performance. Jet engines operate at 1/5 the efficiency of battery electric motors.
Another saviour of air travel is solid oxide fuel cell/turbines, Boeing is working on them to power unmanned aerial vehicles already. They would work to make a plugin hybrid aircarft that could perform like a jet, with a fraction of the fuel use and GHG emissions.
High speed commuter rail really could replace most air miles though, with greater convenience, about the same travel time, and zero emissions running on renewable electricity.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:37 pm
02 Jan 2009
You have one minute,
Mr. Tucker.
Thank you,
Your Honor.
When I was a boy
I used to, uh...
I used to read
all about Edison
and the Wright brothers,
Mr. Ford...
they were my heroes.
Rags to riches,
that's not just
the name of a book,
that's what this country
was all about.
We invented the free
enterprise system
where anybody,
no matter who he was,
where he came from,
what class he belonged to,
if he came up
with a better idea
about anything,
there's no limit
to how far he could go.
I grew up a generation
too late, I guess,
because now the way
the system works,
the crackpot who comes up
with some crazy idea
that everybody laughs at,
that later turns out
to revolutionize the world,
he's squashed from above.
The bureaucrats would
rather kill a new idea
than let it
rock the boat.
Today, Benjamin Franklin
would be arrested
for sailing a kite
without a license.
It's true.
We're all puffed up
with ourselves now
'cause we
invented the bomb.
Dropped the...
Beat the daylights
out of the Japanese, the Nazis.
But if big business
closes the door
on the little guy
with a new idea,
we're closing the door
on progress
and sabotaging
everything we fought for,
everything that
the country stands for.
We're going
to find ourselves
at the bottom of the heap,
having no idea
how we got there,
buying radios and cars
from our former enemies.
I don't believe
that's going to happen.
I can't believe it
because...
if I stop believing
in the common horse sense
of the American people,
there'd be no way
I could get out of bed
in the morning.
Thank you.
Well, welcome to "the bottom of the heap", the endless unemployment line, leading to the bread line.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:27 pm
02 Jan 2009
Myself, I'm inclined to think we'll see fast high-tech sailing ships, both cargo and passenger, before we're done. Cutty Sark, wha' hey!
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:39 pm
02 Jan 2009
The pretense that we can make a switchgrass to fuel cycle that produces more excess byproduct than a bison can seems rather pretentious. We have to build the mower/baler, hay lifter, hay truck, ethanol plant, fuel tankage and transport out of steel. The bison makes another bison out of switchgrass. A bison converts to diesel pretty quickly in a pressure cooker.(ok, a thermal depolymerization reactor)
Why do we think this is going to work again? Aren't we a leedle bit suspicious that we are just hiding an energy subsidy somewhere?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:18 pm
02 Jan 2009
Exactly, small hydrofoil sailboats have been designed with kite sails. They go really fast.
The high velocity winds on the kite and the low friction hydrofoil would make for a kick-ass ground effect hydro-kite plane. Zoooom...like the cargo carrying Russian plane.
Then ducted fan wind machines in the kite could send electric power down to underwater thrusters on the hydrofoil.
New wave clipper ships.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:55 pm
02 Jan 2009
It is even hypothetically possible to tack UP a jet stream provided materials of sufficient strength were available.
We don't need no stinking biofuels.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:42 pm
02 Jan 2009
We are not going to take a "strange" route to change large scale current practice. It takes years to sell a new thing to the general public (the folks who have control over the big picture.
Moving ocean cargo by sailing ship is just not going to happen in this decade. We've got to either find a better fuel source for our existing freighters or drastically cut back on our petroleum usage for ground transportation.
If we're going to avoid catastrophic climate change we need to get all coal and most petroleum out of our energy stream very quickly.
We have alternatives more or less ready to install. We can make electricity at a reasonable price using wind, solar and geothermal. We can make PHEVs that would cut our petroleum 75%+.
We might not be able to manufacture enough PHEVs (and find the money to pay for them) quickly but we could start a parallel program of converting existing ICE vehicles to PHEVs. Start by choosing a few lighter weight, high market penetration cars such as Civics and Camreys and make conversion packs. Drop off your car, drive a loaner for a day or two, pick up your new PHEV. They won't be optimal PHEVs, no regenerative braking, but they might cut petroleum burning by 50%.
This is the sort of thing that we can do now. The hydrofoil, kite powered heavy freighters are somewhere out in the future. After we discover an anti-gravity machine so that the cargo weight doesn't figure into the formula.
