Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Roland Paterson-Jones · Guest

"Bruce Hamilton" <B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
news:mdkbjvggngd64jfknpjvlj3f6dke330td3@4ax.com...

[quote]I don>t know how I can put it simpler. Biofuels don>t sequester the
carbon, so the CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions are added to the national
emissions in exactly the same way as fossil fuels are.
[/quote]
Ah, that>s my misunderstanding then. What is the carbon cycle in plants?

Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest-lodge@rolandpj.com

Roland Paterson-Jones · Guest

Thanks - Steve, you seem to be repeating yourself an awful lot.

(i.e. I>m getting 1 or 2 duplicate postings for each of your messages.)

Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest-lodge@rolandpj.com

"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:3f34f71f$1_4@newsfeed...
[quote]or http://webconx.green-trust.org/ethanol.htm

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Roland Paterson-Jones" <roland@rolandpj.com> wrote in message
news:3f34e375$0$225@hades.is.co.za...
Here>s a page full of references to studies on ethanol energy
efficiency:

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

Enjoy
Roland

--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest-lodge@rolandpj.com

"João Antonio" <jas_bomfim@uol.com.br> wrote in message
news:bgtkg7$ktj$1@news.mc.ntu.edu.tw...
Is it possible to say, as a rule-of-thumb:

That whenever you use a fuel froma renovable source,
I mean vegetable oil or alcohol from fermentation, the main power
input is made by the sun. It is possible to extract vegetable oils
and esterify them to get 'biodiesel" without burning fossil fuels,
even though we do this in some stages because it helps the
process.

Is that right?

"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> escreveu na mensagem
news:3f2f86ba$1_3@newsfeed...
when we were using corn, we were getting 2.3 times the fuel out that
we
put
in (distillation only). we also ran the tractors on the corn oil as
well,
so
effectively it was closer to 4x. Since the leftover mash was feeding
the
pigs, we picked up another couple of points, making it about 6x.

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Repeating Decimal" <salmonfry@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BB5558CF.667D%salmonfry@sbcglobal.net...
So I am still looking for a bottom line answer to my questions:
Which
of
the
alcohol fuel programs are not merely converting fossil fuel into
alcohol?
What is the energy profit rate?

Bill

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 4/8/2003

[/quote]

Steve Spence · Guest

Biofuels are carbon neutral. They absorb the same amount of CO2 during the
growing cycle that they release during burning usually during the same
season they are grown. It>s a quick cycle turn around, that does not add to
the total concentration in the atmosphere.

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Bruce Hamilton" <B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
news:mdkbjvggngd64jfknpjvlj3f6dke330td3@4ax.com...
[quote]"Roland Paterson-Jones" <roland@rolandpj.com> wrote:

"Bruce Hamilton" <B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz> wrote
It doesn>t work that way. The Kyoto Protocol etc - which the US under
GWB has pulled out of, requires national greenhouse gas emissions to
be reduced to below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The U.S. agreed to a 7%
reduction, and the European Union and Japan agreed to 8% and 6%
reductions, respectively. It>s a reduction of emissions, not a
changing of the source of those emissions.

Yes, you>re missing the point. This is grand politics, but the fact
remains,
vege-oil and ethanol are fuels that recoup the CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don>t know how I can put it simpler. Biofuels don>t sequester the
carbon, so the CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions are added to the national
emissions in exactly the same way as fossil fuels are. The only
difference is that biofuels are usually more expensive for the
consumers, who believe they are being green. They would be better off
financially and environmentally if they simply reduced their fossil
fuel energy use.

The planet contains over 6.4 x 10^15 tonnes of organic carbon that
is cycled through two major cycles, but only about 18% of that
contributes to petroleum production. The primary cycle ( turnover
of 2.7-3.0 x 10^12 tonnes of organic carbon ) has a half-life of days
to decades, whereas the large secondary cycle ( turnover 6.4 x 10^15
tonnes of organic carbon ) has a half-life of several million years.

The global atmospheric carbon dioxide budget doesn>t care which sources
of carbon are used, the fossil fuels from the secondary cycle or the
biofuels from their mixture of the secondary cycle and primary cycle.

