Ultimate challenge for the biofluids crowd

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 27 Oct 2005, 04:23

Damian -

you're entirely right - hard jokes in text are too easily misunderstood.

MacG -

Thanks for your response - Sadly I have to differ with you re the Peak Oil site, which seems to me to lack focus, humility and education, as well as being obsessed with America. And as for the spelling !

Seriously, this is the best of any site I've yet seen on the energy issue, not least because there seems to be a quite common recognition of the several critical problems faced, and that efforts to resolve any one of these at the expense of others is entirely futile.

Bill

Bootstrapper · Post by **Bootstrapper** » 27 Oct 2005, 11:46

genoxy wrote: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.

Obviously, it won't be possible to fuel the current world population of motorised vehicles with biofuels. That there isn't enough land to grow the necessary quantity of crops is a 'no-brainer'.

In the poorer countries of Southeast Asia, fuel is precious and is 'invested' in activities that produce food and other forms of wealth. In an energy-poor future we shall all have to make decisions as individuals and communities, on what kind of power-assisted activities we consider essential and how much fuel we can afford to produce, given that land can be used to grow fuel or food, but not both.

In a bio-fuelled future there'll be a LOT less motorised vehicles on the road, but there may still be a lot of tractors working in the fields.

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

peaky · Post by **peaky** » 29 Oct 2005, 22:42

MacG wrote:
Billhook wrote: You are going to die.
Yeps. You too. If you're not Count Dracula or something similar.

peaky · Post by **peaky** » 29 Oct 2005, 22:48

MacG wrote: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.

Well I couldn't disagree more.

I'm know I'm not alone here in thinking that this is the most interesting, wide ranging, helpful, informative, humorous, gramatically correct and constructive PO forum around. I've learnt so much from so many wonderful people who are willing to share their knowledge and time in many, many areas. Go PeakNiks

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 02 Nov 2005, 12:50

I suppose British humour can be a little too subtle for some

As for biofuels - what about methane from human/animal waste? I suppose the EROEI is still <1, but you have the advantage of powering a person/animal as a 'by-product'

You would compress it to liquefy it with power from a wind turbine, of course.

GD · Post by GD » 23 Nov 2005, 00:18

I came across this and thought I ought to throw it into the mix here. I'm no expert, but this guy Mike Briggs is making some bold claims:

The Answer is Biodiesel

Algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the U.S.

He's admin in a biodiesel forum: http://forums.biodieselnow.com

Post by **mikepepler** » 23 Nov 2005, 07:38

GD wrote:I came across this and thought I ought to throw it into the mix here. I'm no expert, but this guy Mike Briggs is making some bold claims:

The Answer is Biodiesel

Interesting. I've heard of algae for hydrogen, but not for biodiesel - I'll ask my biomass lecturer about it. The questions I'd have on this are:

1. What is the food supply for the algae? He says sewage, but is there enough? I'd want to see the analysis.

2. What are the environmental impacts? This would be a major scheme, and must have some effect on the processes going on in the environment. They might be positive effects, but I'd want to know what they might be first.

3. Why not build engines that can burn the oil directly? I had to make small modifications to mine to use veg oil, but it's possible to avoid them if you have suitably designed injectors and fuel pumps, etc.

Overall he's right though - it's much easier to run cars on biodiesel (or veg oil) than to use hydrogen. The engine uses the same technology, and existing engines can run on biodiesel or veg oil with small modifications. The fuel is one we can handle using the existing infrastructure. The raw material can be produce using tried and tested methods: rape seed, sunflower, palm oil, or even these algae he's talking about. I don't think hydrogen can come close on any of these points.

However, I wouldn't want to support these ideas without a cut in demand also happening, otherwise we still run into resource problems of one sort or another.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 23 Nov 2005, 08:21

GD wrote:I came across this and thought I ought to throw it into the mix here. I'm no expert, but this guy Mike Briggs is making some bold claims:

The Answer is Biodiesel

Algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the U.S.

He's admin in a biodiesel forum: http://forums.biodieselnow.com

I have not seen one single physical litre of algae produced biodiesel yet? Has someone else? Link?

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 11 Jan 2006, 23:00

Looks like the PowerSwitch crowd aren't up to your challenge, MacG!

Looks like it's bicycles and oxen, then!

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 12 Jan 2006, 08:39

Algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the U.S.

I haven't digested the whole article yet but my gut-reaction (scientific I know!) is that it won't scale due to the energy and reources inputs required.

The special thing about fossil fuels is that they are like a huge battery that the planet charged up for us millions of years ago and which we only recently figured out how to discharge.

All of these alternatives, like the various biodiesels, attempt instead to make the energy we need in a very short length cycle - but to do so with without using either more of the worlds "capital" resources or other forms of energy (usualy fossil fuels) is incredibily hard. And if/when a highly efficient plan is arrived at, scaling it up to anything like biz-as-usual is another monster challenge again.

I'm open-minded about new ideas and hopeful of new breakthru's but I don't see too many genuine end-to-end proposals that don't eat base resources and/or fossil fuels elsewhere.

