Refi
+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 13690
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 07, 2018, 01:48:20 pm »


The planet Earth is our home and we need to do everything we can to save it.

Challenge the deniers to argue the points made here. Demand proof rather than some huffy dismissal about not understanding the laws of thermodynamics, capitalism or free enterprise. Ask them how many Mega Joules per Liter will we expend in dealing with THEIR “GIFT” TO US of 415 (AND RISING!) parts per million of CO2, increased cancer rates, excess heat from internal combustion engines that are only about 20% efficient, erosion of democracy through monopoly oil corporation price control and purchase of of our representatives and laws and useless wars that get our children killed for their GOD DAMNED profits (no, I am not swearing; I am certain the creator is not amused by humans trashing his garden or those who, like some poor deluded souls, claim that this is the way the world works and we just have to live with it).

And tell them to stuff it when they say we-the-people are responsible because we consumed their products. If they return all the profits and swag from subsidies made by big oil, then we’ll consider that possibility but otherwise it was THEY who corralled us into consuming their crap so they could centralize riches and power and turn the USA into a plutocracy ruled by ruthless oligarchs.

Call them cowards for drinking the koolaid. Force them to face responsibility for ruining the future for their offspring with ther blindness and greed. When the Biased Bums, like the pseudo-erudite mathematician Palloy claim you don’t know what you are talking about when you claim that ethanol (otherwise known as ethyl alcohol) is a superior fuel to gasoline because it gets better mileage in high compression engines and burns cleaner ,translating to a GREATER effective EROI than gasoline, push this into their face and ask them why they never got the memo:

Quote
Ethyl alcohol in the early 20th century

The following excerpt is from a Paper to the American Society for Environmental History, Annual Conference March 26-30, 2003 By William Kovarik, Ph.D. “Studies of alcohol as an internal combustion engine fuel began in the U.S. with the Edison Electric Testing Laboratory and Columbia University in 1906. Elihu Thomson reported that despite a smaller heat or B.T.U. value, “a gallon of alcohol will develop substantially the same power in an internal combustion engine as a gallon of gasoline. This is owing to the superior efficiency of operation…” (New York Times Aug. 5, 1906) Other researchers confirmed the same phenomena around the same time. “USDA tests in 1906 also demonstrated the efficiency of alcohol in engines and described how gasoline engines could be modified for higher power with pure alcohol fuel or for equivalent fuel consumption, depending on the need. The U.S. Geological Service (USGS) and the U.S. Navy performed 2000 tests on alcohol and gasoline engines in 1907 and 1908 in Norfolk, Va. and St. Louis, Mo. They found that much higher engine compression ratios could be achieved with alcohol than with gasoline. When the compression ratios were adjusted for each fuel, fuel economy was virtually equal despite the greater B.T.U. value of gasoline. “In regard to general cleanliness, such as absence of smoke and disagreeable odors, alcohol has many advantages over gasoline or kerosene as a fuel,” the report said. “The exhaust from an alcohol engine is never clouded with a black or grayish smoke.” USGS continued the comparative tests and later noted that alcohol was “a more ideal fuel than gasoline” with better efficiency despite the high cost.”

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/alcoholengines.aspx

Quote
Ethanol Engine efficiency exceeds gasoline engines, giving greater miles per gallon (MPG) with ethanol fuel: High Efficiency and Low Emissions from a Port-Injected Engine with Alcohol Fuels— By Matthew Brusstar, Mark Stuhldreher, David Swain and William Pidgeon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  size: 70 Kb – 7 pages

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/sae-2002-01-2743-v2.pdf

When they fall back on the EROI formula Procrustean Bed with the claim that EROI only deals with energy density in fuels and not efficiency coefficients in different engine types, calmly remind them (hopefully, two by fours will be unnecessary to knock some sense into their heads but you never know ;D) that gasoline is not customarily used for furnaces, room lighting, barbeque grills or to boil water; it’s used almost exclusively in the ICE (internal combustion engine).

For these fossil fuel lakeys, water carriers and quislings to refuse to measure gasoline’s EFFECTIVE USABLE ENERGY when it is actually used in an ICE to do work is the height of duplicity.

But this subterfuge by Rockefeller’s admirers is not new. As I have mentioned before, way back at the end of the 19th century, Rockefeller was flushing his gasoline waste product in the rivers by his refineries at night. He could not avoid producing gasoline in his refinery cracking towers (about 19 gallons of gasoline for every 42 gallon barrel of crude refined)*.

When the automobile came out in the early twentieth century, the early car fuel called benzene had to be eliminated because that hydrocarbon is a carcinogenic. As you read above in the 1906 Edison lab study, ethanol was considered competitive energywise with gasoline.

What did Rockefeller do? He lowered the price of gasoline (remember his cost was near zero because it had been a waste product of the refining process) so much that ethanol was priced out of the market**. It was a win-win for Rockefeller.

It was only a matter of time before his nasty habit of flushing gasoline into rivers at night was going to get him and his refinery employees facing the wrong end of a shotgun from some irate farmer who noticed his horses and cows getting sick or dying when drinking the river water downstream of an oil refinery.

So, Rockefeller managed to change the flush operation from the rivers to the atmosphere and make a bundle out of it too.

But this predatory capitalist wasn’t done killing ethanol yet. He gave millions to a temperance group that ultimately succeeded in Prohibition legislation banning the production and use of ethanol (ethyl alcohol), not just for drinking, but for ICE fuel as well (and you thought Prohibition was just the fundies not wanting you to get high on booze. Rockefeller USED the fundies to block ethanol competition).

The reality was that the “cheap” gasoline was far, far more expensive than ethanol due to the atmospheric poisons introduced. It got even worse when tetra-ethyl lead entered the mix in the 1920s. It wasn’t until about 1973 that the severe damage from leaded gasoline was recognized and even so, to this day, unleaded gasoline is not mandatory in off road vehicles.

Now that ethanol is out there and available once again as a competitor to gasoline, the fossil fuel enablers return with the familiar FALSE claims that ethanol is not competitive with gasoline and the poppycock that gasoline gets better mileage than ethanol.

Call out these overeducated, Procrustean Bed, creative thermodynamics “geniuses” carrying water for the fossil fuel industry on their lies and distortions. Accuse them of being well aware of the above and deliberately distorting the fuel facts when they are actually applied to their use in engines. Tell them their Procrustean Bed EROI Bullshit isn’t going to fly anymore.

Quote
*On average, about 19.5 US gallons (16.2 imp gal; 74 L) of gasoline are available from a 42-US-gallon (35 imp gal; 160 L) barrel of crude oil (about 46% by volume), varying due to quality of crude and grade of gasoline. The remaining residue comes off as products ranging from tar to naptha.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline

Quote
**The gasoline engine became the preferred engine for the automobile because gasoline was cheaper than alcohol, not because it was a better fuel. And, because alcohol was not available at any price from 1920 to 1933, a period during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol was banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933. In time to produce alcohol fuels during World War II. By the time World War II ended, the gasoline engine had become “entrenched” because gasoline remained cheaper than Alcohol, and widely distributed – gas stations were everywhere.

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/alcoholengines.aspx

Tell anybody with fried logic circuits that claims this is “the way the world works” that the REAL WORLD, not the predatory capitalist hell hole they so love, is the BIOSPHERE.

That world has a set of rules and, for most of our human existence on this planet, we followed them. For over a century and a half, a level of insanity not seen in human history has produced a greed fest so blind, so stupid and so incorrigible that it can only be labelled what it is: EVIL. Fossil and nuclear fuel advocates and their pseudo scientific Procrustean Bed EROI happy number formulations NEVER WORKED. The backers of these poisoned energy sources lied about absolutely everything related to their extraction and use from day one and they are lying through their teeth now to sabotage the truth about renewable energy sources.

Renewable energy sources are practical, sustainable and healthy for the planet and humans.
Hydrocarbon fuels have brought us pollution, wars and corrupted democracy.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 22, 2017, 03:30:23 pm »

What You Need to Know about an Ethanol Powered Generator

An ethanol generator is similar in most ways to other generators, except for the fact that they use ethanol fuel instead of other fuel types. This one small fact, however, makes a world of difference due to the environment-friendly nature of ethanol fuel.

Advantages of An Ethanol Fueled Generator

Compared to gasoline, ethanol fuel is a renewable resource, so you will not contribute to the oil shortage that some countries are now at the brink of.

Other than that, ethanol fuel burns cleaner than gasoline and helps reduce the amount of carbon contaminants in the air. This way, you can rest assured that as it generates electricity, it won’t release toxic materials into the air, which can then harm your surroundings.

Using an ethanol generator running on an E85 ethanol fuel blend may also qualify you for some benefits and tax incentives offered by the government. And if you produce your own ethanol fuel, your generator will not run out under load and will thus last longer.

Drawbacks (Agelbert NOTE: Thanks to the Fossil Fuel Industry  ) of An Ethanol Powered Generator

Like all types of generators, an ethanol fueled generator has its disadvantages.  ;)

First of all, one of the most significant problems that people using ethanol fuels face is the lack of fueling stations that offer ethanol.

Car owners who use ethanol to run their cars have to go greater distances before they can find a gas station that offers ethanol fuel.

Despite the fact that ethanol can be locally produced, the country does not have enough resource to produce as much ethanol fuel as necessary to make ethanol fuel a major fuel source. 

The Working Principle of Ethanol Generators

Instead of burning gasoline to convert it into energy, ethanol generators burn ethanol fuel. Ethanol fuel is made by mixing ethanol and gasoline to produce a blend that can contain either more ethanol or more gasoline.

E85, the higher blend of ethanol fuel, contains more ethanol at 85% than gasoline at 15%. The lower blend, however, also known as E10, is made up of only 10% of ethanol. The higher the ethanol content, the cleaner the fuel is.

However, there are some special requirements for engines before they can safely use higher blends of ethanol fuel.  ::)

Majority of generators these days can run only on E10.

There are also some types of generators that benefit more with the use of ethanol fuel. For example, portable generators, emergency generators, and standby generators, which are not continuously used and do not require a large amount of fuel, will use ethanol better than commercial, industrial, or marine types of generators.

Some Quality Brands to Consider

Ethanol generators are still not very easy to find these days, especially in the United States.

However, there is a greater market in store as major generator brands in the US, like Coleman, Honda, and Generac, start looking into cleaner generators powered by alternative fuel sources.


Some brands, such as Black Max, also manufacture generators that can be tuned to run on ethanol fuel.

For many other brands, their generators can often use E10 and can run on E85 as long as the engine can handle it.

Many generators these days are powered by Briggs and Stratton engines, which have been known to use ethanol fuels without any problem.

If your engine is not built to tackle ethanol fuel, there are many rebuilding kits on the market so you can raise your engine’s compression and enable it to use ethanol fuels.

2010 - 2011 Copyright All Rights Reserved
www.alternativeenergysourcesinfo.com
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 09, 2017, 02:09:09 pm »




More to biofuels than CO2 reduction   

 Thursday, May 4, 2017

Failure to account for non-fuel related benefits from biofuel production leads to an underestimation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potential for biofuels when replacing fossil fuels due to the many valuable by-products and/or co-produced utilities with high fossil replacement potential. With the current Swedish biofuel production portfolio, consideration of non-fuel related benefits could lead to 50 percent greater GHG emission savings, a recently concluded project finds.

In 2014, the Swedish Energy Agency reported a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction of 1.95 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) due to the replacement of fossil fuels with biofuels. However, a narrow focus on CO2 fails to capture the additional benefits biofuel production may have according to a recently concluded Swedish research project.

Over 16 percent of all fuel used on Swedish roads during the first half of 2016 were renewable.  


GHG reduction benefits of biofuel production underestimated according to a new study.

Studies often indicate that agricultural and biomass production systems have the potential to provide considerable socio-economic benefits, but that the level of detail and clarity regarding benefits provided by expanded biomass production and biofuel process industries are insufficient.

Furthermore, the significant focus directed toward investigating the life cycle impacts and negative socio-economic effects of biofuel production tend to exclude, miss, or ignore additional benefits from the biofuel industry accrued in both environmental and socio-economic spheres.

This was the starting point for a recently completed project within the Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3) and Swedish Energy Agency collaborative research programme Renewable transportation fuels and systems (Förnybara drivmedel och system).

Factoring non-fuel GHG emission benefits

Project leader Michael Martin from IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute has worked together with participants from f3 partners Bio4Energy/Luleå University of Technology and Lund University to study the additional socio-economic benefits that also come from replacing fossil fuels with biofuels.

The project Environmental and socio-economic benefits from Swedish biofuel production, has quantified and analyzed environmental benefits, and reviewed and documented socio-economic benefits of biofuel production in Sweden.

The results from the environmental analysis provide evidence that failure to account for non-fuel related benefits from biofuel production leads to an underestimation of the potential for biofuels to contribute to GHG emission reductions when replacing fossil fuels due to the many valuable by-products and/or co-produced utilities with high fossil replacement potential.

Prime examples of such being by-products from grain-based ethanol production, digestate from biogas production, and utility integration of lignocellulosic fuel production such as fuels derived from biomass gasification.

Göteborg Energi’s Gothenburg Biomass Gasification Project (GoBiGas) is the world’s largest woody biomass gasification demonstration project.

With the current Swedish biofuel production portfolio, consideration of non-fuel related benefits could lead to 50 percent greater GHG emission savings, compared to when only considering the replaced fossil fuels. In the considered future fuel production mix scenarios the corresponding number could almost reach 90 percent, due to significantly increasing shares of biogas and lignocellulosic biofuels.

The results from the project have been submitted in two scientific articles that are to be published. An additional supporting report that elaborates on the socio-economic benefits through a screening and review of job creation and assessment methods for other benefits is also under way. In the meanwhile, an extended summary report is available.

Reference: https://bioenergyinternational.com/

https://advancedbiofuelsconference.org/

http://buyersguide.renewableenergyworld.com/international-advanced-biofuels-conference/pressrelease/more-to-biofuels-than-co2-reduction.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 28, 2017, 07:33:39 pm »

Eddie asked,

Quote

My flawed world view?

I was talking about the current agricultural boondoggle that results in government money being thrown into growing many thousands of acres of GMO corn on land that is already worn out, just to make ethanol at an EROEI that's barely over 1:1 by the most generous estimates.

It's just a Big Ag scam that puts money into Monsanto's bank account, and that of a number of congressmen, no doubt.

I have no allegiance to the fossil fuel industry, beyond driving a car, which I expect you also do from time to time. What pisses me off is you calling me names. My informed opinion is that it's a bad idea to keep making ethanol from GMO corn.

My view is not based of on fossil fuel propaganda. It's based on understanding EROEI, and on understanding how using all that ammonium nitrate and glyphosate poisons the land and the water.

https://www.buildinggreen.com/news-article/producing-ethanol-corn-bad-idea

A world view includes many other assumptions that are corollaries to your belief that, for example, published ERoEI numbers, as in the "low positive" EroEI allegations in your referenced article,  are valid. So, I will limit this discussion to Energy Return on Energy Invested.

First of all, the term "ERoEI" is a deliberate misnomer. It actually refers to MONEY returned for MONEY invested. It is doubletalk to claim the energy units required for the production of ethanol from whatever are X:1.

WHY? Because along absolutely every step of the way to get that ethanol, assumptions are made that PETROLEUM PRODUCTS are required to obtain the processed ethanol. THAT IS A LIE. But, if we proceed from that flawed assumption, you can get some very low ERoEI numbers from a plant that requires chemical fertilization, plowing, has slow growth, is not temperature tolerant, cannot be grown all year round, ETC.

But all the above is not even my biggest complaint about the lack of scientific objectivity involved in making ERoEI assumptions (i.e. ENERGY UNITS, not SUBSIDIZED, or otherwise, dollars).

You as a scientist, will not dispute the FACT that every cubic inch of soil has over 50 million microscopic critters in it. Do you REALLY think that our science can accurately compute the energy in versus the energy out of that bioactivity? You KNOW we CANNOT.

When a plant is growing, the soil it is in is bioactive, or the plant dies. I am not just talking about nitrogen fixing bacteria, available water, potassium and phosphorous. That is the super simplistic world view that has gotten us into this mess.

The flawed thinking which assumes that is all a crop needs to grow is the simplistic science that leads to quantifying the "energy" inputs. That is inaccurate, to put it mildly. THAT is the flawed thinking that leads to quantifying crop "yield" by weight, instead of by nutrients.

SCIENCE is NOT supposed to DO THAT! Science is supposed to add and subtract EVERYTHING that is going on in the bioactivity in order to properly determine how much ENERGY is going in to grow that crop and how much is available in the crop product SUSTAINABLY.

In the case of ethanol ERoEI, the calculations flat REFUSE to do soil comparison yield due to microbial activity or the lack of it. They don't want to go there (chemical fertilizers inhibit microbial activity BUT increase crop WEIGHT while decreasing crop nutrients) so they DON'T. Yes, the BT GMO corn grown for ethanol is practically inedible so the nutrient content should theoretically not be a factor. The factor should be starch, which is what the ethanol is produced from.

But it HAS been conclusively proven that rich bioactive soils produce a higher percentage starch content in corn than straight chemical fertilized crops. So, even if the WEIGHT of the corn might be greater with all the fossil fuel CRAP used, increased starch percentage is certainly NOT a guaranteed benefit of increased weight.

The depletion of soils by mono cropping ethanol constitutes world class crocodile tears from Big Ag when they never gave a DAMN about that for food crops (although they certainly should have!). There certainly IS a way to grow corn without depleting the soil, but the fossil fuel industry and Big Ag ARE NOT INTERESTED IN SUSTAINABILITY.  That is why any talk of soil depletion caused by growing ethanol is a red herring.

The ERoEI concept, as I have discussed in the past, does not even have a STANDARD in the scientific community, other than what the Charles Hall gang (i.e. fossil fuel industry funded happy talkers for oil and doom and gloomers for Renewable Energy in general and ethanol in particular) publish.

DON'T tell me there is some kind of tidy ERoEI Joules in and joules out formula out there because there AIN'T!

DON'T tell me the fossil fuel industry hasn't been gaming ERoEI numbers against ethanol because they ARE!

This brings us to your assumption that the article you just quoted has scientifically accurate energy numbers. THAT is just one part of your world view, that I contend, is flawed.

You believe a plethora of falsehoods about thermodynamics because Capitalism wants you to view products with a very precise bit of cherry picking for costs and profits. It all goes back to money, not energy. Published ERoEI numbers are baloney. Fossil fuels, ALL OF THEM, require more energy to go from source to processed product than the energy in the product. That is blasphemy to your world view. You laugh when you read that. And the reason you laugh is because you firmly believe the fossil fuel industry has "profited" (along with civilization) from them. They have stolen from the biosphere. They have used the air water and land as an open sewer.

But you read one article about "low positive" ethanol EroEI and depleted soils and immediately pass judgement on a program that just last year reached its biofuel goals (set nearly ten years before) for the first time.

That is because you have a flawed world view. You were, as we all have been, propagandized by inaccurate science passed off as "reputable" energy mathematics.

I don't ask you to agree with me. I just ask you to be more aware of the depth with which you assume published data is "reputable" without a second thought.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 28, 2017, 06:09:02 pm »

January 28, 2017 Trump campaigned on a pro-ethanol platform when he visited America - HE LIED

Commodities | Mon Nov 28, 2016 | 8:09am EST

Trump faces dilemma as U.S. oil reels  ;D  from record biofuels targets

By Chris Prentice | NEW YORK

The Obama administration signed its final plan for renewable fuel use in the United States last week, leaving an oil industry reeling from the most aggressive biofuel targets yet as President-elect Donald Trump takes over.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, signed into law by President George W. Bush, is one of the country's most controversial energy policies. It requires energy firms to blend ethanol and biodiesel into gasoline and diesel.

The policy was designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce U.S. reliance on oil imports and boost rural economies that provide the crops for biofuels.

It has pitted two of Trump's support bases against each other: Big Oil and Big Corn. The farming sector has lobbied hard for the maximum biofuel volumes laid out in the law to be blended into gasoline motor fuels, while the oil industry argues that the program creates additional costs.

