PowerSwitch

Hi all,

I would like to challenge the biofuels crowd once and for all. In order for me to even start to listen to you, I would like to see a completely contained biofuel process which dont rely on any fossile inputs. Please manage fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural machinery, processing plants and distribution using just the biofuel produced. And then show me what is left to sell. No theoretical calculations, please, just real world results.

MacG wrote:Hi all,

I would like to challenge the biofuels crowd once and for all. In order for me to even start to listen to you, I would like to see a completely contained biofuel process which dont rely on any fossile inputs. Please manage fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural machinery, processing plants and distribution using just the biofuel produced. And then show me what is left to sell. No theoretical calculations, please, just real world results.

Unfortunately I dont think "completely contained biofuel process" in the manner you are thinking of is possible. The technology doest exist. For instance, there are no tractors which are produced independent of fossil fuel input. There arent even any tyres for the tractors produced independent of fossil fuel input. As far as I'm aware all tyres these days are made of synthetic rubber derived from petroleum.

You would have to convert an entrire self contained industrial economy to biofuels in order to provide the demonstration you are asking for.

Biofuels won't ever have an ERoEI greater than 1. That's not the issue. In a post-petroleum future, there'll still be some absolutely essential activities that'll require fuel. Rail transport where it's not feasible to electrify the link, for example. The decision will be taken (hopefully by the community at large) that the energy expended to produce the biofuel is an acceptable cost for the service it enables.

Paul - just expressing his opinion, not trying to change anyone else's.

In the UK I think biofuels will be a non-event, at least for many decades - the tail end of the north sea will provide enough motor-transport fuel for those few things that really can't work in any other way.

If you took all the cars off the roads in the UK, you could run STEAM TRAINS where electrification wasn't viable and I bet you'd still be cutting the net UK CO2 emmissions by a huge slice.

Bootstrapper wrote:Biofuels won't ever have an ERoEI greater than 1.

Does this also apply to energy derived from sugar cane waste, bagasse? (the fibrous woody material left over after the cane has been crushed for its sugar syrup)

I know that bagasse is widely used to produce vehicle fuel (ethanol) and electricity in countries that grow sugar cane. eg.. Brazil , Hawaii.

If the ERoEI is less than 1 why would they bother?

skeptik wrote: If the ERoEI is less than 1 why would they bother?

Because they need transport fuel? ...and it's cheaper than buying oil?

fishertrop wrote:. . . If you took all the cars off the roads in the UK, you could run STEAM TRAINS where electrification wasn't viable and I bet you'd still be cutting the net UK CO2 emmissions by a huge slice.

Agreed. However, coal production would be drastically reduced as, without petroleum fuels, mining would revert to manual labour. Then, you have the problem of keeping the mines drained, which means some of the coal they produce needs to stay on-site to fuel the (steam) pumps and the remainder needs to be transported to the rail-head. Not all coal mines are located adjacent to railway sidings.

Steam engines have a charm all their own, but are incredibly inefficient compared to IC. It might be more efficient to convert the coal to oil and burn it, along with biodiesel or vegetable oil in diesel locomotives. However, steam locos would be able to bridge the gap to a more efficient non-electric rail locomotion system as there are plenty of them immediately available for service, thanks to all the enthusiasts who've preserved them.

Paul - a fan of railways.

MacG -

With respect, your question appears to assume that biofuels are necessarily agricultural products. This just ain't so.

If you're interested, try Googling for :-

DMFC + Forest + Wood + Biomass + Methanol Fuel Cell

Billhook

Billhook wrote:MacG -

With respect, your question appears to assume that biofuels are necessarily agricultural products. This just ain't so.

If you're interested, try Googling for :-

DMFC + Forest + Wood + Biomass + Methanol Fuel Cell

Billhook

That was a new and refreshing perspective - getting biofuels out of Google! A pity nobody thougth of that before. That must mean that we are saved. Great.

MacG wrote: That was a new and refreshing perspective - getting biofuels out of Google! A pity nobody thougth of that before. That must mean that we are saved. Great.

MacG -

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Neither Google nor any form of forest biomass will save you. You are going to die.

What Coppice Woodland for Methanol might do is help your chances of staying alive for a number of decades.

Billhook

Billhook wrote: You are going to die.

Yeps. You too. If you're not Count Dracula or something similar.

skeptik wrote:

Bootstrapper wrote:Biofuels won't ever have an ERoEI greater than 1.

Does this also apply to energy derived from sugar cane waste, bagasse? (the fibrous woody material left over after the cane has been crushed for its sugar syrup)

I know that bagasse is widely used to produce vehicle fuel (ethanol) and electricity in countries that grow sugar cane. eg.. Brazil , Hawaii.

If the ERoEI is less than 1 why would they bother?

From what I've heard, fuel made from sugar cane ins't impressingly efficient compared to refined crude oil. Perhaps they use it because they grow the sugar anyway (the climate's right and sugar's been good business for centuries).

However, the bigger problem with biofuels, from what I've read, is that to put it into wider use, you'de need to use a huge land mass. So you might be looking at a problem of fuel versus food.

MacG -

your responses to my well intentioned posts make you appear to be more interested in petty point scoring than in learning about potentially critical advances, such as Coppice Woodland for Methanol, for facing the looming problems.

If this is actually so, then there would seem little point in response to your posts in future.

OTOH, maybe you'd like to clarify the degree to which you're interested in constructive discussion ?

Billhook

Billhook wrote:MacG -

your responses to my well intentioned posts make you appear to be more interested in petty point scoring than in learning about potentially critical advances, such as Coppice Woodland for Methanol, for facing the looming problems.

If this is actually so, then there would seem little point in response to your posts in future.

OTOH, maybe you'd like to clarify the degree to which you're interested in constructive discussion ?

Billhook

Well, as you might have noted the general tone on this board is extremely hostile, confrontational and ignorant, and dont suite just anybody. I found two other threads where you end up in similar situations and were forced to try to educate other members.

I suspect that such educational attempts are futile here though, and suggest that you try your luck on peakoil.com instead. People there are much more humble, educated and gentle than here.

Let's remember that a poster's intonation is not generally knowable on these forums and can be mis-interpreted. Can we keep to the light tone and avoid giving or taking offence.

Thanks.