Relevant to this discussion is the following TODNY article (read the comments also...):
http://nyc.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/7/171210/2314

As I learned from Cornell Professor Pimentel's analysis of corn to ethanol, the Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) is low (perhaps less than 1.0) and cannot be scaled to replace more than a fraction of transportation fuel.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 12 Jan 2006, 11:00

Honestly, this entire "biofuels" thing is pretty dead. Whatever is possible, it will still need a hell of an infrastructure, and constructing large infrastructures while in decline of oil will take even more oil away than the decline cause. Nops, powerdown is the only solution. The only thing is to decide if we want to be in control of the powerdown or not.

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 12 Jan 2006, 11:45

MacG -

I'd well agree over the problem of global restructuring of energy supply while enduring the economic outcome of an annual decline of oil supply. Its Powerdown or Powercrunch.

As you indicate, the choice is of a managed transition or a collapse of one form or another.

Yet there's a further problem with all remedial measures, which is best seen from the perspective of a nation's strategic energy planning office - (would be nice to hear that the UK still has one).

Unless and until there is formal global agreement for investment in energy efficiency, conservation and sustainable energy suplly that is sufficient to stabilize oil prices, why should we so invest ? After all, if global oil-prices are not stabilized, all our outlay would achieve would be a minor energy supply at home and more affordable oil supplies for nations abroad . . . .

This is of course a matter of mindset - but with those in power being impervious to notions of the fragility of this culture, and with a lifetime's programming to total faith in eternal economic growth, its impact is critical.

Thus unless and until we agree an equitable dynamic allocation of carbon combustion entitlements, by which all nations commit formally to cutting their fossil fuel usage, there seems little prospect of a significant scale of appropriate investment.

This is not to knock biofuels per se - IF they're done right I think they can be more sustainable than practically any other energy resource in our current circumstance. That is a very large IF mind.

regards,

Bill

Post by **mikepepler** » 18 Jan 2006, 08:00

BBC article here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4603272.stm

Indeed, there are those - and Climate Change Capital's Mr Meeks is among them - who insist that "with rising oil prices, biodiesel is becoming cost-effective in its own right".

Others disagree and point out that rising demand for grain, sugar beet, rape seeds or any other plant used to produce biofuels is pushing raw material prices higher too.

And the demand is not just coming from biofuel producers. "China's increasing dependence on agricultural imports is expected to lead to a strong turnaround in grain prices," according to Deutsche Bank's commodity analysts - a strong reminder that any foodstuff used for fuel is taken out of the food chain, in a world where many people are starving.

"There's simply not enough foodstuff available and not enough land to grow it on," says one industry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, for commercial reason.

"E85 is good for raising awareness of biofuels, but on a worldwide basis it is a red herring. Eighty-five percent is not the solution," the official insists, adding that "the way it has been positioned as a solution to UK motoring is naive".

Neily at the peak · Post by **Neily at the peak** » 26 Jan 2006, 11:08

In britain I think the main use for biofuels in the future will be in agriculture. The debate will probably come down to do I grow a bit more grass to feed some horses to pull the plough or do I grow a bit more oilseed rape which can be crushed on farm and burnt in my converted diesel engine. The farmer will then have to decide which field operations are most critical to production. At the moment the energy cost of spreading fertiliser or spraying pesticides is only a minor component.

In the past a part of the land was always used for production of hay to feed the horses so we would not be doing anything new just going back fifty years. I think certainly during the changeover there will be a use of biofuels in tractors as not many farmers these days have much idea about how to use a horse for fieldwork.

The other main use for biofluids will be heating. I don't know about you all but I am most concerned about keeping me and my family warm and keeping my belly full after the peak. My existing oil fired boiler should run on biodiesel with a bit of modification.

As far as transport is concerned the 5 options in the future will be in order of affordability.

1. Walk
2. Bike
3. Public transport
4. Battery powered renewable energy charged vehicle.
5. Horse and cart

most people will not be able to afford to get beyond 3. public transport and biofluids should have a role there.

Neily at the peak

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 30 Jan 2006, 16:05

Neilly -

There's a part of the land that you're overlooking in the farmer's perspective above, namely woodland, which tends to utilize areas least suitable to agriculture.

From woodland, the excellent fuel Methanol can be produced - and the smallest such plant I know of uses around 500kg dry wood/day and is being tested by Mitsubishi

Methanol from wood was first commercially traded in the late C17, with a conversion by weight of < 5%. The current leading edge conversion rate is 65%, which would be best achieved in village-scale refineries - unless someone minaturizes the plants for high-volume production to serve individual woodlots - which seems unlikely.

Establishing and tending woodland requires a tiny fraction of the input of arable crops, and very large areas of marginal or no agricultural value could be so used both within the UK and, crucially, around the planet.

Given that any class of land is finite, methanol from wood will not maintain the illusion of eternal economic growth, but it could IMHO supply a very significant fraction of present oil usage.

I should mention that Methanol's use-techs include SI-ICE (excellent) CI-ICE (partial), Gas turbines & CCGT (potential), and Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (38% effic and rising).

regards,

Bill