The Protocol wants to reduce the global sources of greenhouse gases,
and the USA has about 5% of the world>s population yet emits 36% of
the carbon dioxide. The intent is to reduce the emissions, not
change the source. Biofuels may be green, but the issue is reduction
of C02, CH4, and N2O emissions, and extensive cereal or cane crops
tend to increase anthropogenic gas emissions.

NZ currently has a huge problem because all of our flatulent farm
aminals produce both methane and nitrous oxide in huge amounts,
totalling over half of the national total of greenhouse gas emissions
measured under the Protocol.

You>re joking - do cow>s eject NO? I can believe methane (I>m a minor
felon).

Nitrous oxide is N2O, not NO. 50% of the anthropogenic sources of our N2O
emissions are classified as from herbivore excrement. The would be from
soil
bacteria utilising the shit and urine.

Bruce Hamilton[/quote]

Roland Paterson-Jones · Guest

"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:3f361bb7$1_3@newsfeed...

[quote]Biofuels are carbon neutral. They absorb the same amount of CO2 during the
growing cycle that they release during burning usually during the same
season they are grown. It>s a quick cycle turn around, that does not add
to
the total concentration in the atmosphere.
[/quote]
I must say that that>s my understanding of the carbon cycle in bio-fuels,
and some research on the internet following Bruce>s comments hasn>t led me
to believe otherwise.

Bruce, where does the carbon in your biofuels originate?

Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest-lodge@rolandpj.com

[quote]
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Bruce Hamilton" <B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
news:mdkbjvggngd64jfknpjvlj3f6dke330td3@4ax.com...
"Roland Paterson-Jones" <roland@rolandpj.com> wrote:

"Bruce Hamilton" <B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz> wrote
It doesn>t work that way. The Kyoto Protocol etc - which the US under
GWB has pulled out of, requires national greenhouse gas emissions to
be reduced to below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The U.S. agreed to a 7%
reduction, and the European Union and Japan agreed to 8% and 6%
reductions, respectively. It>s a reduction of emissions, not a
changing of the source of those emissions.

Yes, you>re missing the point. This is grand politics, but the fact
remains,
vege-oil and ethanol are fuels that recoup the CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don>t know how I can put it simpler. Biofuels don>t sequester the
carbon, so the CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions are added to the national
emissions in exactly the same way as fossil fuels are. The only
difference is that biofuels are usually more expensive for the
consumers, who believe they are being green. They would be better off
financially and environmentally if they simply reduced their fossil
fuel energy use.

The planet contains over 6.4 x 10^15 tonnes of organic carbon that
is cycled through two major cycles, but only about 18% of that
contributes to petroleum production. The primary cycle ( turnover
of 2.7-3.0 x 10^12 tonnes of organic carbon ) has a half-life of days
to decades, whereas the large secondary cycle ( turnover 6.4 x 10^15
tonnes of organic carbon ) has a half-life of several million years.

The global atmospheric carbon dioxide budget doesn>t care which sources
of carbon are used, the fossil fuels from the secondary cycle or the
biofuels from their mixture of the secondary cycle and primary cycle.

The Protocol wants to reduce the global sources of greenhouse gases,
and the USA has about 5% of the world>s population yet emits 36% of
the carbon dioxide. The intent is to reduce the emissions, not
change the source. Biofuels may be green, but the issue is reduction
of C02, CH4, and N2O emissions, and extensive cereal or cane crops
tend to increase anthropogenic gas emissions.

NZ currently has a huge problem because all of our flatulent farm
aminals produce both methane and nitrous oxide in huge amounts,
totalling over half of the national total of greenhouse gas emissions
measured under the Protocol.

You>re joking - do cow>s eject NO? I can believe methane (I>m a minor
felon).

Nitrous oxide is N2O, not NO. 50% of the anthropogenic sources of our
N2O
emissions are classified as from herbivore excrement. The would be from
soil
bacteria utilising the shit and urine.

Bruce Hamilton

[/quote]

Bruce Hamilton · Guest

"Roland Paterson-Jones" <roland@rolandpj.com> wrote:
[quote]"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
Biofuels are carbon neutral. They absorb the same amount of CO2 during the
growing cycle that they release during burning usually during the same
season they are grown. It>s a quick cycle turn around, that does not add
to the total concentration in the atmosphere
[/quote]
Biofuels still need to be produced, and many of the production processes
utilise fossil fuels, either directly, or as feedstocks that generate
electricity, water, chemicals, that power the manufacture and distribution
of the fuels. Virtually all first world commercial production of biofuels
uses some imputs attributable to fossil fuels - in the USA, some major
ethanol production facilities use coal-powered electricity and irrigation.

The production of biofuels in the first world is not greenhouse gas
neutral, as the use of land for cropping produces N2O, and the wastes
have to be decomposed or burnt - all of which may add to the national
emissions inventory. The land use that gain Kyoto credits are afforestation
or reforestation - simply because they represent a use of land that can
mitigate CO2 on reasonable timescales.

The use of any CO2 producing fuel adds to the global atmospheric burden,
simply because they are produced and burned into CO2. Fossil fuels can
also be "carbon neutral" if timescales of millions of years are used.

The reality is that the Kyoto Protocol cuts through that sort of semantic
game and sets limits on national greenhouse gas emissions, giving credits
for processes that sequester carbon dioxide on sufficiently long time
scales that the process probably mitigates atmospheric carbon dioxide
burdens.

As I said before, the current best economic and environmental solution
is to reduce emissions, not change the source. That may change, if
biofuels are produced efficiently and cleanly, and are cost competitive
with other fossil fuel alternatives.

[quote]I must say that that>s my understanding of the carbon cycle in bio-fuels,
and some research on the internet following Bruce>s comments hasn>t led me
to believe otherwise.
[/quote]
If you are going to cite "internet research" then provide the reference,
and please make certain that it is sensible. There are heaps of greenie
sites claiming biofuels will help nations meet Kyoto Protocol obligations,
if only the subsidy on fossil fuels was transferred to them.

The details of the likely Kyoto Protocol impacts on the USA ( largest
manmade CO2 emissions ), are provided at:-
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html
Note that biofuels aren>t a major feature of such strategies, as the cost
effective method to achieve emissions reduction is to use fossil fuels
more effectively, such as a 800kg car for 100-200kg of people.

[quote]Bruce, where does the carbon in your biofuels originate?
[/quote]
I>ve already noted that biofuel carbon runs through both the primary
and secondary organic carbon cycles. The carbon in fuels, whether
fossil ( large secondary cycle - which also involves more ancient
plants and ocean biomass ) or biofuel ( mixture of secondary and
the primary cycle - which involves more recent plants and ocean
biomass ) is all part of global organic carbon cycle. It doesn>t
"originate" - it travels through the cycles, stopping off in various
places along the way. plenty of geochemistry texts will cover the
global organic carbon cycles.

Bruce Hamilton

Roland Paterson-Jones · Guest

"wolfbane" <mindless@paalhuis.org> wrote in message
news:bh93ea$10v$1@ares.cs.utwente.nl...
[quote]Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:

"Bruce Hamilton" <B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
news:mdkbjvggngd64jfknpjvlj3f6dke330td3@4ax.com...

I don>t know how I can put it simpler. Biofuels don>t sequester the
carbon, so the CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions are added to the national
emissions in exactly the same way as fossil fuels are.

Ah, that>s my misunderstanding then. What is the carbon cycle in plants?

basically it is 6CO2 + 6H20 => C6H12O6 +6O2.
[/quote]
Which, unless I>m living in a parallel logic dimension, means that biofuels
DO sequester the CO2 from the atmosphere.

Roland

--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest-lodge@rolandpj.com

Bruce Hamilton · Guest

"Roland Paterson-Jones" <roland@rolandpj.com> wrote:
[quote]"wolfbane" <mindless@paalhuis.org> wrote in message
Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
"Bruce Hamilton" <B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
I don>t know how I can put it simpler. Biofuels don>t sequester the
carbon, so the CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions are added to the national
emissions in exactly the same way as fossil fuels are.
Ah, that>s my misunderstanding then. What is the carbon cycle in plants?
basically it is 6CO2 + 6H20 => C6H12O6 +6O2.
Which, unless I>m living in a parallel logic dimension, means that biofuels
DO sequester the CO2 from the atmosphere.
[/quote]
You must live in a strange universe. Biomass sequesters carbon,
biofuels liberate it. Most definitions of carbon sequestration
involve long term storage. Crops that are grown and burnt in a
year or two do not sequester the carbon, they just move it
through the cycle.

" THE DEFINITION OF SEQUESTRATION
Scientists are not in complete agreement about the precise meaning
of the term sequestration in the CO2 context, and some prefer the
term storage to describe projects like Weyburn.

At one end of the spectrum, sequestration is interpreted to mean that
the CO2 has become part of the host rock, so that its permanent storage
has been absolutely assured. Others suggest that sequestration also
includes the underground storage of CO2 in a gaseous, liquid, or
supercritical state for geologically significant periods.

Another view is that storage implies that the CO2 could escape or be
removed, which is not the intention of sequestration projects. Since
the technical agreements regarding sequestration under the Kyoto Protocol
are still under negotiation, this issue is potentially contentious, and
will no doubt be the subject of continuing debate among scientists.

We do not presume to prejudge their conclusions, but for practical
purposes, we use the term CO2 sequestration to mean long term removal
of carbon dioxide from active participation in the atmosphere regardless
of the physical state of the captured CO2. The question about what the
phrase long term means will continue to drive lively debate among
scientists as the Kyoto Protocol is translated into practical standards. "
http://www.combustion-net.com/library/combustion-news/0302/0302-carbon-sequestration.htm

The Kyoto Protocol, which I was discussing above, includes forest
activities as carbon sinks/sources - Refer Article 3

" 3. The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals
by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry
activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation
since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each
commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments under this
Article of each Party included in Annex I. The greenhouse gas emissions
by sources and removals by sinks associated with those activities shall
be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner and reviewed in
accordance with Articles 7 and 8. "
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

Bruce Hamilton

Steve Spence · Guest

we average 30" of rain per year. We>ve had over 5" last month. Our soil was
straight sand this spring. Grass didn>t even grow. 6" of 5 year old horse
manure fixed that. planted corn the first week of June and it>s over my head
(6'). We have had a little leaf damage to the cabbage, but the heads are 8"
and doing well. cucumbers are over 12" long and delicious. squash took over
the back 40......

the corrosion problems of non-anhydrous ethanol have not exhibited them
selves in over 150000 miles of driving. this is an aluminum engine. will
have to try an iron block as well.

acrolein is not an issue at diesel engine temps and pressures.

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Mike Darrett" <mike-nospam@darrettenterprises.com> wrote in message
news:d945119c.0308082321.2b56c18a@posting.google.com...

[quote]Abundant rainfall, even in summer. No bugs. Fertile soil. Sounds
like heaven in Ontario, CA.

How do you deal with the corrosion problems when using non-anhydrous
ethanol? Or is the average vehicle>s lifetime sufficiently short
enough so that this is not an issue?

How do you deal with the acrolein from burning straight veggie oil?

Mike[/quote]

Steve Spence · Guest

if you would just distill a few gallons of alcohol, you could dispense with
the skepticism. there is no substitute for hands on experience.

--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Repeating Decimal" <salmonfry@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BB5A50A9.6C18%salmonfry@sbcglobal.net...
[quote]in article 3f34e375$0$225@hades.is.co.za, Roland Paterson-Jones at
roland@rolandpj.com wrote on 8/9/03 5:05 AM:

Here>s a page full of references to studies on ethanol energy
efficiency:

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

If these arguments are all that great, how come I am still skeptical?
Could
it be that the best results are reported by organization having much to
gain
by pushing ethanol? I just realized, that cannot be the reason. They
wouldn>t lie just to get Government subsidy, would they?

Bill
[/quote]

Mike Darrett · Guest

"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message news:<3f399567$1_2@newsfeed>...
[quote]if you would just distill a few gallons of alcohol, you could dispense with
the skepticism. there is no substitute for hands on experience.

[/quote]
Distill how exactly? Solar still? Electric heating (hydropower I
hope)? Natural gas heating?

Mike

[quote]--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Repeating Decimal" <salmonfry@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BB5A50A9.6C18%salmonfry@sbcglobal.net...
in article 3f34e375$0$225@hades.is.co.za, Roland Paterson-Jones at
roland@rolandpj.com wrote on 8/9/03 5:05 AM:

Here>s a page full of references to studies on ethanol energy
efficiency:

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

If these arguments are all that great, how come I am still skeptical?
Could
it be that the best results are reported by organization having much to
gain
by pushing ethanol? I just realized, that cannot be the reason. They
wouldn>t lie just to get Government subsidy, would they?

Bill
[/quote]


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Chemistry Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7