Renewable Revolution

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.

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. 

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.

.. 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,

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)