Balancing oil and farm interests is likely to prove a challenge for Trump, who has promised to curtail regulations on the oil industry but is already being reminded by biofuels advocates of the importance of the program to the American Midwest, where he received strong support from voters on Nov. 8.

Oil groups are renewing their calls to change or repeal the program following Wednesday's announcement, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set record mandates for renewable fuels - for the first time hitting levels targeted by Congress nearly a decade ago..

The EPA plan is "completely detached from market realities and confirms once again that Congress must take immediate action to remedy this broken program," said Chet Thompson, President of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, in a statement.
 
It is unclear what Trump's plans for the program will be and his transition team did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment.

Both camps are expecting an administration receptive to their demands, though both have expressed concern and uncertainty over Trump's plans for the program, according to experts, industry and political sources.

The installation of climate change skeptic Myron Ebell as head of the transition at the EPA bolstered oil industry confidence Trump will swing their way. In September, Trump appeared to briefly echo the views of his supporter, billionaire Carl Icahn, who expressed concern about the program.

Icahn, who owns a stake in an oil refiner, renewed those criticisms last week, saying the ethanol credit market generated by the program is susceptible to manipulation and harming independent refiners.
 
PRO-ETHANOL CAMPAIGNING

The president-elect campaigned on a pro-ethanol platform when he visited America's farm states and biofuels advocates expect he will keep the RFS strong, maintaining annual targets at the minimum set forth by Congress.

"Mr. Trump will not turn his back on the American heartland, we believe in him," said Annette Sweeney, a former state representative from Iowa who was a member of the Trump's agricultural advisory committee during his candidacy.
 
"To a certain extent, we are on higher ground. You always want to be on higher ground," said Bob Dinneen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, referring to the increase.

"We’ll be able to demonstrate the marketplace can absorb 15 billion gallons of ethanol. We can put this all behind us. As we look to 2018... there's no reason to go back," he said.

The renewables industries have already started to emphasize their place among American-made fuels, something experts expect will appeal to Trump.

"There are a lot of good things to be said about second-generation fuels, even from the new administration’s perspective," said Harvard University professor and former Obama administration advisor James Stock.

"All the new administration needs to do is embrace the original ... vision of the RFS," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-biofuels-idUSKBN13N0CR

Agelbert NOTE: Trump is, and always was, a TOOL of the Fascist Fossil Fuel Industry. His latest action AGAINST ethanol, despite his campaign LIES and the poor suckers who believed him, is clear evidence that big oil pollution will RUN WILD all over the USA and ethanol production will be crushed.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 28, 2017, 05:51:00 pm »

Ethanol would be nice I suppose, but I doubt it would keep BAU floating along much.  Plus, it's ground you are not using for food production.  However, I'm sure something could be grown that does not require much fertility that could then be transformed into ethanol.  Maybe a restoration agriculture type scheme where you heal the land by growing plants for ethanol?
I read an article (offline) that demonstrated that Pennsylvania could grow all the energy it currently uses, with switchgrass being the primary energy crop.  The one conclusion that was implied in the data but that they failed to point out, however, was that the cost of doing so would be that would mean that the state would grow NONE of its own food.  Not exactly the trade-off I would want to make.

Lucid and JD,
The truth about the ethanol program that Trump wants to permanently interrupt is that it competes quite successfully, even with growing corn, against gasoline. So the producers of gasoline want to kill ethanol production, period. This is not hard. This is not a conspiracy "theory". The fossil fuel industry is rather open about their hatred of competitors. So, they publish a lot of half-truths about crops for food versus fuel. The bold faced lies mixed in there are enough to make any scientist gag. But that's the history since right before Prohibition.

Eddie claims ethanol is a "bad" idea AS IT IS NOW OBTAINED FROM CORN. Well, as opposed to obtaining it from low lignin crops, of course. But NOT as a replacement for gasoline! Ethanol is a GREAT IDEA as a replacement for gasoline. That's a rather salient difference.

But Eddie is right IF he believes that ethanol production can be viable and sustainable.

Lucid, you do not need ANY of the land now used for absolutely everything that crop land and grazing land is used for to completely replace gasoline and diesel fuels with ethanol. Yes, you need land that, though considered "barren' (i.e. thousands and thousands of acres of desert in North Africa, the USA, Mexico, South America, Asia and Australia), has a desert biome which must be preserved.

But the amount of ponded land you need to produce ethanol from duckweed (wide temperature tolerance, virtually no root systems, over 40% low lignin starch, no plowing, recycled water, tilapia poop fertilized, low energy required for harvest, crop doubles in size EVERY 48 HOURS - over twenty times the growth rate of grass, never mind slower growing crops like corn) can do the job sustainably WITHOUT impacting the desert biome negatively (ALL the growth medium is in covered ponds).

YES, it would cost billions of dollars to ramp up to a worldwide production from deserts of 23,000 barrels of ethanol per day (approximate present world gasoline consumption). SO WHAT!!!?

Do you have any idea what those ocean going oil rigs cost to build AND maintain in rough oceans!!!? Well, you SHOULD! AND all those tankers? AND all those severely polluting refineries? AND the polluted spent wells and ruined land? They ARE NOT cost effective! They are "subsidized" out the Wazoo, and YOU AND I ARE FOOTING THAT BILL!

A massive  worldwide desert ethanol production operation would have nearly unlimited solar energy (PV AND CSP) available to process the product in specially built duckweed refineries (The Chinese estimated they were competitive at $72 dollars a barrel of oil a few years ago - BUT that totally excludes the oil pollution costs AND the duckweed NET ZERO CO2 pollution).

I've got a very lengthy thread on ethanol and why and how we-the-people have been suckered out of replacing gasoline with it. It includes a lengthy back and forth with a closet fossil fueler here that shall, for the moment, remain nameless. The published ERoEI numbers for ethanol (yes, even CORN ethanol) are SEVERELY low balled. The gasoline ERoEi numbers are a HAPPY TALK JOKE!

Read more here:

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 28, 2016, 02:36:37 pm »

Commodities | Mon Nov 28, 2016 | 8:09am EST

Trump faces dilemma as U.S. oil reels  ;D  from record biofuels targets

By Chris Prentice | NEW YORK

The Obama administration signed its final plan for renewable fuel use in the United States last week, leaving an oil industry reeling from the most aggressive biofuel targets yet as President-elect Donald Trump takes over.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, signed into law by President George W. Bush, is one of the country's most controversial energy policies. It requires energy firms to blend ethanol and biodiesel into gasoline and diesel.

The policy was designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce U.S. reliance on oil imports and boost rural economies that provide the crops for biofuels.

It has pitted two of Trump's support bases against each other: Big Oil and Big Corn. The farming sector has lobbied hard for the maximum biofuel volumes laid out in the law to be blended into gasoline motor fuels, while the oil industry argues that the program creates additional costs.

Balancing oil and farm interests is likely to prove a challenge for Trump, who has promised to curtail regulations on the oil industry but is already being reminded by biofuels advocates of the importance of the program to the American Midwest, where he received strong support from voters on Nov. 8.

Oil groups are renewing their calls to change or repeal the program following Wednesday's announcement, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set record mandates for renewable fuels - for the first time hitting levels targeted by Congress nearly a decade ago..

The EPA plan is "completely detached from market realities and confirms once again that Congress must take immediate action to remedy this broken program," said Chet Thompson, President of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, in a statement.
 
It is unclear what Trump's plans for the program will be and his transition team did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment.

Both camps are expecting an administration receptive to their demands, though both have expressed concern and uncertainty over Trump's plans for the program, according to experts, industry and political sources.

The installation of climate change skeptic Myron Ebell as head of the transition at the EPA bolstered oil industry confidence Trump will swing their way. In September, Trump appeared to briefly echo the views of his supporter, billionaire Carl Icahn, who expressed concern about the program.

Icahn, who owns a stake in an oil refiner, renewed those criticisms last week, saying the ethanol credit market generated by the program is susceptible to manipulation and harming independent refiners.
 
PRO-ETHANOL CAMPAIGNING

The president-elect campaigned on a pro-ethanol platform when he visited America's farm states and biofuels advocates expect he will keep the RFS strong, maintaining annual targets at the minimum set forth by Congress.

"Mr. Trump will not turn his back on the American heartland, we believe in him," said Annette Sweeney, a former state representative from Iowa who was a member of the Trump's agricultural advisory committee during his candidacy.
 
"To a certain extent, we are on higher ground. You always want to be on higher ground," said Bob Dinneen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, referring to the increase.

"We’ll be able to demonstrate the marketplace can absorb 15 billion gallons of ethanol. We can put this all behind us. As we look to 2018... there's no reason to go back," he said.

The renewables industries have already started to emphasize their place among American-made fuels, something experts expect will appeal to Trump.

"There are a lot of good things to be said about second-generation fuels, even from the new administration’s perspective," said Harvard University professor and former Obama administration advisor James Stock.

"All the new administration needs to do is embrace the original ... vision of the RFS," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-biofuels-idUSKBN13N0CR
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 07, 2016, 02:41:35 pm »


ALL major industrial high thermal heat, beat and treat processes ALREADY use electrical furnaces because those are the most efficient for processing and manufacturing metals and their alloys. So ALL of heavy industry, except for back up generators than can run on ethanol, can be powered by ELECTRICITY.
I think that is a real "killer app" for kickstarting demand, making ethanol-powered ICE electrical generators.  It's something that can be done today by someone with good engineering skills (or enough money they can hire someone with such skills).  Alas, I have neither the skills nor the money.  But one thing that makes ethanol ideal for back-up generators is that the fuel can be stored indefinitely without special processing; even with additives gasoline can only last a couple years in storage.  (Propane itself does not degrade with storage, but the seals do, so you can find your tanks empty even though you never used them.)

I suspect that Brazil my have some generator models that run exclusively on ethanol. They already require their filling stations to have at  last one E100 (100% ethanol - illegal in the USA - LOL!) pump. So if they have a large percentage of cars running on it, it's not a big step to rig up a car engine to run on ethanol.


I'll check around when I get some time. To me, the ultimate poison pill  ;D or the fossil fuel industry in the USA would be a legal internal combustion engine made with alloys that cannot handle high temperatures (i.e. VERY cheap to manufacture due to less tempering required and also because it requires 30% LESS metal -  weighing at least 30% less). Any gasoline use would warp the block and/or the heads. So, they would have to be placarded with the "ETHANOL (E!00) ONLY" warning stating that any use of gasoline voids the warrantee.

The same thing applies to natural gas or LPG. LPG and Methane burn cleaner than gasoline but the waste heat problem, while not being as bad, still requires high heat handling alloys and over engineering we have in ALL our fossil fuel powered internal combustion engines today.

Of course the USA will be the last to allow such an ethanol only engine  across the border. The feds will arrest you for carrying "non-fuel grade" fuel (i.e. if you can drink your fuel, Lord Lucifer and the Fossil Fuel Government will frown on you with extreme prejudice :evil4:).

The fossil fuelers will never admit that the waste heat of fossil fuels, so necessary for them to claim they have a "higher energy density" than ethanol, is useless for obtaining mechanical WORK from an engine AND SUBTRACTS from engine power BECAUSE some of the engine energy must be used to COOL the engine.

Hess's Law of enthalpy of formation, the one Charles Hall adores and the one used for just about ALL of the assumptions on laws of thermodynamics in science today, classifies ALL heat, whether waste heat or not, as ENERGY. This is true. But if you can't use some of that energy to do work, and if that energy you can't use actually INTERFERES with you doing work (i.e. SUCKS ENERGY from the energy that is useful in order to keep the engine from over heating), then basing ERoEI on Hess's Law is thoroughly misleading.

Finally, Hess's Law is not used as it should be to subtract the energy required to bio-remediate the damage that pollution products from fossil fuels cause. Externalizing those costs as if they did not require an energy input to assure a viable biosphere is an insult to the laws of thermodynamics. It's fossil fuel industry cherry picking, not science.   

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 01, 2016, 03:02:04 pm »

You have really wasted your time trying to argue:
Quote
The really curious thing about Palloy's allegation that "Doomerism is a more realistic approach to responding to our present plight", is that HIS response to our plight it is to discount the value of proposed solutions by claiming they are "pie in the sky" even though many of these technologies, like wind and PV, already have an excellent record of causing demand destruction for fossil fuels poisoning our atmosphere. Any discussion of their effects when they are truly scaled up is simply not acceptable to Palloy because, uh, something about the PAY BACK TIME. 

- because that isn't my point at all.  Once more, for the record:

To calculate ERoEI, (which is a single number, and hence not very expressive) you first have to identify the full life-cycle energy budget - the components of EI and the components of ER.  But to investigate the scale-up of a technology OVER TIME, you also have to include when the components of EI and ER occur in time.

Let's do it first with algebra, and then we can plug in some real numbers.
Let the Lifetime of the panel be L, and the ERoEI be E.
And let's assume that ALL the EI is up front, from T=-1 to T= 0,
and the ER is from T=0 to T=L.
So the Energy Payback Time is L/E,
and the Energy Payback Per Year is Y% = (100 * E/L).

So any growth in the panel industry that is faster than Y% is going to need an energy subsidy - from the existing energy mix, which is mostly FFs.
So if you want to cut back on the use of FFs, you have to grow the PV industry at less than Y%, and you have to divert ALL the ER to the next year's EI.  (Actually that's impractical, but I will allow you declare electricity is fungible with FFs, so panels on roofs will do.)

OK, so when does the PV industry as a whole start to make an energy profit, bearing in mind you will be requiring increasing amounts of EI as time goes on? 
There isn't a simple formula for it, but if you lay it out in a spreadsheet, year by year with Y% growth per year, it is easy to total the EIs and the ERs, and the answer is 2 * L/E.

Plugging in some real numbers:
L = 25 years
E = 3
Y = 12%
Time to a positive total PV energy profit = 16.7 years

And THAT is why you can't have a scalable PV industry.
Yes, you can make a start on the transition, but you can NEVER finish it.
Note: not a single $ sign anywhere - this is nothing to do with money.

In the real world, which runs on money, of course money does have a lot to do with it, but that's not MY argument.  It doesn't matter how much in subsidies the FF industry gets, and it doesn't matter how much in subsidies PV gets in MY argument.  I'm not in league with the FF conspiracy, and I'm not in league with the PV conspiracy.

The fact is none of them are a solution, and the same goes for nuclear and bio-mass.  We're doomed.




You are totally wrong in your claim that "PV cannot be scaled up". Not only can PV be scaled up quite well,  but as we speak, PV is being scaled up THANKS TO INCREASING INVESTMENTS YOU WISH TO IGNORE THAT ARE NOW BEING MADE TO  ACHIEVE THAT.

Of course, PV will NEVER be scaled up in a centralized energy "business model" the predatory bastards on this planet prefer; it will MOSTLY be DECENTRALIZED, making it  DIFFICULT for the leaches that want to control the energy spigot. But, as far as the PERCENTAGE of gobal energy harvested for industrial civilizaton, within ten years it WILL be at over 25% (I'm being conservative - over 50% is probably more realistic.  ;D ). I do believe 25% of the whole energy enchillada is considered SCALED UP, even by you.      That means that even your money argument is losing its validity too! 

As to your PV energy figures, LOL!

WHY? Because fossil fuels NEVER produce MORE energy than it takes to get them! WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? And you have the BALLS to claim a long pay back time energy wise is a valid excuse to "NOT SUPPORT" PV!!!? WTF!!!?

Ah, yes, the "real world", most loved by the MKing's of this world as a defense of their empathy deficit disordered "business model", that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with THERMODYNAMIC efficiency or ACTUAL ENERGY RETURN on ENERGY INVESTED, is brought up BY PALLOY as a fig leaf for a failed ERoEI argument.

Which confirms, despite  Palloy's DENIAL that MONEY is his only argument, that money IS his argument, NOT energy. And he NEEDED to AVOID mentioning or actually doing the math on SUBSIDIES to make his money argument (when you want an positive number in an equation result, Palloy learned at an early age that variables that subtract from the resultant number are to be avoided whenever possible...). Consequently he makes the fascinatingly inaccurate claim that " It doesn't matter how much in subsidies the FF industry gets, and it doesn't matter how much in subsidies PV gets in MY argument."     

Palloy's allusion to me being a "conspiracy theorist" doing a "wild eyed branding" of him as part of a conspiracy against PV  (I.E. "Palloy the prudent mathematician suffering spurious accusations by the unwashed and ignorant Agelbert"  ;)     ) was a nice touch. I'm sure some brainwashed fossil fuelers fell for it. ;D

And the obligatory "balanced" statements that admit the truth about distributed PV on rooftops is another clever touch placed there to convince me and all of you readers that Palloy is being "objective" about PV.


Palloy, you are study in clever sniping, hyperbole and irrelevancy. You are somewhat entertaining but consistently inaccurate. But thank you for helping to jack up the views here.         :

NOW for the rebuttal of the defamatory remarks and deliberately inaccurate ethanol acreage requirements and energy efficiency figures in the "Biofuels are a bad idea     " hit piece by the TOOL of the fossil fuel industry (Bryce - which makes arguments which are almost identical to the ones Palloy makes to claim Renewable Energy based ethanol cannot replace gasoline for transportation):

  BUSTING THE ETHANOL MYTHS

Myth #1: It Takes More Energy to ­Produce Ethanol than You Get from It!


Most ethanol research over the past 25 years has been on the topic of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Public discussion has been dominated by the American Petroleum Institute’s aggressive distribution of the work of Cornell professor David Pimentel and his numerous, deeply flawed studies. Pimentel stands virtually alone in portraying alcohol as having a negative EROEI—producing less energy than is used in its production.

In fact, it’s oil that has a negative EROEI.. Because oil is both the raw material and the energy source for production of gasoline, it comes out to about 20% negative. That’s just common sense; some of the oil is itself used up in the process of refining and delivering it (from the Persian Gulf, a distance of 11,000 miles in tanker travel).

The most exhaustive study on ethanol’s EROEI, by Isaias de Carvalho Macedo, shows an alcohol energy return of more than eight units of output for every unit of input—and this study accounts for everything right down to smelting the ore to make the steel for tractors.
But perhaps more important than EROEI is the energy return on fossil fuel input. Using this criterion, the energy returned from alcohol fuel per fossil energy input is much higher. In a system that supplies almost all of its energy from biomass, the ratio of return could be positive by hundreds to one.



Myth #2: There Isn’t Enough Land to Grow Crops for Both Food and Fuel!

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. has 434,164,946 acres of “cropland”—land that is able to be worked in an industrial fashion (monoculture). This is the prime, level, and generally deep agricultural soil. In addition to cropland, the U.S. has 939,279,056 acres of “farmland.” This land is also good for agriculture, but it’s not as level and the soil not as deep. Additionally, there is a vast amount of acreage—swamps, arid or sloped land, even rivers, oceans, and ponds—that the USDA doesn’t count as cropland or farmland, but which is still suitable for growing specialized energy crops.

Of its nearly half a billion acres of prime cropland, the U.S. uses only 72.1 million acres for corn in an average year. The land used for corn takes up only 16.6% of our prime cropland, and only 7.45% of our total agricultural land.

Even if, for alcohol production, we used only what the USDA considers prime flat cropland, we would still have to produce only 368.5 gallons of alcohol per acre to meet 100% of the demand for transportation fuel at today’s levels. Corn could easily produce this level—and a wide variety of standard crops yield up to triple this. Plus, of course, the potential alcohol production from cellulose could dwarf all other crops.



Myth #3: Ethanol’s an Ecological ­Nightmare!

You’d be hard-pressed to find another route that so elegantly ties the solutions to the problems as does growing our own energy. Far from destroying the land and ecology, a permaculture ethanol solution will vastly improve soil fertility each year.

The real ecological nightmare is industrial agriculture. Switching to organic-style crop rotation will cut energy use on farms by a third or more: no more petroleum-based herbicides, pesticides, or chemical fertilizers. Fertilizer needs can be served either by applying the byproducts left over from the alcohol manufacturing process directly to the soil, or by first running the byproducts through animals as feed.



