Biomass Future-- Will It Replace Oil
Pages
| Author | Topic: Biomass Future-- Will It Replace Oil |
|---|---|
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Sunday, April 24 2005 11:35
Profile
Here are the DOE statistics. Currently -- 10% of our electrical output comes from hydroelectric energy. 4% of our energy comes from biomass. The US DOE claims that 50% of liquid fuels could be provided by biomass by 2030. For electrical output it woul be about 8% of total electrical output. Ethanol has had record growth in output in 2004 continued the record growth trend that has defined the U.S. ethanol industry over the past several years. For the year, 81 ethanol plants located in 20 states produced a record 3.41 billion gallons, a 21% increase from 2003 and 109% since 2000. I think this is also true for biodiesel. You also have to consider by 2010 landfill gas plants and agricultural biomass plants will be in the production phase, having passed through the research phase. Also the proper mix for cofired switchgrass coal energy plants will have been done. There are currently six coal plants testing cofiring coal with switchgrass. Less than 1% of energy comes from wind power.-- the goal for the Department of Energy is to produce 5% of our energy from wind power by 2020. There are claims by environmental groups that 20% of our energy could come from wind. Cut that in half it is still 10 % of energy output. Less than 1% of energy comes from geothermal. Less than 1% of our energy comes from solar. Tidal power sources are not even being considered. Looking at the current situation. 15% of our energy comes from renewable energy sources. Increasing the output to 20% would require no governmental input by 2010. There is tremendous growth in the biomass industry. Wind energy is also growing very fast. Someone is saying we will make renewable energy 20% of our economy is taking credit for what is already going to happen. By 2020-- 10% hydroelectric 5% Wind 1% Solar 1% Geothermal 10% Biomass -- if it continues its growth trend. Thus 27% renewables without interference. To have 20% renewables by 2020 would require the government and energy companies to actively suppress renewable energy. [ Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:22: 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 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Monday, April 25 2005 00:59
Profile
Uh, by the way, how long will the oil supplies still last? The last estimation I heard was 40 years, and that was 7 years ago. That would mean we have 33 years left. Is this right? There are also somethings which haven't been notified yet. As the biggest consumer of oil, the actions of USA will have a major impact with the economy world wide. Note that oil is the only natural resource of many poor countries have; if USA suddenly stops consuming oil, those countries will take the most harm, and they last need more problems. There are several other points too: for example, private driving (is this the right term?) is a major consumer of oil, and it is, frankly, completely unnecessary. The ideal solution would be to eliminate private driving completely, and then concentrate on making public transportation (again, am I using the right terms?) use renewables.Here, however, we'll encounter one intresting problem: people. Seriously, how many americans are ready to give up their beloved cars and their way of life, even for common good? I think zero is quite close to the truth. All in all, the worst problems in creating an energy economy based on renewables are people and the thing called money. If all worked together without caring about their selfish desires, we could have a working energy economy in a couple of years. However, this will never happen and so we're stuck with topics like this. -------------------- Somebody PLEASE turn the heat on. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Monday, April 25 2005 02:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:Except we're using more and more of it, so it's likely the estimate is too long. But unless you're a grandfather or a chainsmoker, chances are you'll live to see it run out. Chances are also that the big business folks wrecking it now won't. Life's not fair I suppose. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Monday, April 25 2005 04:10
Profile
Hmm. I think we are already making the switch to other fuels. It is being decided behdind closed doors. The missing piece is the following. There are no new oil refineries being built in the United States. Hasn't happened for years. Capacity for producing gas in the United States will not increase. More cars will be on the road. This is one of the reasons ethanol is growing exponentially. Gasoline is being cut by ethanol to meet supply demands. (I cannot verify this for you, but I think it is true.) It seems there is almost a secret handshake between ADM and Exxon to increase capacity (ADM is the largest producer of ethanol and biodiesel. It is also a hugely unethical megacorporation.) Legislation is also being introduced to mandate the doubling of ethanol production in six years in the United States as well as heavy subsidization of ethanol pumps. http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgID=675&ed_id=3051 http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/11401591.htm Ahh, the wonderful world of closed door decisions in the oval office of the United States. The other thing to increase capacity is the auto industry is building hybrid cars and flexible fuel vehicles. In addition gas mileage requirements are increasing. Also as gasoline becomes more expensive-- ethanol becomes more affordable because of economies of scale-- I think it costs $1.74 for a gallon of ethanol. Oops actually it is at $1.20 for a gallon of corn ethanol. Much cheaper than gas. You make a nice profit by blending with gas and charging more. This will go down in price with cellulosic ethanol. Also people will use public transportation more. Vehicle fleets like bus fleets are run from central locations. Because of a central location-- it is possible to fuel an entire fleet of vehicles with an alternative fuel. I think there are currently 500 fleets of vehicles that use biodiesel. Also the military is starting to convert fleets to biodiesel. U.S. Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, NC: Has used biodiesel for about a year in approximately 300 to 400 pieces of equipment -- buses, caterpillar tractors, bulldozers, motor graters, etc. They currently use about 147,800 gallons of B20 a year. •U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, AZ.: Has used B20 since January 2002 and are currently using 7,600 gallons a month. They use biodiesel in all diesel-powered, government owned, non-tacticalcommercial vehicles such as trucks and forklifts. •Scott Air Force Base, Illinois: Located about 30 miles east of St. Louis, serves as headquarters for 12 Air Mobility Command (AMC) bases throughout the nation. Two AMC bases currently use B20: Scott AFB has used B20 since April 2001 and uses about 75,000 gallons annually. McChord AFB (Tacoma, Washington) has used approximately 33,000 gallons since October 2002.(more) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 •Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, CO: Five Air Force Space Command bases use B20: Peterson (Colorado Springs, CO); Vandenberg (Lompoc, CA); FE Warren(Cheyenne, WY); Malmstrom (Great Falls, MT); Patrick (Cocoa Beach, FL). They have been using biodiesel since December 2001. “We have taken a leadership position in the Air Force in the alternative fuel arena, issuing some type of alternative product at all of our major units,” said Mr. Chuck McGarvey, Air Force Space Command’s fuels manager. “We must be responsible stewards of our natural resources, leaving behind a clean environment for our children and a nation not dependent on foreign oil.” •Everett Naval Station, Everett, Washington: Located in the Puget Sound area, this station has usedabout 50 thousand gallons of B20 a year since 2001. The switch to biodiesel was virtually seamless, according to transportation director Gary Passmore. “Older equipment took a filter change, but newer equipment needed nothing,” he said. “It went so smooth that no one really noticed.” •Fort Leonard Wood Army Base, Missouri: Began using biodiesel in March 2003. The base plans onusing about 115,000 gallons of B20 annually. •U.S. Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA: Has used biodiesel throughout the base for three years in about 375 non-tactical diesel vehicles including tractor trailers, forklifts, three-ton trucks, graders, farmtractors and in emergency generators. The base used 50,000-60,000 gallons of biodiesel last year. “Welove biodiesel and have experienced no problems whatsoever since switching to the fuel three years ago,” said Mike Elliott, GME Fleet Manager. The only alternative liquid fuel which is remotely capable of matching gaoline currently is biomass fuels-- ethanol, methanol, etc. We are being handed a biomass future without debate... Thus the DOE is telling us that we will have 50% biomass fuels by 2030. Hydrogen cars are being used like a shell game to confuse us. :cool: I would like to see counterarguments to what I am saying. Alternative paths-- e.g. instead of ethanol we will use electric cars and most of our energy will come from nuclear power. [ Monday, April 25, 2005 10:58: 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 Tuesday, April 26 2005 09:32
Profile
quote:I think this is where we bring up the concept of Reserve, Reserve Base, and Resource. Reserves are what are proven supplies of a resource that are currently economically favorable to recover. Reserve Base is supplies include reserves and those that are not proven, but fairly certain, or are economically questionable at the current time. Resources encompass everything there is potentially or not economical at all to recover. What is often quoted are reserves. These change over time because of future exploration or changes in economical situation. New technologies and the lack of economically viable resources push things that were in the Reserve Base into Reserves. This means there is more oil out there than given, whether or not we recover it is an economic and political decision. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Tuesday, April 26 2005 09:37
Profile
Yes, but an awful lot of oil is so damn hard to get hold of and separate from everything, that it's never going to be economically viable to harvest it. On another note, I read a report a couple of weeks back written by an oil industry man, with no political allegiances, that said that oil production could peak as early as next year. We haven't got long. Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, April 26 2005 10:23
Profile