Permalink
hapa Posted 10:33 pm
02 Jan 2009
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:54 pm
02 Jan 2009
If someone can figure that out then that's some help.
Remember that neither kites nor sails work when traveling up wind. And tacking is a laborious process.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:28 am
03 Jan 2009
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/12/113159/502
Wonder how their business models are faring at the moment with the dip in oil prices.
I agree with you about getting too far into the weeds with the wonky sci fi energy stuff in Gristmill, but this particular and simple technology seems to be proving out.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:50 am
03 Jan 2009
Too bad Asia is downwind from the US. Loaded ships require more energy than empty ones.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:12 am
03 Jan 2009
As far as tacking, batteries would recharge from wind generators built into the kite while reaching, then electric thrusters would take the ship on upwind legs of the crossing.
A sailing vessel that goes directly upwind with wind power? Yep.
Yeah we are talking short term and longer term on a climate cure here. Short term ground source heating/cooling powered by solar cogeneration is the big GHG and energy saver. Mid term plugin hybrids and electric rail. Longer term, commuter rail replacing most air travel.
The remaining air travel can be converted to more friendly hydrofoil clipper ships and plugin hybrid aircraft after 15 years, go for the really big, easier savings first. 36% of GHG can be addressed with already existing ground source heating/cooling technology.
Nothing wrong with sci-fi speculation, especially when actual prototypes of a particular concept, like hydrofoil kite sailing craft, have already been built and tested.
Just call this stuff "wonder toys" like the curmudgeon crowd does, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:21 am
03 Jan 2009
What we might do 15 - 20 years from now is fun to contemplate but it doesn't cut carbon emissions now.
Now seems pretty danged important to me, based on what the climate scientists are telling us.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:23 am
03 Jan 2009
That's a new one, different wind streams tapped by different kites.
I have an idea of a sort of underwater "kite" with hydrofoil surfaces Pang. Serving the function of the keel on a regular sailing vessel. The ground effect ship would hover over the water, using the underwater kite and the kite up in the high wind stream as substitutes for keel and sail.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:39 am
03 Jan 2009
Farm and waste stream biogas power generation continues on a firm financial and GHG-saving footing too. The Obama administration ought to let the BYD and Audi plugin hybrids, the first to be mass produced, into US markets.
A quicker pace for those efforts would be the best bet for immediate savings.
The reality is that we have most likely already hit the GHG feedback climate tipping point, but politically correct science hasn't recognized this yet. The arctic ocean and melting permafrost methane readings would have to be injected into the climate models.
I think your demand for an immediate replacement for transcontinental air travel is a bit unrealistic though, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 4:50 am
03 Jan 2009
Digital control gear and modern high-strengh materials combined with sophisticated navigation and meteorological technology and intelligent route planning are sufficient for such vessels - no need for Popular Mechanics-style wind-powered hydrofoils. Wind turbine to generator to motor to propulsion screw sounds like a mechanical engineer's wet dream but a nautical engineer's nightmare, and a helluva complex way to get the simple linear force of the wind to propel the simple linear motion of the vessel.
On the air travel front: I'd suggest we all get used to the idea that long-distance airplane travel may be as financially out-of-reach for the ordinary business or leisure passenger in the 2040's as it was in the 1940's. And oddly, in such a future, travel might actually be faster on the few long-haul flights remaining, on smaller, fewer, supersonic, direct-destination flights - but only for the hyper-rich. Our grandkids may well be living in a far more physically constrained world than we now experience.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:51 am
03 Jan 2009
Converting our current fleet of container ships to kite power assistance is possible but full kite power isn't. We might have to build a fleet of sailing barges capable of handling shipping containers and bulk freight. These would be slow but would get the job done.
Jet aircraft would have the difficulty of requiring an infrastructure that reduced flight frequency could make unwieldy and unprofitable at any price. They may become the province of governments if they survive.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:02 pm
03 Jan 2009
The vapor problem? That, to me, is the issue concerning near future jet travel. Perhaps it is something with which we will have to live and find ways to offset.
Real solutions are ones that people will accept.
People are concerned about global climate change but IMO in no way ready to make major sacrifices in lifestyle. Maybe in 5-10 years if things get much more obviously worse.....
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:55 pm
03 Jan 2009
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:27 pm
03 Jan 2009
Right?
I ask for something to back up your claim...
PHEVs - "but US auto maker/government protectionism has blocked their availability here"
And you give me dialog from an old movie?
Bogus.........................
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:34 pm
03 Jan 2009
And using a perennial such as switchgrass actually sequesters some carbon via the root system which is never plowed up. Same would be true of trees producing nuts. What is left after fuel extraction could be turned into biochar and buried.
2) Biofuel does not have to be made from food stuff. We've got multiple plants under study which can nicely grow in places where we can't successfully grow food.
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:44 pm
03 Jan 2009
That's today, which is what concerns me, not 20, 30, 40 years from now.
Thanks for clearing that up. The several billions of people who are going to suffer immensely harder, poorer lives so that you don't have to make any "lifestyle" changes won't just have to gnash their teeth and curse "those people" at the end of the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st. Now they'll have a name.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:59 pm
03 Jan 2009
Go out for a few hours and look at how the vast majority of people are living. Check how many are recycling, using CFLs, cloth shopping bags, turning down their thermostats and wearing a sweater inside. Sometimes 'us greenies' get confused and think we're 'normal'.
We aren't.
If we want to change the amount of carbon (and other crap) that we pump into our atmosphere we need to find ways that cause as little disruption as possible to the lifestyles of everyone else. The vast majority of humans.
We need solutions today. Not solutions 30 years from now. If the climate scientists are correct....
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:36 pm
03 Jan 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:42 pm
03 Jan 2009
We need some practical solutions now, not Jetson jetpacks next century.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:01 am
04 Jan 2009
We need solutions today. Not solutions 30 years from now.
Bob, tell me how these two concepts can coexist in your mind. The present imperative, with which many here would wholeheartedly agree, and the pie-in-the-sky of CE, perpetually a decade or three from solving all our problems. Do we not see just a tiny anomaly here? That little "under study" thing? The little problem of finding land NOT devoted to food production or other useful purpose which is somehow going to produce vast quantities (truly, VAST quantities) of harvestable biomass? The other little problem that we're not even five-to-ten-years close to a commercially-viable way to get the useful energy out of the biomass and into a fuel tank?
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, we should consider the energy habits of the american people as perhaps just a little bit more adjustable than the physical laws of the universe?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:06 am
04 Jan 2009
Renewable electric transportation is as close as we can get to GHG-free travel.
If biofuel could be obtained from algae that doesn't take up land area that could sequester carbon, that would fit the notion of a carbon neutral biofuel. But that's a big "if". Somewhere down the road, after we eliminate 90% of combustion with renewable energy and conservation.
It's strictly an experimental project, like nuclear power, "clean" coal, and cellulosic ethanol. Barely worthy of research dollars once real solutions, like plugin hybrids, solar cogeneration, waste stream biogas/organic farming, wind, wave, and ocean current power turn this climate and economic disaster around.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:50 am
04 Jan 2009
WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- Air New Zealand has tested a passenger jet powered partially with oil from a plum-sized fruit known as jatropha, in efforts to reduce its carbon footprint and cut its fuel bill.
With its test flight Tuesday, the airline became the latest carrier experiment with alternative fuels, partly due to the threat of rising oil prices but also to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/air-new-zealands ...
50:50 blend of jatropha and jet fuel. That's a 50% reduction in previously-sequestered carbon release.
Jatropha grows in areas that we would consider "wastelands". Land on which we would expect to raise a scrawny goat at best. If we had a lot of acres for that goat to search.
---
"Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, we should consider the energy habits of the american people as perhaps just a little bit more adjustable than the physical laws of the universe?"
Have you ever noticed how many people, around the world, continue to smoke and overeat even though they know it will likely cause problems for them later in life?
Unfortunately too many people get excited about making major changes in the way we lead our lives and ignore the laws of human behavior.
You want to force people to make extreme lifestyle changes against their wills?
Better get yourself a 'green army', and I'm talking a real one with real guns that shoot and everything....
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:55 am
04 Jan 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:31 am
04 Jan 2009
Complete with a compromise position for the other alternatives that I am not in favor of. This is a virtual street corner, isn't it?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:38 am
04 Jan 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:40 am
04 Jan 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:42 am
04 Jan 2009
Will they have any left over for export? And where will they put all the sheep?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:45 am
04 Jan 2009
Institute a 6 cent per kwh subsidy directly to home, farm, and business owners for solar, biogas/organic fertilizer, wind, and conservation, with funds diverted from fossil, nuclear, and agribizz subsidies.
Use part of the the diverted subsidies for million unit orders of plugin hybrids, solar cogeneration systems, and ground source heating/cooling for government use, local, state, and federal.
Manage the growing manufacturing base and recovering economy with careful re-regulation.