Myth #4: It’s Food Versus Fuel—We Should Be Growing Crops for Starving Masses, Not Cars!

Humankind has barely begun to work on designing farming as a method of harvesting solar energy for multiple uses. Given the massive potential for polyculture yields, monoculture-study dismissals of ethanol production seem silly when viewed from economic, energetic, or ecological perspectives.

Because the U.S. grows a lot of it, corn has become the primary crop used in making ­ethanol here. This is supposedly ­controversial, since corn is identified as a staple food in poverty-stricken parts of the world. But 87% of the U.S. corn crop is fed to animals. In most years, the U.S. sends close to 20% of its corn to other countries. While it is assumed that these exports could feed most of the hungry in the world, the corn is actually sold to wealthy nations to fatten their livestock. Plus, virtually no impoverished nation will accept our corn, even when it is offered as charity, due to its being genetically modified and therefore unfit for human consumption.

Also, fermenting the corn to alcohol results in more meat than if you fed the corn directly to the cattle. We can actually increase the meat supply by first processing corn into alcohol, which only takes 28% of the starch, leaving all the protein and fat, creating a higher-quality animal feed than the original corn.

Agelbert NOTE: Did you read that last paragraph closely? It is a very important paragraph because it is proof that you can STILL FEED THE CORN TO ANIMALS after you have taken 28% of the starch out to make ethanol! You can never do that with hydrocarbons. This gives proper corn or other biofeedstock processing for ethanol AND animal feed a huge jump in EROEI (energy return on energy invested).



Myth #5: Big Corporations Get All Those Ethanol Subsidies, and Taxpayers Get Nothing in Return!

Between 1968 and 2000, oil companies received subsidies of $149.6 billion, compared to ethanol’s paltry $116.6 million. The subsidies alcohol did receive have worked extremely well in bringing maturity to the industry. Farmer-owned cooperatives now produce the majority of alcohol fuel in the U.S. Farmer-owners pay themselves premium prices for their corn and then pay themselves a dividend on the alcohol profit.

The increased economic activity derived from alcohol fuel production has turned out to be crucial to the survival of noncorporate farmers, and the amounts of money they spend in their communities on goods and services and taxes for schools have been much higher in areas with an ethanol plant. Plus, between $3 and $6 in tax receipts are generated for every dollar of ethanol subsidy. The rate of return can be much higher in rural communities, where re-spending within the community produces a multiplier factor of up to 22 times for each alcohol fuel subsidy dollar.



Myth #6: Ethanol Doesn’t ­Improve Global Warming! In Fact, It ­Pollutes the Air!


Alcohol fuel has been added to gasoline to reduce virtually every class of air pollution. Adding as little as 5–10% alcohol can reduce carbon monoxide from gasoline exhaust dramatically. When using pure alcohol, the reductions in all three of the major pollutants—carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and ­hydrocarbons—are so great that, in many cases, the remaining emissions are unmeasurably small. Reductions of more than 90% over gasoline emissions in all categories have been routinely documented for straight alcohol fuel.

It is true that when certain chemicals are included in gasoline, addition of alcohol at 2–20% of the blend can cause a reaction that makes these chemicals more volatile and evaporative. But it’s not the ethanol that’s the problem; it’s the gasoline.

Alcohol carries none of the heavy metals and sulfuric acid that gasoline and diesel exhausts do. And straight ethanol’s evaporative emissions are dramatically lower than gasoline’s, no more toxic than what you’d find in the air of your local bar.

As for global warming, the production and use of alcohol neither reduces nor increases the atmosphere’s CO2. In a properly designed system, the amount of CO2 and water emitted during fermentation and from exhaust is precisely the amount of both chemicals that the next year’s crop of fuel plants needs to make the same amount of fuel once again.

Alcohol fuel production actually lets us reduce carbon dioxide emissions, since the growing of plants ties up many times more carbon dioxide than is created in the production and use of the alcohol. Converting from a hydrocarbon to a ­carbohydrate economy could quickly reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide.

http://www.permaculture.com/node/490



While we are discussing what ethanol is, how it is made and what the effects on the environment are, never forget that ethanol produced from plants is COMPETITION for the fossil fuel industry so they are not happy with the growth of ethanol as a biofuel replacement for fossil fuels in our civilization from cars to power plants. At present, the fossil fuel industry actually produces about 5% of the world's ethanol from petroleum products. So they stand to lose that product as well as all the other energy products from bio-fuel ethanol products.

From Wikipeda:

Ethanol is a renewable energy source because the energy is generated by using a resource, sunlight, which cannot be depleted. Creation of ethanol starts with photosynthesis causing a feedstock, such as sugar cane or a grain such as maize (corn), to grow. These feedstocks are processed into ethanol.

About 5% of the ethanol produced in the world in 2003 was actually a petroleum product.[18] Two million tons of petroleum-derived ethanol are produced annually. The principal suppliers are plants in the United States, Europe, and South Africa.[19]Petroleum derived ethanol (synthetic ethanol) is chemically identical to bio-ethanol and can be differentiated only by radiocarbon dating.[20]

Bio-ethanol is usually obtained from the conversion of carbon based feedstock. Agricultural feedstocks are considered renewable because they get energy from the sun using photosynthesis, provided that all minerals required for growth (such as nitrogen and phosphorus) are returned to the land. Ethanol can be produced from a variety of feedstocks such as sugar cane, bagasse, miscanthus, sugar beet, sorghum, grain, switchgrass, barley, hemp, kenaf, potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava, sunflower, fruit, molasses, corn, stover, grain, wheat, straw, cotton, other biomass, as well as many types of cellulose waste and harvestings, whichever has the best well-to-wheel assessment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

We have, for all practical purposes, an unlimited energy source in the form of solar photons absorbed at various different levels of efficiency to produce nutrients for plant life.
What's more, these solar photon processing units of life called plants grow over most of our planet, particularly where humans are most concentrated.

This is a radical departure from fossil fuels which cost enormous amounts of money to safeguard in certain world areas where they are concentrated. This concentration of energy, when it is controlled centrally, as it is done by the global powers, has led to inequality, corrupt police state type governments, wars, and a controlling oligarchy of conscience free predator humans lording it over the great mass of the human population. This in turn has resulted in rampant pollution, global warming and a great deal of human misery.

Plainly, the status quo is unsustainable so we must move to a sustainable civilization or perish.

This was a decade ago. The piggery at the top is much worse now.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:36:14 pm »

K-Dog is into assuming renewable energy is the same scam as fossil fuels  - SEE: FALSE EQUIVALENCE. K-Dog's technofix concerns are valid, but ONLY if he wishes to discuss ETHICAL considerations  (i.e. the CRIMES of the fossil fuel industry in comparison with any perceived Renewable energy technofix limitations), something he most certainly DOES NOT wish to discuss objectively, along with the champion of the Capitalist profit motive, Eddie   . Granted, Lovins is a Capitalist and he plays their game. BUT, he is trying to make a POSITIVE difference, not perpetuate profit over planet stupidity. To label that as "hopium" is sour grapes, not objectivity.

People here making false comparisons between clean energy technologies and dirty energy technologies in general, and defamatory remarks about a serious scientist like Amory Lovins in particular, who actually FORCED mechanical engineering textbooks to be rewritten with a new turbulent flow thermodynamics characteristics formula he discovered, with instruments he designed in the 1980's, is sour grapes and worthy of pity.

It is CLEAR that both Eddie and Palloy are SOLIDLY in agreement with the Bryce hit piece on biofuels. 


That is not a new revelation to me, of course. But it is refreshing to see them make their "there is no replacement for the 'high energy density' fossil fuels so civilization MUST collapse" positions clearer and clearer.  ;)

This interesting comment by Palloy is of note in the pretzelian logic of the status quo defenders:
Quote
I used to be a fan of Lovins, back when I thought solar panels were a good idea.  But when I realised what the ERoEI of solar panels is, and that the EI is all up front while the ER is a trickle over its lifetime, I stopped promoting solar, and started seeing Lovins as a Techno-Utopian.  He remains popular because Techno-Utopianism is a much more comforting meme to hold on to than Doomerism. 

Palloy is attempting to make a case that Lovins, more a champion of pipe airflow characteristics, building efficiency, pump redesign, grid efficiency, building insulation, Computer load balancing from PV, wind or any other source that is renewable (and so on) than all things photovoltaic (though he certainly DOES applaud their extensive use IN COOMBINATION with other renewable energy technologies.), somehow did not do the proper math on PV.

I will not again address the spurious, defamatory and baseless charge of "Techno-Utopian". That's all part of the MO the fossi lfuel industry has been using for at least 40 years with their "sounds wunerful but it ain't ready for prime time" PRoPi (profitable Return on Propaganda Invested     ). Name calling is lots of fun but, other than align Palloy with the fossil fuel tool Bryce in the biofuels hit piece above, doesn't prove a thing.

The really curious thing about Palloy's allegation that "Doomerism is a more realistic approach to responding to our present plight", is that HIS response to our plight it is to discount the value of proposed solutions by claiming they are "pie in the sky" even though many of these technologies, like wind and PV, already have an excellent record of causing demand destruction for fossil fuels poisoning our atmosphere. Any discussion of their effects when they are truly scaled up is simply not acceptable to Palloy because, uh, something about the PAY BACK TIME. 

Let's study WHY Palloy makes that claim. Palloy claims to be taiking about ERoEI. He says, "  I realised what the ERoEI of solar panels is, and that the EI is all up front while the ER is a trickle over its lifetime, I stopped promoting solar."

Well, the about statement is, when analyzed correctly, about MONEY returned on MONEY invested, not ENERGY returned on ENERGY invested. Palloy KNOWS that the MONEY you get BACK from the life cycle of fossil fuels (excluding externalizations like coerced subsidies from we-the-people, tax loop holes, flaring toxic gases, poisoned wildlife and sick poor kids living downwind of refineries, etc.     ) is FASTER with fossil fuels.

So, he pulls out his pay back time for an investment formula and plugs in PV panels.

Sounds like fossil fuels win, right?

Nope. WHY? Because the ORIGINAL premise is that this is about ERoEI, not MONEY return on MONEY invested. Of course fossil fuels looks fine and dandy due to the FACT that the laws are GAMED to make it so. The PITTANCE that PV gets in subsidies is something Palloy will claim to argue that since BOTH technologies get subsidies, it don't matter. The gargantuan difference in subsidies in not in Palloy's math, for some reason.

And here is the most salient error in Palloy's "logic" that led him to stop promoting solar. UNLIKE fossil fuels, the ENERGY harvested from the sun by a solar panel EXCEEDS ALL THE ENERGY used to mine the materials and manufacture that solar panel BY SEVERAL MULTIPLES. RE went nuts when I first pointed the Columbia University study that PROVED that.

And that was BEFORE the more efficient panels over the last two years!  :o   

Fossil fuels, as of this writing, ACTUALLY have ERoEI's BELOW 1:1. The only reason they are "profitable" is because of the corruption of the laws that regulate their extraction, refining and marketing.     

Let me be clear, so Palloy does not misinterpret me here. Discounting pollution costs, 50 years or more ago and earlier, gasoline DID have an EroEi above 1:1.

But TODAY, from the energy required to
explore for crude oil and
extract it somewhere
to transport to the refinery
to the pre-refining oxygen stripping
to drying
to the cracking towers refining
to the storage TEMPERATURE control
to the synthesis of and addition of 40% non hydrocarbon solvents
to the transportation to the gasoline station
to get one gallon of gasoline exploding in your combustion chamber, the KINETIC ENERGY your vehicle gets from that combustion is LESS than was INVESTED in all the above steps required to make it and get it to the combustion chamber, PERIOD.

You NEED MORE ENERGY to get that gasoline to your combustion chamber than you get in the movement of your CAR!


And THAT does not even include the pollution costs!

I agree with Palloy that the upfront MONEY costs of PV are a barrier to scaling it up because the pay back (MONEYWISE- NOT ENERGYWISE) is slower than with fossil fuels powered plant and equipment. WHO'S FAULT IS THAT!!!? Corrupted Governments! Energy "density" or ERoEI has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The FACT that the ENERGY pay back of PV includes an ERoEI ALWAYS greater than 1:1, even if it does take 5 or six years for a panel that functions reliably for 25 PLUS years, is NOT an excuse to "stop supporting PV".  PV HAS an ERoEI HIGHER than 1:1, PERIOD!

The shorter time needed to extract the energy from gasoline (a product with an ERoEI BELOW 1:1) from the well to the combustion chamber does not justify continuing to use it.

Solar panels represent just ONE part of the DOABLE transition to 100% Renewable energy. After this post, I'll present a rebuttal to the "Biofuels are bad idea" hit piece attacking ethanol.

I'm still waiting for Palloy to tell me how much volume of flared gas is burned per barrel of crude or equivalent mass of fracked "natural" gas. I guess I'll have to dig up that embarrassing (for fossil fuelers)  info myself.   8)



Now for some DOOM news, along with the SOLUTION that the K-Dogs and Palloys of this world call "techno-Utopian".

Is Humanity On the Eve of Extinction? 
Jan. 21, 2016 1:23 pm By Thom Hartmann

According to NASA and NOAA scientists, 2015 was the warmest year ever for global land and ocean surfaces, dating all the way to 1880.

And it's not just American scientists who are reporting that last year was the warmest on record, British scientists reported that it was the warmest year since 1850, and Japanese scientists reported that it was the warmest year since 1891.

Keep in mind, 2014 had set the previous record for global surface temperatures, and 2015 just beat that record by a longshot.
 

Part of what's going has to do with an unusually warm Pacific Ocean due to an El Nino that's going on right now, but that doesn't explain it all.

As Dr. Michael Mann explained to the New York Times,  if the global climate weren't warming, the odds of setting two back-to-back record years would be about one chance in every 1,500 pairs of years.

He added though, that because the planet is warming, the odds of setting back-to-back record years is really closer to one in ten now.

The really scary part though, is that there's good evidence that this is nothing compared to what's to come.
Just as William F. Ruddiman argued in a paper from 2003, even though humans hadn't industrialized, we had already started having a major impact on the Earth's atmosphere and its natural cycles as far back as 8000 years ago.

And that makes sense, because 8000 years ago is about the time that early agriculture appeared in Eurasia and humans started clearing, and burning, forests to make more space for agriculture and human settlements.

In his research,  Ruddiman points out that based on the natural Earth's natural cycles for methane and carbon over the last 400,000 years, we should see a decrease in both gases starting roughly 11,000 years ago and continuing for another several thousand years.

Instead, we see that carbon dioxide and methane levels started to rise in the atmosphere starting about 8000 years ago, marking a sharp movement away from what had occurred for over 400,000 years of Earth history.

Recent research from the Anthropocene Working Group at the University of Leicester shows that humans have almost always had a noticeable impact on the planet's natural cycles, but our impact has been exceptional since the start of the industrial revolution.

In fact, the 24 co-authors argue that we've entered a new and distinct geological era, just within the last 50 years.

They call it the "Anthropocene era" from the greek word "Anthropos" meaning "man".

The authors argue that even though we've been having an impact on our planet for thousands of years, it's only been during the last 50 years that human activity became the main factor driving almost every single natural process on Earth.

And that brings us back to the relationship between global surface temperatures, methane, and carbon dioxide.

Because as these    charts     show, if atmospheric temperatures continue to follow the same sky-rocketing trend that methane and carbon dioxide have during the last century, we could very well be approaching the eve of extinction.

And none of this is taking into account the greenhouse gases that are trapped in the Antarctic Ice Sheet, which could be up to 21 quadrillion grams of organic carbon, and up to 400 billion tons of methane gases.

If we continue on this course, if we continue to spew methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the pursuit of cheap and short sighted economic growth, we can guarantee that our planet will continue to warm.

And, as the planet warms, the Antarctic Ice Sheet (Nature International Weekly Journal of Science:  Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica )  will begin to rapidly melt, which means that up to 21 quadrillion grams of carbon, and up to 400 billion tonnes of methane would be released into the atmosphere.

At that point, if humans are even still around, there will be literally nothing that we can do to stop a planetary mass extinction and to save humanity.

More and more scientists agree that natural processes don't drive the climate anymore, human activity does.

And it's only human activity that can stop our march towards planetary extinction.

Which means we need to put a price on carbon.

And we need to aggressively convert our energy system to one that's 100% renewable, and we need to find carbon and methane-neutral ways of transporting our goods, building our infrastructure, and constructing our cities.

The technology to achieve all of those goals already exists, and we now face a choice as a global society.

We'll go extinct if we keep doing what's easy, and what's comfortable. 

But we can save the planet, if we make bold decisions and take immediate action to minimize human impact, and thus restore the planet's own natural processes and the balance that existed for hundreds of thousands of years before the first human settlements.   

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/01/humanity-eve-extinction#sthash.FoBR5OHQ.dpuf
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:31:35 pm »

How much land and human slave labor does it take to raise enough substrate (using organic farming) and process enough biofuel to power one private automobile?

Is there a spread sheet for that?

Reminds me of that old cartoon of a Roman Galley. You probably remember it:

 "The good news is that everyone gets an extra ration of grog. The bad news is that after lunch the Captain wants to water ski."

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:28:11 pm »

I used to be a fan of Lovins, back when I thought solar panels were a good idea.  But when I realised what the ERoEI of solar panels is, and that the EI is all up front while the ER is a trickle over its lifetime, I stopped promoting solar, and started seeing Lovins as a Techno-Utopian.  He remains popular because Techno-Utopianism is a much more comforting meme to hold on to than Doomerism. 

I guess this is the difference between myself and AG too.  He believes the FF industry will do ANYTHING to preserve their wealth and influence, and I agree, but he also believes that Lovins (et al) would never do the same, while I think that is exactly what they will do.

Anyway, there are many things that mathematical tools can't solve, but ERoEI is one where it can, and it can be life-changing because you discover that there is no solution to the energy problem.

This so-called data dump that AG keeps focussing on wasn't a data dump at all.  It was just a list of factors that have to be quantified before you can work out the ERoEI of bio-mass to ethanol.  It didn't contain any data - that is to be supplied by the scenario writer.  When you cut the crop and take it away, you are taking away nutrients, hence impoverishing the soil.  For sustainability, you must at least replace those nutrients, and it would probably be beneficial to be improving the soil over time. So: how much fertiliser (tonnes/hectare);  how much energy to make fertiliser (MJ/tonne);  how much crop (tonnes/hectare); are all necessary numbers in the calculation.  In fact in the reports Farrel analyses, the N, P, K, Lime, herbicides and pesticides represent about 18.5% of Energy Returned of the ethanol.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:24:02 pm »

I regard Lovins as a tool of the powers that be.  One of the crowd who imagines we can find technical solutions to our resource depletion issues.  In other words a technarcissist. 

In his defense perhaps he is trying to kiss political ass but big brains who think we can innovate to a cornucopian future do the rest of us a huge disservice.  There is no way our nation can endure without citizens making huge lifestyle and attitude changes and since that is not going to happen without a poke and a prod purveyors of hopium like Lovins must lead us to a very bad end.  Technology is part of the answer but it is a thin slice of the solution pie and that fact should be screamed from the rooftops by those who pray to the Technology God for deliverance.  Especially by those who have influence.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 30, 2016, 10:51:56 pm »

Quote
It's a start, but NO, it is not acceptable because it is woefully incomplete. "Crop yield", for example, is one of those loaded terms that woefully FAILS in measuring adequate nutrition and is slanted to WEIGHT. I have posted, years ago now, about the FACT that, with chemical fertilizers, the "yields" went UP while the NUTRITIONAL VALUE of the crop WENT DOWN.

And AT NO TIME was the environmental COST of synthesizing the fertilizers and pesticides from hydrocarbon feed stock SUBTRACTED from those "yield" figures, to the JOY of the fossil fuel industry that claimed we OWED them for their (FAKE) "green revolution" of heavier, but less nutritious, crops.

Not taking sides in this argument, it is over my head, but just have to comment on Agelbert's utterly amazing postings and the facts he makes us aware of.

This is just one of the amazing rabbits he pulls out of his brainy cap.  A true font of knowledge and critical out of the box thinking on these matters.

His point of we being constantly brainwashed and bombarded by Bull **** from the Fossil Fuel crowd is one of validity however in my opinion, this is but one excellent example of their "Forked Tongues"

AG, You missed your calling in life, you would have been a Top Shelf professor.

                                           

Thank you, GO. I was a great flight instructor, aviation meteorology instructor and air traffic control teacher in the FAA. At least all my students said so.  ;D

I always did enjoy teaching. I feel the fossil fuels versus renewable energy is not really an energy or industrial civilization issue, like Palloy does. I feel it is an ethical issue. Perhaps that why both Palloy and I accuse each other of dancing around the nitty gritty and, as Palloy alleges, my "lack of focus".

I'm quite focused.      I am, at least at the moment, willing to forego the ethical stuff with Palloy. But he wants to reduce everything to a fixed quantity of energy density or ERoEI. He gave me a data dump of energy units per mass for different materials. He wants me to accept that, for example, steel or copper or neodymium rare earth, etc. in a long list of industrially mined, refined and marketed metals have a fixed amount of REQUIRED (and IMPOSSIBLE TO SUBSTITUTE WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY) fossil fuel input component AND a FIXED energy input.

His hypothesis is that the present is unsustainable so it must collapse. I agree the status quo is unsustainable but I do not agree it must collapse from lack of energy. I believe it WILL collapse from climate change if we do not transition to 100% clean energy.

Palloy believes that the main issue is lack of cheap fossil fuel energy, not climate change, and pulls out his stats and energy math to defend his position.

The figures of required energy inputs for metals are something I cannot agree with because a huge percentage of those metals that we need to maintain our civilization are no longer mined, but recycled from scrap. His figure will take the "full energy life cycle" that includes raw materials mining. That's slanted data, yet he claims I am not "focusing". 

Also, Amory Lovins, a scientist who certainly knows a thing or two about ERoEI and all things energy, has plainly stated that we CAN maintain our PRESENT level of industrial civilization with only 20% of the energy INPUTS we now wastefully apply. And all this simply by improving the efficiency with KNOWN scientific technology about turbulent flow in pipes, computer load balancing with renewable energy and, of course biofuels.  Palloy will scoff. but I think Amory is right.


Palloy,
to show you what I mean about I what I perceive you (incorrectly) feel about biofuels, I am posting a hit piece that ridicules, disdains derides and otherwise insults the intelligence of readers in general and Amory Lovins in particular.  :(     

Tell me if you can spot the disingenuous use of energy terms in this article. I suspect that you will agree with MR. Bryce's clever back door defense of fossil fuels. I will provide a rebuttal  to MR. Bryce's hit piece later. 

Biofuels Are a Bad Idea       ;)
8, 2014 8:03 AM EDT
By  Robert Bryce

SNIPPET of defamatory sniping and grossly exaggerated claims about ethanol (see: using CORN ethanol as the be-all-end-all feed stock) required energy and acreage.     

Quote

Supporters of biofuels claim that someday they will provide a significant share of energy in the U.S. Amory Lovins, the co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and his co-authors of "Reinventing Fire," for instance, argue that by 2050, the U.S. will get 23 percent of its total energy from "non-cropland biofuels."

This is ludicrous. To grow enough biomass to produce that much energy, the U.S. would need to set aside about 219 million acres of land, an area the size of Texas, New York and Ohio combined.

Biofuels, we have been repeatedly told, are the magic bullet, the energy-independence-punish-the-Arabs-anti-terror-better-than-standard-diesel-fuel miracle elixir. It isn't true. It's never been true.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-08/biofuels-are-a-bad-idea
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 30, 2016, 10:50:38 pm »

I am sure that the ERoEI of bio-mass to ethanol is a different thing from the ERoEI of ethanol to miles motored, and a different thing again from the ERoEI of oil to miles motored. We want to know the ERoEI of bio-mass to miles motored.  Since we can't do that without first doing the other two, wouldn't it be sensible to do bio-mass to ethanol first?  If my figures say 1.2 and yours say 10, we have to stop and line the factors up and see where the huge difference arises.  If it turns to all come from your ERoEI for fossil fuels being different from mine, then we will have got somewhere.

I'm not playing dumb, but I do seem to be having a lot of difficulty in getting you to be focussed on solving something.  And you do know you are being insulting all the time, don't you?  That doesn't help.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 30, 2016, 10:49:23 pm »

Quote
Tell me, do you think the fossil fuel industry could afford to pay the $44 an hour or more that it NOW does on their fracking and land and ocean oil rigs if they had to capture, process and defang the carcinogenic and otherwise toxic gases they now flare?

Obviously it would be more expensive and energy-intensive to capture and process the crap they flare.  In fact there would be a rising cost as the %age of crap cleaned up rose from 1% to 100% - just like the cost of burning coal with CCS goes up, and only 30% clean up is a target too far.  Believe me, I'm not in favour of doing that.  I want all that stopped, even though it means civilisation collapsing. 

But please don't tell me we can all have solar panels and batteries and electric cars, when none of that new infrastructure can be manufactured without using FFs to power the building phase.


You've thrown quite a few red herrings in there - nutritional content doesn't apply if we're only going to produce ethanol for fuel, and the energy density of ethanol versus gasoline when used in vehicle engines doesn't enter into the ERoEI of making Litres of ethanol.

I was once friends with the chief accountant of an Australian sugar mill, and he was invited over to see the Brazilian sugar industry first hand.  The Australian sugar industry went all mechanised after WW2, and has a sophisticated rail system for getting wet cane to the mill.  They use the waste bagasse to fire the boilers, and to cogenerate a little surplus electricity while the mill is running.  Everything is highly researched and documented to produce the maximum profit.  His impressions of Brazil, where cane is still cut by hand, and moved by donkey carts to very small local mills/fermenters, was that it was outright slavery.  The internet is full of sites that back that up.

A model of that would be very different to a model for how it would be done in US/Australia.  I'm only talking about the latter, and I'm open to directing all the sugars to the fermenters, in fact it would be simpler without the co-product of crystallized sugar, despite not being financially the best thing to do.

>  "I am willing to attempt to quantify each and every energy and environmental downside that ANY Renewable energy technology has."

That's all we need to do for the first try.  The way spreadsheets work means that you can always use X for anything difficult to quantify, and run it with X=low value and X=high value and see if it makes a big difference to the outcome.  I don't know whether gas flaring makes much of a difference or not to the final outcome, but let's see shall we?

I did not throw any "red herrings". The ENERGY needed to take something (plant grown or mineral extracted) and make it DO something involves everything I mentioned. There are widely different ENERGY COST ramifications to the use of the SAME energy source in DIFFERENT ways. That isn't a "red herring"; it's a function of complex systems. Do you have problems with a SLIDING SCALE of ERoEI's for the SAME fuel? I don't. 

That is interesting about Brazil, but considering you quoted a ridiculously low ERoEI number for sugarcane recently, I harbor no illusions about how you feel about that. Ethanol ERoEI is different for every plant feed stock used. And some plant feed stocks can be eaten by people and/or animals or burned after drying, making the proportional use of that plant for the process of obtaining ethanol/food/cellulose combustibles important in determining the energy extracted from a gram of said plant. If I use ALL of a sugar beet crop for ethanol production, the ERoEI of said ethanol will be HIGHER than if I used one third of it because the mechanical plant and equipment, as well as the cost of growing the beet crop, remain the same while the kilos of beets to be processed are reduced.

But you KNOW all this! That is why every time I have these conversations with you, I get the distinct impression that you are playing dumb.      Nevertheless, we will get to that AFTER we agree on the formula for obtaining ERoEI's for fossil fuels. Are we communicating?

You keep wanting to bring the subject to Renewable energy WITHOUT talking about fossil fuels. WHAT is your problem. Palloy?

I have to go now. I'll be back tomorrow. 8)

Here's the last news for today  ;D:

Southwestern Energy axing 40 percent of staff, Devon Energy plans cuts
 

Staff Writers  January 21, 2016   

Two more U.S. independents announced new rounds of layoffs this week as upstreams continue to grapple with low oil prices.

According to Reuters, Houston-based Southwestern Energy will cut 1,100 employees, or about 40 percent of its workforce.
   

The company plans to take a pre-tax charge of between $60 million to $70 million in the first quarter tied to the reductions.

A timeline for the reductions has not been disclosed yet.

Southwestern told Reuters on Thursday  it expects the cuts, along with a smaller round of cuts last August, to save the company between $150 million to $175 million per year.

Shares of Southwestern Energy have fallen by about 70 percent year-over year, Reuters added.

In Oklahoma, Devon Energy is preparing for a round of lay offs this quarter as the company looks to trim costs.

Devon Energy told NewsOK that it is “clear that layoffs will be a necessary part of the company’s near-term cost-management efforts.”    

The Oklahoma-based company has not disclosed how large the reductions will be, but the firm said it expects to “the majority” of its planned cuts to occur by the end of the first quarter.

Devon, an independent exploration and production firm, produced about 214,400 barrels of crude per day in 2014 along with about 1.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day and about 120,000 barrels of natural gas liquids per day.

The company holds acres in the Permian Basin, Barnett shale play, Anadarko Basin, the Rocky Mountains and Eagle Ford Basin.

Devon Energy also has heavy oil assets in Canada.
http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/southwestern-energy-axing-40-percent-staff-devon-energy-plans-cuts/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 29, 2016, 06:49:28 pm »

We are a long way from comparing ERoEIs - we haven't agreed on an ERoEI for ANY renewable bio-fuel yet.  Can we at least agree on the proposed template for the methodology?  I'll even allow you to require changes to the template once we've got started and seen how it goes.

I'm not sure how to quantify having/avoiding "toxic damage to the environment" and "climate-changing emissions", although I certainly agree that it happens.  Coal contains Mercury compounds, amongst other things, which is measured for coals burned in countries with legislation for it, so those things are well-documented.  The energy cost of scrubbers in the smoke-stack might be one way to look at it.

WE are a VERY long way from comparing ERoEIs. I haven't agreed to what YOU think the ERoEIs are for fossil fuels either. I have observed you dropping ERoEI figures here and there from time to time as if it was accurate data. It's NOT. You should not do that because you, by your own admission, are
Quote
not sure how to quantify having/avoiding "toxic damage to the environment" and "climate-changing emissions".
The fact that you put those quotes where you put them says it ALL.   

You labor under the view that you can divorce environmental downsides from energy return on energy invested formulas, never mind the energy losses from the combustion chamber to the actual WORK produced that should be, but are not, SUBRACTED from the fuel ERoEI. 

For example, if I take a piece of wood and burn it in a chamber in my house, I lose some of that heat energy up the exhaust. But I lose STILL MORE of that heat energy, making the SAME piece of wood LESS efficient (LOWER ERoEI) if I burn it under a boiler to produce steam for locomotion. IOW, there are TWO EroEI numbers for the SAME fuel, depending on HOW you use it.    Enthalpy calculations NEVER MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. Therefore, USING enthalpy as a STANDARD for ERoEI calculations in MECHANICAL DEVICES is BULL SH IT.

FORGET Renewable Energy for a moment.

Tell me, do you think the fossil fuel industry could afford to pay the $44 an hour or more that it NOW does on their fracking and land and ocean oil rigs if they had to capture, process and defang the carcinogenic and otherwise toxic gases they now flare? 

If so , WHY?

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:53:47 pm »

Until you can actually substantiate your accusations of ERoEI bias, this argument will never get anywhere.  I propose we agree on a methodology to evaluate Full Life Cycle ERoEI, in the form of a spreadsheet, and I will fill in one column of figures and you can fill in your column of figures, and we can then compare them row-by-row and see where the discrepancies lie.

The Farrel et al report labels the rows like this:
Article title
Journal
Heating Value basis
Agricultural Phase
Nitrogen (MJ/kg)
N Application rate (kg/ha)
Phosphorus (MJ/kg)
P2O5 application (kg/ha)
Potassium (MJ/kg)
K2O application (kg/ha)
Lime (MJ/kg)
Lime CaO application (kg/ha)
Herbicide (MJ/kg)
Herbicide application rate (kg/ha)
Insecticide (MJ/kg)
Insecticide (kg/ha)
Seed (MJ/kg)
Seed rate (kg/ha)
Transportation of inputs, summary (MJ/ha)
Tranport energy (MJ/kg)
Gasoline (MJ/ha)
Diesel (MJ/ha)
Natural gas (MJ/ha)
LPG (MJ/ha)
Electricity (MJ/ha)
Energy used in irrigation (MJ/ha)
Farm labor (MJ/ha)
Labor transportation (MJ/ha)
Farm machinery (MJ/ha)
Inputs packaging (MJ/ha)
Total Agricultural Phase (MJ/ha)
Biorefinery Phase
Transportation of feedstock to biorefinery (MJ/L)
Primary energy (MJ/L)
Electricity (MJ/L)
Coal (MJ/L)
Natural gas (MJ/L)
Diesel (MJ/L)
Biomass (MJ/L)
Capital (plant and equipment) (MJ/L)
Process water (MJ/L)
Effluent restoration (BOD energy cost in MJ/L)
Transportation of chemicals to plant
Totals
Crop yield (kg/ha)
Biorefinery yield (L/kg )
Net ethanol yield per land area (L/ha)
Net fuel energy yield per land area (MJ/ha)
Agricultural energy (MJ/L)
Biorefinery energy (MJ/L)
Recycled biomass energy (MJ/L)
Input energy (MJ/L)
Reported HV of ethanol (MJ/L)
Coproduct credits (MJ/L)
Coproducts as % of total energy
Output Energy (MJ/L)
Net energy value, NEV (MJ/L)
Net energy ratio (see Suppl. Online Material)

Is that acceptable?
I should just add, if I didn't mention it before, that the six reports evaluated were on corn, but the spreadsheet would work in exactly the same way for any feedstock.  BTW I agree with you that corn is not the best feedstock, whole sugar cane (not just the molasses fraction) is probably best for areas that can grow it.

It's a start, but NO, it is not acceptable because it is woefully incomplete. "Crop yield", for example, is one of those loaded terms that woefully FAILS in measuring adequate nutrition and is slanted to WEIGHT. I have posted, years ago now, about the FACT that, with chemical fertilizers, the "yields" went UP while the NUTRITIONAL VALUE of the crop WENT DOWN.

And AT NO TIME was the environmental COST of synthesizing the fertilizers and pesticides from hydrocarbon feed stock SUBTRACTED from those "yield" figures, to the JOY of the fossil fuel industry that claimed we OWED them for their (FAKE) "green revolution" of heavier, but less nutritious, crops.

And please SPARE me that data dump on different energy calculation formulas.

1) Post what YOU think is an acceptable energy density formula. And don't you DARE try to come up with some EXTERNAL combustion raw enthalpy based calculation. You need a DIFFERENT formula depending on the mechanical output obtained in the combustion chamber. You need to COMPARE engine design alloy requirement from operating temperatures and the maintenance costs of among different fuels. IOW, ERoEI does not mean jack sh it if ALL the LOSSES in energy from the combustion chamber to the kinetic drive shaft are not SUBTRACTED. Yes, it's complicated. And its complicated because the SAME fuel will have a different engine efficiency, depending n the design of the engine (compression ratio and engine weight). 

2) THEN, post what you think the cubic feet of flared gas per barrel of crude oil extracted from an oil rig in the ocean or on land is. Also, please provide the cubic feet of flared gas per captured marketable CH4 at a fracked gas rig site.

3) THEN, tell me what the COST of that flared gas, per cubic feet or some metric measurement of gas you are comfortable with, in biosphere damage and human health care. Palloy, SOMEBODY is paying it. And SOMEBODY has done that math. DON'T tell me it hasn't been done or that it is "impossible to quantify". Obviously, that must be done for the full life cycle cost computation, including the flaring caused by crude oil cracking towers at refineries. Also, the energy cost of drying, compressing and/or cooling of gas, along with the energy chemical synthesis costs of making the mercaptan marking gases must be figured in, of course.

4) When we have a CLEAR ERoEI number for fossil fuels, ABSENT fossil fuel Charles Hall PRoPI (Profitable Return on Propaganda Invested  :evil4:), THEN we can proceed to approach Renewable Energy in exactly the same way. I am willing to attempt to quantify each and every energy and environmental downside that ANY Renewable energy technology has.

BUT I WILL NOT do it in isolation. You cannot be allowed to move the energy math goal posts around with rationalizations like slavery in Brazil UNLESS that is THE NORMAL and ACCEPTED method of obtaining WHATEVER. Uzbekistan has a huge slavery problem. People are screaming about it at the U.N. The fact is, ANY country engaging in slavery is NOT going to LIMIT it to Renewable Energy production just to make it "cost effective". They will USE that slavery in production of dirty energy TOO!

I just posted an article that has to do with energy and costs. NOTICE what Lazard, an authority on LCOE, LEFT OUT of their calculations. I will NOT let YOU leave that out.

Then we can talk about rare earth piggery and battery production environmental piggery and ethanol "inefficiencies". Until then, NO DEAL.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 27, 2016, 03:38:40 pm »

Jan 21, 2016 Authors David Labrador Writer / Editor

How Much Does Energy Storage Really Cost? Lazard Weighs In.

In November 2015, financial advisory firm Lazard released its first-ever Levelized Cost of Storage Analysis (LCOS).

Well known for its Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE) analysis—now out in version 9.0—Lazard publishing an analysis of storage is a major sign that it considers battery energy storage a critical technology that’s here to stay

But a closer look at Lazard’s LCOS shows something RMI’s October 2015 Economics of Battery Energy Storage report noted: a) battery economics are usually evaluated on the basis of single-use cases, b) stacking multiple uses can greatly enhance battery economics, and c) evaluating those economics gets difficult quickly. It’s the use cases and stacked value streams—in addition to per-kWh cell cost declines—that offer tremendous opportunity.

RMI’s report primarily looked at the value, not cost, of a basket of multiple, stacked uses for customer-sited storage systems. Lazard focused on the costs of several physical storage technologies (including the lithium-ion studied in RMI’s report) and not “alternative” storage options such as building-as-storage, water heater-based storage, and other demand flexibility options. It evaluated those storage technologies on the basis of a variety of single-use cases such as frequency regulation and peak shaving/demand charge reduction. Lazard compared those costs to conventional, fossil-fuel alternatives.

Jesse Morris, a manager at RMI and co-author of RMI’s battery report, says, “We did not make this comparison in our Economics of Battery Storage report for a number of reasons but Lazard’s analysis is a great first step. It adds to a strong foundation from which the industry can better understand multiple-use cases.”

Morris adds, “In the end, this is the comparison that we need to be able to make if we're going to convince regulators that a distributed energy resource-focused future is a lower-cost alternative.” Batteries are tricky to evaluate in part because they aren’t strictly a demand- or supply-side solution. They’re an arbiter of supply and demand, serving as either generation or load depending on whether they’re discharging or charging. So the favorable finances of storage can use all the clarity and all the study they can get.

Shifting from single- to multi-use cases

The LCOS examined single-use cases, which is how most batteries are deployed today. But single uses are not how RMI proposes (or how Lazard expects) they be deployed in the future. Batteries today are used for a minority of their useful lifetimes. They can do much more than sit idle the majority of the time, and increasing their utilization rate can greatly enhance the value they provide to customers and the grid.

Jonathan Mir, managing director and head of North American Power and Utilities at Lazard, says, “In point of fact, it will be possible to use batteries for more than one thing, which means their value is higher than is being captured in our study.” Lazard advanced the practice of computing costs for renewably generated electricity with their LCOE series and Mir says, “I think we’re going to have to do the same thing around the stacked use cases.”

Storage costs are dropping       


Both reports find that the age of the battery is here, largely because costs have dropped so far, so fast. Mir says, “This reminds us very much of where utility-scale renewables were seven or eight years ago,” when Lazard began covering renewable costs in its LCOE series. “To us, this seems like an inflection point where you can see external factors causing demand to really take off and then you wind up with price declines as manufacturing scales up,” he says. Lazard’s analysis also predicts significant cost declines over the next five years, based on a survey of industry experts. For example, the median expected five-year price decline for lithium-ion storage is 47 percent below today’s costs.