Something to consider is that there are several liquid resources which could be exploited. There is a shortage of natural gas right now, so natural gas could not replace oil. There is coal gasification which would have a tremendous negative impact. If all the oil is used up coal is one of the few resources which can be gasified. There is also propane which is a combination of natural gas and oil. The other option is to increase the amount of electric cars on the road considerably and focus on increasing electrical generation through nuclear energy, wind, and solar and having a transportation system that is not mainly based on combustion except for airplanes. For fast bulk land transport a new system of trains would probably need to be built. Or a combination mediated between the two. Something to note is that for fuel cell installations ethanol is the ideal fuel. It has close to no pollution except for making the ethanol. If we had a "hydrogen economy" it would most likely be based on ethanol or methanol. http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id30.html The Freedom Car Program which is being pushed is either an electric vehicle or a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. No pollution and no reliance on oil. http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/ You can only conserve and search for so long before it becomes necessary to change. [ Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:47: 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 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, April 26 2005 11:02
Profile
I think the answer is nuclear. Although the waste is vile, it is produced in (relatively) smaller quatities than all carbon fuel emissions - 900 tons each second, according to a fellow in an op-ed in today's Washington Post - which we know is causing major problems in the environment. Frankly, I'll chance the minute risk of a nuclear incident over the strong likelihood that I'll develop asthma within my lifetime due to a string of "code red" summer days. I think that the automotive problem will be solved by hydrogen, not biomass. Biomass, from what I understand, is as bad as, if not worse than petroleum for the ammount of environmental toxins it creates, pound for pound. Given that global warming is a hot button issue currently (ha ha ha) and that interest in hydrogen is strong, I wouldn't be surprised to see the energy and automotive industries move strongly in that direction within the next twenty years. The infrastructure for this won't be a problem - subsidize anything enough, and it will become economical. The main barriers to further progress for fission and hydrogen in the U.S., of course, are the coal and oil interests. Between the two, I think oil is starting to be a bit more forward-looking, while coal has the most to lose. EDIT: Another problem with biomass is that it's subceptible to weather and other factors - consider what a series of droughts or some sort of plague could do to the fuel supply, given the quantity of land needed for fuel, as previously discussed in this forum. [ Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:05: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, April 26 2005 11:10
Profile
A hydrogen economy is very likely a biomass economy. Many of the fuel cells being built right now are based on using ethanol and methanol as energy carriers. There is a major problem with hydrogen-- fuel cells require platinum to make. I think there is not enough platinum in the world to replace all of the cars in the United States with fuel cell engines. Definitely not enough to supply the world with cars. This is a big time barrier. Also the size of the fuel tanks for hydrogen is a major barrier to producing hydrogen cars. If the platinum problem can be solved and the engine size problem can be solved, it is still very expensive. The other problem is that storage of liquid hydrogen on a massive scale is expensive. Building an ethanol economy now could transition into a hydrogen economy. Ethanol is a reliable fuel for hydrogen cars. [ Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:27: 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 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Tuesday, April 26 2005 11:28
Profile
Hydrogen isn't actually as viable as some people would have you believe. As a fuel, it is essentially workable, but a hydrogen economy is a much more difficult proposition. Petroleum and coal occur in nature, are stable, and have high bond energy, which can be transferred into heat energy, which can then be transferred into mechanical energy. Hydrogen, on the other hand, has high bond energy, but does not occur in nature, so energy, probably in the form of electricity and maybe in the form of heat, will need to be put into water, or some metal hydride, or something else of the like to yield hydrogen gas. Of course, electricity needs to be generated somehow, and, at present, the bulk of it will be produced by burning coal or petroleum. Since hydrogen isn't just going to spring from nowhere, it may actually be more efficient to use the electricity to charge batteries for electric motors and "cut out the middle man," so to speak. Either way, a huge shift needs to occur in the production of electricity, and, as has been said, fission is definitely a viable solution, all paranoia aside. The big automotive companies seem mostly, to me, to be researching hydrogen mainly so that they can claim environmental consciousness, despite selling SUVs, a trend which has to increase American petroleum consumption by a staggering amount. Basically, any fuel that has to be produced, as opposed to harvested, is going to meet with the same difficulty, namely, the laws of thermodynamics. On the topic of biomass, something I've thought about, which may be possible in the distant future, is artificial photosynthetic systems and the use of glucose as a fuel (or production of octane, if at all possible). [ Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:43: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Tuesday, April 26 2005 11:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:Fun fact: under reasonable operant conditions, coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear fission plants. re. hydrogen: I think it's a good idea, certainly. I'm unsure as to whether it will work, but it probably will. To those saying biodiesel exists in nature: yeah, and so does fresh water. There's an amount of energy involved in producing any fuel, and the advantage comes of doing it at a plant, where that energy exists, rather than in a car, where it doesn't. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Tuesday, April 26 2005 11:55
Profile
Yeah, but where does the energy at that plant come from? Producing any fuel seems utterly non-viable to me, unless some form of environmentally friendly and efficient, but non-portable, form of energy is used to produce it. Something would have to power the hydrogen (or biodiesel) plants, and if that something is petroleum or coal, then you're better off putting it straight into the car. On the other hand, hydrogen could prove a way of storing the energy produced at nuclear plants and using it to drive cars. What it won't do, however, is solve all of our energy problems. The amount of energy needed to run an economy isn't magically going to lessen because hydrogen is suddenly used as a fuel. Energy is all about exploiting what you've got; you can't make any highly energetic chemical without first adding energy. So, hydrogen is useless until large-scale energy generation is accomplished with hydroelectric, wind, nuclear power, and any other such relatively non-polluting processes. EDIT: tpyos [ Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:56: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, April 26 2005 15:30
Profile
Here goes. I don't buy the environmental statements about biodiesel. Here is the link from the DOE-- It shows the benefits. Biodiesel has considerably less pollutant emissions than petroleum. It is a lot cleaner. Not completely clean. Ethanol fuel cells would be close to completely clean. http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/environmental.html Further growing the crops does not increase CO2 emissions. Crops recycle carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. So there is a net loss of carbon dixoide emissions. Also coal cofiring reduces nitrogen and sulfur emissions from power plants. Reprocessing animal and human wastes also solves a huge environmental problem. Animal farm wastes are a big hazard. So is municipal waste and landfills. Sugar cane is the main source of crop for ethanol in Brazil. Basically it is refined sugar (sucrose). It costs them about 44 cents a gallon to produce. Far cheaper than corn based ethanol. Iogen, a Canadian company, is working on cellulosic ethanol, basically ethanol produced from corn stover, whey, and other feedstocks. A further comment goes like this. Why should American companies invest in oil refineries if the supply will eventually run out? The Saudis promised that capacity will increase. The only way this will happen is if the Saudis build the refineries. Americans are not willing to invest in a diminishing resource. Thus the promise to increase capacity is a double edged sword. We are running into what will be a majorly contentious issue in the coming months. Rumbling in the background is a legislative ruling in Wisconsin, Hawaii and other states which mandates 10% ethanol in all gasoline by 2009. I think there will be a push to apply this to the whole United States by the Senate, many US governors, and the Congress. [ Tuesday, April 26, 2005 16:36: 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 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Wednesday, April 27 2005 05:23
Profile
quote:Of course, the energy produced by nuclear fusion can't be exploited today, but only because of this obstacle of relative significance. quote:This prediction is rather late. Have you ever heard of the bomb "Mike", which obliterated an entire island in the Pacific Ocean? [ Wednesday, April 27, 2005 05:24: Message edited by: Mind ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, April 27 2005 14:39
Profile
quote:Did you read my initial statement? A steady state DT nuclear fusion device (not a hydrogren bomb which is a fusion device, I am aware) would be perfect for making the material for more hydrogen bombs. Mike, by comparison, is a rather crude device by today's standards. Modern nuclear weapons use a three stage process of a fast fission of Pu239 with 1-2 MeV neutrons, fission neutrons generate tritium from a Li6 blanket and we get DT fusion from compression of a some sacrificial blanket while the which generates 14 MeV neutrons, these 14 MeV neutrons in turn give good fast fission of U238 shields. This adds up to a massive energy release. The problems with fusion power are a lot more than just getting the energy out. Doing energy confinement is a big obstacle for the magnetic folks. Doing reliable steady state pulsing of 5 MJ lasers at 5 Hz is the big obstacle for the inertial folks. There are other more exotic proposals, but the two I mentioned are the closest to electricity production. There are, of course, many other technical obstacles to the development of fusion as an electrcity source. The first wall damage problem is not only a technical obstacle, but an economic one as well. This is what, I feel, will not be resolved to the degree to make the energy source economic. [ Wednesday, April 27, 2005 14:40: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, April 27 2005 17:33
