| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/2/19-6/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12323 Activity:very high |
6/2 I'm no liberal, but non-politically speaking, what are the
most efficient and most cost effective alternative fuel sources?
\_ Solar, using as-yet-uninvented technology unrelated to present
technology. Solar power with close to zero cost that can be
incorporated into pavement would give us the 40 TW we'll need.
The most cost-effective way to spend money on energy is to
put money towards basic research in the physical sciences
that will lead to this(or some equivalent) breakthrough.
\_ Solar is a crock. There's a tremendous amount of incredibly
toxic sludge produced as a byproduct of creating solar cells.
I wish you pro-solar-the-sun-is-free freaks would pick up a book
and learn what you're trying to dump in the rivers before you
push more of that shit into the water table.
\_ Read my post again, jackoff. when I say "as-yet-uninvented
technology" I'm not talking about better pn junctions.
That's the point.
\_ Hmm, I sense a big argument coming, but if you want to talk about
energy _sources_ rather than energy _carriers_ (like hydrogen),
I'd go with biodiesel. I'm sure someone will chime in here with
Uranium, but of course Uranium has a rather short Hubbert's peak.
\_ Isn't this like methanol where the energy costs to harvest
the ingredients to produce a single ounce of biodiesel is
actually greater than the amount of energy it yields?
\_ That's a loss in any scenario that doesn't involve mining
an pre-existing energy source. The point is that you
are converting carbon dioxide and sunlight (and some other
stuff) into a usable fuel here and now rather than flooding
millenia-worth of reduced carbon into the atmosphere over
a few decades, as is currently the case. It's a loop rather
than shunt.
\_ There's a difference between a loss and being inefficient.
For example, take the case of fossil fuel. Suppose you
wanted to produce 1 gallon of gasoline. You need the
energy to explore, drill, transport, refine, transport,
and when you finally put it in your car, it doesn't
convert all the energy into useful energy. But the point
is that the amount of energy you spend to do everything
I mentioned above is still less than the amount of
energy yielded by 1 gallon of gasoline. It's inefficient
but it's not a net loss. The point is that in a closed
system, your fuel source needs to be self-sustaining.
The amount of energy required to operate the oil
industry is less than the amount of energy it produces.
You can use the energy produced by oil to run the oil
industry (until we run out).
actually greater than the amount of energy it yeilds?
\_ We are actually agreeing with each other but
approaching from different sides so I'll just stop
here.
\_ do you have a quick summary of biodiesel? Yes, I could
obGoogle, but I want to hear it in your words.
\_ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/biodiesel.html
\_ interesting. it sounds like it still needs to be mixed
with diesel fuel. Doesn't diesel fuel have
an environmental impact?
\_ In fact, engines can be modified or redesigned to
support neat (100%) biodiesel, providing a 75%
reduction in CO2 emission over regular diesel.
Also, diesel engines are usually twice as fuel
efficent as their gasoline equivalent in miles per
gallon - though with a different performance envelope
of course. Interestingly, diesel is much more
accepted as a fuel in Europe where its increased
efficiency is very desirable, and almost all European
car companies sell diesel equipped versions of their
entire line (BMW and MBZ in particular). Why these
cars are not offered in America is beyond me.
\_ There are a lot of diesels here; however, even
buses and trucks running on "green" diesel, and
newer CRDs fucking _reek_. Try driving behind
one some time and see what I mean. I have no idea
exactly what they're cranking out, but nothing that
smells so shitty can possibly be kosher. One thing
you're seeing more often is soot particle-burning
cars (although most manufacturers aren't too keen
on manufacturing them, for cost reason I guess)
which fry a lot of the unburned shit that every
diesel (or gasoline) engine emits. They may be
be a bit better, but they also stink. What's
really interesting is that apparently a lot of
older Mercedes diesels (like the 300) will run
on heating oil or even vegetable cooking oil. -John
\_ But you don't want to do that (run on oil) unless
you are willing to spend a lot of time cleaning
and otherwise taking care of the engine.
Incidentally, most diesel emissions do smell
worse than gas emissions, but are actually less
harmful overall. -- ilyas
\_ Remember that not all environmental
impact is measurable in terms of particles
emitted. Noise and smell are regrettable
parts of traffic for people living by
large roads. As for the Mercs I am
talking about--there's a reason you see
almost none of them on Western European
streets--most of them were sold to North
Africa and Eastern Europe, as they're near
impossible to break, will run on nearly
cars are not offered in America is beyond me.
cars are not offered in America is beyond me.
anything combustible, and require almost
no engine maintenance beyond adding oil.
For more complex engines, yes, you are
absolutely correct. -John
\_ Pollution. Seen the Colosseum lately?
\_ biodiese allows for the possibility of a zero
CO_2 emmisions system, since the CO_2 you
produce is balanced by the CO_2 you absorb
when growing the fuel. That's the point.
\_ But only if the fuel source (corn, or what
have you) is not grown using petroleum based
fertilizer. Whether or not there is an organic
fertilizer solution that produces the same
yield, I don't know yet.
\_ http://www.afdc.doe.gov/p_single_faq.cgi?13
yield information.
\_ Very cool, but that doesn't answer the
yield, I don't know yet.
question about petroleum-based fertilizer.
Given that most soybeans are grown by
gigantic corporations like ConAgra, I'm
betting that they use whatever fertilizer
gives the highest yield, regardless of its
source.
\_ Is there any research on how much fuel biodiesel costs
to produce?
\_ It is pretty cheap to produce if using recycled cooking
oil, but that is hardly scalable. For straight from
soy you can take the fact from the above link (1.4
gallons per bushel of soy) and the costs of a bushel
of soy from here:
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/baumel/BaumelDec00.htm
\_ Is there any research on how much fuel biodiesel costs
to produce?
and do some quick back-of-the napkin calculations on
the least it could cost, which is already much higher
than we pay for gas. (but might look sweet if the
nut-job who was talking about being already past
our "peak-oil" production turns out to be right...
Well, except that, of course, these numbers DO assume
petroleum based fertilizers). -phuqm
\_ In 50 years, if we become desperate, couldn't we use nuclear
power and start researching better ways to reduce the environmental
impact of nuke power?
\_ Yes, but the problem is that we'd run out of Uranium really fast
\_ At least we'll have something to give to the Iranians
as a goodwill gesture. -John
and then be even worse off than we were before.
\_ with reprocessing and breeder reactors we could last a
really long time. Should be long enough to lick the fusion
thing.
\_ Mmmm, breeder reactors. But with that much extra
to produce?
would make it through the resulting five or six nuclear
wars.
plutonium running around, and all the cultural upheavals
caused by the end of the Oil Age, I doubt the population
would make it through the resulting five or six nuclear
wars.
\_ At least we'll have something to give to the Iranians
as a goodwill gesture. -John
\_ I like the "end of the Oil Age"
\_ There's already plenty of plutonium floating around,
especially in Japan and France. The cat was out of that
bag years ago.
\_ Fusion research may solve that. I hope.
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE?
\_ Hydrogen stuff is promising. Nuclear is the best we have today.
I keep hoping some clever young Russian figures out fusion.
-- ilyas
\_ How is hydrogen promising? It's got good energy density but how
is it cost effective or efficient?
\_ Hydrogen has lots of problems with storage and transport.
Ethanol and Methanol make more sense, they are close in
energy density (about 1/2) to oil.
\_ Well, you are right in that hydrogen isn't 'ready.' I think
it's 'promising' because if we have hydrogen, we can get a
lot of energy out of it, and it seems like if we try, we will
find a way to produce it cheaply without spending a lot of
energy (it's the most common element in the universe, after
all). -- ilyas
\_ I thought 'stupidity' was the most common element in the
universe. And I don't think some clever young russian is
going to solve anything anytime soon. He's too busy
driving a cab or running guns/drugs/sex slaves to feed his
family to worry about physics and chemistry.
\_ I think Russia has some pretty kick ass plasma research
and some really impressive metallurgical tech. I think
the previous likely matches or exceeds the US, and the
latter was ahead until recently.
\_ And will continue to decline. We already bought
their best metals and materials guys years ago.
\_ w00t!
\_ Isn't hydrogen not an alternative energy source? The energy
needed to make hydrogen comes from fossil or nuclear.
\_ Energy is required to extract it, which makes it more like
a storage medium than an actual energy source. That energy
required can be wind, solar, etc. If we get badass fuel
cells, maybe you could actually have some hydrogen plant
on the edge of a body of water that powered itself.
\_ So how's that patent on a perpetual motion machine going?
\_
\_ I had it licked but then BushCo and the eevvvill OilCo
Execs with the help of GM and Bigfoot (through his
proxy, Elvis) stopped me!
\_ Nuclear
\_ Agreed, it's currently nuclear.
\_ That's nu-ku-lar.
\_ Only if you're from the South, like Jimmy Carter, the
first nu-ku-lar President.
\_ Carter has an additional digit in his IQ.
\_ Ah, so now that you realize Bush's
pronuciation is the same as your hero's,
you're reverted to even more
petty attacks. Good show old boy!
\_ Coal
\_ +++ cost-effective
- efficient
\_ --------- dirty.
\_ And we can afford clean for how many more years?
\_ At least 50-100 years on nukes alone. Possible longer but
it's hard to say since the anti-nuke lobby has prevented
any serious research in that area.
\_ The two legitimate problems with nuclear power are
(a) Chernobyl (accidental or terrorism-related)
(b) Another source of nuclear material for terrorists
(c) Storing the waste somewhere
\_ I'm going to say (c) is a subset of (b). Also,
the quantity of waste is far less than with
coal/oil, which "disappears into the air
somewhere". If you say, "Well, no state wants
to store it", I'll say this is a political
problem, which is not a "legitimate problem"
as I'm defining it.
The problem with coal/oil/gas is:
(a) You're going to run short in the near future
(b) All that smoke is going somewhere (less so with
"clean" coal and gas)
\_ Alternatives will include a combination of nuclear (unfortunately),
wind, solar -- There is no magic bullet. www.iogen.ca has a neat
process of turning farm waste into ethanol, could be used to replace
a good chunk of oil.
\_ I learned that the first commercial turkey waste -> oil factory
was opened recently. The problem is, there's not enough organic
waste to feed the demand for oil. -- ilyas
\_ Also that system wouldn't scale -- Raising animals is very
energy intensive especially with factory farms. However,
there is lots and lots of farm waste from growing crops.
That turkey processing operation only make a piddling amount
of oil but the technology is very interesting, every little
bit helps. There are also pilot projects in CA to turn
cow shit methane into power. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.afdc.doe.gov/altfuel/biodiesel.html Alternative Fuels Data Center - Biodiesel. Biodiesel Biodiesel is a domestically produced, renewable fuel that can be manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases. Biodiesel is safe, biodegradable, and reduces serious air pollutants such as particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and air toxics. Blends of 20 biodiesel with 80 petroleum diesel B20 can generally be used in unmodified diesel engines, however, users should consult their OEM and engine warranty statement. Biodiesel can also be used in its pure form B100, but it too may require certain engine modifications to avoid maintenance and performance problems. Users should consult their engine warranty statement. What is Biodiesel? How is Biodiesel made? Biodiesel Fuel Market Biodiesel Benefits Biodiesel Research and Development Biodiesel Infrastructure Resources Biodiesel Federal Legislation Biodiesel Publications Biodiesel Industry Contacts Biodiesel Related Links For more information go to the National Biodiesel Boards web site. DOE OWIP Webmaster AFDC Home. |
| www.afdc.doe.gov/p_single_faq.cgi?13 Frequently Asked Questions AFDC - Frequently Asked Questions. How many gallons of biodiesel can you make from a bushel of soybeans? According to the United States Department of Agricultures USDA Farm Service Agency , one bushel of soybeans yields approximately 14 gallons of biodisesel. Soybeans contain about 20 oil, so it takes almost 73 pounds of soybean oil to produce a gallon of biodiesel. United States soybean production reached about 25 billion bushels in 2003, according to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. The United States produces about 20 million gallons of biodiesel per year using soybeans and other feedstocks. DOE OWIP Webmaster AFDC Home. |
| www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/baumel/BaumelDec00.htm Brazilian soybeans - Transportation problems In the previous two articles we discussed the rapid growth in soybean production in Brazil and the transportation problems it must overcome to continue this expansion into the future. Below is a discussion of the competitive position of Iowa soybean farmers and what they must do to compete with Brazil. Cost of production Estimates of the cost of producing soybeans in Mato Grosso and in Iowa are shown in Table 1. Iowa producers are at a cost disadvantage to Brazil on all inputs except fertilizer, herbicides and insecticides. As Brazil improves its infrastructure, their fertilizer costs will fall but will likely remain above costs in Iowa. Labor costs in Mato Grosso range from $80 to $200 per month plus free housing. Laborers sometimes work seven days per week during the planting and harvest season with no additional pay for the extra days. Thus, labor costs per bushel in Brazil are only one-third of those in Iowa. In spite of these advantages, the total non-land cost of production is higher in Matto Grosso than it is in Iowa. Iowas total non-land cost per acre is $139 and Matto Grossos is $167. However, the relevant comparison is cost per bushel rather than cost per acre. A portion of Iowas advantage is lost in the transition from acres to bushels because Matto Grossos average yield is higher than Iowas. In spite of this, Iowas total non-land cost is still lower than Matto Grossos. Sources: Duffy, Michael and Darnell Smith, 2000 and personal conversations with Brazilian soybean producers and with Joao G. Midwest farmers often have the impression that their Brazilian counterparts raise continuous soybeans, without rotation. That is a myth, probably coming in part from the fact that Brazil is not a significant exporter of corn, and an assumption that corn is the main agronomic alternative to soybeans. By world standards, Brazil is a large producer of corn, but uses almost all of it domestically. The reasons Brazil is not a corn exporter are: The cost of transporting corn out of Brazil for export would almost equal the price of the corn in the interior areas, and Average corn yields at only slightly over half the United States average are too low to be competitive in world markets. They have rotations that include wheat, corn, cotton, rice and sugar cane. In newer producing regions of the Cerados, the growing season is long enough to permit two and in some cases three crops per year, with one or more of these alternative crops grown as a second or third crop. Rice typically is planted on newly cleared land for the first two years while the soil acidity is being lowered to a level that soybeans and other crops can tolerate. Much of Brazils sugar cane is produced for its extensive alcohol fuels program. In Brazil, consumers have a choice of buying either pure alcohol or gasoline for their cars. Brazilian farmers in the traditional soybean areas have followed this rotation pattern for much longer than central and northern Plains United States farmers, without adverse effects on yields. In fact, Brazilian soybean yields have increased a little more rapidly than those in the United States From 1970 to 2000, the average Brazilian soybean yield increased 107 percent, compared with only 45 percent for United States soybeans. Cost of production and transportation As shown in the previous article in this series, Brazilian soybeans Transportation problems , the cost of transporting Brazilian soybeans to Northern Europe is significantly higher than for Iowa soybeans. Will smaller transportation costs offset the higher production costs of Iowa soybean producers? The cost of transportation analysis presented in the previous article is included with the production costs and shown in Table 2. Estimated cost of producing and transporting soybeans in Iowa and Mato Grosso, Brazil US dollars . However, even the higher rail transportation costs do not totally offset Brazils cost advantage. The transportation cost analysis above assumes that Northern Europe is the final destination. However, the Pacific Rim is also an important market for soybeans. Because Brazil is farther east than Iowa, the distance from Brazil to the Pacific Rim is substantially greater than from Iowa to the Pacific Rim. So, Brazils transportation cost disadvantage is greater when the destination is the Pacific Rim rather than Northern Europe. Competitive solutions for Iowa farmers Ways of increasing Iowas competitive position in producing soybeans include reducing non-land production costs, reducing land costs, maintaining or increasing government payments, reducing marketing costs, and improving soybean quality. Lowering non-land costs One solution for Iowa farmers is to reduce the non-land cost of production. Possible cost reductions could come from: Increasing yields - Increasing Iowas yield will make Iowa soybeans more competitive by spreading the cost per acre over more bushels. Also, most farmland, except that located next to cities, has limited alternative uses. Finally, land is fixed in supply and becomes the limiting resource when grain supplies become scarce. Due to these reasons, farmland becomes the residual claimant of profits in crop production. If profit levels are high, farmers will bid these profits into higher land values and rental rates. Conversely, if profits are low losses, farmland values and rental rates will decline until breakeven levels are reached again. As shown above, Iowa farmers can easily compete with Brazilian farmers if land cost is not taken into account. So, by reducing land values and rental rates, Iowa farmers can be competitive. The reduction in values and rents will occur automatically if market forces are allowed to work. First, the downward adjustment would take place slowly placing tremendous financial pressures on farmtenants. Secondly, the eventually impact on landlords would be severe due to the magnitude of adjustment needed. The percent of Iowa farmland owned by the farmer-operator fell from 54 percent in 1982 to only 31 percent in 1997. Therefore, most of the reduction in income due to reduced land returns is shifted to non-farm landowners. The cycle of tightening margins Iowa farmers go through a continuing cycle of tightening profit margins. Several consecutive years of good world weather conditions usually leads to high yields, overproduction, and low prices. However, an occasional year of poor weather results in significantly reduced yields, lower production, a period of shortage, and higher prices. Believing the false expectation that a new age of higher prices in agriculture has dawned, the higher prices are quickly capitalized into higher farmland values and rental rates. Also, in South America, land clearing activities accelerate and the production area expands. The poor weather is usually of short duration and normal weather conditions return. This results again in higher yields, larger supplies, and lower prices. However, the increased farmland values in Iowa and expanded production area in South America make the profit picture for Iowa farmers tighter than before. After several years of good growing conditions, another poor weather year will start the cycle over again, tightening the noose around the necks of Iowa farmers. Increase government payments Direct government payments to farmers have been a traditional way of making Iowa farmers competitive during periods of low prices. Unless a structural change occurs in the cost of producing or transporting soybeans in either Iowa or Brazil, government payments would need to be continued annually into the foreseeable future. Government payments of this size would probably be capitalized into higher farmland values and rental rates. To compensate for the higher production costs, government payments would need to be increased. This would start a cycle of higher production costs and greater dependency on government largess. Increase quality To capture an increased share of the export market, exporting countries must provide a quality product at the cheapest price. This could be accomplished by: Differentiating Iowa soybeans from other soybe... |