Main Page | Report Page

 

  Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » Alternative Fuels, the Dark Side and other things...

Author Message
Guest
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:54 pm
 
Over the weekend CNN aired an interview with and expert on agriculture
-- The subject being eEthanol.

During the interview, he cited the fact that nearly all Ethanol is
today being produced from our domestic corn crop, and in 2006
accounted for 30% of the total corn market, and anticipated that
should the demand for Ethanol continue to grow, it will soon account
for 50% of our domestic corn production.

The result is that the price of a bushel of corn has risen faster than
the price of crude oil, to the extent that it will shortly impact the
price of all corn based food products, including animal feeds and just
about even food sold in supermarkets, from corn flakes and dog food,
to beef, pork and chicken. Consequently, he believe that the cost of
food will begin to outpace the price of Ethanol adulterated gasoline
at the pump.

That's the dark side of Ethanol, reminding us that nothing comes for
free. Something to keep in mind.

Shifting gears, I have seen virtually no alternative fuel discussion
even mention the exploitation of gas hydrides, which are mined from
the seas and, at least according to the Discovery Channel, are capable
of providing massive amounts of energy. It was not made clear how
exactly you would harvest this stuff, or the problems, but it would be
interesting to read informed discussions about whether gas hydrides
are a potionally a viable energy source, or simply like hydrogen, a
product of wishful thinking by non-scientists.

Finally, I have to wonder why Methanol receives very little discussion
in alternative energy group? Methanol, as most of us are aware is
commonly called 'Wood Alcohol' and is generally produced by the
destructive distillation of wood, but it can be produced through the
destructive distillation of many other types of biomass (leaves, plant
stalks, grass clippings, and even weeds.) Also, IIRC, no fermentation
steps are required to produce it, and it is coverted into energy by
burning, just as is Ethanol. Still, rather than having our yard waste
end up in a landfill, wouldn't it be an attractive idea to covert it
into a usable energy source? More discussion is needed on this
subject.

I post this simply because I consider them to be topics worthy of
informed discussion, rather than the sill debates on 'cars that run on
water' and many of the other silly topics posted on this newsgroup
(sci.energy.hydrogen).

Harry C.
 
Don Lancaster
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:04 pm
 
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote:f6c03d212f]Over the weekend CNN aired an interview with and expert on agriculture
-- The subject being eEthanol.

During the interview, he cited the fact that nearly all Ethanol is
today being produced from our domestic corn crop, and in 2006
accounted for 30% of the total corn market, and anticipated that
should the demand for Ethanol continue to grow, it will soon account
for 50% of our domestic corn production.

The result is that the price of a bushel of corn has risen faster than
the price of crude oil, to the extent that it will shortly impact the
price of all corn based food products, including animal feeds and just
about even food sold in supermarkets, from corn flakes and dog food,
to beef, pork and chicken. Consequently, he believe that the cost of
food will begin to outpace the price of Ethanol adulterated gasoline
at the pump.

That's the dark side of Ethanol, reminding us that nothing comes for
free. Something to keep in mind.

Shifting gears, I have seen virtually no alternative fuel discussion
even mention the exploitation of gas hydrides, which are mined from
the seas and, at least according to the Discovery Channel, are capable
of providing massive amounts of energy. It was not made clear how
exactly you would harvest this stuff, or the problems, but it would be
interesting to read informed discussions about whether gas hydrides
are a potionally a viable energy source, or simply like hydrogen, a
product of wishful thinking by non-scientists.

Finally, I have to wonder why Methanol receives very little discussion
in alternative energy group? Methanol, as most of us are aware is
commonly called 'Wood Alcohol' and is generally produced by the
destructive distillation of wood, but it can be produced through the
destructive distillation of many other types of biomass (leaves, plant
stalks, grass clippings, and even weeds.) Also, IIRC, no fermentation
steps are required to produce it, and it is coverted into energy by
burning, just as is Ethanol. Still, rather than having our yard waste
end up in a landfill, wouldn't it be an attractive idea to covert it
into a usable energy source? More discussion is needed on this
subject.

