Where is it written that there’s an easy out to replace oil? 9

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Karen Lee Orr Posted 5:47 am
   17 Apr 2007

   Peak Soil: Cellulosic Ethanol is NOT Sustainable
   
   "The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt
   Alice Friedmann has a long paper on Culture Change titled "Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Biofuels are Not Sustainable and a Threat to America's National Security."  It's worth a read.  
   Culture Change
   
   http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php
   Karen Orr

   Permalink

2. 

   truffula Posted 7:36 am
   17 Apr 2007

   future tech...so we can add cellulosic ethanol to hydrogen fuel-cells and carbon-sequestration as yet another 'don't-worry-technology-will-save-the-planet' distraction while the simple unpatented and well proven technique of just-switching-the-thing-off goes ignored and forgotten...

   Permalink

3. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 7:53 am
   17 Apr 2007

   YeapWell,
   
   Hydrogen and sequestration will never work.
   Technically "Ethanol" is off the table just because it has crappy performance and compatibility as a fuel.
   Butanol, and BioDiesel.  
   
   Now those are tougher to brush aside.
   
   Since they basically work almost perfectly in terms of performance and compatibility compared to existing gasoline/diesel.
   The only reason they are still barely "on the table" is that technically Algae could be grown sustainably.  
   
   (It's just unlikely that they will develop it)
   And even then, if you did Biomass, you'd gain 2x the energy by turning it into electricity, rather than burning it as a liquid fuel.
   Not to mention, Algae is only 8% solar efficient.
   
   And they are developing solar panels which can be printed like newspaper with 8-10% efficiency.
   _
   But the real answer is that, while liquid fuels can decrease carbon.  
   
   They aren't effective at decreasing energy use.
   And decreasing energy use is a far better solution than maintaining the same "energy glutton" method on low carbon fuel.

   Permalink

4. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 7:57 am
   17 Apr 2007

   But just know thisCellulosic is never going to be more energy efficient than "Thermal Depolymerization" aka the Fischer Trophe process.
   And with Fischer Trophe, you lose 62% of your energy when going from a solid to a liquid.
   Just in general, liquid fuels are wasteful.

   Permalink

5. 

   tg13535 Posted 8:30 am
   17 Apr 2007

   Cellulosic EthanolGiving up on a technology just because it is currently difficult or inefficient is awefully shortsighted.  A major benefit of research and/or science is to make the impossible or difficult attainable and less difficult.
   So don't give up on anything, we can achieve.
   However, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with most that feel conservation is the first, easiest and will produce the biggest results the quickest.  We need to push that concept as it is not even in the national debate.  God forbid somebody ride their bike to work one day per week

   Permalink

6. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 9:14 am
   17 Apr 2007

   tg13535--Giving up on a technology just because it is currently difficult or inefficient is awefully shortsighted.  A major benefit of research and/or science is to make the impossible or difficult attainable and less difficult.--
   Trying to break the laws of physics isn't exactly encouraged.
   Normal plants are only 1-2% solar effecient.
   But for this example, lets use algae 6-8% effecient.
   Even if you could convert 100% of the energy in that 8% into a liquid fuel.
   Thats a 12% loss for transporting the fuel.
   And then a 59% loss when burned inside a turbo diesel engine.
   You have left 8 * 1.00 * 0.88 * 0.41 = 2.8864%
   When the real numbers look closer to
   
   1 * 0.38 * 0.88 * 0.20 = 0.06688%
   Meanwhile, electric solar can do as high as 32.0000%   (Cost effectively no less)
   _
   Notice, thats why Hydrogen got canceled.
   
   http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/08/europe-passes-deat ...
   
   http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-hydrogen-is-no ...
   _
   Now that said, research isn't such a bad thing.
   But subsidizing the sale of the biofuels is where the glut of tax dollars is.
   Cancel that.

   Permalink

7. 

   JMG Posted 2:27 pm
   17 Apr 2007

   Huh?Grey:
   What does thermal depolymerization (an inefficient and very-not-yet-ready-for-prime-time technique for using fossil fuels to turn turkey waste and other materials into oil capable of replacing some liquid fossil fuels) have to do with Fischer-Tropf coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion?  In what universe are these related?
   
   "An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."

   Permalink

8. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:48 pm
   17 Apr 2007

   Free beer tomorowBiogas from waste, manure, and biomass.  Feeding CO2 to algae to make biodiesel in roof top solar collectors.  There's your cheap, low impact fuel.
   The biogas backs up renewables with electric power from fuel cells.  The steadied up renewable wind and solar grid charges plugin hybrid vehicles for 90% of their travel, the biodiesel only has to cover 10% of present liquid fuel used in vehicles.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

9. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 3:18 pm
   17 Apr 2007

   HuhWhat does thermal depolymerization (an inefficient and very-not-yet-ready-for-prime-time technique for using fossil fuels to turn turkey waste and other materials into oil capable of replacing some liquid fossil fuels) have to do with Fischer-Tropf coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion?  In what universe are these related?
   I was under the impression that they were the same thing. I guess not.
   However Fischer Trophe doesn't neccisarily mean that the feedstock is Coal.
   Hence BTL "Biomass to Liquid"
   
   http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/277
   
   http://www.greencarcongress.com/biomasstoliquids_btl/inde ...
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_to_liquid
   _
   I guess looking into it they are technically different.
   
   Same inputs, Same outputs, but slightly different methods.
   However practically they are pretty much the same.  
   
   
   
   In goes carbon stuffs
   
   Add heat + other conditions
   
   Out pops liquid fuels
   
   With most the energy content lost in the process
   
   
   _
   But yeah, I'm still not quite certain what the technical difference is.
   (Also is pyrolysis the same as thermal depolymerization?)

   Permalink