Biomass Future-- Will It Replace Oil
Pages
| Author | Topic: Biomass Future-- Will It Replace Oil |
|---|---|
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 06:50
Profile
I am very interested in the concept of a biomass future replacing large portions of our reliance on petroleum in the future. There are some 3 million flexible fuel vehicles on the road today in the United States that can run off either pure gasoline, or 85% ethanol mixture. This is a huge tax write off for automobile manufacturers that should be announced much more widely to the public. Diesel engines can be converted to run on either biodiesel or pure vegetable oil. The diesel engine was originally designed to run on peanut oil. Waste Management is working on large scale landfill bioreactors-- waste gasification. Diesel engines can be converted to run on either biodiesel or pure vegetable oil. This means that landfills and dumps would be converted into making biogas. Paper mills, breweries, and agricultural facilities all produce wastes that can be converted into ethanol. Many companies are already converting their agricultural wastes into methanol. Also human waste can be converted into biogas as well. ADM, Cargill and other companies are working on building something called a biorefinery which would completely replace the petroleum refinery. Corn, rapeseed, corn chaff, would be processed into industrial chemicals, plastics, and ethanol. Ethanol is already being produced on a huge scale by very large companies and is growing as a a product of farm cooperatives. I think if pushed as an option, 10-15% of the United States energy could come from biomass sources within 8-10 years. This cannot happen because of politics. It needs to change. The United States in the literal sense could have a green energy economy. Cellulosic Ethanol-- http://www.iogen.ca/ Grease Car-- it is possible to both heat homes with diesel generators and run diesel cars with raw vegetable oil. http://www.greasecar.com Flexible Fuel Vehicles http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/vbg/consumers/e85.shtml Waste Management Inc. http://www.wm.com/WM/environmental/Bioreactor/index.asp Cargill, Dow, etc. http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/sugar_biorefineries.html ADM http://www.admworld.com/naen/fuels/petroleum.asp Biodiesel http://www.biodiesel.org -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 07:06
Profile
Homepage
It's worth remembering that a large percentage of petroleum consumption is for uses other than energy production. There's been some progress in the production of plastics from biomass, but they're not as versatile as traditional plastics. [ Saturday, April 23, 2005 07:07: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 07:29
Profile
Biomass has some potential applications depending on which process we refer to. The combustion of organics tend to lead to the release of CO2, CO, and large particulate carbon chains which are not entirely good for the environment and the people in it. However, this does not imply combustion is the only way to produce energy. The real problem with biomass is the extremely low energy density. In order to produce the amounts of energy that other major suppliers produce, it would require phenomenal amounts of land usage dedicated to just making the biomass. Also, petroleum products with the very long carbon chains are important to the formation of plastics and other polymers. I doubt shorter carbon chains can make as reliable products. Biomass has a niche, but it's energy density and other limitations will keep it from becoming a dominant fuel source. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 07:45
Profile
Although, the land usage is a big problem, in the United States, many farmers are being paid not to produce crops and are going out of business. Initially it would be a tremendous boon for farmers in the midwestern states. It would put a lot of people back to work. Farmers are pushing to increase ethanol use. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1302&dept_id=181978&newsid=14393208&PAG=461&rfi=9 I don't think it could produce all of the energy, no one source can do this, but it could make a serious dent in our use of nonrenewable energy sources. The other option which needs to be built up is wind energy. Once again this is not visible enough in the United States. The big producer of wind power in the United States is GE Energy. Because it is not a separate company from GE it is not very visible. http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_wind_energy/en/index.htm There are some companies which are quietly growing like Western Wind Energy company based out of Canada. However in the United States there is no big wind company comparable to Vestas AG. Wind power is very profitable and needs to grow considerably. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 09:18
Profile
There is plenty of land that can be used for this purpose. Wind should be expanded too and if it ever becomes economical and environmentally friendly, solar photovoltaic should be used. Unfortunately, because they have either low energy density or have reliability issues, they will probably only be intermitant power sources. Affordable baseload power will have to come from high energy density sources of coal combustion, natural gas, or nuclear fission. We can argue that there will be something better in the future, but there will always be something better in the future. We have to use what we have now and research the things for the future. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 09:25
Profile
quote:I disagree. Aerogenerators are very expensive. Instead, we should fund the project Nuclear Fusion. [ Saturday, April 23, 2005 09:25: Message edited by: Mind ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 09:35
Profile
quote:Well, I hate to break this as a nuclear engineer, but fusion is gonna be a long way away. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fund research, but we need to use what we have today. Here's the deal with fusion: The easiest fuel cycle, the deuterium-tritium (DT) cycle has some inherent problems even if we get the actual cycle worked out: 1) Produces high-energy neutrons which damages the vessel, which makes it very expensive to replace. I fear this will make it uneconomical. 2) The cycle would be the ideal device for manufacturing thermonuclear weapons. The production of tritium in abundance coupled with removable U238 or Th232 reflector curtains would be perfect for manufacturing weapons grade fissionable material. Other more advanced cycles such as DD, D-3He, 3He-3He, and p-11B are tens of times harder than the DT cycle, but do not have the same problems as much. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 11:33
Profile
I would like to see a diversified fixed set of renewable energy sources. Another source of energy which is not used enough in the United States is Geothermal Energy. This could be expanded significantly. The other source of energy which is being developed is tidal power-- tidal generators are conceivably much more efficient than wind power because they run 24 hours. The ideal for me would be a mixed renewable set of energy sources stretching from the mountains-- geothermal and wind, plains-- solar, wind and energy crops, to the sea-- tidal power and hydroelectric. As more nonrenewables are used up, this is more likely to happen. I see a very limited future for fusion-- simply because a fusion bomb in the future in the wrong hands would be a nightmare. Even dirty bombs are a nasty surprise-- conventional weapons packed with nuclear waste. In the future the biomass crops would be phased out and replaced with hydrogen energy. Another thing to consider is the idea of co-firing feeding switchgrass into coal and natural gas fired plants to increase energy output. This is being worked on by Southern Company. Geothermal http://www.geysers.com/CalpineGeothermalFacts.html Tidal Power http://www.hie.co.uk/aie/tidal_power.html Most communities won't support the construction of new nuclear power plants. The NIMBY idea is too strong. [ Saturday, April 23, 2005 13:16: Message edited by: Toasted Basilisk on a Shish Kebab ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 11:43
Profile
Homepage
Biomass is practical for the United States, but for countries which are net food importers, hardly -- and they're the ones using the most gas, and whose gas use is expanding the quickest. The only practical way to prevent global economic ruin is to conquer half of Asia and most of Africa and rebuild it from the ground up. They're the foundation on which the modern world is built, and no amount of whiz-bang power here will prevent them from consuming the last of the world's easily accessible oil in a desperate effort to stave off the wolf at the door. On the topic of whiz-bang power sources: heavy development of fission, with three or four nuclear waste dumps around the country. Reactionary hippies be damned, it's the cleanest form of power that produces any real amount of energy and it's available to us now, instead of a generation from now (solar) or a century from now (geothermal). -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 12:04
Profile
Homepage
I agree with Alec. While there are many sources of power with various problems, most involve at least some degree of investment now for payoff in the future, which tends to be unpopular with the major companies that would have to drive this kind of change. Also, the sheer amount of change and construction it would require (every car on the road given a new engine? The construction of hundreds or thousands of wind, solar, tidal, and hydroelectric plants?) is prohibitive. The other sources all merit further research and development, but fission is something we have now. No, it's not a perfect solution, but it's better than what we use now. With electric cars already produced and cheap, clean (ignoring waste disposal, which is admittedly a sticky issue), reliable, and safe fission a reality, there is no reason for the nuclear paranoia that seems so widespread today. Pointing at Three Mile Island and claiming that nuclear power is too dangerous is like destroying all aircraft because of the Hindenburg. —Alorael, who still sees something of the same problem for fission, however. Third world countries often don't have the resources and developed countries are justifiably leery of handing out nuclear material. On the other hand, working on that is a better alternative than dealing with a world-wide collapse in slow motion as fossil fuel reserves run out. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 12:30
Profile
Let me put it this way. Every car on the road in the near future could be sold as a flexible fuel vehicle. It would not take much to do this. With a phase in period of five years to use as a standard this could be done. There are 3 million cars which are already flexible fuel vehicles-- run on either gasoline or an 85% ethanol mix. In the ten years after most of the older engines would be replaced by attrition. It is not far fetched. Diesel vehicles and engines would not require any change to run biodiesel. This is also true of heavier diesel equipment. This could be done easily in 15-20 years. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 14:10
Profile
quote:I find the ten year statement to be highly dubious. I know a lot of people who have vehicles ten years or older. Mine is personally fifteen years old from the manufacturing date and the engine still works fine. Replacing it would not be economical for me at this time. I think twenty years would be the absolute soonest for large scale replacement with thirty years a more likely achievable goal if we work on attrition alone. That said, a more relevant question: What is the energy density of ethanol versus gasoline? How many square kilometers of land would it take to support one vehicle for one year? Suppose we now multiply that by 300 million. How many square kilometers would such an economy require? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 15:08
Profile
Homepage
For perspective, there are still plenty of cars on the road which were designed to run on leaded petrol. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 15:13
Profile
Homepage
quote:Which will help the industrial base of developing countries which use petroleum as a power source... how? -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 15:32
Profile
From Mark's Handbook for Mechanical Engineers: * Ethanol yields about 12,770 Btu's/lb of thermal energy from combustion based on its HHV. On a volumetric basis that becomes 83,910 Btu's/gal. * Gasoline yields about 20,260 Btu's/lb of thermal energy from combustion based on its HHV. On a volume basis that becomes 124,800 Btu's/gal. Basically ethanol from corn could not replace gasoline. It could cut back reliance on gasoline. Ethanol from cellulosic biomass-- what is produced by Iogen could possibly replace gasoline completely. Cellulosic biomass is nonfood biomass paper pulp, wood chips, grass, rapeseed, etc. This has about half the energy density of gasoline. As far as developing countries, Brazil produces ethanol for its transportation on a large scale. It is focused on sugar cane ethanol. There is almost zero reliance on foreign oil. You might find this article kind of interesting. It is a possible model for many latin american economies. http://www.energybulletin.net/5021.html A thing which I found very interesting is that Brazil is the first country to develop an ethanol powered airplane. http://www.niburu.nl/index.php?showarticle.php?articleID=6830 Here is a recent opinion from China on renewable energy. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050423/sc_afp/chinaforumboaoasia_05 0423173757 China also recently bought a shipment of biodiesel from Green Star Products. http://www.greenstarusa.com/news/04-09-03.html [ Sunday, April 24, 2005 15:00: Message edited by: Toasted Basilisk on a Shish Kebab ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 16:27
Profile
English system, yuck. Care to put those in metric kJ/mol or MJ/kg for those of us who use real unit systems? What is the land usage requirement for a hyptothetical ethonal economy? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 16:37
Profile
Homepage
Happy to oblige. 1 Btu = 1055 J. 1 pound = 0.4536 kg. .'. 12770 Btu/lb (energy yield of ethanol) = 29.70 MJ/kg 20260 Btu/lb (approximate energy yield of petrol) = 47.12 MJ/kg -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 17:28
Profile
Those numbers seem a little high from what I calculated from a chemistry text. I get: 43 MJ/kg (gasoline) 25 MJ/kg (ethonol) Keep in mind typical efficiencies of thermal to mechanical energy is on the order of 30%, so the actual yield is much lower. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 17:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:I think it depends on whether you consider the water produced by combustion to be in liquid or gaseous form. Higher heating value (which is what engineers mostly use, and what Toast calculated from) assumes the former. Lower heating value (which is what chemists mostly use) assumes the latter. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 17:53
Profile
This talks about it a bit. There are a number of issues about how energy crops and biomass would be collected. A lot of the biomass would not come from direct energy production, but biproducts of agriculture, landfills, municipal waste, and agricultural waste. Processing this material would create net environmental benefits. Also biomass products can be grown on non-agricultural land initially, or marginal land. Switchgrass, rapeseed, etc. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=129 http://www.serconline.org/biomassdefinition/fact.html Another thing to consider is that it is just as possible to hybridize an ethanol vehicle-- ethanol/electric as a gas vehicle. I can very well see a hybrid ethanol/electric midsize car being sold on the market within 10 years. [ Saturday, April 23, 2005 18:16: Message edited by: Toasted Basilisk on a Shish Kebab ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Saturday, April 23 2005 20:00
Profile
Homepage
But ethanol-based fuels require a special kind of engine, which requires more expenses, and so on. If it's impossible to set up a purely biodiesel-based economy, we're still gonna run out of oil, and economic chaos will still result. Realistically, I don't see a shift to crop-based fuels as doing anything except ensuring the poorest countries take the brunt of the damage, putting off the problem for another generation, and naturally calling for massive agricultural subsidies on products such as corn, which are already omnipresent without being a part of cars. Also, you have to take into account that cars are not the root of the problem. Even if every car stopped consuming any amount of petroleum overnight, we would still be well on our way to a humongous supply shock - like the 1970s, only forever. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Sunday, April 24 2005 03:43
Profile
Biomass 50% of energy by 2030 Wind Energy 20% of energy by 2030 --How much energy can wind realistically supply to the U.S.? Wind energy could supply about 20% of the nation's electricity, according to Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, a federal research lab. Wind energy resources useful for generating electricity can be found in nearly every state. Hydroelectric 10% of energy by 2030 -- 10% of our current energy use comes from hydroelectric. Geothermal-- Less than 1% of energy use currently is geothermal. The goal of the photovoltaic industry is to provide 15% of domestic energy usage by 2020-- This is possible. http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pvmenu.cgi?site+ncpv&idx=3&body=faq.html Tidal Power is not being used at all in the United States. This covers 95% of the United States energy usage. This leaves 5% left for non-renewable energy. This could be filled with Geothermal and Tidal power-- effectively creating a pure renewable energy economy. Non-renewables would be used during the transition-- As renewable energy increases over a thirty year period-- nonrenewable energy sources will be used up. However, I think that by the time a full transition occurs-- there will probably still be some reserves of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. Nuclear power-- pebble bed reactors or 4th generation reactors would probably have to be used as a stop gap measure to produce about 10% of U.S. Energy. One thing to consider about how this is going to happen, is that portions of it are not going to rely on traditional energy companies. WM- waste management and other garbage companies are likely to develop waste gasification technologies. ADM, International Paper, P&G, Dow and farmers cooperatives are leading towards ethanol and biomass crops. GE Energy came out of a diversified company to become the largest producer of wind energy machinery. [ Sunday, April 24, 2005 05:39: Message edited by: Toasted Basilisk on a Shish Kebab ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 24 2005 06:51
Profile
quote:Biomass land usage requirements are 5.2 square kilometers per MWe. At a modest 1.5% growth rate in energy, we should be using close to 1230 GW of electricity by 2030. The land usage requirement for 50% biomass would be 3.2 million square kilometers or about a 1800 x 1800 km plot of land or about a 1100 x 1100 miles of land. Considering this is bigger than most states, I find this estimate of 50% to be rather high. Note this is only electricty I accounted for, not total energy usage which would be much higher still. Wind producing 20% seems quite high as well. It's often quoted by environmental groups, but most realistic estimates are somewhere between 5-10%. Currently Solar PV cells create more environmental damage with toxic chemicals produced than we would get equivalent amounts of energy from fossil fuels. While I don't doubt we will be able to solve these issues in the future, it still remains a concern. Solar thermal could provide a lot of needed assistance over winter months, however. Also, the cost of solar PV is quite high and is not economical. I seriously doubt people could afford to pay their electric bills at 10-20% energy production. Realistically, renewables will probably only account for 20% or so of the energy grid. We cannot go past what people can afford in terms of monetary and land usage requirements. Your projections are quite unreasonable and we will have to use fossil fuels or nuclear fission for some time. This is not as bad as one would think: Clean coal technology could reduce the environmental impact from that source making it more attractive. Current reprocessing technologies for spent nuclear fuel are at hand but not economical at present largely due to the decomissioning of the weapons stockpiles. If the cost can be lowered, the energy content of the fuel can increase from 5% usage to 80-90% usage with a lot less long term (10s-100s thousands of years) waste in the process. Although these new sources of electricty are exciting and should be developed, it is a lot more economical to look into was of improving existing technologies. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Sunday, April 24 2005 07:39
Profile
Homepage
quote:I've actually read up on this, and from what little I can see, 'clean coal' seems to be more or less a political term translating roughly to 'vote for me, you parochial rust-belt jackasses'. There's no clear meaning or standard given to it, and even 'clean' coal is still probably the dirtiest form of fuel. If Big Oil, through these and other tactics, can't adequately slake Americans' thirst for cheap energy, U.S. leaders have another plan: Burn more coal. This time, they say, "clean coal" technologies will be employed -- that is, the coal will be combusted to make hydrogen gas, the resulting clouds of carbon dioxide stashed away, "sequestered," never to be heard from again. The technology to do this is nascent and unproven. Worse, one of the least understood, most poorly regulated regions on earth will likely prove the final dumping ground for the excess carbon dioxide: the deep oceans. We may never fully know the damage this might wreak: Compared with deep-sea oil drilling, deep-sea oceanography is woefully underfunded, although many oceanographers say that the uncharted abyss may hold as much biodiversity as tropical rainforests. -Salon -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Sunday, April 24 2005 07:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:That idea can affect renewable sources too. In 2003 the British government announced a target of 10% of energy from renewable sources by 2010. However, almost every windfarm proposed has been totally blocked by local protests (e.g. Cumbria where objections have centred around the fact that, sited on a ridge, the windfarm will be "noticable". Duh.) Moreover, the government's proposals for tidal power stated that it had the potential to supply 15% of the country's energy requirements. But since then all of the individual projects proposed have been rejected because none were "financially attractive". Sorry to be so gloomy, but I believe it'll only be when the oil actually runs out that anyone will really take the alternatives seriously. [ Sunday, April 24, 2005 07:49: Message edited by: Micawber ] -------------------- Everything I know about the Avernum Trilogy: [ A1 | A2 | A3 ] Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |