Posted on 01/26/2007 5:55:38 AM PST by randita
No, we don't control the weather, but a lot of the country controls the water input.
Even with an enormous crop there may be a shortfall, but that will just spur even greater production in coming years.
I'm no big proponent of ethonal, but low crop production probably isn't a big factor as to why it may not work out in the long run.
Fuels comprised of shorter hydrocarbon chains carry more of their energy as Hydrogen. The ratio of H/C goes up as the length goes down.
As others have pointed out, biofuels are derived from the current rather than prehistoric carbon cycles. Unfortunately the world appetite for energy has the capacity to completely overwhelm the natural carbon cycle. We would have to denude the planet several times over on a regular basis in order to replace fossil fuels.
Another point missed is that transferring combustion of Carbon to combustion of Hydrogen is a completely wrong approach if you buy into the opinion that significant anthropogenic global warming is occurring. Water vaporor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
With that said, I like biofuels, I'd like to see or create an enabling technology that will allow individuals to exploit various niche sources as they may be available.
I see ethanol production actually putting more carbon into the atmosphere. Fosil fuel carbons will be used to form the new fuel. New and old carbon released instead of just the old.
--I see ethanol production actually putting more carbon into the atmosphere. Fosil fuel carbons will be used to form the new fuel. New and old carbon released instead of just the old.--
We are putting more into the atmosphere but we are also removing more. The net carbon added to the atmosphere is reduced.
It sort of like this. A guy presently buys a case of beer a week and stores it in his garage. At the end of the year he will have 365 cases in the garage and a mad wife. Now, to make her happy, he buys a case and a six pack each week but drinks a case. Now they are both happier.
mark for later
That's not quite 100 gallons for every man, woman and child in the country. Are you sure about this?
http://www.msu.edu/~orlicchr/CahngeWorldTech3.htm
Stories like this and the fact that cars like my 2007 Honda Accord gets better mileage than my 2001 Accord are lost in all the formulas. I believe that innovators are coming into the market place at speeds never before witnessed. There are as many new fantastic players in the energy business as was in the Internet business - some will die but the industry will grow. Innovation is the new global life force.
Diesel burned to plant and harvest and transport the corn.
Coal burned to make electricity for converting corn to ethanol.
Ethanol, with current year carbon from atmospere, burned as fuel returns carbon to atmosphere. (Beer drinker drinks all the beer at the end of the year)
I see an increase in carbon released.
Nice sentiment, but let's come at this scientifically.
CO2 that's put in the air by burning hydrocarbon fuels of ANY source has always found the same 'sinks' to go back into -- (1) ocean water, (2) atmosphere (3) chlorophyta (plants that photosynthesize CO2 + H2O --> CxHxOx + O2).
IF the same mass of carbon (from any source) is oxidized to produce energy, then the ONLY delta is the mass of the chlorophyta as a carbon sink.
The benefit you speak of is that by increasing the mass of plants (that you happen to convert to fuel later) that can trap CO2, i.e., we increase one particular carbon sink, we can reduce the increase or reduce the vapor pressure and PPM of atmospheric CO2 ... thereby reducing CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
I can buy the argument that increasing plant biomass can reduce atmospheric CO2, but the idea that changing the carbon source as the cause for reducing greenhouse gas is mathematically and scientifically unfounded. For YEARS we have been 'pouring' so-called fossil-fuel carbon into the atmosphere, and yet the ppm of atmospheric CO2 has not increased on a corresponding, 1:1 basis. This is because the CO2 doesn't just go into the air and stay there. As the vapor pressure (and ppm) of CO2 goes up, it moves into existing carbon sinks at a higher rate. IT just so happens that when we added more CO2 to the air, the plant kingdom responded to the available nutrient increase and naturally grew more plants. And as we upped CO2 concentrations in the air we pushed more CO2 into the oceans (to not so good effect on some organisms).
What's my point? The GAINS (in reducing atmospheric CO2) come from increasing the size of the carbon sink, not the fact that the source of the carbon is shifted. The carbon is ALREADY recycled; growing more plants increases the size of one particular sink. (the atmosphere is the one sink people worry about the most).
Whew ...
Now I am ready to be corrected again ;-)
--I see an increase in carbon released.--
But the NET released (burned less recycled) is less.
Say now we are releasing X units. With biofuels we will be releaseing Y units where Y is greater than X. But we will be capturing Z units.
The net will be Y - Z which will be less than Z.
Couple quickies --
(1) the (substantial) energy stored in the hydrogen bonds of short-chain hydrocarbon fuels is not available to use as fuel energy; and
(2) instead of denuding the earth to produce biofuels, (which they would) AND consuming ABSURD amounts of 'fresh' water, we should look at aquatic chlorophyta (green plants that grow in the oceans-- plankton, kelp, Ulva lactuca, usw) as a means to capture carbon.
Just to really scare the greenies ... We could use NUCLEAR POWER plants to 'sterilize' municipal sewage; use the sewage as the nitrogen and phosphorous source the phytoplankton would love; use the waste heat from the reactors to drive the fermentation (or other process), and use the biomass of the phytoplankton to produce methane and fertilizer. Oh, the phytoplankton are also naturally pretty good heavy metal sinks as well, ( not as good as water hyacinths ) so we could clean up the sewage as we turn it (and sunlight and CO2) into fuel.
OK, kevlar now on ...
Because our climate doesn't support sugar cane farming except in Florida, Rio Grande Valley and Hawaii. Heavy rainfall (~50 inches a year) and little/no frost are not prevalent conditions in most of the US.
The only way the net released will be less is if you do not convert all the coal/carbon to fuel, if you stockpile it.
The carbon containing residue is to be used for animal feed, not stockpiled. I basically see all the carbon scavanged from the atmosphere returned in a relatively short carbon cycle. The carbon corn cycle is neutral in the long run.
Reading through the conflicting reports, the whole corn ethanol fuel cycle is a net loss of fossil fuel generated energy. We will be using fossil fuel to put additional carbon into the atmosphere. Using nuclear power for ethanol production is the only way I see to avoid adding carbon.
If you are going to use nuclear, use it for all electric cars with super batteries/capacitors.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding - are you saying that the formation of H2O in the combustion of hydrocarbons is not exothermic?
--Reading through the conflicting reports, the whole corn ethanol fuel cycle is a net loss of fossil fuel generated energy. --
I think I see your problem. You are assumming incorrectly that it takes more than one btu of fossil fuel to create on btu of biofuel.
Yes it is. And to produce the Hydrogen requires an equally powerful endothermic reaction. Plus the energy required to compress, store and transport it before you use it in your car. Hydrogen does not exist in any significant quantities except where combined with other atoms such as oxygen and carbon. It must first be separated from them and that takes energy.
Did you really mean to say this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.