Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: Think outside of the system
Hello
I have never seen people that open, farsighted, considerate and critical in their thinking like all you folks. Hope you will be open to this one:
Donīt believe any expert who thinks inside the current energy system, because thatīs what they want to keep up. Think outside of the system:
- All the hydrogen and alternative energy in the world wonīt save us, if we continue operating within our current energy system. If we really want to do something against PO and GW, we have to establish a true hydrogen economy. One which is not based on hydrogen from fossil fuels (not even worth talking about) or electrolysis (too expensive and inefficient) but on hydrogen directly from biomass.
- Cut the electricity supply system, because you donīt need it anymore. Go from an electricity-based system to a heat-based system.
- Conversion of energy is not done by thermodynamic processes (which lose a lot of energy, because the heat canīt be utilised) but decentralised by electrochemical processes: Fuel cells in the homes and cars. This way you could cut your primary energy needs in half, because you use the power and the heat.
- Use the natural gas pipelines to get the hydrogen to the homes and fuel stations. It has been done before (Stadtgas, about 60% hydrogen back in the 60s in Germany) and can be done now with only minor switches in the pipelines and heating devices.
- Produce the hydrogen from biomass, dry and wet, use silage to store it. You donīt need fertiliser or pesticides because you can use everything that grows. You can have multiple harvests per year because you donīt have to wait for something to get ripe which is very inefficient. Just use the biomass and alternate the plants. You get biodiversity and soil improvement as a byproduct.
- The EU has about 5,5 Mio ha of agricultural land that produces a surplus of grain, meat and milk, or is not used so you could easily produce about 5000 PJ this way, which would be enough for the EU, considering the higher efficiency (see above).
All these things have been thought through, calculated and presented to the public. Hereīs a link:
- Karl Heinz Tetzlaff, who is now retired, was the leader of the fuel cell and hydrogen division of Hoechst which is now Aventis and as such a process engineer well educated in engineering and calculating. He is a decent guy without financial interests and currently a consultant to the European Parliament.
- In the article mentioned above there are almost no footnotes. In his book Bio Wasserstoff there are over 140. In addition the book has a technical appendix with all the calculations for his statements but it has not been published in English I guess. His references and calculations are realistic and solid, but check for yourself.
- Still there is one major mistake in his calculations: a fuel cell stack cannot be produced for 12$/kw at the moment (instead ~73$/kw, Ballard Power Systems). But the price will come down dramatically due to lower platinum for the fuel cell stack (http://www.physorg.com/news90167618.html) and improvements in the membrane (http://technology.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6493&print=true).
- The Fraunhofer Institut and the Max-Planck Institut, Germanyīs most famous research institutes have formed an alliance to examine the process Tetzlaff proposed (steam reforming of biomass in Wirbelschichtreaktoren, either autotherm or allotherm). There are also working factories in Germany, Austria and other places. Also the National Institute of Renewable Energy currently examines the different versions of steam reforming.
Hard times are upon us.
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4312 Location: Graceland
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:32 am Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
The market has to believe in hydrogen and be willing to invest in it with a realistic time frame regarding when to expect investment returns. Read up on the U.S. hydrogen crash in the early 2000s and you will begin to appreciate the challenges facing hydrogen. It all boils down to impatience and a lack of appreciation of the technical difficulties involved in maturing this technology.
Sadly, hydrogen illustrates the problems all alternative energy faces. First there is the gee whiz period when switching out the new technology for oil seems amazingly simple. Then the problems begin to appear--more expensive than originally thought, production bottlenecks, unreliable, still dependent upon fossil fuels for production or maintenance, less efficient than originally thought, complicated for the end user, etc.
In sum, for a technology to be brought to market, it has to both work (and by "work" I mean work at a given price point) and investors have to believe it works. At this point, I think hydrogen is still struggling with both of these problems.
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
Olorin, the paper ignores an important energy accounting of the energy returned on energy invested or input (eroei) into the entire crop-fuel system. Thus it takes energy (whether hydrogen, crude oil, or alt. elec.) to farm crops and process biomass. It cost energy repeatedly every harvest season (for tractors, collection, milling, steam reforming, gas cleaning etc.), unlike petroleum which flows under geologic pressure through refineries . Applied to similar biofuels operations this accounting has proven these schemes to be energy neutral at best, energy sinks most likely. The paper's energy efficiency analysis is meaningless in face of this missing information.
Starting with this faulty methodology, the author then make ridiculous claims. My favorite
Quote:
Using fuel cells to convert the hydrogen obtained in this way to electrical energy, the same amount of water will now yield 10 to 100 times more electrical energy than if it had been poured through water turbines. This obviously leaves much more of the water to grow food.
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 5433 Location: Oklahoma
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
Olorin wrote:
Conversion of energy is not done by thermodynamic processes (which lose a lot of energy, because the heat canīt be utilised) but decentralised by electrochemical processes:
Any transformation of energy is a thermodynamic process resulting in increased entropy. _________________ "Every junkie's like a setting sun..." - Neil Young
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
Shannymara wrote:
Olorin wrote:
Conversion of energy is not done by thermodynamic processes (which lose a lot of energy, because the heat canīt be utilised) but decentralised by electrochemical processes:
Any transformation of energy is a thermodynamic process resulting in increased entropy.
That was the first warning flag. This article is pap. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
<<Olorin, the paper ignores an important energy accounting of the energy returned on energy invested or input (eroei) into the entire crop-fuel system.>>
Well the calculations are in his book (Bio-Wasserstoff, BoD Verlag, Norderstedt, ISBN 3-8334-2616-0). But how much energy does it take to harvest and transport the stuff about 15 km (thatīs the radius of the ~300 hydrogen factories needed for Germany). Remember: no fertilizer, pesticides or irrigation needed.
<<unlike petroleum which flows under geologic pressure through refineries .>>
You need a lot of energy from the crude in the Rub al khali or the arctic seas to the petroleum at your local gas station.
<<similar biofuels operations this accounting has proven these schemes to be energy neutral at best, energy sinks most likely>>
These "similar" biofuel operations which you are referring to (probably ethanol or biodiesel) are indeed not even worth talking about. Agreed. Only that they are not similar. Totally different process and outcome (and these are not just hypothetical, they do work in real life).
<<Any transformation of energy is a thermodynamic process resulting in increased entropy.>>
Well I am no physicist. You probably got me on this one. But if you can use the power and the heat of the stuff you dramatically improve your efficiency.
@BigTex: I agree that there is currently no market, because Big Energy does not want it. But when the TSHTF we wonīt be talking about profits but survival.
I can understand your doubts. I had them too. The problem is: We are so indoctrinated to think inside the system that we donīt even dare believe that hydrogen from biomass might be a solution. I personally let myself be convinced through his references and calculations (although as a reader of Heinberg, Deffeyes, Twilight, TOD, Limits to growth, Collapse, and all the other stuff the convincing took about one year and a lot of double checking).
I really hope that his book will appear in English in the future because I have only a limited amount of time to translate all his details.
I am looking forward to an open discussion about the topic, because as I see it, it might be the only way to prevent PO and GW.
Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4312 Location: Graceland
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
Olorin wrote:
@BigTex: I agree that there is currently no market, because Big Energy does not want it. But when the TSHTF we wonīt be talking about profits but survival.
I can understand your doubts. I had them too. The problem is: We are so indoctrinated to think inside the system that we donīt even dare believe that hydrogen from biomass might be a solution.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure it matters whether I believe it works, or you believe it works, or whether it actually works if investors won't make the long term commitment it would take to get the technology to a market-ready state.
Remember that when you are talking about Big Energy, there is no distinction between profits and survival--profits ARE survival. When TSHTF Big Energy should be one of the last industries standing.
As I recall, in Mad Max it was fuel that was in shortest supply (I'm not sure where they got their food and ammunition). They came up with pig crap as a way out in the third installment, which may be the equivalent of hydrogen from biomass, but that was quite a while post-TSHTF (at least enough time for Max to grow his short hair into a Heavy Metal mane), and was a much lower-tech approach to the energy problem.
The problem with TSHTF as a catalyst is that TSHTF will bring to a halt many speculative high technology/long lead time/ resource intensive/very complex alternative energy sources, since the exotic materials, testing facilities, and production capacity will not be available, and the Professors will be out scavenging for food and bullets and trying to protect their homes from the zombies.
From the link:
Although there is no doubt of the important role of gasification for the introduction of biomass into our energy system the discussion about the further development of this technology is very controversial. One frequently given argument is that biomass gasification has got a lot of public funding over many years but the commercial break through has not been reached up to now. Even more, some of the leading projects with a lot of public attention had to be stopped due to various technical and/or non technical reasons.
On the other hand one can also recognize that in the field of biomass gasification an essential progress has been reached over the last years. The progress was made perhaps too slow but continuously. It is normal in live that a fiasco gets more public attention than a success. Nevertheless, there are certain applications where biomass gasification is already used successfully e.g. for co-firing in fossil fuel power stations for power generation. But there are also other gasification plants which are operated successfully and show a satisfying performance.
In the report - which can be downloaded below - some of this so-called Success Stories are presented of which some did not reach so much public attention. The idea is not to have a complete collection but only a selection made by members of GasNet. The presentation of each success story is structured in a similar way to get comparable descriptions. An extension of this collection by addition of further examples is possible without any problems. Furthermore, the description of each success story is written in a way that it can also stand alone and used as separate leaflet.
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
Olorin wrote:
If we really want to do something against PO and GW, we have to establish a true hydrogen economy. One which is not based on hydrogen from fossil fuels (not even worth talking about) or electrolysis (too expensive and inefficient) but on hydrogen directly from biomass.
Not enough and not sustainable.
Quote:
The fossil fuels burned in 1997 were created from organic matter which is 400 times the net primary productivity (NPP) of the planets current biota. As stores of ancient solar energy decline, humans are likely to use an increasing share of modern solar resources. I conservatively estimate that replacing the energy humans derive from fossil fuels with energy from modern biomass would require 22% of terrestrial NPP, increasing the human appropriation of this resource by 50%.
Annual fossil and nuclear energy consumption in the U.S. is larger than all biomass production. Biomass burning provided about 2 percent of primary energy supply. Right: A very optimistic estimate of annual biomass production over the entire U.S. area. This biomass production has been converted to equivalent energy. Over 3/4 of the biomass production is committed to food and animal feed, wood for paper, lumber and fiber, or is energy stored in plant roots and other inaccessible parts. This part of biomass production is heavily subsidized with fossil fuels. One half of the remainder is remote and sparse vegetation. The other half may serve as the source of bioenergy, but a large part of it will be used to produce biofuels. So the ultimate sustained biofuel production capacity in the U.S. may be 2-3 percent of the U.S. consumption today. We already are at this level. Current proposals to replace a good part of the fossil energy devoured each year by us with the biomass-derived fuels are pure fantasy. The only way to increase the biomass share of primary energy use in the U.S. is to decrease the fossil fuel consumption.
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: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
In my opinion itīs not either powerdown or hydrogen economy, itīs both. We definitely will have to powerdown. This much is sure. And it is even good for us because it can improve our individualistic, greedy society. Cuba showed the way.
From my personal experience I found that you can halve your energy use without major decreases in the quality of life in as little as a few weeks (Mazda mx5->smart diesel, driving a little less and slower (but still driving), no long distance flights->holidays at home (still holidays)->use money for insulated windows, pullover->thermostat down 2 centigrades, burgers->more vegetables and fruit (home-grown), TV->reading, Energy-saving light bulbs, no more standby on TV etc.
So letīs assume we could cut our energy needs in half if we have to. And letīs further assume that we could use the electricity and heat generated from the biomass (fuel cells), we are at about a quarter of the primary energy needs.
Furthermore we could use multiple harvests from the land because we donīt have to wait for something to get ripe like for instance corn for ethanol.
Actually I watched a corn field every day this year, because it was on my way to work. The green stuff (biomass) grew in about 6 weeks from nothing to full grown. From then on it stood for about 10 more weeks and will probably be harvested in 2 weeks.
Thatīs just a rough estimate, donīt nail me on it, but it looks like we could have 3 harvests here and if we use plants that grow in fall or even winter, and there are plants which can do that, we would have 4-5 harvests per year.
In order not to deplete the soil you would have to give back the nutrients and ammonia, which you can do:
So for a quarter of the energy needs and 4 times the biomass per land gives us a factor of 16! We are getting closer. Add to that improving the yields of the energy plants, reducing our consumption of meat, starting biointensive farming.......
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
Olorin wrote:
From my personal experience I found that you can halve your energy use without major decreases in the quality of life in as little as a few weeks (Mazda mx5->smart diesel, driving a little less and slower (but still driving), no long distance flights->holidays at home (still holidays)->use money for insulated windows, pullover->thermostat down 2 centigrades, burgers->more vegetables and fruit (home-grown), TV->reading, Energy-saving light bulbs, no more standby on TV etc.
For you. What if everybody did the same? It would reek havoc on the economy.
What about those dependent upon that consumption for their very quality of life?
Conservation on this scale is a huge self-imposed recession resulting in reduced economic activity and huge unemployment.
There are massive repercussions with cutting energy use we have to address.
Quote:
Furthermore we could use multiple harvests from the land because we donīt have to wait for something to get ripe like for instance corn for ethanol.
I guess you just ignored the links I just posted.
Quote:
The only way to increase the biomass share of primary energy use in the U.S. is to decrease the fossil fuel consumption.
_________________ 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: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
MonteQuest wrote:
For you. What if everybody did the same? It would wreak havoc on the economy.
First of all most of these things donīt wreak havoc on the economy. Driving less or slower has almost no impact at all on economic activity. And just think of all the entropy heat that we currently do not utilise in our centralised energy generating system: No economic effect at all. If we would use that heat decentralised, we would dramatically decrease our energy needs.
Secondly there will definitely be sectors in the economy who will shrink or vanish altogether (probably fast food, long distance tourism, or sports cars): Do you really want to save them? Other sectors will improve or be created (solar, fuel cells etc.). And even if thereīs a net negative effect on the economy, what is more important: Self perpetuating GW or our economy? I didnīt say that it would go without any economic hardships. There probably will be a lot of them, but it will not disintegrate totally in a few weeks. We will have time and money to make a switch.
Quote:
I guess you just ignored the links I just posted.
No, I actually believed your numbers and used them, and then I gave a proposition how the effect of "biomass for energy" in your chart could be increased 16fold.
Quote:
The only way to increase the biomass share of primary energy use in the U.S. is to decrease the fossil fuel consumption.
That would be true, if you think about biofuels which need a lot of fossil fuels to create, like ethanol.
Out of 20 tons/ha of biomass you get around 2,2 tons of hydrogen. As energy input for farming the land you can assume 100 liters of diesel/ha which is about 1,4% of the energy you get out of the biomass. If you used fuel cell tractors this number would be even lower. No additional fertilizer or pesticides needed.
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: Re: Think outside of the system
Olorin wrote:
Quote:
The only way to increase the biomass share of primary energy use in the U.S. is to decrease the fossil fuel consumption.
That would be true, if you think about biofuels which need a lot of fossil fuels to create, like ethanol.
I suggest you read those links again.
How many more lifeforms should we deny food so we can continue "happy motoring"? _________________ 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.
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 