Get set for upcoming years of rail reconstruction and electrification and a massive subsidized build out of great plains and offshore wind and water energy production, water desalination, and weather engineering.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 8:09 am
04 Jan 2009
Pay attention to response cost and resistance to behavior change. Also to time to payoff issues.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 8:17 am
04 Jan 2009
It's an interesting crop as it would bring significant income into areas where people today have very few ways to earn more than a survival income. And, as I said, we would grow it on waste land, not prime sheep grazing countryside.
Please do some research before going negative on things that you haven't studied.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:45 am
04 Jan 2009
Inefficient appliance buy-back programs. Did that in CA long ago and got a lot old energy hog beer refers out of garages and replaced them with models that did the same job while using 50% or less power.
White/light colored roofs and pavements. Low cost reflecting of heat back out of our atmosphere. Read Joe's more excellent current article.
PHEVs and PHEV retrofits. While we wait for affordable quick charge battery packs so that we can go BEVs.
Serious research/upscaling efforts into thermal solar (with storage), hot rock geothermal, and tide generation. All have existing proof of concept installations producing (I believe) grid parity electricity.
Pursuit of non-food land biofuels for long haul transportation systems (planes, ocean freighters, etc.) which may never be electrified.
Massive conservation retrofits for private and public buildings financed by government money (where necessary) with payback to the government via energy bill savings over time. No net increase in monthly bills to the owner and eventual decreases in monthly bills.
Widespread "forcing" to CFLs. Add a tax to incandescents and a subsidy to CFLs to bring about a market switch. Multiple times a year we can buy new CFLs for $0.50 here in NoCA thanks to utility company support. How that we're seeing "normal looking" CFLs coming to the market resistance to switch will greatly decline. Force people to save money by gently pushing them into a better way.
Figure out how to get the cost of ground effect heat pumps down. A lot. I just don't understand the current price structure. Perhaps we need to fund development of "ditch witches" than can cut a 30' deep trench. The plumbing is minimal and cheap. Again, use government money if necessary to install the systems for free and use the saved energy differential to pay back the government.
These are the sort of things that I like. We can do most of them right now. They will pay for themselves. None cause people to change their lifestyle in any noticeable manner.
We need more stuff like this.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:54 pm
04 Jan 2009
References, Bob? Mine say it just doesn't pencil out. Here's one: David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" assembles comprehensive data and runs ALL the numbers in about as thorough a manner as I've seen - corn,, rapeseed, sugar beet, miscanthus, switchgrass, sugarcane and yes, jatropha. Bottom line: "biofuels made from plants [in a non-tropical country] can deliver so little power, I think they are scarcely worth talking about."
Then, even it were viable, where would we plant it?It's an interesting crop as it would bring significant income into areas where people today have very few ways to earn more than a survival income. And, as I said, we would grow it on waste land, not prime sheep grazing countryside.
What areas, Bob? Where is this waste land? Please help me out and be specific. If it's in the U.S., what's the current use? If not in the U.S. do we just, like, take it? Why wouldn't they want the land for their own use? Then of course, this would not be a backyard crop. It's an extremely low-density source, around 0.18 W/M2 at best - meaning huge acreages to bring even minimal energy to market. What benefit would such intensive industrial agriculture bring to the indigenous population? Big ag has an appalling track record in its treatment of pre-existing populations. Why would this be any different? Or don't you care?
Please do some research before going negative on things that you haven't studied.
I've read plenty on this, seen no actual data that even remotely supports your position. Everything seems to point the other way... but hold on just a minute - how about YOU supply the evidence to support YOUR arguments?
Go to your library and get a basic book on the analysis of human behavior.
Pay attention to response cost and resistance to behavior change. Also to time to payoff issues.
Enough with the BS. You said there are laws of human behavior. Where? What? Google the term and see what you get (hint: nada, nothing, zilch).
Bottom line - you'd LIKE to get carbon emissions under control, and you'd LIKE american behavior not to have to change, so you'd LIKE CE to be viable and effective. You can probably find plenty of folks who'd like the same things - not smart people probably, but plenty of 'em. Problem is, reality doesn't care what you or I or anyone would like. Everything I've read says CE is unlikely to do the job. If you think I'm wrong - SHOW ME THE DATA!
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:04 pm
04 Jan 2009
That's the million unit government order part of the plan. Refrigerators and air conditioners are dirt cheap, for instance, and they have similar parts to ground source heating/cooling systems.
Direct circulation for cooling and heat envelope heating is even simpler than heat pump ground source heating/cooling.
Were these systems to become as ubiquitous as furnaces and water heaters nearly evertone could afford them, with government help for the lower income people.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink