Although they're beating the drum for small-scale production, it seems clear that regardless of scale biodiesel beats corn-derived ethanol hands down, with a 3.2x (versus 1.34x) EROEI factor using best available methods. (They did not, however, look at other fuel crops.) They also make the case that yields need not drop switching to sustainable agricultural practices. They provide links to numerous interesting papers.
I found the food versus fuel essay an interesting read. They take the position that there's enough waste in the current developed-world system to make this a false choice. It also pops some preconceptions regarding food availability, who's exporting to whom, and such. For example I did not know that most US corn and corn exports is used for animal feed (though I suspected meat production was a big source of inefficiency in food production). Their overall thesis is that hunger is due mostly to economic and political factors, not overall scarcity. It was disturbing - shifted my world-view somewhat, which is no small thing.
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
Regardless of the pretty picture this happy permaculture web site paints biofuels still suck: energy, water, land, and valuable time. The entire web site comes across as some feel-good, green, earth-loving paradise of simple folks giving back to the land, but it only an unconscious green light go-ahead for big agriculture to rip off the government and the people.
All the simple grow-your-own, back to the land, backyard permaculture biofuel projects will come to naught and the giant ADM and Cargil projects will suck up money and valuable time.
The entire Biodiesel section is a corny phoney homegrown bunch of pap. Are they suggesting that soccer mom is going to make lye from wood ash in her backyard so she can boil down the hamburger grease sticking to her Weber Grill? The truth is the biodiesel will come from oil crops grown with petroleum-based fertilizers and use up more land and more water for naught.
The corn-ethanol section is a propaganda piece for cargil and ADM. The numbers are wrong, the critiques are ripped off straight from corn-growers and their apologists and lobbyists in Washington. This is what they have to say.
Quote:
The US now uses more than 15 billion gallons of cleaner, ethanol-blended petrol a year, totalling 12% of fuel sales in the US. Most of it is a 10% blend, but 85% and even 95% blends are now being tested.
That number is off by an order of magnitude and the rest is just as bad.
These people claim independent thought and especially
freedom from corruption of corporations and government. But this site is full of propaganda and nonsense. The attacks on Pimentel as no better, no more objective than those tossed out by the various corn-growers associations.
There is nothing uglier than a snarling, angry hippy. And they do not want to hear the truth _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
Here is another wrong figure I dug up at this site.
Quote:
If you happen to have a spare acre in your back yard, you can raise enough maize to make enough ethanol to drive even a gas-guzzling Land Rover (17.5 miles per gallon) about 5,000 miles, along with enough animal feed to help keep you in eggs and chicken.
this is true but with a caveat: the nice hippy has to be willing to plant and harvest the corn by hand, grind the kernels with their teeth, and cook, ferment, and distill the mush with rainwater and a stick fire.
If they intend to use any external energy then they might want to consider thermodynamics truths such as: if the energy return is 1.34 as they claim it is (and that is very debatable) then it will take 3 of every 4 of the gallons to fuel the process. Plus ethanol has a lower energy density (75%) than gasoline. So the groovy Land Rover only goes 1,000 miles on the acre of crop. Sounds like a lot but we must remember there is only one crop per year. (The fuel must be stored in glass or stainless steel also. It is corrosive.) If every driver wanted to drive a little (soccer moms and as well as groovy hippies) that would be 200,000,000 acres of corn. Which is about the size of texas and half california. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 1189 Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
An interesting post, mostly due to my location. Wisconsin is big on Ethanol production, mostly because of all those corn farmers. We have alot of them, probably oil a true plains state has more. For them, ethanol means big money if it really takes off. They aren't looking at ERoEI, they are just looking at an additional source of income.
I've always felt that biodiesel was the better route not only due to the EROEI, but also due to it's treatment of engines. Other than extremely modern diesels that don't take well to anything but very specific fuels, most diesels LOVE biodiesel. They eat that stuff up.
Ethanol on the other hand seems to love to eat engine's up. I don't know about you, but corosive fuel vs fuel that helps lubricate my vital parts? Sounds like a no brainer to me, but I've heard other opinions. _________________ Azreal60
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
Biodiesel has a few advantages over ethanol.
Biodiesel has over 1.6 times the energy content of ethanol.
Water is not miscible in biodiesel, thus it can be piped.
Diesel engines are far more efficient than gasoline engines.
However, most people do not drive diesel cars.... _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
DoctorDoom wrote:
It also pops some preconceptions regarding food availability, who's exporting to whom, and such. For example I did not know that most US corn and corn exports is used for animal feed (though I suspected meat production was a big source of inefficiency in food production). Their overall thesis is that hunger is due mostly to economic and political factors, not overall scarcity. It was disturbing - shifted my world-view somewhat, which is no small thing.
And you think this will change just because we start using biomass for fuel? If you are just now learning about these preconceptions, you are right up there with most people. However, the United Nations has been warning us for years about the growing inequity in the world and the conflict that will follow. I have been writing about this for years.
Read Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water, by Marc Reisner. You will learn a lot about cattle and water in the West.
I don't think the meat/dairy producing business is going to just roll over and quit so we can use the grain to feed people directly and to make biofuels for more "happy motoring." 70% of the US grain crop goes to feed livestock.
Nor are people going to just stop eating meat....not voluntarily anyway. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:31 am Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
MonteQuest wrote:
Nor are people going to just stop eating meat....not voluntarily anyway.
A lot of people are voluntarily stopping eating meat in the UK. But anyway, as the prices of meat go up, the reduction of meat in the diet will be automatic.
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
Monbiot on Biodiesel:
Worse Than Fossil Fuel
Quote:
In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter “containing 44×10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet’s current biota.”(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries’ worth of plants and animals.
The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy – and the extraordinary power densities it gives us – with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back. But substitutes are being sought everywhere. They are being promoted today at the climate talks in Montreal, by states – such as ours – which seek to avoid the hard decisions climate change demands. And at least one of them is worse than the fossil fuel burning it replaces.
Link _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:27 am Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
frankthetank wrote:
The rich will continue to drive, the rest? The middle class will have horses and bicycles, the poor will walk.
Wait...thats waaaaay too optomistic.
horses?
I thought horse upkeep are quite expensive and will just keep rising with fuel costs going up?
Ain't it cheaper to drive right now than ride a horse?
Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
You might have a bit of trouble fitting the horses in with the "new urbanism" but they would serve well enough in rural areas. Upkeep would largely depend on where you live. Midwest probably wouldn't be too hard but out in the southwest you might have trouble getting enough forage and water to them.
I'm sure all the poor and middle class will happily step aside on the roads so the rich guy can cruise by in his hummer with the A/C going...
-G _________________ All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up!
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: Biodiesel versus Ethanol
I'm not so sure you folks are thinking outside the box. Then of course, few people are as well.
Start here for a profile in thought:
Not a fan of traditional ag, even with "best available technology."
Not a fan of the agriculture distribution system.
Not a fan of subsidies that generate international inequity of sustainability/production.
But not a lot of that is going to change in our lifetimes. So it's time to think outside the box.
50 gallons of soybean oil per acre. Not a smart play.
110 gallons of rapeseed, sunflower and safflower per acre. Better but not by much.
600 gallons per acre from palm. Doesn't grow but at specific latitudes, leaving everyone else in a lurch. Besides, it's mono-culture and the incumbent bio-fuel is latitude specific as well.
Options? Algae at 2,000 gallons per horizontal acre, approximately 100,000 if Ohio University's patented bio-reactor is implemented.
Bio-reactors grow species specific algaes that can yield up to 90% oil by weight, with the solid co-product being feed, both for livestock or human consumption. They also are tied to CO2 point sources, such as kiln, boiler, power plant flues, etc. This nets an annual carbon dioxide recycling rate of ~45%. (The sun doesn't stay up all day. If it did the net recycling rate would be ~90%.
45% increased utility for every fossil fuel btu is not a bad increase. Of course production btus need to be subtracted. But the majority of manufacturing energies are solar. So don't get hasty with the negative math.
The first commercial prototype will be on-line by December, 2007. From there it's toes to the wall to manufacture them in a production line environment, as the existing oilseed inventory will have been diminished by new construction of biodiesel plants.
MIT has their own version of a bio-reactor. And while it has it's place, it has a bigger footprint than OU's and some other limitations.
And don't forget the surface water remediation projects where the algae from ag runoff could be filtered and shunted to a pressing/biodiesel facility. It would be nice to not be able to walk on 10 feet of muck (algae) in Lake Apopka for a change. New Zealand is already producing biodiesel from wild algaes growing in sewage treatment ponds. (Don't worry. The end product smells no different than from virgin oilseed.)
Then there's cellulosic ethanol, turning any cellulosic material into ethanol, rather than growing crops specifically for the liquid fuel. Tree trimmings to ag waste - quite a bigger bang for the buck than what ADM would care for you to know about.
And thermal depolymerization? Chicken feathers and gizards into lightweight oil. Matter of fact, any form of biomass into lightweight oil.
All of these liquid fuel technologies are in their infancy and will take a decade to infuse into present infrastructure to the point that they become predominant.
So the answers aren't contemporary and the thinking can't afford to be either.
What was it Albert Einstein said? "The problems we face today won't be solved by the minds that created them."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