The LCOS calculates the costs of eight different energy storage technologies for ten single-use cases, half behind the meter (including augmenting residential solar PV) and half in front (including transmission-upgrade deferral). It compares these to the costs of conventional alternatives like natural-gas peaker plants or diesel generators. The study finds that the costs of storage are within “striking distance” of conventional alternatives for many single-use cases, including lithium-ion batteries used for frequency regulation and flow batteries used to defer adding a new peaker plant.   

The challenge of multi-use accounting


What the LCOS analysis doesn’t do is estimate the cost of energy storage when it is utilized for multiple, stacked services, a key to realizing the value of storage to customers and the grid.

Most of storage’s costs are fixed, capital costs. But variable costs—as well as battery lifetime, potentially capacity loss over time, and ultimately replacement—depend on the use or uses to which a battery is put over its lifetime, especially how often it is charged and discharged. This makes it difficult to state the cost of a given storage technology for a variety of multiple, stacked services. “That is our ambition,” says Lazard’s Mir. “It’s important to capture, because we think our study is likely underestimating the value and potential of storage because storage would be used in more sophisticated ways than are being illustrated,” he says,  “but the quantitative analysis and framework to illustrate that is still being developed. It is another indicium of how immature the industry is.”

Evaluating battery energy storage economics is hard, and RMI sees opportunities to build on Lazard’s commendable start. The basic problem is finding a levelized cost that can be added in as services are stacked in different combinations. Garrett Fitzgerald, a senior associate at RMI and co-author of the Economics of Battery Energy Storage report, explains that, “by combining fixed costs and variable costs—that are determined by what services and how often they are being provided—you end up with a total lifetime cost of providing just a single service. It is not possible to then determine the incremental cost of stacking other services on.” For example, “It would be incorrect to simply add the LCOS of frequency regulation and the LCOS of peaker replacement as an estimate of the LCOS of a system providing both,” says Fitzgerald.

The importance of value stacking


Establishing a framework to measure the value (and cost) of stacked use cases for storage should be possible. Mir says, “To us, that is a natural evolution of the study.” But, he notes, “We have not seen a good solution in the public domain for how to demonstrate this idea, so we will come up with a framework. We understood it as a very important qualification to the work we were doing,” says Mir, “which is why we tried to be so clear about it.”

Indeed, the third page of the LCOS is devoted to explaining exactly how the energy storage value proposition depends on the stacking of multiple uses and adding together the value streams they create. RMI’s Morris says, “Their description is very clear and an excellent way to think about the comparison between stacking values and comparing different stacks of value to a given cost.”


The Current State of Play

Lazard considered only unsubsidized costs and disregarded the additional value created by such things as avoiding the toxic or climate-changing emissions of conventional fossil-fueled technologies. Nor does Lazard take into account state incentives, such as California’s SGIP and mandatory battery storage legislation. “Their comparison of all chemistries performing all use cases against a gas peaker plant or a reciprocating diesel engine (depending on the application) is extremely helpful,” says Morris. Should subsidies for storage be introduced at the national level, Lazard will factor them in the same way it does for LCOE.

So what did Lazard find? Of all the permutations analyzed, only one—lithium-ion batteries providing frequency regulation to the grid—was cost effective when performing a single, unstacked service today. The study also predicts that seven combinations (all of them with batteries) will be cost effective within five years. These include two use cases—peaker replacement and industrial peak shaving/demand charge avoidance—for which multiple battery chemistries will be cost-competitive with their diesel and natural-gas alternatives.



The LCOS does contain this encouraging caveat, however: “a number of [technology and use case] combinations are within ‘striking distance’ and, when paired with certain streams of value, may currently be economic for certain system owners in some scenarios.” It is these combined value streams that come with stacked uses that need to be accurately and easily accounted for.

The road ahead

“Costs will come down naturally with scale; they always do,” says RMI’s Fitzgerald, but he cautions that, “storage won’t be mainstream until there are more channels for developers or storage owners to find revenue.” As examples of the new channels being opened up for storage, he cites, “things like aggregated wholesale market participation in California or distributed system platform providers as described in New York’s REV proceeding.”

Fitzgerald says that, “storage can do a lot for the grid, and it can do most when behind-the-meter. Regulation is changing that will allow distributed storage to collect revenue for these services.” In consequence, he says, “most of the industry is focused on opening up new revenue streams and moving toward customer-sited and customer-focused services, such as demand charge management or solar-plus-storage solutions.” Lazard’s Mir adds, “We see that demand increasing pretty rapidly.”

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in

Agelbert NOTE: As you can see in the following three quotes taken from the article above:,
Quote
Jonathan Mir, managing director and head of North American Power and Utilities at Lazard, says, “In point of fact, it will be possible to use batteries for more than one thing, which means their value is higher than is being captured in our study.”

Quote
What the LCOS analysis doesn’t do is estimate the cost of energy storage when it is utilized for multiple, stacked services, a key to realizing the value of storage to customers and the grid.

Quote
Lazard considered only unsubsidized costs and disregarded the additional value created by such things as avoiding the toxic or climate-changing emissions of conventional fossil-fueled technologies.


IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE, one that the fossil fuelers commit on a nauseatingly regular basis, to NOT ADD the real world benefits of NON-polluting energy sources WHEN THE FULL COST of ENERGY SOURCES TO THE BIOSPHERE ARE figured into the LCOE data.

THAT MISTAKE is what Palloy MAKES on a regular basis  :P. And that is why, when doing apples to apples comparisons of Renewable Energy ERoEI with fossil fuels, he comes to erroneous, inaccurate and misleading conclusions that FAVOR fossil fuels over Renewable Energy sources.  :iamwithstupid: 

An OBJECTIVE scientist MUST, for Renewable Energy sources, ADD to their ERoEI base numbers, the real world benefits of avoiding the toxic or climate-changing emissions of conventional fossil-fueled technologies  IN ORDER TO GET A REALISTIC ERoEI COMPARISON of clean versus dirty fuels.   

I wonder why Palloy refuses to do that.     ;)
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 26, 2016, 06:59:25 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The following is a back and forth with a (biosphere) math challenged mathematician called Palloy. He refuses to do the math on fossil fuel pollution but pretends to do so.

He refuses to acknowledge that fossil fuels DO NOT have an Energy  Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI). He refuses to acknowledge that fossil fuel industry "profits" are artificially supported by government DIRECT subsidies, on the one hand, and INDIRECT "subsidies" from the LACK of government regulations and oversight on their severely polluting practices like flaring at drill sites and refineries.

And, he refuses to acknowledge the beneficial facts and high ERoEI of biofuels like Ethanol.


The thread includes Palloy's ridiculous claim that solar energy harvested with PV "cannot be scaled up". He games his formulas to conveniently leave out the advantages of Renewable Energy over fossil fuels in order to make a case for the alleged "impossibility" of running our civilization on Renewable Energy.

The exact reverse true. It is, in fact, impossible to run it on polluting energy sources. It just takes a while for pollutants to start severely degrading the biosphere. We are there. Palloy AND the governments influenced (i.e. corrupted) by the fossil fuel industry do not get it.  >:(

I present this rather long thread with a post or two from it (in the approriate sequence) daily for the next several days in order for you to learn how these propagandists for the polluters play their disingenuoos games.

Since most of it is about Renewable Energy (plant based) Ethanol, I have placed it here.


It begins with what seems like an irrelevant topic to Palloy's claims. But it is VERY relevant because Palloy likes to use gamed government data and stats to back his baloney.

Of course not all government data is gamed. But the data published for ERoEI for fossil fuels and ethanol IS gamed BY the fossil fuel industry corruption of governments. I provide evidence of that. Palloy plays dumb and scoffs. Enjoy.   


Research highlight: Enforcement question for pesticide laws
January 18, 2016 at 10:37 am
Helicopter spraying pesticide over pond in a city with ducks flying under it.  :emthdown:

Readers will be familiar with concerns that traditional chemical risk assessment methods give results which are either insufficiently complete (ignoring mixture effects, for example) or insufficiently accurate (e.g. by potentially under-estimating risks from individual compounds).

There is also the concern that chemical regulations might be insufficiently enforced, as highlighted in a recent paper in Environmental Science and Pollution Research (Stehle & Schulz 2015a).

In this paper, the researchers reviewed the published literature measuring pesticide levels in EU surface waters, aggregating a total of 1566 measured insecticide concentrations. Of these, 45% exceeded the maximum limit as determined by their respective risk assessments.

This paints a worrying picture of pesticide risk assessment in the EU: even if the results of the risk assessment are sufficiently protective (which seems doubtful), they are not being adequately enforced. So in what sense are EU pesticides laws sufficiently protective of the environment?

The research follows on from another study by the same authors, published earlier in 2015, which found that more than 50% of global surface waters contain pesticide residues exceeding the limit determined by their risk assessments  :(  >:( (Stehle and Schulz 2015b), and was covered by the Washington Post.

http://healthandenvironmentonline.com/2016/01/18/research-highlight-enforcement-question-for-pesticide-laws/

Agelbert NOTE: The INACCURATE "traditional     " chemical risk assessment methods are part and parcel of the DATA SETS that statisticians and mathematicians like PALLOY use to make their arguments about WHATEVER. 


The government published HAPPY TALK, designed to defend the profit over planet polluting status quo, is certainly NOT limited to CONVENIENT (for business as usual    ) risk assessments.

The "rigorous peer reviewed studies" on energy resources, that produce ERoEI numbers that somehow always manage to low ball Renewable Energy sources as compared to fossil fuels,  from the bought and paid for scientists of the fossil fuel industry (e.g. Charles Hall, et al ), are willingly embraced by the Palloy's of this world as the, sniff,  ONLY CREDIBLE standard. After referencing a few of these "rigorous studies", the Palloy's of this world will claim that any other claims are "not credible" and, since they are serious mathematician/statisticians   ;)   , any allegations that the data sets they swear by are inaccurate are instantly deemed "spurious. wild eyed and worthy of disdain". So it goes.

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 25, 2016, 06:51:45 pm »

01/20/2016 03:00 PM     
Navy's Great Green Fleet Deploys With Biofuels
SustainableBusiness.com News

The first Navy ships running partially on biofuels as part of everyday operations are at sea after leaving San Diego.

The ships are part of the Navy's Great Green Fleet - its effort to convert to much more efficient ships that run on renewable fuels. While initial fuel blends contain only 10% biofuels, they are on track for 50/50 blends as prices come down, they say.

The Navy's goal is to get half its fuel from renewable sources by 2020.

 A blend of waste fats, they are considered "drop in" fuels as they can be used without any change to a ship's engine, transport equipment or operational procedures. And, as instructed by Congress, they are cost-competitive with fossil fuels. 

Midwest cattle farmers and ranchers sell waste beef fat to California-based AltAir Fuels, which blends it with diesel and then sells it to the Navy under a contract for $2.05 a gallon.

 Sailors prepare to board the USS John C. Stennis for regularly scheduled deployment from San Diego, this time with biofuels:(graphic at link below)


Navy Biofuels 

Republicans tried to block the use of biofuels because they cost $15 per gallon when the Great Green Fleet held its first demonstration, but since then prices have declined substantially as Mabus expected.

 While Republicans still say it's a waste of money  ;)  , Mabus disagrees. "We absolutely have to have - particularly in this constrained budget environment - a stably priced, domestically produced alternative to fossil fuels that don't spike based on world crises. Every time the price of oil goes up $1 per barrel, it costs the Navy an extra $30 million."

To boost production, the Navy awarded $210 million to three companies that are building biorefineries at Department of Defense facilities. They come online this year, with full production in 2017 using cooking grease and oil and other feedstocks that don't depend on cropland.     

On the efficiency side, advances include dashboards that show how much energy is being consumed, stern flaps that reduce drag and the use of LED lighting greatly reduces energy demand.

Greater efficiency gives the Navy and Marines great advantages - they can stay longer without refueling, for example. "It gives us a strategic advantage," says Mabus. "Diversifying our energy sources arms us with operational flexibility and strengthens our ability to provide presence, turning the tables on those who would use energy as a weapon against us. We won't be at the mercy of fluctuating oil prices and oil-producing nations.

"In 2010, we were losing too many marines in convoys carrying fossil fuels to outposts in Afghanistan, and the prohibitive cost of oil was requiring us to stop training at home in order to keep steaming abroad, a dangerous and unsustainable scenario," Mabus explains. Some ships are now electric-diesel hybrids.

Since 2009, when the program began, the Navy has cut oil consumption 15% and the Marine Corps, 60%. The Navy consumes about 25% of the 14 million gallons of fuel used by the Defense Department every day - the world's biggest energy consumer  :P - according to the Defense Logistics Agency.

The Great Green Fleet honors President Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet, which helped usher in America as a global power.     :P 

This time it ushers in an era of energy innovation  in the Navy and Marines, they say.   

Read our articles, US Navy Says Biofuels Are New Normal

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26526
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 19, 2016, 08:52:41 pm »

But you are assuming that I can't do at least as good a job on debunking the fossil fuel industry.  I didn't bother doing that, as that wasn't what your article was about.  None of these "solutions" will solve our energy problems.  ALL of them will only make the problems worse.

Brazil only makes ethanol because of slave labour cutting cane by hand, (try it sometime), while the aristocracy owns all the land, and the means of production, and sells into the US market to earn foreign exchange, to import luxuries for themselves.  That's not sustainable.

China can only make the world's cheapest solar panels because of their version of slave labour, and imported raw materials and energy, and selling to rich people who don't understand or care about the environmental impacts.

There is NO SOLUTION for industrialised civilisation, that's why it will implode, without the need for revolution.  But there probably will be a revolution, and when it's won, everybody will want to live like the rich did.  It can't be done.

There is a possible solution in subsistence farming and hunter/gathering, but only for a much smaller population, in certain places where the climate and soils are good, and ONLY for people that can survive without the trappings of industrialised society.  I'm living in such a place now.  There isn't a square metre of open ground on my block, not even on my driveway - that's why I have just had to buy a secondhand ride-on mower after the last one died 2 years ago,  to keep a 4 metre slot open to the world. My block extracts about 600 tonnes of CO2/year from the atmosphere, so I am still doing my bit for the planet.  If I was young again, I could be out there growing my own food in the heat and humidity and mosquitoes, instead of being stuck in here, sat at my computer, drinking cold beer and generally enjoying my retirement.

Yes there is a solution to industrialized civilization. But you may be right in that it will not be adopted. But that won't be because there is no solution. And yeah, you SHOULD bother to debunk the fossil fuel industry happy talk. That happy talk is PRECISELY what has us in the polluting status quo we find ourselves in.

When comparing sources of energy, it is necessary to discuss and compare everything that is out there on an apples to apples basis. Otherwise, we continue down the path of custom and prejudice   , as opposed to truth hand logic.

For example, this sort of thing happens on a regular basis, yet is considered an "acceptable" cost of "doing business" by the fossil fuel industry.
Quote
blast at Alberta Long Lake oil sands project leaves one dead

Nicolas Torres  January 19, 2016

http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/01/blast-alberta-long-lake-oil-sands-project-leaves-one-dead/
It's not. And Renewable energy does not present that level of occupational hazards or dangerous pollution of the biosphere. So all they've got is the baloney that their products are "more competitive". They are not. I am working on an article about flaring at oil and gas extraction sites, both on land and in the oceans AND at the oil refineries all over the planet as well. I am convinced that, if flaring was banned and they had to capture, process and safely store the toxic and carcinogenic gases they now flare when extracting raw product at the rig sites and subsequently when they process that product to make it market ready at refineries, they would not be able to compete, period. That is why they fight so ferociously to keep flaring from being banned. Without flaring, never mind the CO2 from their products, they DO NOT HAVE a viable business model. It should be ready in a week or less.  8)

Agelbert NOTE: I deal with Disinformation on ethanol internal combustion engine fuel (E100) pushed by fossil fuel Industry TOOLS/FOOLS in the following thread.  When an objective person requests a potential solution, I propose it AND explain why, despite the fact that the knowledge and technology is out there, that solution has not been implemented.

rusty hesson
With a 7-30 % reduction in fuel milage Ethanol never has or will "replace oil".

Agelbert reply to brainwashed rusty hesson

That has ALWAYS been a lie fostered by the fossil fuel industry. Once engines have the proper compression ratio, E100 (100% ethanol) gives the same or better mileage with LESS engine wear BECAUSE there is LESS waste heat from the combustion process.

The alleged "greater energy density" of gasoline versus ethanol is based on enthalpy calculations that measure EXTERNAL combustion (i.e. boiling water in an OPEN flame). It is true that gasoline produces more raw heat. BUT, a significant portion of that HEAT is WASTE HEAT that merely increases engine wear and DOES NOT translate to mechanical energy in INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES. Not only must gasoline combustion waste heat be SUBTRACTED from it's energy density, the INCREASED FRICTION created by that WASTE HEAT must be subtracted as well.

Quote
.. the irrelevancy of Btu as a measurement of ethanol performance compared to gasoline that gets into a lengthy dialogue about what a Btu measures and a discussion on engines. “The whole creation of Btu rating and understanding was to determine what it takes to heat water one degree. This was important (and still is important) when dealing with steam engines or water heaters or cooking using fire.
btus have no importance in internal combustion engines. Engine optimization is the key.


Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them

The truth that the fossil fuel industry propaganda wishes to hide by erroneously claiming ethanol is not a better fuel than gasoline (even though Thomas Edison and the U.S. Naval Laboratories said ethanol WAS A BETTER FUEL way back in 1906!) goes way beyond mere fuel economy.

Modern technology from studies HERE and in Brazil have determined the following inconvenient (for the fossil fuel industry) FACTS:

1) A high compression engine designed specifically to run on ethanol is at least 33% lighter
because the alloys do not have to be engineered to handle the high waste heat of gasoline. Said engine will have BETTER mileage because of the consistency of the fuel (ethanol is only one consistent chemical compound at a consistent and predictable combustion temperature, unlike gasoline) reduced weight, lower maintenance and longer life from running consistently at lower temperatures. Of course, using gasoline in it would be prohibited. Running on the witches brew of volatile organic compounds, industrial solvents ( up to 40% of a gallon of NON-hydrocarbon content of gasoline that dissolve plastics quite well) and various DIFFERENT long chained hydrocarbons called gasoline would ruin such an engine. So you can see how the fossil fuel industry would not be happy campers about allowing such an engine to be manufactured in, or imported to the USA. [b[in fact, your beloved fossil fuel crooks and liars[/b] have made it a LAW in the USA that ethanol MUST have a certain amount of gasoline in it in the USA. The threadbare excuse is "to prevent people form drinking unlicensed booze" (LOL!). Brazil is not amused. They use E100 without ANY difficulty whatsoever.

2) Ethanol DOES NOT require REDUCING the amount of crops grown for food
, either for people or animals. WHY?! Because crops such as switchgrass, Hemp and SEVERAL OTHERS can be grown on NON chemically fertilized land considered NON arable land for food crops.

3) As Abengoa has demonstrated, the cellulose refuse from food crops, hitherto thrown out (stalks and roots from corn) CAN be processed into ethanol without making a dent in the acreage used for food crops
. So the crocodile tears from the fossil fuel industry about ethanol taking food out of people's mouths is ANOTHER LIE.

GASOLINE is a WASTE PRUDUCT from the refining of crude oil. John D. Rockefeller used to poison horses and cows that drank in the rivers of Pennsylvania (downriver from his refinery)  in the late nineteenth century when he would flush it down the river at night (the farmers tried to mob him for it!) when his main product was lubricants. Rockefeller began the Fossil fuel tradition of "externalizing costs" FROM THE START.

It was John D. Rockefeller that convinced Henry Ford to MODIFY his Model T engines so they run on gasoline, instead of what they ALREADY ran on, ethanol.

It was John D. Rockefeller who FUNDED efforts at Prohibition that ended up FORCING farmers to run their tractors on gasoline instead of ethanol. Yes, sports fans, Prohibition WAS NOT really about booze. It was REALLY about cornering the fuel market on behalf of Jon D. Rockefellers, WASTE product.

It was John D. Rockefeller's fossil fuel Standard Oil empire that introduced LEADED gasoline (tetra ethyl lead additive from Du Pont) when ethanol was accidentally on purpose outlawed as an engine fuel during Prohibition (ethanol has a higher octane than gasoline so a replacement was needed for high compression engines) .

For those who say that leaded gasoline has been outlawed so that is no longer a problem, let me enlighten you.

TO THIS DAY, internal combustion engine powered small aircraft in the USA STILL use LEADED GASOLENE when the technology to run those engines on E100 has been available for several decades. It is LEGAL to run that green died stuff called avgas containing TETRA ETHYL LEAD.

Every single bit of damage to humans and other life forms in the biosphere from leaded gasolene going all the way back to Prohibition, including the children of people living under the approach path to runways of general aviation airports is an "externalized cost" that we-the-people have been FORCED to subsidize for the benefit of fossil fuel industry profits.

[b[it's time to return gasoline to the category of WASTE PRODUCT again. [I[it's time for the fossil fuel industry to PAY WHAT THEY OWE we-the-people for the environmental DAMAGE caused by its waste products, ALL OF THEM. [/I][/b]

Prosecute Exxon For Deliberate Climate Denial

Renewable is the cheaper energy option without fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsides.

John_B reply to agelbert
I'll go with alcohol as soon as you can make it appear out of thin air with sunlight and water or wind and water. Really though. Emissions from alcohol are 99% as pure as liquid hydrogen fueled ICE cars. Of course we know the fossil fuel people lie so skip all that and use your formidable knowledge to seek out that prototype generation process to distill alcohol from abundant naturally reoccurring phenomena. Most people have it in their mind growing stuff to ferment is too time consuming and an inefficient waste of biological life. Seat of the pants..... It would take a hexillion acres of corn crops to power all ICE engines with pure ethanol. Who knows though. Giant algae farms off shore with superfast growing algae hybrids. Something like that. Well?... You're the expert. You need tons and tons of something biological to ferment. (I can hear the fossil fuel-ites after their bird death dissertation. They'll launch a cruelty to amoeba campaign)

Agelbert reply John_B

John_B said,
Quote
You need tons and tons of something biological to ferment.

Exactly right. You need something that grows faster than anything else in out there. You want it to be macroscopic instead of microscopic (algae's microscopic size makes it costly to dry for processing, negating it's fast growth advantage).

You want it to be an almost perfect photosynthetic organism that, in addition to doubling it's size in about a day (EVERY day!), does not waste energy making hard to process stalks and roots, but concentrates on making starches that have low lignin content (cheaper to process). Now you know why ducks and fish would love such a plant. I'm talking about Lemna minor, a species of Duckweed.

The choice for Duckweed, that should have been made long ago, is to place giant shallow ponds on non-arable land (once they are filled, no added water is needed). These ponds, stocked with tilapia and floating Lemna minor (Duckweed is the fastest growing angiosperm - flowering plant - known to man) would go a long way to solving our environmental problems.

First of all, no arable land would be affected, so no food would be taken off of anybody's table, so to speak. The fish feed on the duckweed and the fish feces fertilize the duckweed. You just need to keep the fish population right so your duckweed production is high. No pesticides or chemical fertilizers are needed. If no tilapia are available, pig feces, a rather easily obtainable "product" in most countries, is excellent fertilizer.

Using pig feces would, of course, reduce nitrogen run off from farms to rivers, so that method of fertilization would be a win-win for the environment.

Lemna minor has virtually no root systems or plant stalk, so 40% of it is low lignin (less woody and cheaper to process). It is nutritious too.

Since it floats, it is easy to harvest. It can be sun dried and pelletized, as is, for fuel or animal feed. It can serve, and has already been used as such, as a nutrition supplement for humans.

Finally, it can, of course, be processed into ethanol fuel, plastics, medicines, and textiles, thereby replacing all the fossil fuel based sources of these products at present.

There is more. Placed in stagnant water areas polluted with heavy metals, Lemna minor will readily absorb them, and has been used for this purpose already. Of course that would make it toxic and then could not be fed to animals or burned as fuel, but it can be used to clean up polluted water inexpensively.

So, why is it not grown (except in the wild) hither and yon in the USA? We certainly have plenty of non-arable land (THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of acres) to put shallow ponds (about 3 feet deep) on. We have plenty of pig feces polluting our rivers that could be put to a better use too.

BECAUSE, the government wants GMO CORN, a terrible choice for ethanol that makes both the fossil fuel industry and Monsanto very happy, to be the feed stock for ethanol production.

It makes no sense whatsoever. But prejudice and custom, unfortunately, often rule the affairs of men far more than truth and logic. So it is in our country. It is time for some truth and logic, for a change.

If you would like to learn more about Lemna minor (Duckweed) here's some good info and a video:

Duckweed, The Little Green Plant that Could.

Is Duckweed The Food of the Future?

Duckweed - a potential high-protein feed resource for domestic animals and fish.

jimmywampum
Hemp has historically been one of the top 'miracle plants' with limitless uses, and appears to be, by far, the best crop for bio-fuels. Synthetic gasoline and diesel appear to be the 'happy medium' solution to moving from nasty and dirty crude oil and REQUIRING people to buy expensive and questionable alternative energy.

Agelbert reply to history challenged jimmywampum

When you study a bit of history, not your fossil fuel happy talk version, you will learn WHY hemp was outlawed along with high THC  Cannabis in 1937. The fossil fuel industry AND the paper industry DID NOT WANT the competition, PERIOD.

Ethanol is not the only product that could be made from hemp. You could, and still can, make plastics, paint, pharmaceuticals and paper CHEAPER than you could from petroleum and wood. It was, and is, called CHEMURGY.

Ethanol, as far back as 1906, WAS the fuel for cars and gasoline was the ALTERNATIVE being pushed by Rockefeller. Prohibition FORCED people to move away from ethanol, which was CHEAPER THAN GASOLINE, to   REQUIRING people to buy expensive, polluting and questionable alternative energy, GASOLINE!

How the Promise of Chemurgy Was Dashed by Big Oil


johndubose
Sorry No moonbeam energy while oil is at 30/barrell.

Agelbert replies to johndubose (throwback from fossil fuel industry 1980's successful method of destroying Renewable Energy    ).


You wish. LEARN about what a gallon of gasoline REALLY costs, regardless of what you pay at the pump.
The True Cost of Gasoline is Closer to $15 a Gallon (Video)

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/17/second-generation-biofuels/#comment-2464084476
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 18, 2016, 08:28:06 pm »

When the Abengoa process is taken in isolation, the Abengoa business might make sense, but you have to look at the Full Life Cycle, which includes it making sense for the farmer, the harvesters and the road maintainers (usually local authorities, backed by the local people's taxes).  Downstream the fuel has to meet quality standards if it is to meet user expectations - without regulation, gas stations would be selling us all kinds of crap.  Farmers in the early days would put dirty ethanol in their tractors without caring about the long-term consequences for the engine.  Nowadays the machines cost so much money that you really can't afford to do that.

The process itself is in several phases - digesting the cellulose into sugars, fermenting the sugars into alcohol, distilling the water/alcohol mix into "pure" alcohol, and finally polishing the alcohol into ultra-pure alcohol.  Each requires careful temperature control, and the distilling phase requires lots of energy to be input to reverse the "entropy of mixing".  The resulting fuel has a high tendency to undergo that entropy again, which you acknowledge, but you failed to mention that the atmospheric water vapour which enters the fuel, has to be turned to steam in the engine, using the heat of the burning alcohol itself, and is then dumped out the exhaust without that energy (latent heat) being recovered.  That is all a drag on the useful work that the alcohol can do for you.

Australia's CSIRO did a Full Life Cycle study on turning molasses from sugar cane processing (and some other sources) into ethanol, and its use as E10 fuel.  Bear in mind that molasses doesn't need the extra cellulose digestion stage, and the energy cost of molasses is subsidised by the main co-product of sugar cane processing, crystallized sugar.

So E10 has a GHG saving of 5.1%, and E100 would have a 51% saving.  In other words, half the energy of ethanol is actually the energy of the fossil fuels to make it, mostly in the form of diesel fuel for heavy machinery, but also transport, pesticides, fertilisers, and processing.  Ethanol can only be made at these efficiencies while embedded in a fossil fuel-powered economy.

As for bio-gas, you passed quickly over the bit about "methane can be separated out".  Bio-gas is a mixture of lots of things, depending on the feedstock and the degree of digestion.  It contains a lot of water vapour, which is a drag on the heating value of the fuel, like water in alcohol.  It also contains a lot of CO2, which if removed takes energy to reverse the entropy of mixing, and if not removed simply dilutes the heating effect. There will also be some Hydrogen and some Ethane, which can remain in there as they are fuels themselves, but not if you are selling the gas by energy/litre.  It may also contain Hydrogen sulphide, which is poisonous if inhaled, or produces Sulphur Dioxide if burnt - SO2 produces acid rain. 

If the feedstock is human sewage, then you also have the problem of Fluorides from medicinal compounds, hormones from contraceptive pills, and anti-biotics that may poison the digestion process.  They all have technical solutions, but fixing inherent problems with technical fixes after the event, eats away at the economic and energy budgets.

None of this matters in third world India, where they have been producing bio-gas for centuries, but in the first world with planning regulations and opposition from residents who don't want to live next door to a sewage treatment plant, this will be hard to get off the ground.



Palloy said,
Quote
So E10 has a GHG saving of 5.1%, and E100 would have a 51% saving.  In other words, half the energy of ethanol is actually the energy of the fossil fuels to make it,

Shame on you for spouting such bold faced mendacity! Have you not read ANYTHING I have posted here on ethanol? Don't you GET the fact that ethanol EROI is lowballed (while the GHG output is EXAGGERATED!) because of the enthalpy fun and games of TWISTED energy output thermodynamics by the fossil fuel industry? Do you NOT understand what WASTE heat does to mechanical output? Do you not understand that ethanol, as compared with gasoline, DOES NOT HAVE WASTE HEAT!!? Your Australian molasses/sugarcane/etc. numbers for E10 are mostly irrelevant, both in GHG emission output and processing costs BECAUSE 90% of that is gasoline!   

Your negative assumptions about E100 are grossly in error.

Brazil does not use ANY fossil fuels to grow their sugarcane, decorticate it and process it into ethanol! They burn PLANT MATTER and run their farming and processing equipment on ETHANOL!  It's ALL renewable because it is ALL grown. The GHG output is in balance! And when solar panels are used to help in the processing (electrical power demands), there will be a REDUCTION in GHG output overall.

But it is a waste of time to try to get you to see that. And DON'T quote any more stats from Australia on this channel. That government is so in the thrall of fossil fuels that ANYTHING they publish is suspect, PERIOD.
 
And on biogas, Have you not read about what Grand Junction, Colorado is doing with biogas? You want hair split about processes of biogas and ethanol production while BLATANTLY ignoring the COST of the HIGHLY POLLUTING CHEMICAL PROCESSES involved in refining fossil fuels! Your lack of objectivity is breathtaking. You are, once again, exposing your bias for fossil fuels.   


In your clever dissertation you left QUITE A BIT out of your VERSION of the "full life cycle". When I see you talk about the FULL LIFE CYCLE of fossil fuels INCLUDING the BIO-REMEDIATION costs and pollution cleanup costs, I'll begin to take your "full life cycle" assessments seriously.

You do not seem to understand decortication as a function of lignin presence. You do not seem to understand that there is a lignin tradeoff in cellulose product processing associated with costs; MORE lignin = MORE costs while LESS lignin and more starches = LESS costs.

You do not seem to understand that there are a PLETHORA of plant species (e.g. Lemna minor) out there, available and easily grown WITHOUT chemical fertilizers, pesticides or plowing (in the case of duckweed, shallow ponds on non-arable land work quite nicely for the fastest growing angiosperm on earth), that have LOW lignin, thereby changing RADICALLY (i.e. much lower processing costs) the ENTIRE "life cycle cost" calculations you seem to be STUCK on.

What Abengoa is doing is making a go of one of the WORST POSSIBLE products (corn, corn stalks and roots) for ethanol production. Good for them. Bad for you that you don't see that corn is a horrendous choice for ethanol production costs. Bad for you that you do not see that is QUITE DELIBERATE in the USA because of the fossil fuel industry influence.

Furthermore, MANY of these plants (that are even better than sugarcane and beets!) do not need to be processed into ethanol at all, thereby eliminating a lot of your "life cycle" costs. they can be sun dried and pelleted for use as fuel or animal feed! But you just cannot see the VASTLY superior energy REsource that plant matter is and the TREMENDOUSLY DAMAGING effect the fossil fuel based economy is having on our biosphere.   

 
Until then, WHAT PART OF the following reality do you not understand? 


Porter Ranch Methane Leak Spreads Across LA’s San Fernando Valley  :P
Lorraine Chow | January 15, 2016 9:36 am

It now looks like the catastrophic Porter Ranch gas leak, which has spewed more than 83,000 metric tons of noxious methane for nearly three months, has spread across Los Angeles’s San Fernando Valley.

On Wednesday, Los Angeles City Councilman Mitchell Englander called on the Southern California Gas Co. to extend residential relocation assistance to residents in Granada Hills, Chatsworth and Northridge who live near the Aliso Canyon gas leak above Porter Ranch. These residents reported symptoms related to the exposure of natural gas such as nausea, vomiting, headaches and respiratory problems.

The researchers have developed the Valley’s first comprehensive map of methane exposure. Photo credit: HEET

This latest development compounds with a new analysis from Home Energy Efficiency Team (HEET). The Cambridge-based nonprofit sent Boston University Professor Nathan Phillips and Bob Ackley of Gas Safety to take methane measurements around the San Fernando Valley for several days and their findings were disturbing.

As the Los Angeles Daily News wrote, “the researchers recorded elevated levels of the main ingredient in natural gas—10 miles away from the nation’s largest gas leak.”

Quote
“It’s not just in Porter Ranch, it’s going all the way across the [San Fernando] Valley,” Ackley told Inside Climate News.
According to HEET, the researchers drove a high precision GIS-enabled natural gas analyzer down the roads around the gas leak to create a comprehensive map of the leak around San Fernando Valley. The red on the map indicates where they drove and the levels of methane they found is shown by the height of the peaks.

Their monitors showed methane levels at 3.4 parts per billion, about twice the level of natural clean air, the Los Angeles Daily News reported. Another measurement showed 127 ppm, or an astounding 67 times above normal.

“Whatever else may be in the gas—benzene , toluene , xylene that is what people may be breathing,” Phillips told Inside Climate News. “Even though we’re not measuring things other than methane  ;), there is a legitimate concern that there is that other nasty stuff in there.”

As Inside Climate News observed: “The findings challenge assurances from the  South Coast Air Quality Management District , the regional air pollution control agency, and the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that the leak hasn’t increased residents’ exposure to toxic gases.”    

Dozens of public health and environmental advocates and experts will rally at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, DC tomorrow to press for federal action on the Porter Ranch leak.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/15/porter-ranch-methane-leak-spreads/

Agelbert NOTE: The is something you should know that you will not hear about in the six o'clock news:

"The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2" by Archer and Brovkin .

"The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries. This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle, which we review here.

The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a thousand years or longer.

Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with nuclear waste.

The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1#/page-1

  The prolonged existence of atmospheric CO2

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 17, 2016, 06:38:30 pm »

Quote
the growth of the petroleum industry in the 1860s was greatly aided by the heavy federal tax on its primary competitor .The myth that petroleum was at first a dramatic deliverance from the darkness, and then the only important fuel for the horseless carriage, indicates the extent to which oil industry historians have been influenced by the rhetoric of the technological sublime. In fact, early automotive inventors resorted to both petroleum and alcohol spirit lamp fuels as readily available energy sources.
http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/about-bk/research/henry-ford-charles-kettering-and-the-fuel-of-the-future/

Quote
U.S. Congress Lifts Alcohol Tax in 1906

American farmers watched the growing use of alcohol fuel in Europe with great interest. Their markets were glutted with grain surpluses created when vast new tracts of virgin prairie were plowed under to produce bumper crops. To absorb these surpluses, many looked to the market for liquid fuels created by the widespread acceptance of the automobile. It seemed logical to replace their declining market for horses by growing fuel for the horseless carriage.

In 1906, the farm lobby found an ally in President Theodore Roosevelt, a bitter foe of the oil industry. Although embroiled in other disputes at the time, Roosevelt sent a message of support for the repeal of the alcohol tax to the House of Representatives, saying it provided a possible check to the depredations of the oil trust.50 In April, 1906, a bill to repeal the alcohol sales tax sailed through the House on a 224 to 7 vote with widespread support from farm-belt representatives. Additional support came from the Temperance Party, which saw in alcohol fuel a beneficial use for a pernicious commodity.

When the Senate Finance Committee  attempted to table the “Free Alcohol” bill
, the president of the Automobile Club of America said that he was considerably surprised and disappointed at the Senate committee, although he did not think Standard Oil would oppose the bill. “Gasoline is growing scarcer, and therefore dearer, all the time… Automobiles cannot use gasoline for all time, of that I am sure, and alcohol seems to be the best substitute that has yet appeared.”51 U.S. Senator Champ Clark of Missouri, however, placed “the Rockefellers”    squarely in the opposing camp as attempting to retain the tax on a potential competitor.52

The Senate passed the bill May 24, 1906, and the New York Times again noted the low cost of alcohol (14 cents from corn, nine and a half cents from molasses) as compared to the high price of kerosene and gasoline (18 and 22 cents, respectively). “The new fuel and illuminant will utilize completely an important class of agricultural crops and byproducts thus benefiting in a double sense the farms and villages throughout the country,” an editorial said.55 Roosevelt signed the bill June 8, 1906.
http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/about-bk/research/henry-ford-charles-kettering-and-the-fuel-of-the-future/

Agelbert Observation: In the light of the setback in Rockefeller's bought and paid for Senate, Plan B (i.e. Prohibition funding) was initiated. Rockefeller did profit extensively from gasoline sales when the ethanol fuel market was destroyed by Prohibition.

But, the tax on alcohol after the Civil War is PRECISELY what enabled the big switch to kerosene lighting in the USA and the quick growth of Rockefeller's fortunes.    He was ALREADY used to crowding out alcohol for lighting AND engine fuels. Yes, sports fans, there were engines that ran on alcohol in Europe during the 19th century (long before the Model T). Just go to this link for all the details. From (at least) 1900 until Prohibition, the scientifically proven (Thomas Edison and the U.S. Naval Laboratories) supremacy of ethanol over gasoline as a fuel was being shouted from the roof tops (and the New York Times too  ;D).

Quote
Adocates have seen in alcohol fuels the potential for revolutionizing agricultural economics, for dispelling city smog, and for curbing the power of the petroleum industry over the economy. In addition, the idea that agriculture and biological resources could be primary sources of energy, the idea that humankind could live on solar “income” rather than fossil fuel “capital,” has held a fascination for several generations of automotive and agricultural engineers. Proponents could see in ethyl alcohol the potential to help strike balance between city and farm and the prospect of civilizing and humanizing industrial machinery.


For example, this hope is graphically depicted in the symbolism used at the 1902 Paris alcohol fuel exposition. On the cover of the exposition’s proceedings, a muse with an overflowing bouquet of roses looks down over the steering wheel with a confident smile. She is a portrait of wisdom and beauty, firmly in control of a gentle machine which seems appropriately located in some lush flower garden. 8

You see, most Americans labor under the view that the OIL refinery WASTE product, gasoline, was CHEAPER than ethanol.  So, therefore, gasoline was better able to COMPETE with ethanol. That is a LIE! From the start, the LAW is what priced the competition out and made the "hard working Capitalist" Rockefeller his fortune. The LAW was a back door SUBSIDY from the start!  Efficiency, superior thermodynamic output, energy density and the fuel characteristics did not have ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. Ethanol was, and still is, the better fuel.

Rockefeller temporarily lost his "competitive edge" in 1906. Rockefeller found himself on a level energy competition playing field. Rockefeller, the model for all fossil fuelers from then on, disliked fair play intensely. He was, as are ALL fossil fuelers in the USA, fervent Capitalists.

Ethical behavior is a weakness to be abhorred by true Capitalists. So, Plan B was set in motion to, once again, obtain the "competitive edge" for fossil fuels.
   


The Great Scheme: Alcohol-based fuels, Ford, Rockefeller, and Prohibition.

Quote
One of the many bits of information I gleaned from my discussions with Tapahpunja yesterday has to do with the prohibition of alcohol. This is a multifaceted issue that concerns spirituality, social control, energy production, and US History. From the standpoint of a Hindu, alcohol consumption is forbidden. This makes sense in the context of social interaction. There is no debate that alcohol abuse contributes to many of our social problems today. Having had ample experience with alcoholics, I know firsthand what addiction can do to relationships. Many domestic incidents and other types of criminal activity involve the use of alcohol. Meanwhile, there is much evidence that alcohol negatively affects more organs of the human body than any other legal or illegal drug. Despite all these possible consequences, I have no plans to stop consuming alcohol. I believe there are some positive social effects that occur with its moderate use, and there is some scientific data that demonstrates that it can be consumed healthily.

But there is an entirely different dimension to alcohol that I wasn't even aware of. Alcohol may be an option in dealing with the impending energy and environmental crises of the Twenty-first Century. It is a little known fact that Brazil is the world leader in the production of bioalcohol fuel. Because of recent concerns of rising gasoline prices, President Bush visited Sao Paulo (on March 7, 2007) to sign agreements on importing alcohol fuel and its technology. Vehicles using this fuel were actually widespread in the late 1970's in Brazil, but gasoline reclaimed its market share in the 1980's. With anxieties about the world oil supply once again in the forefront of many minds, this option has become increasingly attractive.

The advantages of alcohol-based fuels are multi-faceted. They burn completely and efficiently and produce 100% less carbon monoxide emissions because the byproducts of their consumption include only carbon dioxide, water and heat. Interestingly, although alcohol-based fuel produces as much CO2 emission as gasoline, its effect is counterbalanced by the fact that CO2 is actually drawn from the environment in the process of its production. Therefore there is no modern net release. While much of the efforts concerning the manufacture of these types of fuel involve corn... there are much more efficient raw crop materials available. Sugar beets (for example) contain less cellulose, and their waste fibers raise the alcohol yield. So why do so many Americans sing the praises of corn-based biofuel?  ??? For that answer you have to research the political and economic ramifications of our corporate farming monoculture. That lies beyond the scope of this post.

But the most fascinating aspect of the connection between alcohol and fuel use concerns a little known (or discussed) aspect of American history. To understand this relationship, one must examine some contextual information of the early Twentieth Century. Most people are not aware that Henry Ford's Model T came in a variation that allowed the driver to switch the carburetor to run the engine on farm-made ethyl alcohol. This allowed the operator to stop at local farms (equipped with stills) to refuel his/her car during long trips through the backcountry. After all- the gas station wasn't exactly as ubiquitous in those days, as it is now. The Standard Oil Company and its industrialist-founder John D. Rockefeller wasn't too happy with this arrangement. After all, Rockefeller's company had a virtual monopoly on gasoline at this time in our nation's development.

It should be evident to any serious student of history that John D. Rockefeller was no political progressive. His fights with muckraker Ida Tarbell are legendary. She was ultimately responsible for the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust in 1911. Not that this actually hurt Rockefeller- his wealth actually increased after Standard Oil broke up. Rockefeller held significant interests in the resulting companies, which included the precursors of today's Seven Sisters oil companies. The break-up of Standard Oil actually made him the wealthiest man in the world, as the share values of most of these companies doubled. Yet Rockefeller would find benefit once again within the reform movement that he considered his enemy. Since the late 1800's there had been a growing Alcohol Temperance Movement developing among reformers. Rockefeller saw an opportunity in this. It is well-documented that local efforts to curb alcohol consumption were expanded to the national level when high-profile figures like Rockefeller joined in the anti-alcohol efforts. Was he so concerned with the social problems that abuse of alcohol was said to cause?

No... John D. Rockefeller was not concerned with family dynamics in the working classes. But he was influential in changing the goals of the movement from temperance to prohibition. As we know, his contribution to the outlawing of the production and sale of alcohol was successful. Of course, Rockefeller and the oil companies reaped tremendous profits as a result. Remember that the period covered by the 18th Amendment (1919-1933) coincided with the huge rise in the sale and operation of automobiles. America was on the move, and all of these cars were now operated solely on gasoline. By the time that the 21st Amendment was passed, ending the prohibition of alcohol, the standard was already set and worked completely in the favor of the Rockefeller family.

These events have had a tremendous development on the American economy, foreign policy direction, and the environment. In fact the consequences are worldwide. It is easy to lose sight of the big picture, and concentrate on the many subplots involving Detroit's suppression of alternative fuel technologies. The chapters being written in today's tumultuous climate are indeed the continuation of a story started long ago.

We venerate the capitalist captains of industry (like Rockefeller) without any examination of what they have cost the nation and the world. If we don't re-evaluate our contemporary thinking in light of the events of the past, we are headed for times in which alcohol may be our only escape from a harsh reality. Maybe we have been pouring it in the wrong place all along. 

http://dgrim.blogspot.com/2007/06/great-scheme-alcohol-based-fuels-ford.html

Agelbert NOTE: Ethanol use as a fuel for cars (instead of polluting gasoline) has ALWAYS been a threat to fossil fuel industry profits. 

Consequently, they have nearly a century of disinformation, doubletalk and bold faced lies about ethanol from the crocodile tears about land being "removed" from growing food crops to "corrosive" effects along with gamed mileage numbers and enthalpy happy talk.

Here is an example of the TOTALLY INACCURATE spurious, but quite clever, baloney FUNDED by the fossil fuel industry crooks and liars:
Quote

David Frazier Johnson Jr
Prohibition banned the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages specifically, not ethanol. Many types of alcohol were still then and have always been used for industrial applications. Don't fall prey to fringe conspiracy theory, it makes all of us people pushing for renewable energy look stupid. Rockefeller supported prohibition because he believed it caused crime and affected the workplace. Even he admitted it was a failed attempt to curb this by the end.

What a dazzling array of lies mixed with half truths mindfork! And didn't you just LOVE that part about appearing to SUPPORT Renewable Energy? They know their propaganda!

Here's another gem of disinformation:

Quote

Anonymous
Ethyl alcohol actually is far less efficient than gasoline and gives your car worse gas mileage meaning you have to burn more of it to get somewhere (This is why you get worse gas mileage filling up in a city that has ethanol mixed with the regular fuel). And the pollution caused by harvesting the corn and making it into ethanol causes large amounts of carbon emissions...so yes, politics are always involved but there are scientific reasons we haven't switched over as well.

And finally, among those with a bit more education and vocabulary, the old "ethanol is hygroscopic so it will corrode your fuel lines and gas tank"  claim. Yes, alcohol mixes readily with water, UNLIKE gasoline. Do you know what that REALLY means? It means the water vapor in your fuel tank WILL MIX with ethanol there, INSTEAD of, as in a tank containing gasoline, condensing at night when your car is parked and, because water is denser than gasoline, going straight to the bottom, where ANY oxygen trapped between the wall and the water will ACCELERATE metal corrosion from oxidation. THAT is why gasoline tanks have corrosion treatment from the factory, even though the fossil fuelers conveniently neglect to tell you about that. So the metal corrosion risk is LOWER with ethanol than with gasoline. The fossil fuelers know that. So, true to their Machiavellian modus operandi , they accuse ethanol of the weakness that, actually,  gasoline has! Clever bastards, aren't they?

The only actual 'downside', if you want to call it that, that ethanol actually has (the water content in the fuel when it reaches the combustion chamber is easily controlled and DOES NOT "reduce mileage") is that anhydrous (the kind used for fuel, not booze) ethanol, as a drying agent (see hygroscopic = attracts and absorbs surrounding water molecules), attacks rubber seals by sucking water out of them, which makes them less flexible and more prone to crack from vehicle vibrations. Gasoline does degrade rubber too, but not as much or as fast.

Since 1980 (yes, that far back! And ONLY because Brazil championed it!) the rubber seals in fuel systems have been modified to handle ethanol. Brazil, of course, has been a leader in this. The USA, of course, has dragged its regulatory feet creaming and crying all the way. But it's a reality now in EVERY car post 1995 or so (i.e 99.999% of the cars and trucks on the road!). So please call BS on anyone that gives you a line about corroded fuel tanks, lines or **** rubber seals from ethanol use.

In fact, the non-hydrocarbon solvents (about 40% of the content of a gallon of gasoline) in gasoline ATTACK plastics, requiring special plastics connected with gasoline powered car fuel systems. Ethanol DOES NOT, and never has, caused **** and embrittled plastics, PERIOD.

The "treatment" that the USA has forced flex-fuel vehicles in the USA to prevent "ethanol mediated corrosion" is a sham. In fact, if cars were prohibited from running on gasoline, the tanks would NOT need the corrosion treatment they all get now. The fuel system could use plastics liberally without durability or reliability concerns. And as to rubber seals, specialized rubber seals are already used to prevent alcohol caused **** seals, so that is a given.

For those who want to know the truth about gasoline versus ethanol, please go HERE. It is a thread I dedicated to all things ethanol. You will find a wealth of OBJECTIVE information HERE. I don't make a nickel from spreading the truth. I just hate how the fossil fuel industry crooks and liars resort to consistently unethical means to make money at the expense of we-the-people and the biosphere. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 17, 2016, 04:40:35 pm »

Elephant Grass and Prairie Switchgrass: Second Generation Biofuels to Power American Cars

Tim Radford, Climate News Network | January 17, 2016 11:21 am

In tomorrow’s world, it won’t be just the corn on the great American plains that is as high as an elephant’s eye. It will be the elephant grass as well.


To deliver on U.S. promises to reduce fossil fuel use, American motorists in future will drive on miscanthus—as elephant grass is also known—and prairie switchgrass.

Elephant grass has a high biomass yield and grows rapidly to over three metres tall.
Photo credit: Tony Atkin / Wikimedia Commons

Researchers led by Evan DeLucia, professor of biology at the University of Illinois, report in a new journal, Nature Energy, that to exploit biofuels—which recycle carbon already in the atmosphere, and are therefore technically “carbon-neutral”—Americans will have to think again about how they manage the change away from fossil fuels.

Right now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable Fuel Standards foresee that by 2022 American motorists will start up their cars with 15 billion gallons (57 billion liters) of ethanol from corn. But this could be augmented by 16 billion gallons (60 billion litres) of biofuel derived from perennial grasses.

Energy Source   


The switch to the prairie’s native switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and Eurasian elephant grass (Miscanthus giganteus) will be necessary because there are problems with corn as a source of energy.

One is that, in an increasingly hungry world, it reduces the overall levels of food available. The second is that corn requires annual planting, fertilizing and harvesting. Perennial grasses simply grow, and can be mown once a year.

So by turning over surplus land to swift-growing grasses, and at the same time reducing the levels of carbon dioxide released from cultivation, the U.S. could meet its target of a 7 percent reduction in its annual transportation emissions by 2022. If farmers went on gradually to switch from corn to the grasses, the reduction could get as high as 12 percent.

Professor DeLucia said: “Greenhouse gas savings from bioenergy have come under varying levels of attack, and this paper goes a long way to showing that, contrary to what some are saying, these savings can be potentially large if cellulosic biofuels from dedicated energy crops meet a large share of the mandate.

“This is a viable path forward to energy security, reducing greenhouse gases and providing a diversified crop portfolio for farmers in the U.S.”

The researchers used a climate model to test what would happen if land now being used to grow corn (Zea mays) for ethanol—currently, 40 percent of the corn harvest is used for biofuel—was switched to the two candidate grasses.

Store More Carbon   

“Our results were staggering,” Professor DeLucia said. “Since both of those plants are perennial, you don’t till every year. The grasses also require less fertilizer, which is a source of nitrous oxide, and they store more carbon in the ground than corn.”

The switch could turn the U.S. Midwest from a net source of greenhouse gas emissions to a “sink” absorbing them. The study assumed that, rather than the most productive soil, the low-yielding land would be converted to grasses for biofuel.

It also factored in some of the other consequences: if the extra billions of gallons of fuel led to a fall in fuel prices, would Americans drive more, and eliminate the carbon savings? Even if that did happen, such a change has the potential to reduce U.S. emissions overall.

But growers have to be sure that energy policies will be consistent, according to the paper’s co-author, Madhu Khanna, professor in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois.

Quote
“The moral of this whole story is that we need to find a way to expand the production of second generation biofuel crops and maybe even displace corn ethanol,” she said.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/17/second-generation-biofuels/

Agelbert NOTE: Nice article. 

Unfortunately, the mandatory baloney from a fossil fueler  gets spewed out every single time the benefits of ethanol are pointed out in an article...  ::)

Quote
rusty hesson
With a 7-30 % reduction in fuel milage Ethanol never has or will "replace oil".
 

Agelbert responds to propagandized idiot:

That has ALWAYS been a lie fostered by the fossil fuel industry. Once engines have the proper compression ratio, E100 (100% ethanol) gives the same or better mileage with LESS engine wear BECAUSE there is LESS waste heat from the combustion process.

The alleged "greater energy density" of gasoline versus ethanol is based on enthalpy calculations that measure EXTERNAL combustion (i.e. boiling water in an OPEN flame). It is true that gasoline produces more raw heat. BUT, a significant portion of that HEAT is WASTE HEAT that merely increases engine wear and DOES NOT translate to mechanical energy in INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES. Not only must gasoline combustion waste heat be SUBTRACTED from it's energy density, the INCREASED FRICTION created by that WASTE HEAT must be subtracted as well.

Quote
.. the irrelevancy of Btu as a measurement of ethanol performance compared to gasoline that gets into a lengthy dialogue about what a Btu measures and a discussion on engines. “The whole creation of Btu rating and understanding was to determine what it takes to heat water one degree. This was important (and still is important) when dealing with steam engines or water heaters or cooking using fire. Btus have no importance in internal combustion engines. Engine optimization is the key.

Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them

The truth that the fossil fuel industry propaganda wishes to hide by erroneously claiming ethanol is not a better fuel than gasoline (even though Thomas Edison and the U.S. Naval Laboratories said ethanol WAS A BETTER FUEL way back in 1906!) goes way beyond mere fuel economy.

Modern technology from studies HERE and in Brazil have determined the following inconvenient (for the fossil fuel industry) FACTS:

1) A high compression engine designed specifically to run on ethanol
is at least 33% lighter because the alloys do not have to be engineered to handle the high waste heat of gasoline. Said engine will have BETTER mileage because of the consistency of the fuel (ethanol is only one consistent chemical compound at a consistent and predictable combustion temperature, unlike gasolene) reduced weight, lower maintenance and longer life from running consistently at lower temperatures. Of course, using gasoline in it would be prohibited. Running on the witches brew of volatile organic compounds, industrial solvents ( up to 40% of a gallon of NON-hydrocarbon content of gasoline that dissolve plastics quite well) and various DIFFERENT long chained hydrocarbons called gasolene would ruin such an engine. So you can see how the fossil fuel industry would not be happy campers about allowing such an engine to be manufactured in, or imported to the USA. In fact, your beloved fossil fuel crooks and liars have made it a LAW in the USA that ethanol MUST have a certain amount of gasoline in it in the USA. The threadbare excuse is "to prevent people form drinking unlicensed booze" (LOL!). Brazil is not amused. They use E100 without ANY difficulty whatsoever.

2) Ethanol DOES NOT require REDUCING the amount of crops grown for food,
either for people or animals. WHY? Because crops such as switchgrass, Hemp and SEVERAL OTHERS can be grown on NON chemically fertilized land considered NON arable land for food crops.

3) As Abengoa has demonstrated, the cellulose refuse from food crops, hitherto thrown out (stalks and roots from corn) CAN be processed into ethanol without making a dent in the acreage used for food crops. So the crocodile tears from the fossil fuel industry about ethanol taking food out of people's mouths is ANOTHER LIE.

GASOLENE is a WASTE PRUDUCT
from the refining of crude oil. John D. Rockefeller used to poison horses and cows that drank in the rivers of Pennsylvania (downriver from his refinery)  in the late nineteenth century when he would flush it down the river at night (the farmers tried to mob him for it!) when his main product was lubricants. Rockefeller began the Fossil fuel tradition of "externalizing costs" FROM THE START.

It was John D. Rockefeller that convinced Henry Ford to MODIFY his Model T engines so they run on gasoline instead of what they ALREADY ran on, ethanol.

It was John D. Rockefeller who FUNDED efforts at Prohibition that ended up FORCING farmers to run their tractors on gasoline instead of ethanol. Yes, sports fans, Prohibition WAS NOT really about booze. It was REALLY about cornering the fuel market on behalf of Jon D. Rockefeller's, WASTE product.


It was John D. Rockefeller's fossil fuel Standard Oil empire that introduced LEADED gasoline (tetra ethyl lead additive from Du Pont) when ethanol was accidentally on purpose outlawed as an engine fuel during Prohibition (ethanol has a higher octane than gasoline so a replacement was needed for high compression engines) .

For those who say that leaded gasoline has been outlawed so that is no longer a problem , let me enlighten you.

TO THIS DAY, internal combustion engine powered small aircraft in the USA STILL use LEADED GASOLENE when the technology to run those engines on E100 has been available for several decades. It is LEGAL to run that green died stuff called avgas containing TETRA ETHYL LEAD.

Every single bit of damage to humans and other life forms in the biosphere from leaded gasoline going all the way back to Prohibition, including the children of people living under the approach path to runways of general aviation airports is an "externalized cost" that we-the-people have been FORCED to subsidize for the benefit of fossil fuel industry profits.

It's time to return gasoline to the category of WASTE PRODUCT again. It's time for the fossil fuel industry to PAY WHAT THEY OWE we-the-people for the environmental DAMAGE caused by its waste products, ALL OF THEM. 


Prosecute Exxon For Deliberate Climate Denial

Renewable is the cheaper energy option without fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsides.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 09, 2016, 05:33:35 pm »

Fuel choice lost
January 6, 2016
by Nathan Taft

Picture this.

You’re driving down the road and you notice your tank is almost empty — time to fill up. You pull into a fueling station and see the price of gasoline has gone up quite a bit since the last time you were there. Instead of gritting your teeth and shelling out more than you’d like on gasoline, you look to see what the price per gallon is for kerosene and ethanol. And you’re in luck: Both kerosene and ethanol are selling at a lower price than gasoline, with kerosene being the cheapest. You refuel your car with kerosene, keeping that extra money you would have spent on gasoline in your pocket, and go on your way.

Sounds ridiculous, right? Sure, it would be nice if the world worked like that and we could choose what fuel we used, but we simply don’t have the technology. Take your unobtainable, utopian pipe dream somewhere else and talk about realistic solutions to our oil addiction.     

Well, I’ve got some news for you. That paragraph up above? That’s not wishful thinking or science fiction. That’s how many people lived as early as 1908. The first mass-produced car — the Ford Model T — was designed as a tri-fuel vehicle capable of running gasoline, ethanol, kerosene, or a mix of the three. It allowed for competition in the fuels marketplace, keeping the price of fuel low and ensuring drivers weren’t charged a premium to fill up. That’s how the world used to work, and how, ideally, it could work again. That’s what fuel choice was.

Unfortunately, despite Ford’s conviction that biofuels like ethanol would be the “fuel of the future” because it was a higher-octane, cleaner fuel and could be made easily in farms across the nation, that was not to be. Through a combination of dirty market tactics from the oil industry and the introduction of toxic lead instead of ethanol as a gasoline additive, ethanol was strong-armed out of our fuel infrastructure, and the American people lost the ability to choose and make their own fuel. 