Profile
If we want to play the game of future energy sources. The most unwieldy of them all is the Solar Power Satellite. Basically beamed energy from space. A wonderfully dangerous and improbable source of energy. To just joke a bit. I can imagine in the future it would be possible 100 years from now-- they would ship nuclear waste up to space based platforms using space elevators and fling it into the sun. -------------------- 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 Thursday, April 28 2005 09:04
Profile
quote:100 years of progress can produce some pretty good advances on space travel, let's not underestimate what our descendants will be able to do. As far as dangerous? Well, constructing it would be if we use the proposal of sattelites. If we, however, use collectors on the Moon and then beam it to Earth indirectly, the problem of construction becomes a lot less. The collection area for a 5 GWe solar sattelite is 10 x 5 km. Quite large by today's standards, but not horribly unreasonable if assembled piece by piece. The active rectenna of such a system would be 10 x 13 km. An exclusion zone would go out an additional two km. This is a large area of land, but about 40% of the US land is suitable for such deployment. The peak power density is 230 W/m^2 with the power density on the edge of the exclusion zone of 1 W/m^2. The peak intensity would be enough to cause heating of anyone there, but not enough to have adverse effects if the person was not exposed over a long period of time. The edge intensity is negligible. I'm not sure exactly how "dangerous" this would be as the peak power density is not high enough to cause much harm. There are many technological and economic issues with this power source. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power!! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, April 28 2005 14:18
Profile
I think space elevator commercialization will be ready in 25- 30 years-- our lifetime possibly sooner. http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3225664&nav=0RaPYnX7 If several space elevators are built solar power satellites would become a viable energy source. The cost of transporting materials would be greatly reduced. Another myth I am seeing on this forum is that it requires coal and petroleum to produce ethanol. Somehow ethanol is not an efficient source of energy. The ratio of energy put in to taken out is 4:1 four times as much energy is taken out of the production of ethanol than is put in. There is nothing that says you must use petroleum and coal to produce ethanol. Because a lot more energy is taken out than put back in-- it is possible to use some of the biodiesel, ethanol, or methanol which is produced to power the production process. Corn is not the only crop which can be used to produce biomass fuels-- switchgrass, poplar trees, and rapeseed also can be used for ethanol production. Research is also being developed to use cellulosic biomass for ethanol-- that is anything with cellulose in it, corn stover, whey, grass, etc. This is all speculation. I think the total net energy of all available sources-- coal, nuclear, biomass, wind, solar, tidal, goethermal is great enough to do without petroleum, natural gas, or propane in the long run. It is more a question of how the resources are distributed. I would prefer that it focused on greater and greater amounts of renewable energy. [ Thursday, April 28, 2005 15:36: 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 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5662
|
written Thursday, April 28 2005 15:09
Profile
biomass will not be our future for one reason: water corn is water intensive, and the underground water reserves in the agricultural US are fastly declinning how are we supposed to sustain an ethanol based economy, if we can't even prevent plants from dying? i am not paniking the estimates for Oil, which are about 40 to 50 years lasting, are about the same for usable water and excuse my english Posts: 38 | Registered: Sunday, April 3 2005 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4784
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 08:47
Profile
Homepage
I feel so inadequate to comment in this thread but felt like butting in. IF we were to ever run out of usable water, energy sources would be the least of our problems. I don't buy that we will run out of it anytime soon. Fresh water is always being replaced by rain and can be replaced by processing salt water. We will use the same amount of water on crops whether we plant more corn for ethanol or use the land instead for other crops. I would like to know what source you have that we're gonna run out of fresh water in the next 50 years. -------------------- Forever Always on Past the End tracihedlund@charter.net[/url] TrueSite for Blades - Blades Walkthroughs Pixle Profusion - BoE Graphics Archive Posts: 563 | Registered: Tuesday, July 27 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, April 29 2005 12:34
Profile
Fresh water supplies aren't an issue now so much in the US, especially in places like Wisconsin, but the price of water is subsidized by the government in many places, especially in California (or is it Oregon? It's been a while since I heard the story), where they pipe water in from other states, and water rights have already been at issue in Klamath Falls, California, where a heavily relied-upon but shrunken (due to drought) river has created conflict between farmers and environmentalists/indians (on the side of the salmon). I don't usually buy into Malthusian arguments, but the water issue actually presents one. While there are fresh water supplies, they eventually won't necessarily be sufficient in places like California to meet demand. Desalination of ocean water is a possibility, but it is very expensive. I think the answer to this one is for the government to stop subsidizing the price of water out west. I don't think we need the agricultural products from that region, and the population would eventually migrate accordingly to more lush areas of the country. (A poor, rushed post on my part, but hey - it's quitin' time! :) ) [ Friday, April 29, 2005 12:35: Message edited by: andrew miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1993
|
written Saturday, April 30 2005 17:27
Profile
:) What an interesting topic! I find it grand that Americans have started to ponder on renewable energies (no sarcasm intended). Biomass is the future. Bio fuels will form a profitable, integrated and international market which can be taken seriously. Look at Brazil: It has become the world's most advanced country in the field of bioethanol fuel - with petrol there containing 40% ethanol. They currently produce 12'000 million litres, they are independent from foreign oil and they'll export their ethanol pretty soon. Since the price of mineral oil is going up daily, the production of biofuels is an undeniable advantage. Mr. Bush would do well by learning from Lula ^_^ Europe too goes for biofuel: Spain and Germany have launched into the production of biofuels (bioethanol and biodiesel), with Germany having introduced total tax exemption on biofuels since January 2004. Also in France it's currently tax-exempt. Sweden has likewise chosen biofuel by supporting mixtures with even 85% ethanol (E 85), in particular by subsidising vehicles adapted to these high levels. The European Union is promoting biofuels, which should cover 5.75% of its fuel needs by 2010. -_- Not very much, IMHO. It's known since ten years that normal cars could use fuel with 10% of ethanol (E10). There is no technical obstacle from the motor's perspective. Even until 25% of ethanol in the petrol would be possible. Well ... the oil was always too cheap. It is to be hoped the barrel price will increase further. quote:This sounds impressive but I doubt that they all use the 85% mix. I've read somewhere that U.S.A. has only 130 gas stations to supply E85. The much smaller Sweden has 140 already (and wants to have 600 until end of 2006). Needs policy. to imho: Water is a big problem in certain parts of the world. A fifth of the world population - approximately 1.3 billion people - has no access to clean drinking water. 80% of all diseases in third world countries are to be led back on dirty water; four million children die annually. You can see three companies from France and Germany who divided already the global water market: Suez Lyonnaise, Vivendi and RWE Aqua GmbH possess the water supplying of metropolises such as Manila, Karachi, Jakarta, Buenos Aires or Santiago de Chile and decide who there receives good water and at which price. But this is another story. As Andrew mentioned: water is no big issue in America. It might become bigger though. -------------------- ^ö^ vegetarians are sexy. Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Sunday, May 1 2005 07:32
Profile
Ethanol fuel cells would make an ideal highly reliable form of fixed energy installation. The reliability of fuel cells is incredible-- something like 99.999% or about 1 minute downtime in 6 years. Thus you would have no blackouts, no brownouts and an incredibly steady supply of energy for the grid. There would be no pollution. Because fuel cells stack and can be redistributed easily, they are highly secure, and can be distributed quickly and easily to portions of the energy grid where they are needed. I think they represent an ideal source of fixed power, not so much automotive power. If cellulosic ethanol is proven viable we would not have to use agricultural land, but could use biomass with low water requirements that was grown on marginal land -- switchgrass. http://www.fuelcells.org/basics/benefits.html [ Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:59: 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 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5662
|
written Sunday, May 1 2005 10:12
Profile
i know that US has no current water issues however, if you combine global warming, pollution and corn growing, which takes about 20Kg for every 1Kg of usable grain, you could in a serious problem besides, ethanol usage does not solve the carbon dioxide issue i'd rather think Hydrogen is a much more reliable energy, although currently expensive. but the electrolysis of water produces Hydrogen and Oxygen, together making a highly energetic mixture. if only we had a cheaper way of producing hydrogen, we would have our energy problems solved Posts: 38 | Registered: Sunday, April 3 2005 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, May 4 2005 09:23
Profile
There is of course that other source of biomass. Don't forget turkey and elephant power. Elephant dung power. http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-waste04.html Turkey power. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6725508/ -------------------- 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 |