Biodiesel. World catastrophe in the making. (but the profits are good).

Originally posted by PeteUK
The long and the short of all this seems to be that "We just don't know" if BD is practical on any large scale.

Fair enough, I can concede that we just don't know yet, but if the algae is forthcoming, which I believe it will be, then I think we will find the probability leaning quite far to the "Yes," as really the only factor BD needs to overcome is its ratio of land use to fuel provided.

Originally posted by PeteUK
If they have not burned down new Forest, converted food crops or gennerally made the environment worse that it was, maybe I will give it a go. I already drive a diesel anyway. (hate to think I will smell like a chippy though)

Thanks for a continuously "on-track" discussion.

My pleasure. I'm a fan of alternative energies, but I'm also not a blind greenie. So while I can certainly appreciate skepticism, it's important to understand the promise of some of these technologies, and how none of them are quite as universally useful as crude oil, but with many different "green" technologies working intelligently, in tandem, methinks we'll make it through the next century or two without dying much.

Longlance, go to school and try to bring about your vision of the future to fruition. Hmm whats that? Too hard? Too scared? Allright, I'll do it for you then. /Ignore. I don't have to deal with unreasonable critics who don't even read all the materials I post.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by sardion2000]

Libra, suck my windmill...

First off... I have never had two user names, or needed to create my own argument support... so take your allegation and stuff it.

Second, I am not argueing with you... long lance was doing that, I merely pointed out that it wasn't cheap enough to make it feasable yet as a new product, and using used oil is limited by supply...
so for that... go blow your own windmill...

And as far as offering better alternatives... instead of just knocking the ones presented
well, lets consider Wind generated hydrogen for one...
burns totally clean, safe to store in smaller amounts
easy to start generation stations, and uses a free form of electricity for all operations...

Quite nice really... much better than making everything sticky and yucky smelling, like burnt frys...

so there are your alternatives...
the algae generation process for Biodiesel looks promising though... especially for converting older diesels to run on cleaner fuel. It could supply enough for use, and at a reasonable price...

I still like hydrogen better in the long run though...
and this program is already in the works, with lots of support to convert the US to hydrogen before we know it...
a cleaner brighter tommorow...
Wind generated hydrogen, as good as it gets.

EDIT: Please exclude "LazarusTheLong" from the "Longs", as he is far from ignorant and has actually contributed constructive comments to this thread.

My bold for emphasis.

And as far as offering better alternatives... instead of just knocking the ones presented
well, lets consider Wind generated hydrogen for one...
burns totally clean, safe to store in smaller amounts
easy to start generation stations, and uses a free form of electricity for all operations...

I'm not totally sure(got to pencil whip it to be sure and it's mah day off today, so I ain't ), but I think a combination of Boyant Deep Water Turbines(which are portable I posted about it above) and lots of Industrial Flow batteries, to power an EV fleet of vehicles would be more efficient as with hydrogen, we still have not gotten around the efficiency losses from electrolysis.

I think H2 has a much brighter future in the air however, powering Solar Electric/H2 Fuel Cell/LiIon Cargo Zepplins to compete with Tankers and Container ships and the like. You could potentially create a perpetual motion machine by making the exhaust vapor recondense into water for later on-demand electrolysis(most likely using a solid state version that uses microcurrent to break the bonds, some have hypothesized that great efficiency gains can be made in the electrolysing step by recapturing some of the energy through piezo-crystals somehow)

[edit on 25-9-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Libra, suck my windmill...

First off... I have never had two user names, or needed to create my own argument support... so take your allegation and stuff it.

Lazarus, Please re-read my post, or if you intend on skimming again, please skip to the very end of my previous post. I excluded you from the "Longs"... In fact, I specifically went so far as to compliment you on your contributions. Unfortunately, your ability to completely read my posts appears to not be up to par today.

For your benfit, to quote myself...

Originally posted by thelibra
EDIT: Please exclude "LazarusTheLong" from the "Longs", as he is far from ignorant and has actually contributed constructive comments to this thread.

Now... don't you feel silly for ripping into me like that?

[edit on 9/25/2006 by thelibra]

Well thank you for that edit...

I apologize... I assumed that when "longs" is plural, that it means two or more...

I am interested in this algae biodiesel method being looked into...
are there fears that the saline origin of this fuel, might cause problems with the engines?

also, with wind powered hydrogen generation, the infrastructure becomes very easy, and independant...
wherever a windmill and water source can be setup, a hydrogen storage station could be also... all with very little industrial componant...
in other words, it is much easier to make a hydrogen generation station, than an oil refinery... of any type...

and while there would be significant loses of energy effiecency, as the report states, its freely generated, so what waste is there? And it doesn't matter what you or I think really... as this program has already been passed, and approved, and will be the next big switch from oil.

On another thread, a poster pointed out, that it would be better to use a variety of energy sources, each to the use best suited...

Maybe hydrogen will be the next fuel for ground transportation, maybe biodiesel will, but I have learned much from this thread, that makes me think that hydrogen is still looking very competitive...

Hydrogen- requires minimal land, and very safe, clean
biodiesel- easy to convert older diesel engines, uses a waste product for fuel

Both have alot of things going for them... so why not use both?

and while there would be significant loses of energy effiecency, as the report states, its freely generated, so what waste is there? And it doesn't matter what you or I think really... as this program has already been passed, and approved, and will be the next big switch from oil.

The waste happens when there is a method where you could potentially get more with less. With this new low temperature geothermal technology I posted about above, you can radically decentralize the grid, reduce electricity wasted by building tons of flow batteries, build lots of portable, boyant 5 Megawatt wind turbines to produce juice for the grid which will provide electricity for EVs and power hydroponic skyscrapers producing biofuels right in suburban and industrial area's. You could also use a strain of algae to produce hydrogen through photosynthesis to power a whole new long range shipping infrastructure based on the Zeplin tech which has been sorely neglected this past century.

Sardion, I defer to your knowledge of these things...
I hadn't really considered how much could be done with the little algae critters...

and i like the idea of decentralized electric grid...
not only is the present system too fragile, and vulnerable to catastrophy, but it loses so much energy just from the line length...

not only is the present system too fragile, and vulnerable to catastrophy, but it loses so much energy just from the line length...

There is hope there too. If we can get Superconducting wires down to the point where it's cost competitive with conventional long range transmission wires, then things will be far less vulnerable to natural disaster/act of god/act of allah/whatever armeggedon keeps you awake at night.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I apologize... I assumed that when "longs" is plural, that it means two or more...

What? Didn't you see the--

(reads back, the entire thread this time)

Oh hell.

First off, my apologies to longbow and LazarusTheLong, I actually did something quite stupid in implicating you both, quite mistakenly, when I was in fact only targeting Long Lance, but had quite accidentally read his various posts as three different people. While I realized it in time to do a quick edit to exclude LazarusTheLong, I had, for some reason, mixed up longbow in the list of bad responses, and thus, the plural "longs". In point of fact, it was one person, Long Lance at whom I was upset, and as his title is "Thread Killer", I suspect he is quite pleased with his work. I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding, however, as had I been paying a little bit closer attention in the first place, I would not have derailed the thread myself.

Okay, back on topic...

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I am interested in this algae biodiesel method being looked into...
are there fears that the saline origin of this fuel, might cause problems with the engines?

First, here's a great article: It's a tad lengthy, but here is the meat of not only what you are asking, but the current capabilities of algae farms producing oil. I recommend reading the entire paper and all references. I've been following this work like a hawk, and you'll find that this pretty much sums up everything I've been saying.

from Michael Briggs, University of New Hampshire, Physics Department

...From the results of the Aquatic Species Program2, algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the US (as well as its other main use - home heating oil) - but we first have to solve a few of the problems they encountered along the way.

NREL's research focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow saltwater pools for growing the algae. Using saltwater eliminates the need for desalination, but could lead to problems as far as salt build-up in bonds. Building the ponds in deserts also leads to problems of high evaporation rates. There are solutions to these problems, but for the purpose of this paper, we will focus instead on the potential such ponds can promise, ignoring for the moment the methods of addressing the solvable challenges remaining when the Aquatic Species Program at NREL ended.

NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals...

I believe that pretty much says it all. The people who think biodiesel would require us to "strip the land of all biomass" have absolutely zero idea of what they are talking about, and that was the reason I was so upset at such baseless claims. It is only the parrotted lies against the biodiesel industry by the ignorant that has kept the biodiesel industry from moving forward at an insanely fast rate. Such ignorance, especially on the part of people who would both frequenting a site like this, and then to turn it around and ask us what the motto of the site is, just really piss me off. Hence what happened earlier.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
also, with wind powered hydrogen generation, the infrastructure becomes very easy, and independant...

I'm not bashing on hydrogen power at all. Far from it. I really hope it takes off, and that they overcome the other problems and that it gets a chance. But to be honest, I think it becoming a viable solution is further away than the next major oil crisis. Whereas biodiesel, on the other hand, has a much better chance of being capable of full implementation on a more rapid scale.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Hydrogen- requires minimal land, and very safe, clean
biodiesel- easy to convert older diesel engines, uses a waste product for fuel

Both have alot of things going for them... so why not use both?

Absolutely! In point of fact, I hope they end up in healthy competition with each other to produce the best results, and an ever-evolving technology.

But hydrogen generation produces oxygen

Kidding... but it really does...

I state this in regard to the obvious next question...
Will 15,000 acres of hungry oil producing critters produce much waste gas/fumes?
and of what type?

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
But hydrogen generation produces oxygen

Kidding... but it really does...

Yet another reason to cheer for hydrogen cells as well.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
I state this in regard to the obvious next question...
Will 15,000 acres of hungry oil producing critters produce much waste gas/fumes?
and of what type?

I haven't thought to check, but I bet you dollars to donuts that either one of these fuels is going to have some kind of unforeseen drawback which requires us to advance yet again someday, to what we think is a perfect renewable clean energy source, which in turn be discovered to have a flaw, et cetera...

Yep
and as soon as a clean burning fuel is developed, they will say that we need smoggy ones to cut the amount of sun reaching us...

Also, (on the gonzo alternative energy possibilities)
the new space elevator that they are wanting to make (estimated 15-20yrs)... could tap the earth/sun magnetic generator and produce googlewatts for use on earth...

(the same principle as the space shuttle tether that generated so much visual electricity it could be viewed from the ground...)

I am not so much worried about the possibilities of tommorow, as i am for the needs of today, and towards that end, Biodiesel does show the easiest prospect...

And its all thanks to Willie...
good research libra/sardion2000

Also, (on the gonzo alternative energy possibilities)
the new space elevator that they are wanting to make (estimated 15-20yrs)... could tap the earth/sun magnetic generator and produce googlewatts for use on earth...

Another source to add to that would be to plaster Mercury with solar panels and send it back via microwave to a space elevator recieving station, which will then convert it to superconducting current and send down for use on Earth.

Originally posted by sardion2000
I don't have to deal with unreasonable critics who don't even read all the materials I post.

You posted that link about greenhouses with artificial lighting, didn't you? i know you put me on ignore, but everyone else can now easily see that you simply cannot justify your stance.

i mean it's not even necessary, mirror systems and functional architecture would make artificial lighting superfluous, yet you put that link into your post, fail to answer any pertaining criticism and get enraged because *I* don't read your source material.

then we have

Longlance, go to school and try to bring about your vision of the future to fruition. Hmm whats that? Too hard? Too scared? Allright, I'll do it for you then.

relevance?

rather typical, once something becomes a political issue all bets are off.


=======

Source
Germany
According to the Union zur Förderung von Öl- und Proteinpflanzen UFOP[15](Union to promote oil- and protein plants), in 2004 the sale of biodiesel through German gas stations rose to 375,000 m³, although it is currently only available at selected outlets. In 2004, 45 percent of all biodiesel sales went directly to large end users, such as trucking companies.

Production capacity for biodiesel, for the most part produced from rapeseed, is expected to rise in 2006 to over 2,000,000 m³ per year.

so, these guys are growing crops explicitly for fuel, yay or nay?

it's nice to hear about some super efficient tech using algae with fantastic results or waste recyling, but just look what's being done on semi-large scale already? looks like bait&switch to me.



[edit on 26-9-2006 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
it's nice to hear about some super efficient tech using algae with fantastic results or waste recyling, but just look what's being done on semi-large scale already? looks like bait&switch to me.

Long Lance, I'd be able to take you a lot more seriously if you didn't proudly sport "Thread Killer" in your title. You are refusing to acknowledge the following:

Biodiesel is an industry that is still in its childhood. Right now people in it are doing everything they can just to get the ball rolling first. They are facing a mountain of resistance from both the auto-industry which is largely in bed with the oil industry, on a coporate level. And even more importantly, they are facing resistance from ignorant people who like nothing more than to argue that it can't be done, and point out the flawed methods, while actual FACTS on proper methods prove otherwise.

If people were starving due to the loss of arable land biomass to biodiesel, they would, quite simplly, stop using the arable land for biomass. So far, it's not a problem.

People are going to be trying all sorts of methods for a while to see what works and what doesn't. Sometimes they will succeed, sometimes they will fail. There isn't a single commonly available product on the market that didn't undergo multiple research, design, production, distribution, and sale models. This is known as the Product Life Cycle, and it is constantly evolving for any product.

From the way you keep trying to demonize biodiesel according to not what is being done right, but what is being done wrong, I am inclined to believe you would have done the same for any invention, even the light bulb. "Well, the light bulb is nothing but a waste, I mean, to power a lightbulb everywhere, you'd have to have lightning hitting every house, which would destroy the planet!"

Now, you're not being outright abusive, so I won't place you on ignore, but until you either start doing at least a modicum of research into biodiesel, or are at least willing to accept that those who have researched it know what they are talking about, I just can't take your input seriously. There's just too much material out there that easily proves BD is not restricted to the flawed methods you list, and life is too short to keep telling you that over and over.

So do some reading, get a little more informed about the subject matter you want to argue (or be willing to listen), then you'll be welcome back into this thread.

We are talking about different things, apparently, thow it should be and how it is actually done. i am not a fan of exaggerated promises of paradise sometime in the future, especially if tax money is used with ambiguous result, to say the least.

i may be a bit over-sceptical about green fuels, i admit, because of political abuse of the ecological theme, and a tendency of proponents (of anything) to quitely forget their mistakes down the road.

i do not shoot down any invention, just those that are blown out of proportion via subsidies and decisions are made according to faith, rather than hard data and trial/error. the reason is simple, people who live off the new resource will stick to it and fight to the teeth to keep an inefficient crop along with its subsidies.

let's see
from Ecoworld.com

The EU biofuels policy currently relies on an assumption that the heavily-subsidised cultivation of rapeseed will meet its biodiesel targets. However, this is a very large assumption. Already some 3 million hectares of agricultural land across the EU, an area roughly the size of Belgium, grows 10 millon tonnes of rapeseed. But since just 20% of this is ultimately used for biodiesel as opposed to food oil, another whole Belgium would have to be covered in the yellow rapeseed blanket to meet the targets. Rapeseed tires the land, and requires expensive crop rotation and fossil-based fertilisers. Growing rapeseed also has an opportunity cost of preventing farmers from growing more environmentally-friendly, less intensive, and often more profitable produce such as cereals or organic root vegetables. Under these circumstances, the supply of rapeseed oil is unlikely to be able meet the demand.

but it's all ok, since it paves the way for better crops and procedures in the future, right? afaics, most vegetable oil is still being discarded after use (unless you make the BD yourself, of course), while the EU doles out subsidies for a mediocre, soil draining crop. it's already an incomprehensible lunacy, why and how do you think things will magically change in the future? the mere promise means more than experience and reason combined, it seems.


btw, i never stated that all biofuels automatically suck, just that mistakes have been made (here and elsewhere) and that certain factors need to be considered. if thorough analysis shows tangible benefits and few to no weak spots, go for it.


PS: 'Future World Dictator' ain't much better than Thread Killer and mine is derived from (undesired) experience, but i guess i'd better delete the line since it doesn't do any good. on a side note: if somebody now starts complaining that 'with more people like me, the earth would still be considered flat' let me ask you whether the people who proved otherwise were of faith or more sceptic of faith.

Yet another reason to cheer for hydrogen cells as well.

Cheer? We should be careful what emission we let go into the atmosphere regardless of how harmless it seems. Tons of extra O2 added into the system could increase the severity of lightning storms(through strikes starting fires). Another problem that has to be looked into is the Water Vapor exhaust of the H2 Fuel cell system. Water Vapor is a green house gas. It may make more sense to have a closed system for the waste H2O.

I have a biodiesel reactor. I love the fact that the reactor will pay for itself in one winter season!

I get waste veggie oil from the local establishments to make it. I can make 80 gallons in 24 hours. I think that's pretty good. I will spend about $200.00 to get a B100 pump installed on my furnace next spring but if I save $3000.00 this winter and that's alright with me.

Next year sometime I plan on buying a diesel vehicle and make my own "gas". I spend 300.00 for gas a month getting back and forth to work. If I didn't get paid as much as I do I'd get a job local.

I am not a tree hugging hippie. Just don't want to contribute to foreign oil If I can help it.

If you are interested in this please do your homework. It can be dangerous. Best of luck and BE SAFE!

Jatropha

How come no one in here knows about Jatropha

I sell the stuff, it's fantastic, converts arid land and makes it useable for food farming

Completely dashes to bits, the entire food reduction theory actually halts desertification

Has the highest oil yield of any plant

Grows on non farmable land

jatropha

You really should know what your talking about before you post a thread... the above farmers use the bio diesel to grow citrus! Which reduces food prices

And yeah lol, i'm going to make alot of money too in the coming years, something wrong with win/win?