I post this simply because I consider them to be topics worthy of
informed discussion, rather than the sill debates on 'cars that run on
water' and many of the other silly topics posted on this newsgroup
(sci.energy.hydrogen).

Harry C.

[/quote:f6c03d212f]
What is really, really sad about all this is that the net energy of
ethanol from corn is either negative or utterly and laughingly
negligible, depending upon who you believe.

Instead, switchgrass which grows wild on marginal lands returns over 7X
and bagasse which returns around 5X are infinitely better candidates as
ethanol feedstock.

Sadly, there is no corporate sponsor for a free growing weed. And the
sugar lobby strictly prohibits importation of bagasse.

Ethanol from corn is monumentally and criminally stupid.

More at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf


--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
 
Eeyore
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:40 pm
 
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

[quote:5e8a3126b4]Over the weekend CNN aired an interview with and expert on agriculture
-- The subject being eEthanol.

During the interview, he cited the fact that nearly all Ethanol is
today being produced from our domestic corn crop, and in 2006
accounted for 30% of the total corn market, and anticipated that
should the demand for Ethanol continue to grow, it will soon account
for 50% of our domestic corn production.
[/quote:5e8a3126b4]
Using *corn* extensively to make motor fuel is uniquely daft.

Graham
 
Eeyore
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:41 pm
 
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

[quote:ba5fea74f9]Shifting gears, I have seen virtually no alternative fuel discussion
even mention the exploitation of gas hydrides, which are mined from
the seas
[/quote:ba5fea74f9]
ARE mined ?


[quote:ba5fea74f9]and, at least according to the Discovery Channel, are capable
of providing massive amounts of energy. It was not made clear how
exactly you would harvest this stuff, or the problems,
[/quote:ba5fea74f9]
Think about where you came across this info.

Graham
 
Guest
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:50 pm
 
Graham, you get no argument from me. That's why I posted: "It was not
made clear how
exactly you would harvest this stuff, or the problems."

Let newsgroup readers figure out what this means for themselves.

Then too, left to their own devices, they will probably opt for a
water fueled automotobile, were such magic possible. But then, if
magic were an option, so would I, but then magic is not an
option! :-)

Harry C.




On Jun 11, 6:41 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote:0fb4ac0979]hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Shifting gears, I have seen virtually no alternative fuel discussion
even mention the exploitation of gas hydrides, which are mined from
the seas

ARE mined ?

and, at least according to the Discovery Channel, are capable
of providing massive amounts of energy. It was not made clear how
exactly you would harvest this stuff, or the problems,

Think about where you came across this info.

Graham[/quote:0fb4ac0979]
 
Eeyore
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:02 pm
 
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

[quote:ac7f0ce48f]Graham, I fully agree with you, but when I visit your posting history
I receive a rather stange message from Google:

From Google: "This account (Graham's) has been banned because it
violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use."

Graham, what naughty thing did you do to piss Google off to this
extent?
[/quote:ac7f0ce48f]
I think you must have found something relating to another Graham.

I've almost never posted through Google, I'm not even sure I ever have done actually
although I do have a gmail account. No news provider or ISP has ever banned me either.

Where did you find this ?

Graham
 
Guest
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:22 pm
 
It's the response that Google return when I click on the 'view
profile' for your posts.

Harry C.



On Jun 12, 2:02 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote:7e2bd42736]hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Graham, I fully agree with you, but when I visit your posting history
I receive a rather stange message from Google:

From Google: "This account (Graham's) has been banned because it
violated the Google Groups Terms Of Use."

Graham, what naughty thing did you do to piss Google off to this
extent?

I think you must have found something relating to another Graham.

I've almost never posted through Google, I'm not even sure I ever have done actually
although I do have a gmail account. No news provider or ISP has ever banned me either.

Where did you find this ?

Graham[/quote:7e2bd42736]
 
Eeyore
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:49 am
 
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

[quote:e94e7a0bf8]It's the response that Google return when I click on the 'view
profile' for your posts.
[/quote:e94e7a0bf8]
I see.

I have absolutely no idea why that might be. As I say, I don't post through Google anyway !

Please don't top-post btw.

Graham
 
Guest
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:53 pm
 
On Jun 13, 1:33 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:aed46bea85]The land, machinery, chemicals and talent used to grow bio-fuels is
better used to grow food especially since 40,000 people per day world
wide die of hunger. This could be ended tomoroow if we put only a
tenth of the resources toward that end that we do wasteful stupid
things like ethanol.
[/quote:aed46bea85]
I fully agree, which is why I have suggest the conversion of trash
biomass, which otherwised ends up in landfills be investigated for
this purpose. I'm not yet convinced that this would be a practical
solution from a cost standpoint, but I'm reasonably certain that it
would be at least or more effective that the present glass, plastic,
and aluminum recycyling efforts that are so politically correct in
many communities. I personally believe that those recycling truck
would be put to much better use by carting of grass cliping, scrap
wood, leaves, corn stalks, shrubs and weeds, and similar biomass to a
conversion facility that could consolodate it and turn in into methane
or methanol for vehicular use. There were some pilot programs back in
the 1970s for this sort of activity, but funding cuts ceased these
research activities long before a comprensive scientific and economic
concluson had been reached.

[quote:aed46bea85]A better approach is to use concentrating PV cells to reduce the costs
of solar panels and to use low cost electrolysis to create hydrogen
with 85% efficiency or more..All at a very reasonable cost of $0.09
per peak watt (combied electrolyzer solar collector)
[/quote:aed46bea85]
Sorry, but I have to disagree on two bases: First the current urgent
and evergrowing demand is practical transportation fuels, for cars,
trucks, aircraft, and ships. Until better storage technology for
electrical energy is developed, and I beleve that on some distant day
it will be, but that may well be 50 or 100 years from today, mobile
electrical energy storage cannot get the job done, and yes when I was
in college I could watche the old circa 1919 Curtish Publishing
Company battery driven trucks still grinding through the streets of
Philadelphia making their local deliveries. Storage battery powered
submarines charged with diesel engine generated electricity were in
use throughout WWII, and in fact some of the (Gato Class?) still
exist. More modern submarines and large warships have long since
conveverted to nuclear propulsion systems.

Now when it comes to PV generated electricity, nobody except Don
Lancaster wants to discuss the life-cycle costs of these systems. I
won't even attempt to refute you $0.09/peak-watt cited costs of a PV
collector. What I want to know is what it's fully amortized lifetime
cost, on a per Kilowatt-Hour lifetime average. I've had to replace two
small scale PV systems on my little 23-foot sailboat over a period of
less than 8-years, at a cost of around $400 a pop! Worse still, all
they accomplished was to charge one 12-marine battery...The cost per
delivered KW-Hour when computed turned out to be around $3.90 per KW/
Hour, so unless you have personally tested the temperature of the
water, please don't ask anyone else to jump in. (Just as a comparison,
the commercial power supplied to my home averages around $0.13/KW-Hr,
including generation, transmission, and other charges.)

So PV is not economically attractive, and is nearly useless for
transportation applications, which after all isn't that what the
current crisis is all about? Nuclear fission generated electricity is
currently the leading and most promising solution to our near term
through our 100-year electrical energy needs. As far as I am
concerned, being simply a physicist and engineer, the cost of wind
farms is going to prove economically unfeasible due to (lets say
simply) maintance costs. Most investment interest in wind powered
electricity generation vanished after the disasterous failure of the
1.25-MW turbine at Granpa's Knob, Vermont, in 1941, after a mere 1100
hours of operation. During the past decade or so, their has been an
increase investment in wind farms, but in spite of improved materials,
the same engineering issues and maintenance issues continue to remain.
On top of that, thus far their environmental impact is largely
unknown, but this is of serious concern to many people because of the
clamed environmental damage resulting from large hydroelectric
projects like Hoover Dam and the TVA.

