Hoarding is exactly what the government is doing right now by filling the SPR, and frankly it's the best thing that could happen. It drives prices up. High prices encourage demand destruction. They also finance new well development. The hoarded oil gives us a buffer to fall back on once shortages become more prevalent. High prices are what we need in order to adapt to what's coming, and the sooner they happen, the better.
i recently read that one plant cuted his needs of natural gas to 40%.
so its really only a question of cost, which technology we use to generate biofuels.
since renewable energy reduces their their costs every year, we will have a bright future with even less energy prices
and also EROEI doesn't matter anymore.
so lets go home in our 5 ton hummer SUV at 10mpg, noone will stop us
Why make ethanol from solar-generated electricity? Why not use windmills to power the grid and run electric vehicles?
Eroei is the only final measure of a primary energy source. It tell you how much useful net energy exits the system for practical use in the society. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
bonjaski wrote:
to be realistic and not euphoric,
for 10 billion people i think we need everything
from public transport, biofuels to plugin hybrids.
in my opinion,
EROEI from Wind (35-70) is very high, so it won't matter if it will be 0.5 when its stored into chemical fuel.
EROEI from wind is usually in range of 5, depending of turbine model and its location.
Link here: http://www.geotimes.org/aug05/feature_pimental.html
Claims of EROEI from wind to be 35 - 70 are plain bullshit in this context.
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
I don't remember where, but I remember reading here some poster claims ethanol cannot be transported through pipelines. I just read an article about Kinder Morgan planning to build an ethanol pipeline. They are asking buyers to guarantee usage before they actually start working on the pipelines.
The article does not talk about the technical difficulties like water contamination and corrosion, but obviously, it is feasible for a price.
By contrast, many believe corn ethanol consumes more energy than it yields, and I agree. We could easily waste more than 8.2 percent of the corn ethanol we make in the distribution chain. That means the Congressional corn ethanol mandate is destructive, rather than constructive.
_________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
nth, you are not talking about cow methane electricity generation? Yes, it is true anaerobic cellulosic digestion of ruminants produces CH4 in notable quantities and yes, that gas is a global warming problem.
But as a GW mitigation and especially as an input to an ethanol production system, that would be a counter-productive. The cost to build, operate, and maintain a cow-fart entrapment device would further inflate the input side of the eroei equation and emit more, not less GW gases. The methane is too dispersed.
Imagine trying to maintain the pressure tank under the frat-house soda dispenser. How would you do that? Ballons for the brothers? Just not worth the trouble _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
cow dung method is too complicated for EROIE calculations. cow dung is not free. Do you calculate energy used to feed the cows?
As for creating equipment to trap the gas, I think you are exagerating the energy costs. Any fix cost will play a small role due to quantity of ethanol produced.
Anyways, the methods I am talking about have to do with facility reconfiguration to trap heat and increase efficiency of NG usage. Recycle steam, etc....
Yes, energy costs will rise for building the facility, but it becomes minimal compare to energy saved, especially we are talking about 60% savings! This is a huge breakthrough and if this is not enough to paint a bright EROIE then no new technology will do the trick for corn ethanol.
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
nth wrote:
cow dung method is too complicated for EROIE calculations. cow dung is not free. Do you calculate energy used to feed the cows?
Of course you calculate this energy. It is not difficult to measure the diesel fuel and electricity input to a cow operation--track fillups and note the electric bill. Same with the animal feed factory production.
nth wrote:
As for creating equipment to trap the gas, I think you are exagerating the energy costs. Any fix cost will play a small role due to quantity of ethanol produced.
on the contrary, if you are familiar with net energy analysis you should know that these fixed costs (amortized over the life of the production system) are significant (check out pimentel's numbers above in this thread). As for the significance of the quantity of methane, I suggest you study human waste treatment facilities as a measure of such operations. These plants specifically create and trap methane in anaerobic digestion tanks and, rather than use the gas for power, they just burn and flare the methane.
So even with constructed tanks the amount is too small to bother with. In a cow operation, not only would a costly tank have to be built but methane would need to be trapped in the pasture, where the majority escapes into the air. Who inserts the balloon in the cow butt?
nth wrote:
Anyways, the methods I am talking about have to do with facility reconfiguration to trap heat and increase efficiency of NG usage. Recycle steam, etc....
Industrial system can always be more efficient. But 60%? Show me a study.
nth wrote:
Yes, energy costs will rise for building the facility, but it becomes minimal compare to energy saved, especially we are talking about 60% savings! This is a huge breakthrough and if this is not enough to paint a bright EROIE then no new technology will do the trick for corn ethanol.
Yes. No new technology will do the trick for corn ethanol. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
pstarr wrote:
nth wrote:
cow dung method is too complicated for EROIE calculations. cow dung is not free. Do you calculate energy used to feed the cows?
Of course you calculate this energy. It is not difficult to measure the diesel fuel and electricity input to a cow operation--track fillups and note the electric bill. Same with the animal feed factory production.
That is easier said than done. That is damn difficult work to calculate how much energy a rancher uses. Of course, you can guess, but that is just guessing.
Quote:
nth wrote:
As for creating equipment to trap the gas, I think you are exagerating the energy costs. Any fix cost will play a small role due to quantity of ethanol produced.
on the contrary, if you are familiar with net energy analysis you should know that these fixed costs (amortized over the life of the production system) are significant (check out pimentel's numbers above in this thread). As for the significance of the quantity of methane, I suggest you study human waste treatment facilities as a measure of such operations. These plants specifically create and trap methane in anaerobic digestion tanks and, rather than use the gas for power, they just burn and flare the methane.
I am very familiar with Pimentel's papers, and it seems to be fertilizer and power to production facility are the most significant and all the others play a small role.
Quote:
So even with constructed tanks the amount is too small to bother with. In a cow operation, not only would a costly tank have to be built but methane would need to be trapped in the pasture, where the majority escapes into the air. Who inserts the balloon in the cow butt?
You should checkout the facilities first before you make comments like these.
Anyways, I have no stance on cow dung, but cow dung is limited and makes absolutely no sense to breed cows just to power ethanol. It is obviously economical for these business men to recycle waste like cow dung.
Quote:
nth wrote:
Anyways, the methods I am talking about have to do with facility reconfiguration to trap heat and increase efficiency of NG usage. Recycle steam, etc....
Industrial system can always be more efficient. But 60%? Show me a study.
No studies. This is not science here. I just want to know is 60% going to make a difference. Yes or no?
I am not here proving that 60% can be done because no one has proven that. It is just a claim by an ethanol operator.
Quote:
Yes. No new technology will do the trick for corn ethanol.
Yes, coming from you. You don't believe in crappy ethanol. Preaching to the choir won't help us stay away from ethanol. To demonstrate that 60% improvement will not make a dent will be very useful to shed light on how bad corn ethanol is.
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
nth wrote:
You should checkout the facilities first before you make comments like these.
I don't think you read my comments above. Your town, my city create and collect methane from digesters just like you would build in cow operations. Yet these digesters do not produce enough gas to make electricity generation (even just to run the waste treatment plant) worthwhile.
How can you expect methane generation to contribute to running our society? There is too little, too dispersed. If there was any value in this gas, the farmers would have harnessed it long ago to run their tractors and lighting.
I mean if it is free power why did they not use it 100 years ago before there was cheap petroleum?
nth wrote:
Yes, coming from you. You don't believe in crappy ethanol. Preaching to the choir won't help us stay away from ethanol. To demonstrate that 60% improvement will not make a dent will be very useful to shed light on how bad corn ethanol is.
you are absolutely correct. Nothing I say or do here at peak oil makes a difference to the greedy bastards stealing public monies for their investment scams. Nor to the oblivious sheep feeding on their techtopian blather. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
pstarr,
As I said, you need to check out the facilities before commenting. If all you are doing is trapping methane from sewage, manure, or whatever, the amount is too little to make a difference, but when you are running a pseudo bio reactor in a city that runs several major feed lots, then you can make it worthwhile. Also, garbage dumps with their high concentration of waste are becoming worthwhile to trap gas.
As for your comment about running a society on this, as I said above, it makes absolutely no sense to breed cattle to power ethanol plants.
As for what you post here will or will not affect our policies, I say yes. At the very least, I get to read it and what I write and say have a chance to make a difference.
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
I believe these on-farm cow methane schemes are mostly just waste-treament justifications. The County or EPA say 'clean up your manure ponds or we will shut your operation down' so the farmer says 'okay, how about I digest it?' County says, 'won't work to expensive.' Farmer says, 'I can make electricity and save money.' County says, 'it's your buck, just don't dump the untreated crap into the neighbors field.'
Until you show me a reasonable life-cycle analysis that proves there net energy produced by this process, I believe it's nothing more than a waste-migation
What you get from the digester is a little heat, and maybe a little power generation to light the cow barn. It is not nearly enough to run the ethanol mill, the fermenter, the distillery. It is not enough to plant and harvest the corn.
Let's face it corn ethanol is a joke. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
pstarr wrote:
Until you show me a reasonable life-cycle analysis that proves there net energy produced by this process, I believe it's nothing more than a waste-migation
What you get from the digester is a little heat, and maybe a little power generation to light the cow barn. It is not nearly enough to run the ethanol mill, the fermenter, the distillery. It is not enough to plant and harvest the corn.
Let's face it corn ethanol is a joke.
wow, how did this become cow dung powers the complete corn ethanol cycle?
By the way, who is advocating for cow dung? Everytime you mention cow dung, I tell you that it cannot be used to power all of our ethanol plants. For the few that find this workable are doing it for the money and nothing else.
Why am I being asked to show life-cycle of anything when I am asking for a recalculation of EROIE based on 60% reduction in NG per gallon of ethanol?
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
nth wrote:
Why am I being asked to show life-cycle of anything when I am asking for a recalculation of EROIE based on 60% reduction in NG per gallon of ethanol?
What does that 60% NG savings mean to the entire energy cost of producing corn ethanol? If NG only accounts for 1% of all energy used, then you are still left accounting for the other 99.4% of the (diesel, electricity, etc.) energy used. You've saved practically nothing.
And has a proper life-cycle analysis of that 60% savings been accomplished? That 60% saving is not free. It cost some energy to produce that methane. How much? _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
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 
