Thailand uses bagasse to produce electric energy

Eth666us · Post by **Eth666us** » 03 May 2008, 11:14

Thailand is an example of how a poor nation can benefit from biofuels...
It exports sugar(it has a great market thanks to biofuels...) and utilizes bagasse to produce around 5 % of its electric energy...
If.. dry bagasse give around 12 Mj/kg of heat then an hectare would can produce more than 15 000 kwh of electric energy...
Thailand has great possibilities because 30/50 million hectares are free of cultivations...
10 million hectares of sugar cane would have the potential to produce 50 million tonnes of bioethanol and 150 billion kwh of electric energy from bagasse(its actual production of electric energy is about 50 billion kwh...)...
Therefore I think that biofuels are a good way if poor nations are able to benefit from biofuels...

Another name: Mozambique

Today Mozambique is one of the most poor nations of the world...
It has more than 70 million hectares free of cultivation that have a good climate to produce sugar cane...
Easily it would have the possibility to cultivate 20 million hectares of sugar cane...
It would export about 100 million tonnes of potential bioethanol and would produce arund 300 billion kwh of electric energy from bagasse...
It would become a rich nation...

What's your view?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 04 May 2008, 17:10

Looks good so far, BUT not having been to Mozambique/rural Thailand I have to ask, what's in those acres that are "free from cultivation"?

Also iirc Bagasse is, the remains of a sugar-plant? (or have I got this wrong?) If that's all taken away and burned, won't that knacker the soil after a few years? Or is it pyrolised and the char returned?

Eth666us · Post by **Eth666us** » 04 May 2008, 20:42

These lands are 70 million hectares without economy...
There is only some woodcutter...
10 million hectares of sugar cane can modify Mozambique economy without creating environmental problems...

Sure, I am saying about bagasse form sugar cane...
Today a lot of studies are saying that it's possible to produce ethanol, sugar etc... from cogeneration plants... because they need low temperatures...
Sugar(or nectar...) and ethanol can be produced from the lost heat of bagasse cogeneration plants...
An hectare of sugar cane produces around 20 tonnes of dry bagasse that can produce around 15 000 kwh of electric energy + sugar... from the lost heat(around 70 % of the total heat)...

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 04 May 2008, 21:21

Eth666us wrote:These lands are 70 million hectares without economy...
There is only some woodcutter...
...

Umm, yes, no economy, but what is there? Trees? Peat? Indigenous characters who happen to use some particular weed for curing some otherwise-incurable illness? I mean, a lot of the Siberian forest has no economy, but we'd all be stuffed without it.

Eth666us · Post by **Eth666us** » 06 May 2008, 08:08

RenewableCandy wrote: Umm, yes, no economy, but what is there? Trees? Peat? Indigenous characters who happen to use some particular weed for curing some otherwise-incurable illness? I mean, a lot of the Siberian forest has no economy, but we'd all be stuffed without it.

It's sufficient 1/8 of Brazil (about 100 million hectares) to produce 500 million tonnes of ethanol and 1500 billion kwh of electric energy from bagasse (Usa electric energy production: around 2000 billion kwh)
A little sacrifice of the forest means a lot of energy...

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 06 May 2008, 13:54

The trouble is "A little sacrifice of the forest means a lot of energy..." quickly turns into "We all want our share of the cash" and all the forest disappears.

The advantage of sugar cane over corn ethanol is that the sugar cane doesn't require fertilising even when the bagasse is burnt , whereas corn is a very hungry plant.

If all cars were modified to run on 90% ethanol and 10% water, which is possible, the EROEI of ethanol would shoot up. A large proportion of the energy in distilling is in getting rid of the last 5 - 10% of water. 'Course the oil companies don't like it because the cars couldn't run on petrol then so it's vetoed.

Eth666us · Post by **Eth666us** » 07 May 2008, 21:01

kenneal wrote:The trouble is "A little sacrifice of the forest means a lot of energy..." quickly turns into "We all want our share of the cash" and all the forest disappears.

The forest would be a natural park if the nations have the intention to save it...
A natural park cannot be used to grow crops...