[quote:aed46bea85]These systems operate best in sunny desert regions, leaving the
farmlands and fields to growing food.
[/quote:aed46bea85]
Actually, you'll get no arguement from me on that, because being a
Damn Yankee, I consider the wester deserts to be simply arid
wastelands, much like the wastelands of northern Alaska. Then too,
try to construct any energy yielding project in either of these
regions and you will soon learn that many others do not subscibe to
our way of thinking. (Ducking for cover!) :-)

I'm now going to duck out of this dialogue before I end up with a
torch waving mob in the cul-de-sac in front of my home shouting
threats like "Give us the monster!"

Harry C.
 
Eeyore
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:14 am
 
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

[quote:a68379988f]Graham, were I to have the choice, I'd return immediately to the old
Unix based tin newsreader.
[/quote:a68379988f]
SUIT YOURSELF.

IN THE MEANTIME EXPECT TO BE IGNORED.

Graham
 
Bill Ward
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:17 pm
 
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:21:17 -0700, hhc314 wrote:

[quote:2327c9b99e]Graham, were I to have the choice, I'd return immediately to the old Unix
based tin newsreader. Why, you might ask? Simply because it would
organize the threads on a newsgroup so that those with new posts would be
at the top of the list. It is a shortcoming of modern newsreaders that
most fail to do this.

Whether someone top posts or bottom posts is, IMHO, such a trivial issue
that it is not even worthy of addressing. By contrast, the material
content of their post is all important. Unfortunately, some people have
these priorities reversed.

Harry C.
[/quote:2327c9b99e]
Hi, Harry. Good to see you posting again.

You might want to try Linux and the Pan newsreader. I changed to Fedora a
year or so ago from Win98 and Agent, and will never go back. Being
experienced in UNIX should make Linux seem pretty familiar to you. AFAIK,
Vista should be compatible with a dual boot. Pan runs under Xwindows, but
tin is probably still available, if you prefer the command line.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing more posts from you. Right now there's
more action over in alt.global-warming.

Take care.

Bill Ward
 
Guest
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:11 am
 
Harry,

I spent a considerable time responding to your comments point by
point. Unfortunately even though Google Groups said my response was
posted, it failed to appear. So, rather than go through the whole
thing again I'll summarize1 haha..

1) Conventoinal solar power costs $11 per peak watt including all
balance of systems. Their life span is 8 years and you are exposed to
800 hours per year,you're only going to produce 6.4 kWh at a total
cost of $20 (equipment + time value) - which is your $3.12per kWh.

2) My concentrating solar panels costs $0.09 per peak watt including
balance of system. Its life span is 20 years. And it is operated in
areas exposed to 1,600 hours per year. So, its going to produce 32
kWh at a total cost of $0.16 - which is $0.005 - one half cent per
kWh.

3) I do not sell my equipment. I sell gasoline diesel fuel and jet
fuel to pay for equipment I build. I build own and operate facilities
that produce liquid fuels using this equipment. I take $4 worth of
coal, $0.60 worth of water, along with $4.40 worth of equipment and
make one barrel of gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel blend. The
value of this fuel is well over $70. By selling a portion of the
forward production at a discounted price, I obtain funds to build own
and operate the plant. This cost adds another $9 per barrel of
fuel.

4) I have two projects underway overseas that will produce 200,000 b/d
each from solar hydrogen and coal, while producing zero emissions.
Each facility will have nearly 40 GW of solar panels attached to it.
The solar panels will cost $2.8 billion and coal and hydrogen and oil
handling equipment will cost $3.5 billion. Each facility will consume
29,000 tons of coal each day and 3,570 tons of hydrogen each day and
produce zero carbon dioxide. Liquid transportation fuels pay for it.
Panels cover 90 sq miles of spent coal mines.

5) Covering 128,000 sq miles of land with low-cost solar collectors
will allow the productoin of 1.9 billion tons of hydorgen per year
sufficient hydrogen to displace all 28 billion barrels of oil per year
and 4.4 billion tons of coal per year - humanitiy's current
consumption of fossil fuels.

6) Expanding this to over 516,000 sq miles of land allows production
of sufficient hydrogen to meet all of humanity's needs even if
everyone everwhere consumed energy at the US per capita rate. Since
standard of living correlates with energy use, this would expand the
global economy to over a quarter quadrillion dollars per year - more
than 4x the current $65 trillion per year produced today. With 10%
growth rate this will require only 14.5 years to achieve. This rate
of energy production is impossible to achieve with conventional oil or
nuclear power construction. It is easily achieveable with my
technology.

7) The three largest surface mine operators today own in excess of
600,000 square miles of surface mines in desert regions throughout the
world. Using their disturbed lands as solar collector sites permits
adequate solar collector installations without creating any additional
disturbed lands. Most of these sites will be closed and reclaimed
within 16 years.
 
Bill Ward
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:25 pm
 
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:11:37 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:

[quote:7549fb29b6]Harry,

I spent a considerable time responding to your comments point by point.
Unfortunately even though Google Groups said my response was posted, it
failed to appear. So, rather than go through the whole thing again I'll
summarize1 haha..

1) Conventoinal solar power costs $11 per peak watt including all balance
of systems. Their life span is 8 years and you are exposed to 800 hours
per year,you're only going to produce 6.4 kWh at a total cost of $20
(equipment + time value) - which is your $3.12per kWh.

2) My concentrating solar panels costs $0.09 per peak watt including
balance of system. Its life span is 20 years. And it is operated in
areas exposed to 1,600 hours per year. So, its going to produce 32 kWh at
a total cost of $0.16 - which is $0.005 - one half cent per kWh.
[/quote:7549fb29b6]
Reality check time - how many peak kWh of these panels have you actually
produced at that cost? At any cost?

[quote:7549fb29b6]3) I do not sell my equipment. I sell gasoline diesel fuel and jet fuel
to pay for equipment I build. I build own and operate facilities that
produce liquid fuels using this equipment. I take $4 worth of coal,
$0.60 worth of water, along with $4.40 worth of equipment and make one
barrel of gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel blend. The value of this
fuel is well over $70. By selling a portion of the forward production
at a discounted price, I obtain funds to build own and operate the
plant. This cost adds another $9 per barrel of fuel.
[/quote:7549fb29b6]
How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?

<snip>
 
Dan Bloomquist
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:26 pm
 
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

[quote:23cf5b2f7c]2) My concentrating solar panels costs $0.09 per peak watt including
balance of system....
[/quote:23cf5b2f7c]
You have been writing some pretty interesting stuff the last few days.
Now, if I could believe this one, it would be well rounded.
 
Guest
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:56 pm
 
On Jun 11, 6:40 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote:029e70a982]hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Over the weekend CNN aired an interview with and expert on agriculture
-- The subject being eEthanol.

During the interview, he cited the fact that nearly all Ethanol is
today being produced from our domestic corn crop, and in 2006
accounted for 30% of the total corn market, and anticipated that
should the demand for Ethanol continue to grow, it will soon account
for 50% of our domestic corn production.

Using *corn* extensively to make motor fuel is uniquely daft.

Graham
[/quote:029e70a982]
Yes. This time, talent, capital, and fuel - for both operating the
capital, creating the fertilizers and supporting the farmers - are
better used growing food for a starving world.
 
 
Page 1 of 3    Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:23 am