What is the most inefficient way to make electricity? Answer: power an a 15% efficient* internal combustion engine with a liquid fuel made primarily from industrial food crops to spin a generator. Someone in Houston has come up with a brilliant way to dispose of, consume, use up biodiesel. It is just a matter of time now before someone starts using biodiesel to save water by flushing toilets with it. From Renewable Energy Access:
"We believe the new Oak Ridge North plant will be a showcase installation for environmentally conscious companies that want to reduce their air pollution footprint by satisfying their electricity needs with carbon neutral and 100% renewable fuels. We are proud that the Oak Ridge North facility is one of the cleanest generating facilities in the country. We also believe this first important step in urban renewable power can reduce America's dependence on foreign oil while significantly benefiting our domestic agricultural economy," said Ken Crimmins, COO of Biofuels Power.
Almost nothing in the above quote is true. Biodiesel is not as clean as natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, or hydro. Biodiesel made primarily from industrial food crops is also not carbon neutral or renewable.
The biodiesel powering these generators may release half as much CO2 on a life cycle basis as a coal plant, but because the coal plant is twice as efficient, you don't gain anything. The generators, if they are like most other diesel engines, won't even have air pollution controls. If you account for the energy used growing the crops, refining them into a liquid fuel, and all of the environmental degradation associated with industrial agriculture, these generators are far from environmentally friendly.
Foreign oil is used primarily for transport, not electric power generation. These generators are actually displacing coal, not oil, thus causing someone to use more oil to power a truck somewhere. There is a grain of truth that this is benefiting our domestic agricultural economy, but it is doing so with money taken from my pocket. Hell, I have to wonder if Ken Crimmins is even really the COO.
Here is another article discussing a power plant that will be burning, of all things, wood. Not a new idea, that's for sure. It is far more efficient and less carbon intensive than turning the wood into a liquid fuel and then burning it, especially if it is waste wood. However, when you consider that trees are already being turned into mulch, and paper, and everything else, you have got to wonder if we can also grow enough trees to generate electricity as well. If we can, then maybe burning wood instead of coal is the answer to our problems. Imagine power plants nestled in the centers of forests using wood no faster than it can grow. Trees are solar collectors that store the sun's energy. Sounds idyllic but I don't have to run any numbers to know we can't grow trees faster than we would be burning them.
And finally, there is this little power struggle.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality says that blending 20 percent (B20) or more of biodiesel with diesel fuel could increase the amount of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions above levels permitted by the state
Note that this is for a 20% blend. It would be five times worse for pure biodiesel.
Texas was supposed to decide on whether or not to ban biodiesel in December, but on the 23rd of the month voted to study the issue for another year.
If biodiesel were to be banned in the state it would be devastating blow to the biodiesel industry. Texas is the second largest consumer of biodiesel in the country behind Iowa, and has many biodiesel plants in use or under construction.
Allow me to translate: We need an extra year to change the law.
Comments
View as Flat
bkrell Posted 12:37 pm
10 Mar 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:47 pm
10 Mar 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:11 pm
10 Mar 2007
Which are encrouching on the rainforrests...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:39 pm
10 Mar 2007
The comment that B20 BioDiesel raises NOx isn't true.
NREL proved it November 2006
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/news.html
The USDA 2002 study used engine emmisions from 1 manufacturer.
The NREL 2006 study used tailpipe emmisions from a variety of manufacturers.
They haven't retested for B100 but I'd imagine is far less than the 10% NOx level that the USDA study put.
_
Furthermore,
October 2006: Federal law removed sulfur from diesel fuel, this allows for powerful catalytic converters to be used. Like when they removed lead from gasoline.
January 2007: New heavy handed federal NOx emmision standards came out for new diesel vehicles. 3x more stringent than in Europe.
Now -> Early2008: Clean Diesel cars are coming out that will emit 90% less NOx continously.
Gasoline cars, when not running at chemically balanced oxygen mix, drop as low as 15% NOx prevention.
