|
Reply to: Jeff
Zeiger: Greetings Greyflcn: What
alternative fuels do you like? Do you
only like the oil industry? Cheers First off, this is an extremely complex issue, as I'm sure you're well aware. So I believe you deserve a comprehensive answer. Second let me say, the primary "problem" which
I'm looking for a solution for is Global Warming. However, that does mean providing a transportation alternative, which isn't based on Liquid Fuels which are even dirtier than current day Petroleum. http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png _ Well, the alternative fuel I like is electricity. The one I like more than that, is thermodynamic efficiency, i.e. Fuel which you don't need to burn in the first place. http://greyfalcon.net/cafe.png For instance, the big thing to learn from Rather than focusing on the supplyside, I believe that a demandside approach is what we need most. What that means is that in the short term we should be pushing towards the use of diesel cars, and hybrids. Which are more cost effective and scalable than ethanol. http://www.rand.org/news/press/2007/11/08/index1.html http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/06/audi-diesels-are-more-important-to-us-than-hybrids/ And for diesel quite clean considering the advances in Mandated UltraLowSulfurDiesel, and Mandated Particulate/Nitrogen Filters. Clean enough to meet the toughest emissions standards in
the world, 3x more harsh than Europe (i.e. In the medium term, we should be focusing on Plugin Hybrids (Specifically Series Plugin Hybrids, like the Chevy Volt) These will be a solid solution to allow for cars to run almost entirely on electricity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXz6hnQr2gk (Which are a pretty good match for intermittent renewable electricity like Wind power) Without any significant increase in infrastructure. http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4 The benefit here being that if you are driving on electricity, even if it comes from Coal it would be as green as a hybrid. http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3 Which is greener than diesel http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png And diesel is greener than corn ethanol (By anyone's account) So Coal Electricity, ironically, would be greener than corn ethanol. Especially compared to corn ethanol that used Coal Electricity for processing (Which is becoming more and more a realistic prospect) (And yes bad climate option by anyone's numbers) http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol4 And in the long term we should focus on moving towards a quickcharging electric infrastructure which only uses liquid fuels for long range travel. http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png _ Now if I had to choose a liquid fuel, I would argue that Algae is perhaps the best feedstock, and that Fischer Tropsch gasification OR Transesterification is the best method of converting that liquid into a useable fuel. Although frankly it has it's issues. Now while I agree that we will need liquid fuels, Frankly I doubt that Ethanol will play a large part. If anything the institutions that require liquid fuels, those are aircraft, cargo ships, and the military. Those PRIMARY use Diesel or Kerosene. And if we are going to make something that replaced gasoline, I think it would make far more sense to make something which is more similar in performance/logistics characteristics to gasoline. (Something LS9 or Amyris claim to do) (Butanol maybe, but that also has it's own issues) Largely that means to me that replacing all our infrastructure, is a rather foolish approach compared to changing the fuel itself. I would argue that Ethanol is most likely not going to be around for much longer. Fermentation with Enzymes just doesn't cut it. http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosics.png And the fact that it's hygroscopic certainly doesn't help with the logistics at all. http://greyfalcon.net/e85stations.png I think we can both agree that corn is just a horrible feedstock for energy purposes from a water and fertilizer standpoint. http://www.greyfalcon.net/etoh2.png http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/national-resear.html http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/iwmi-report-con.html Especially when you consider how the combination of those two
effects are causing the large "Deadzones" that are occurring in the
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/16/161412/560 _ Ultimately though, the real issue is that I think BioFuels are only capable of fielding a bit-part in solving global warming. While Photosynthesis is nice, you have to, have to, have to understand that it is kneecapped by the fact that it cannot absorb any more than 10-13% of the incoming light. And realistically no more than 6%. Where as you lose nearly 90% of THAT energy just converting/distributing/using it as a liquid. (Which is Ideal conditions: i.e. 32% FischerTropsch to 88% Pipeline+Trucks to 40% TurbochargedDieselEngine) http://greyfalcon.net/sugarsolar Solar power on the other hand doesn’t share that limitation http://www.luz2.com/apage/12219.php Especially when you consider that virtually all the present day liquid biofuels contribute directly or indirectly to a cumulative increase in greenhouse emissions in excess of what we would get from petroleum. http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png I also don't buy the argument that we have to condone Greenhouse damaging fuels NOW, for the fickle promise of it maybe getting better later. Since thats the same argument given by Coal-to-Liquids advocates. And it's wrong for the same reasons. Not to mention the air quality aspect. http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2 http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol5 http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol9 The other aspect you have to consider is that ethanol is kneecapped by it's lack of access sufficient feedstock. http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png Limited by the fact that the logistics are rather horrible for bulky "energy-undense" materials, that can rott or spontaneously combust. http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem-of-cellulosic-ethanol.html And while Algae can alleviate that problem. The question is how hard up are we going to have to be until $20-30 per gallon looks like an appetizing price to pay. (Or rather how efficient is our transportation going to have to be) _ I do not buy the argument that we are going to get "Off" of liquid fuels by continuing to focus on extending liquid fuels use. Infact the GAO has mentioned in it's report that the use of E85 legislation has only lead us to increase our consumption of petroleum. http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-07-713 Similarly there is no growth pattern projected for biofuels which would have us consuming a single drop of oil in 25 years than we are right now. http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol.png http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol2.png Also, as long as we are stuck in a predominantly liquid fuels infrastructure, developing countries would merely mimic us, and buy the unused oil production capacity. Making the whole global warming AND supporting terrorism argument completely moot. http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.png
_ So really what it all comes down to is that I believe we need an almost entirely DemandSide approach is what we need. And increasing our Supply not only runs counter that approach, but it allows for Jevon's paradox to kick in, making the whole thing useless. (i.e. We have to allow for fuel prices to get more expensive, otherwise fuel economy technology will likely have the reverse effect, and result in increased consumption) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/mit-study-rate-.html The other scary part about it is that if you create a very efficient way to process solid biomass into a liquid fuel. And you scale up the infrastructure for it. There is NOTHING stopping them from switching over from green biomass, to black biomass (i.e. Coal) http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosic Assuming goal is to solve Global Warming ultimately biofuels becomes a really bad primary option either way you look at it. Unless of course the goal is merely "Energy Independence" were as we might as well just liquefy all the coal and be done with it. _ Anyways, I appreciate that you have the character and resolve to accept criticism. Thanks, David Ahlport |