However, a century later, America is finally in a position to fight back. There are 19 million flex-fuel vehicles in the U.S. that can run both ethanol and gasoline, and gas stations are adding more ethanol (E85) pumps every day. But that alone won’t be enough to give back the right of fuel choice to all Americans.

To do that, Americans like you and me need to work together. We need to tell our local gas stations that we want them to sell ethanol. We need to check our vehicles to see if they’re already flex-fuel capable. And if we’re in the market for a new car or truck, we should consider a flex-fuel capable model. We need to start converting our existing vehicles to be flex-fuel capable. We need to send a message to the fuel retailers, to the car manufacturers, and to the oil companies that says: We want our fuel choice back, and we want it now.   


Related posts:
These customers love E85, for very different reasons
Americans need fuel choice
Cellulosic ethanol has finally arrived
Next step for Volt, Green Car of the Year, should be E85 capability


Tags: E85, Economy, Ethanol, FFV, flex fuel, flex-fuel vehicle, Ford, fuel choice, Gasoline, kerosene, Model T, Oil Addiction


http://www.fuelfreedom.org/fuel-choice-lost/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 27, 2015, 08:48:22 pm »

Sustainability in Bioenergy Videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH_nhmVzjVU&feature=player_embedded
Biofuels can bridge the gap to transition to 100% Renewables. We need fossil fuels like a HOLE IN THE HEAD! 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 02, 2015, 08:59:25 pm »

Shilling for Dollars

Front groups with official and impressive name such as Medicine and Public Health at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) tend to lend an air of authoritative credibility to a given issue. It carries the impression of being an expert source.

To increase the “expert credibility” image, add someone with a few letters before and/or after their name to the staff.

But is the front group or its representatives really an expert and credible organization? 

Full article:
https://frackorporation.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/shilling-for-dollars/

Agelbert NOTE:
The short answer is NO. The ACSH is funded by a rogues gallery of polluters. The scientists they employ are bought and paid for to distort, dissemble and twist the science of applied physics (see "High Energy Density" of fossil fuels happy talk) and climate science along with several other pro-corporate and anti-people propaganda). The ACSH exists to perpetuate the profit over planet polluting status quo, PERIOD.



Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and Health

Posted on April 17, 2015 by Gary Ruskin

The American Council on Science and Health is a front group for the tobacco, agrichemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other industries.

Personnel

ACSH’s “Medical/Executive Director” is Dr. Gilbert Ross.[2] In 1993, according to United Press International, Dr. Ross was “convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was “sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture and restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system.[3]
ACSH’s Dr. Ross was found to be a “highly untrustworthy individual” by a judge who sustained the exclusion of Dr. Ross from Medicaid for ten years.[4]


Funding
 

ACSH has often billed itself as an “independent” group, and has been referred to as “independent” in the press. However, according to internal ACSH financial documents obtained by Mother Jones:

“ACSH planned to receive a total of $338,200 from tobacco companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and Phillip Morris International were each listed as expected to give $100,000 in 2013, which would make them the two largest individual donations listed in the ACSH documents.”[5]

“ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and **** ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000).

Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Philip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.”[6]

ACSH has received $155,000 in contributions from Koch foundations from 2005-2011, according to Greenpeace.[7]

Indefensible and incorrect statements on science
ACSH has:

Claimed that “There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke involves heart attacks or cardiac arrest.”[8]

Argued that “there is no scientific consensus concerning global warming. The climate change predictions are based on computer models that have not been validated and are far from perfect.”[9]

Argued that fracking “doesn’t pollute water or air.”[10]

Claimed that “The scientific evidence is clear. There has never been a case of ill health linked to the regulated, approved use of pesticides in this country.”[11]

Declared that “There is no evidence that BPA [bisphenol A] in consumer products of any type, including cash register receipts, are harmful to health.”[12]

Argued that the exposure to mercury, a potent neurotoxin, “in conventional seafood causes no harm in humans.”[13]

Footnotes

[2] “Meet the ACSH Team,” American Council on Science and Health website.

[3] “Seven Sentenced for Medicaid Fraud.” United Press International, December 6, 1993. See also correspondence from Tyrone T. Butler, Director, Bureau of Adjudication, State of New York Department of Health to Claudia Morales Bloch, Gilbert Ross and Vivian Shevitz, “RE: In the Matter of Gilbert Ross, M.D.” March 1, 1995. Bill Hogan, “Paging Dr. Ross.” Mother Jones, November 2005. Martin Donohoe MD FACP, “Corporate Front Groups and the Abuse of Science: The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Spinwatch, June 25, 2010.

[4] Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, In the Cases of Gilbert Ross, M.D. and Deborah Williams M.D., Petitioners, v. The Inspector General. June 16, 1997. Docket Nos. C-94-368 and C-94-369. Decision No. CR478.

[5] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[6] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[7] “Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Greenpeace. See also Rebekah Wilce, “Kochs and Corps Have Bankrolled American Council on Science and Health.” PR Watch, July 23, 2014.

[8] Richard Craver, “The Effects of the Smoking Ban.” Winston-Salem Journal, December 12, 2012.

[9] Elizabeth Whelan, “’Global Warming’ Not Health Threat.” PRI (Population Research Institute) Review, January 1, 1998.

[10] Elizabeth Whelan, “Fracking Doesn’t Pose Health Risks.” The Daily Caller, April 29, 2013.

[11] “TASSC: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition,” p. 9. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco. November 21, 2001. Bates No. 2048294227-2048294237.

[12] “The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012.” American Council on Science and Health, February 22, 2013.

[13] “The Biggest Unfounded Health Scares of 2010.” American Council on Science and Health, December 30, 2010.

Food For Thought, Hall of Shame

http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/

Agelbert NOTE:
Here is an excellent example of pseudo scientific baloney published by the ACSH (it's three years old but the same baloney continues to be peddled by fossil fuelers and those that swallowed their mendacious propaganda):

Energy Density: Why Gasoline Is Here To Stay 

By Hank Campbell    | August 2nd 2012 11:00 PM

SNIPPET 1 - The Pretense of Objectivity Wind Up (i.e. tough love "real world" baloney mixed with sympathy laced rhetoric):

Like people who approach geopolitics with the attitude of "If people would just talk to each other, we would all along", there are a lot of naïve assumptions about just dumping gasoline.

We know it causes emissions, and emissions are bad, we know a lot of the money paid for oil goes to fund Middle Eastern terrorism, and that is bad - those things should cause both the left and the right in America to want gasoline gone. And yet it is not gone. The reason is simple: gasoline is a lot more efficient than alternative energy proponents want to believe.


SNIPPET 2 - The pitch:

Energy density is the amount of stored energy in something; in the case of gasoline we talk in America about a 1 gallon volume but I will use both metric and standard for the values. Gasoline has an energy density of about 44 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), converted to American values that is 1.3 × 108 J/gallon.


SNIPPET 3 (Just ONE of SEVERAL real world AND applied physics LIES):

Ethanol was the last craze of the Anything-But-Oil contingent yet even they had to succumb to reality and recognize that the lower energy density meant 25% worse gas mileage - worse for people, worse for food prices and worse for the environment.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/energy_density_why_gasoline_here_stay-91403


Agelbert NOTE: To begin with, ethanol is not a "craze". It was not a craze in 2012 and, because presently 15 billion gallons of it are made a year, it certainly isn't one now.

But the fact that the author is so ignorant of history (Edison labs in partnership with the U.S. Navy, in the first decade of the 20th century, PROVED that ethanol was a superior fuel to gasoline - It was rather convenient for Standard Oil that Prohibition just happened to come along after Rockefeller funded the temperance movement to the tune of several million dollars...) is informative about the questionable scientific objectivity of the author.  ;)

The author puts up a happy talk graph showing gasoline as the high energy density champion over E85. He leaves out E100 (an informative omission that points squarely at a fossil fuel bias).

The chart is accurate. So what's the problem? The problem is that energy density of gasoline and ethanol is a process determined in the lab, by scientists, in certain standardized conditions. I'm CERTAIN fossil fuelers know this. The energy density of about 44 MJ/kg) for gasoline is determined by heating water, in an open flame in standard atmospheric conditions (a fixed temperature and pressure - sea level at 59 degrees F). 

If the above appears irrelevant to you, let me remind you that heating water in an open flame is an EXTERNAL combustion process. It is true that gasoline will heat that water quicker than ethanol.  ;D

But, unless you have a steam engine running your car, you need to consider how much WORK you can get from gasoline versus ethanol in an INTERNAL combustion engine.

The author neglected to mention that ethanol (E100) has a higher octane rating than non-leaded gasoline, even though E100 has a lower energy density.  ;D High octane ratings give a fuel better mileage as long as you oxidize them in a high compression internal combustion engines. That is why tetra-ethyl lead was invented to help our children's IQ... You see, ethanol was outlawed for fuel thanks to Prohibition... And, by the way, leaded gasoline is STILL LEGAL for use in aircraft internal combustion engine, all of which are high compression engines. Do you live under the approach to general aviation airport? Then you are getting the "benefit" of still another "externalized" cost thanks to the fossil fuel industry.

When you mix gasoline with ethanol (e.g. E85) you LOWER the octane rating. IOW, you are making it LESS efficient. You are making it LESS competitive with gasoline. You are getting the waste heat disadvantage of gasoline and losing the a part of the high octane rating of ethanol. That is Inefficient. That is unscientific. That is STUPID. But that is convenient and profitable for the fossil fuel industry. You might ask yourself why E100 is in common use in Brazil, but not in the USA. I'll give you three guesses - the first two don't count;)

Why ethanol's octane rating is higher than that of non-leaded gasoline if ethanol has a lower energy density? Because ethanol is of uniform chemical structure. Consequently, it burns evenly and does not suffer from pre-ignition (like low octane gasoline DOES) which can severely damage an engine.

More thermodynamically important, however,  the consistent chemical structure of E100 ensures complete combustion, aided by the fact that it carries it's own oxygen.

In addition, ethanol has extremely low waste heat because, unlike gasoline, it doesn't produce carbon deposits from incomplete combustion on the cylinder walls that increase friction and decrease engine life.

Unlike an engine running on gasoline, you can touch the block, or the manifold, of an engine running on ethanol with your hand AND KEEP IT THERE without getting burned. This has huge savings implications for engine design that the fossil fuel industry has done it's best to keep from internal combustion engine designers and manufacturers (more on that below).

IN SUMMARY, "High energy density" calculations  are based on EXTERNAL thermodynamic combustion processes. It is true that gasoline will boil water in an open flame faster than ethanol will. That doesn't have beans to do with automobiles.

But when INTERNAL combustion is involved, ethanol produces more useful work than gasoline. That has EVERYTHING to do with automobiles.

But there is more the fossil fuel industry does not want most people to know. Due to the fact that ethanol burns so cleanly and has such low waste heat, a high compression internal combustion engine specifically designed for ethanol would be about 30% lighter (i.e. a lot cheaper) because the metal alloys involved would not have to be engineered to withstand the engine stressing waste heat that gasoline generates. Of course, said internal combustion engine (ICE) could not be approved for running gasoline. Gasoline would trash an engine designed specifically to run on ethanol in short order. The fossil fuel industry would not like that at all.

A lighter ICE running ethanol would then get even more mechanical energy (i.e. WORK) out of each gallon because less engine weight would need to be moved along with the car and occupants.

The Fossil Fuel Industry knows all that. That is why they continuously try to demonize and talk down ethanol biofuel with mendacity and dissembling about "low ERoEI", "water in the fuel" and "corrosion".

I, and many others, have exposed all that fossil fuel industry self serving propaganda. But they just keep throwing it out there to try to preserve the TOTALLY unscientific basis for claiming fossil fuels are a "better fuel" than E100 (pure ethanol).

Don't believe them. And check to see who is doing the funding when you read happy talk about fossil fuels.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is not objective, science based or credible. Hank Campbell, like the fossil fueler MKing that haunts the Doomstead Diner, is not interested in scientific objectivity; preserving the fossil fuel profit over planet status quo with mens rea mendacity is behind everything they write.



Further reading that methodically takes apart some relatively recent pseudo scientific baloney by the "illustrious" Professor Charles Hall, friend of fossil fuelers everywhere. 



 

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 01, 2015, 08:25:54 pm »

Can We Really Do This?  ???
 

Of course we can. There is enough excess ethanol capacity to get started now and the technology to make E100 engines is readily available.

As of June 10, 2015 (Renewable Fuels Association):

   212 operating EtOH Plants -  15.401   bill gals capacity

          New Plants under const -  0.100       "


Total Capacity:                            15.501   billion gallons

Estimated usage 2015                13.180   billion gallons (STEO, 6/9/15, EIA)

Estimated Excess capacity:        2.321   billion gallons


Just the current idle/new capacity is enough to fuel >1,000,000 vehicles (15,000 miles/yr @25mpg, 600 gallons/vehicle). By the time that capacity is used up, the processes to make ethanol using cellulose and algae for ~$1.50/gallon will be available enabling us easily to get to the 36 billion gallon federal requirement by 2022.

To achieve oil independence we need to replace 66 billion gallons of gasoline. We already have capacity to make 15 billion gallons of ethanol, so just 51 billion gallons more is required.

Is there enough waste cellulose to do this? Yes. The DOE published an update of their billion ton annual cellulose availability paper in August 2011. Using the DOE's very conservative yield of 85 gallons of ethanol per ton of cellulose, we could make 85 billion gallons of ethanol without hurting food production or exports.

Ethanol is a carbon neutral liquid motor fuel.
That is, the CO2 produced by burning it goes right back in to growing more cellulose the next year.

No new carbon needs to be brought up from underground. The waste cellulose the DOE talks about in the above paper all biodegrades to CO2 anyway. We might as well pick it up and make ethanol out of it.

Dr. Bruce Dale and his associates at Michigan State University confirmed this study in Environmental Science and Technology, October 2010, with their article Biofuels Done Right: Land Efficient Animal Feeds Enable Large Environment and Energy Benefits. They show beyond any doubt that the U.S. can make over 100 billion gallons/yr of ethanol without "decreasing domestic food production or agricultural exports."

The cost to a retail franchisee to modify an existing storage tank to accept ethanol is quite site specific, but would be between $25,000 and $30,000 including a new blender pump with card reader.

It should be noted  that ethanol is  already ubiquitous at the wholesale level. Where ever there is a gasoline terminal, there is ethanol either in barges, tankcars, or tanktrucks.

An ethanol blender pump is a filling station fuel pump that allows consumers to select the desired blend of gasoline and ethanol from E0 (straight gasoline) up to E100 (i.e., Dresser Waynes's Ovation iX).

The ethanol producer could sell E100 direct to the retail franchisee bypassing the price setting mechanisms of the oil companies.

 For the 12,000 pump infrastructure -- every 2 miles in the 100 largest cities, 25 miles apart on highways-- the total cost would be less than 
$500 million, a pittance compared to other technologies.

Actually, we already have over 2,000 E100 capable stations since the existing E85 stations can just switch to E100 with no futher investment.

 Going with higher level intermediate blends such as E20 and E30 is going to cost as much as going to E100 so why not go all the way to E100?

 Is there precedent for such a change in automotive fuel? Yes, there is -- the change from leaded to unleaded fuel in the 1970's as catalytic converters came on the scene. There was a lot of dispute about whether this could be done. Yet when the mandate stayed in place, we switched in quite a short period of time.

The mandating of at least 50% of new vehicles to be E100 capable by the end of 2016 is a much easier and lower cost venture than the switch to unleaded fuel.

Brazil made themselves independent of imported oil by using flex/fuel engines capable of burning E100. In fact, all retail motor fuel stations in Brazil must offer E100. If Brazil can do this, so can we.

A Shell station in Sao Paulo. Brazil showing  2 grades of gasoline and E100.

This is a political decision to make, not a technical one.   

http://www.e100ethanolgroup.com/Can_We_Really_Do_This_.html

AGelbert NOTE:
Ethanol as a fuel is far superior to gasoline. I have learned that ethanol's octane rating is higher than that of non-leaded gasoline. More thermodynamically important, however, ethanol combusts completely because it has one consistent chemical structure and carries it's own oxygen to aid the process.

In addition, ethanol has extremely low waste heat because, unlike gasoline, it doesn't produce carbon deposits from incomplete combustion on the cylinder walls that increase friction and decrease engine life. Unlike an engine running on gasoline, you can touch the block, or the manifold, of an engine running on ethanol with your hand AND KEEP IT THERE without getting burned. This has huge savings implications for engine design that the fossil fuel industry has done it's best to keep from internal combustion engine designers and manufacturers (more on that below).

"High energy density" calculations  are based on EXTERNAL thermodynamic combustion processes. It is true that gasoline will boil water in an open flame faster than ethanol will. That doesn't have beans to do with automobiles.

But when INTERNAL combustion is involved, ethanol produces more useful work than gasoline. That has EVERYTHING to do with automobiles.

But there is more the fossil fuel industry does not want most people to know. Due to the fact that ethanol burns so cleanly and has such low waste heat, a high compression internal combustion engine specifically designed for ethanol would be about 30% lighter (i.e. a lot cheaper) because the metal alloys involved would not have to be engineered to withstand the engine stressing waste heat that gasoline generates. Of course, said internal combustion engine (ICE) could not be approved for running gasoline. Gasoline would trash an engine designed specifically to run on ethanol in short order. The fossil fuel industry would not like that at all.  ;)

A lighter ICE running ethanol would then get even more mechanical energy out of each gallon because less engine weight would need to be moved along with the car and occupants.

The only way gasoline's higher energy density than ethanol would make it a superior fuel is if cars were run by EXTERNAL combustion processes like a steam engine.

The Fossil Fuel Industry knows all that. That is why they continuously try to demonize and talk down ethanol biofuel with mendacity and dissembling about "low ERoEI", "water in the fuel" and "corrosion".

I, and many others, have exposed all that fossil fuel industry self serving propaganda. We need fossil fuels like a hole in the head.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 07, 2015, 10:40:31 pm »

One of the best kept secrets (by the fossil fuel government  >:() out there is that an internal combustion engine DESIGNED to run on ethanol, even though it has higher compression, is actually far more durable, as well as being nearly thirty percent cheaper to manufacture. That's right boys and girls, the witches brew of VOCs and various carbon chain hydrocarbons called gasoline is HELL on internal combustion engines.

WHY? Because ethanol runs MUCH COOLER 100% of the time! You can literally put your hand on the block of an engine running ethanol! The severe wear that an ICE experiences is mainly due to WASTE HEAT. That is HEAT that is UNUSABLE for MOVING THE VEHICLE. So they have to over enginner the metal to withstand all that waste heat. It's STUPID to use gasoline. But we still do it because that's the way the fossil fuel bought and paid for government wants it. 

Combined with other Renewable Energy sources, ethanol from algae or Lemna minor or/and some other plant source can enable us to transition to 100% Renewable Energy NOW, not 50 years from now.

The U.S. Renewable energy Laboratory (did you even know we had one?  :o ) ran a TWENTY YEAR (1976-1996) study on algae to biofuels and SUCCEEDED in numerous breakthroughs that made it economically feasible to make biofuel for ALL our ICE cars, trucks, ships, trains and planes (jet fuel too!). And it is HARDER to get biofuels from algae than from duckweed because algae is so hydrophilic (it loves to have water in it and around it so it can use it with the CO2 to make carbohydrates) because much more energy is needed to dry it than duckweed.

Do you know WHY they dropped the whole thing? I can tell you the boilerplate bullshit excuse they used. The U.S. Government claimed (After 20 YEARS of study with several important breakthroughs that made it DOABLE!) that it "wasn't necessary because the price of oil had dropped so low". 

BALONEY! The fossil fuel industry BURIED it just like they did the fuel farmers made in the 1920's with Prohibition!

But it's back! And it ain't gonna go away THIS TIME. And it IS contributing to the DEATH of fossil fuels. 

+-Recent Topics

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 11:15:38 pm

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 10:43:35 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 10:25:49 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 08:15:55 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 08:01:15 pm

Money by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 07:55:48 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 03:59:58 pm

Welcome! by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:48:34 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:36:28 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 02:45:34 pm