So clean, that Diesel will be allowed back into states like California and New York.
It was discovered that Titanium Dioxide Paint/Cement additive is very effective at reducing NOx levels. Perfect for cities which are squeemish over a couple percent higher NOx. Just put a new coating of white paint on the lane markers, and you should be good to go.
Biomass-to-Liquid, Diesel fuel like SunDiesel, actually reduces NOx emmisions. With the advantage of it coming from virtually any plant matter source. Including switchgrass, woodchips, yardwaste, and waste paper.
Like bad air quality ever stopped Texas ;D
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:49 pm
10 Mar 2007
Burning them to make electric power at a stationary grid generator is very wastefull, as liquid fuels are in short supply.
It would be nice if this realization somehow became more wide spread. But these issues are complicated. Even people who discuss these things constantly and actually run businesses producing liquid fuels do not seem to get this.
How will mass delusional media led public opinion grasp it, or dunder headed pandering politikos?
To repeat it for the millionth time, by replacing gas guzzlers with plugin serial hybrids liquid fuel consumption will drop to a tenth of present levels, oil reserves will last 10 times longer, and fuel farming will be bankrupt. A terrible financial disaster for farmers, inverstors, and taxpayers.
As well as an environmerntal disaster. Stop fuel farming now and stave off this waste of scarce capital. Those tax and investment dollars should go into mass production of plugin serial hybrids instead. And mass conversion of vehicles to this mode also.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:51 pm
10 Mar 2007
Ideally we'd be able to drop the hybrid part and go straight for electric.
But then again, baby steps I guess.
Apparently the next Prius is going to be sporting LiIon batteries instead of NiMH. With 94mpg.
But I wonder what the price gap will be.
_
Clean Diesels though, on the other hand offer NiMH-Prius like performance. For less.
The Euro Diesel version of the Scion xA already has 90mpg (Aka the citroen C4)
Although thats mainly due to a combination of lightweighting, and it might be using a mild hybrid system.
_
At very least I look at it this way.
Scrap the hydrogen budget and put it toward high density batteries.
That would be the best way to push things forward.
Since hydrogen is really a deadend.
It's not energy effecient, and it's hard to transport.
Bad transport fuel.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:18 pm
10 Mar 2007
Present battery technology and lack of mass production make quick enough charging problematic and pure EVs very expensive.
But a 25 mile range battery pack is under 2 thousand bucks, and it will charge from a regular home electric system in a few hours. The lead acid foam battery might drop the price to 500 bucks soon!
Very efficient, light weight generators are already available at low mass production prices. And electric drivetrains replace inefficient transmissions, the battery, generator, motor combination does the job of a transmission with 25 miles of pure eV performance that will drop average gasoline consumption by 90%.
It's time to stop quibbling and back this technology with bloggerel and eventually capital. If we can get the mass delusional media to notice this technology, it may just get going. GM is paying it lipservice by touting the Volt.
That's a good start, the salesmen in the boardroom have evidently listened to some engineers. Communication, it's a good thing.
But where are Toyota and Honda? If they want to keep gaining market share they will need their own plugin serial hybrids.
And mass conversion of used cars will be needed also.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:29 pm
10 Mar 2007
We need biogas willy to help family farms turn into renewable energy suppliers. Turning manure and farm waste into clean kwh and organic fertilizer and providing backup generation for wind generators and solar electric on the farm.
Come on biowillie, you can still be bio, with biogas. Energy and byproducts from these processes like organic fertilizer could be worth many 10s of thousands of dollars per year on a 200 acre farm, making the difference in family farm income that might just turn the agribizz land grab problem right around.
Add rotational grazing instead of feedlot chem hormone toxic food production. we might all get healthier, making universal health care actually affordable.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 10:12 pm
10 Mar 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:19 pm
10 Mar 2007
So burning off rain forests for farming is carbon neutral? Pretty funny stuff.
I guess burning fossil fuels must be carbon neutral too then? After all it only releases carbon that was sequestered by plants over millenia.
Lets make the US look like Haiti, with plenty of parking lots, golf courses, and fuel farms replacing forests and conservation land from sea to oily sea. America the beautiful.
Burn those darn trees up. After all they cause global warming! A supercomputer at Lawrence livermore nuclear weapons lab proved it.
Canada is about to cut down the Boreal forests based on that proof. Onward christian soldiers marching off to war, with the cross of halliburton going on before!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:52 am
11 Mar 2007
Liquid fuels like biodiesel are valuable for one major reason. They are easy to store in a vehicle ...Burning them to make electric power at a stationary grid generator is very wasteful, as liquid fuels are in short supply [reducing their use is the whole goal of the energy independence people, since we are already coal independent].
EliRabett,
You are right of course. I was just saying that burning biomass alone will make only a small dent in our energy needs.
GreyFlcn,
Yes, the clean diesel fuel will eventually allow carmakers to install pollution controls on diesel cars. This was a smart move by the EPA. However, as of today, diesel cars are still very dirty. That will remain true for a decade to come until clean cars can replace existing ones.
The comment that B20 BioDiesel raises NOx isn't true... NREL proved it November 2006.
All the NREL study proved is that some engines put out less NOx than others. The question however, is will widespread use of B-20 put more NOx into the air? That answer depends on which engines are more common on the road and what type of fuel they are using. For example, the study shows that freightliner truck engines put out more NOx using B-20. If that total number of trucks consume more B-20 than the total number of vehicles that release less NOx, then the net result will be more NOx. Count the number of freightliner trucks that pass by on any interstate in one minute. There is no doubt in my mind that B-20 will be allowed in Texas. The EPA will do as it is told, as it has done in the past.
They haven't retested for B100 but I'd imagine is far less than the 10% NOx level that the USDA study put.
Let's assume it is only 2% instead of 10%. That still means that higher blends of biodiesel are busting emissions limits.
The controversy over B-20 NOx levels is between biodiesel enthusiasts (NREL) and clean air enthusiasts (EPA). We will have to let them sort it out. The following quote obviously came from a biodiesel enthusiast:
This is a major finding because the perceived small increase was leading some state regulatory agencies to consider banning B20 biodiesel. Our study helps remove a significant barrier to the expansion of biodiesel markets.
Who also happens to be the principal engineer at the NREL.
Biomass-to-Liquid, Diesel fuel like SunDiesel, actually reduces NOx emmisions. With the advantage of it coming from virtually any plant matter source. Including switchgrass, woodchips, yardwaste, and waste paper.
It also has disadvantages. You have to look at the good and the bad to draw conclusions. My sources show that to convert biomass to liquid with the Fischer-Tropsch process would take 100 BTUs to produce 38 BTUs of liquid fuel. In addition, if you burn the fuel in an internal combustion engine, you will lose about 75% of that energy. Burning that biomass directly to produce electricity in a steam turbine would take 100 BTUs to produce 36 BTUs of electricity. However, an electric motor will only throw away 30% of the energy it receives. Therefore, burning the wood in a power station instead of converting it to liquid would produce enough power to move about 40-50% more cars running on electric motors. I'm not promoting that we burn wood in power stations. I am using it as an example to demonstrate how much more inefficient it is to turn biomass into liquid fuels and then burn them in an internal combustion engine. The process also creates far more CO2 than using regular diesel, or biodiesel.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/NetEnergy/WoodFischerTropsch.pdf ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_efficiency
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
jscorse Posted 3:18 am
11 Mar 2007
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:11 am
11 Mar 2007
From which we learn (as the Rabbis say): first, study and research are hard work, and deserve to be appreciated as such; secondly, being a writer is NOT a failure, a vaguely hypocritical second-best option chosen by the weak and/or feckless and/or lazy, but is indeed a high and noble calling.
As Michael Chabon recently reminded us, in his serialized 10th-century adventure-story, baroquely narrated, in the New York Times Magazine, attributing the idea to a Rabbi of Regensburg, Germany: "... apart from Torah, the only subject truly worthy of study is the science of saving men's lives." If we include women and animals along with men, then that is a supremely excellent moral assertion.
And really, that is what Grist is all about, isn't it.
And, whether he realizes it or not, BioD is a moral leader within the Grist community.
By the same token, if suddenly the beautiful women of Seattle should start ripping off their shirts whenever they see him come chugging up on his enviro-friendly-mobile, in accord with his own sweetest fantasies, he should understand that none of us in the Grist community has had anything to do with it; it would be purely the result of his undeniable personal charm.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:34 am
11 Mar 2007
Hey on the TCEQ and bio-diesel, the amount of NOx released from B10 is maybe at diesel levels, with reductions in HC and CO. Above B20 the NOx level can creep up to like 5% (1.05), but it is not linear and depands upon the source of the fuel - corn, rapeseed, or whatever. You can actually download the spreadsheet model from the EPA to play with it yourself. So B90 or B100 is not five times worse that B20 with respect to NOx, it is just slightly higher. Just the facts, ma'am.
And the opposite of a brain fart is a queef!
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:04 am
11 Mar 2007
Biodiesel Addative approved
State of Texas Approves First Biodiesel Additive to Reduce NOx Emissions
_
Well, there also is a question whether Diesel NOx is the most important pollutant to be going after when tackling smog.
Since oddly enough, there have been spikes in Smog formation on weekends,
when most the diesel vehicles are off the road, and the NOx levels are down 40%
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/lmarr/news/latimes20040524.pd ...
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/July-2004/ ...
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19746/pub_detail.as ...
_
In general though, previous to after-treatment, it tends to be a tradeoff.
Less NOx? More CO and more VOCs(aka HCs) and more N20
More NOx? Less CO and less VOCs(aka HCs) and less N20
http://www.mce-5.com/vcr_strategy/polutants.htm
_
I do agree that we should focus on greener cars.
However like you said, new cars aren't going to do anything about older cars.
Only new fuel can do that.
Especially when we are talking about Class-8 BigRig Trucks. Which don't intend on giving up the ghost anytime soon.
_
In the meantime,
I'd suggest Texas look into capitalizing on their Chinese Tallow Tree forrests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chinese_Tallow_in_US.p ...
http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2006/techprogram/P67546.HTM ...
Since it's nut harvest crop is competative/outcompetes Palm Oil, and has been growing in the region since the 1700's.
_
For city areas with nonatainment issues, TitaniumDioxide would be the best route. It cleans up a host nasty pollutants. And it's actually quite cheap. Since it's the natural form of Titanium.
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2001/109-4/innovations.html ...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:10 am
11 Mar 2007
I'm assuming you meant ROFLMAO, not RALFMAO (Rolling On Laugh, Flooring My Ass Off).
5% is 2.5 times 2%. And if 2% busts the limits, 5% really busts them. If you get a chance, post a link to that spreadsheet, sounds interesting.
GreyFlcn,
Well, there also is a question whether Diesel NOx is the most important pollutant to be going after when tackling smog.
This is an argument I have heard many times. I have chosen, for now, to side with the findings of the agency responsible for controlling air pollution (the EPA, which has worked hard for many years to control NOx) over those of biodiesel enthusiasts, refiners, and distributors.
The original article mentioned that the refiners don't want to put an additive in their fuel because it would raise costs.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:05 pm
11 Mar 2007
Industrial diesel-engines are ~45% efficient.
google.com/search?q=diesel+efficiency+45
Permalink
cce Posted 6:55 pm
11 Mar 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:38 pm
11 Mar 2007
It's true. Good old fashioned integrity! He walks the walk.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:39 pm
11 Mar 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:15 am
12 Mar 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network is a meeting place for 1000+ great grassroots organizations working for conservation and more: http://www.orionsociety.org/ogn
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 12:48 am
12 Mar 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:13 am
12 Mar 2007
This
Study found biodiesel reduced mileage about 15% in three engines studied. Assuming that translates into a 15% reduction in efficiency, we get 41-15= 26%. Now we see the gap between a gasoline engine and a biodiesel powered one closing to 6%. Modern gas turbine power plants get about 36% efficiency and as high as 70% if they can make use of cogeneration waste heat.
This does mean that there these generators will at least result in a net reduction in CO2, although not much, and for a big price.
The main thrust of my argument is that using biodiesel for this is inefficient, especially if you account for the land usurped and energy input to grow and process the fuel. The second thrust is that displacing coal with a liquid fuel is counter to the energy independence argument. An analogy for energy efficiency would be to use coal-to-liquid technology to fuel generators instead of using coal to directly fire steam turbines. If that is such a good idea, why isn't it being done here, and if burning soy oil in industrial generators is such a good idea, why has it taken so long to get here? The technology sure isn't new.
I'm glad you are paying attention to my posts. I'll keep the pencil sharp. Critique is all important.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:41 am
12 Mar 2007
Study found biodiesel reduced mileage about 15% in three engines studied.
For B100, 15% is a bit on the high side
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/BTU_Con ...
But they aren't using B100 in Texas, they are using B20.
And as that same study pointed out:
At a 20% blend with petroleum diesel, the fuel consumption differences are practically unnoticeable.
_
On a carbon basis.
Soy BioDiesel 20% is about as effective as Corn Ethanol 100%
With Soy B100 outcompeting Switchgrass Ethanol 100%
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:53 am
12 Mar 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:46 am
12 Mar 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:08 am
12 Mar 2007
Thanks for pointing out Biodiversivist's math error. In addition, Biodiversivist assumed that a diesel electrical generating station would have an efficiency of only 41% -- since, as he says, that is a typical efficiency of light diesel vehicles. However, diesel engines used in power plants tend to have higher efficiencies than those used in light vehicles. 45% is typical. And if an even-higher efficiency is desired, one simply needs to spend more money on a better engine.
Figuring our overall efficiency, accounting for biodiesel's 15% reduction in energy:
15% reduction, 0.45 * 0.85 = 38.25% overall efficiency
If we wanted to spend the big bucks on the most-efficient production diesel engine in the world...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-C
...the overall biodiesel efficiency we would see would be:
15% reduction, 0.52 * 0.85 = 44.2% overall efficiency
Both of these overall efficiencies are higher than the typical ~37% efficiency of a coal-fired power plant.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:13 am
12 Mar 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:37 am
12 Mar 2007
Not to mention the energy variability issues between different types of waste.
So it'd need to be preprocessed into a uniform fuel mixture either way.
_
What a power plant can do however use use straight vegetable oil, instead of using biodiesel.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:39 am
12 Mar 2007
Could also:
Or turn the biomass into a gas. Like IGCC.
Or perform pyrolysis on it. Like Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells.
_
Hrmm maybe making it into charcoal might help.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:24 am
12 Mar 2007
This is what critique is for.
My numbers were appropriate for a gasoline powered home generator, which is what I was envisioning when I wrote the post, not an industrial diesel one, which would have been appropriate.
From the original article:
Biofuels Power is now constructing a larger turbine-based biodiesel power plant at the Safe Renewables' refinery site.
Yet another place to dump their product (note this time it is a turbine).
This article also sheds some light on why we don't power our grid with thousands of local diesel generators.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:28 am
12 Mar 2007
Organic fertilizer if used in industrial scale mechanized agriculture can take over from chemical farming. Sequestering huge amounts of carbon in organic farm soil, creating the potential to reverse GHG climate change.
Biomass from conservation land like restored prairie could provide wind farms on the plains with backup power to smooth the supply out.
Combustion is not a good idea anymore, not with much more efficient alternatives like fuel cell/turbines.
Stamp out combustion!! period.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink