Article on shrub willow biofuel
- Thread starter chickenlittle
- Start date
JackTerp
5 year old buck +
I have never been a believer in the bio-fuel hysteria.
Every article I have read claims it is the "Way of the Future". Yet I have never seen any true study that explains the costs involved to produce one gallon of bio-fuel. I do realize that the cost of drilling a well and all the pipelines and refineries needed are extreme, most of those costs also pertain to bio-fuels. The emissions in the end are equal to those of "fossil fuels". The labor, transportation, storage, and refining costs are about the same. The claim that they are renewable energy sources are exaggerated because the costs of fertilization and fuels used to handle and harvest, refine and distribute are always left out of the equation. Several studies have indicated scientific evidence that crude oil is not actually a fossil fuel but is produced as a geothermal reaction deep in the earth's core. So, it too is renewable on a global scale. Bio-fuel is also not as efficient in any engine I am aware of. So we need about 1/3 more fuel to deliver the same result. This creates 1/3 more pollution. I believe this whole bio-fuel idea is just another enviro-wacko idea that cannot stand the scrutiny it deserves.
Just recently, I had the opportunity to meet a young man that has been experimenting with HHO fuels. Basically that is hydrogen fuel for engines. He runs his Dodge 2500 on HHO and gasoline. He claims he is getting 38mpg. I have no way to prove his claims, but I did take a test drive in his truck and was impressed with the performance but did not have the ability to track and verify the mileage. I can only say the truck had very good power and performance. we are going to get together soon for a trip to verify mileage. Total costs, so far, to set his truck up this way is $2000. He is working on getting to the point that he can run 100% HHO. This seems to be a more realistic approach than any bio-fuel.
Please forgive my ramblings, this area has always been of interest to me and I do tend to get a little carried away. :) My purpose for this reply is to stimulate a conversation with the members here. I have always been impressed with the pool of talent and intelligence we have on this forum. Especially when it comes to things to do with the environment.
chickenlittle
5 year old buck +
JackTerp
5 year old buck +
Yes and No. I have read quite a few articles and watched a couple dozen YT videos about HHO. The difference in opinions is astounding. I have talked with several sources that claim a lot of good benefits with HHO. I have also talked to several people who claim they have tested the systems and found them to be useless. The truth lies somewhere in between. At issue is the computers used in every newer vehicle. The standards that the government requires makes these computers necessary and the proponents of HHO claim that the computers make HHO much more difficult to use. I am still investigating claims made by a couple people who use HHO in the older, pre 1994, Cummins diesels.
chickenlittle
5 year old buck +
As a mechanical engineer, I would say there is no truth in the middle for HHO. Save your money. If that worked at all, the Ford F150 would use that instead of turbocharged V6s and aluminum bodies. Listen to the Popular Mechanics guy.
D
dipper
Guest
It is my understanding it all comes down to carbon. Fossil fuels were organic and high in carbon. Obviously that was trapped in the ground, not harming our vulnerable atmosphere. Over the last 100 years we've been transferring massive amounts of carbon, from the ground, to the air, when we burn fossil fuels.
If we are going to argue the burning of fossil fuels impact on the earth, we won't get anywhere.
Biomass seems to be a system of converting carbon in the "air" and turning it to fuel. I'm sorry, but to b criticial of such a process is foolish. Innovation doesn't just happen over night. It took really smart people a long time to "discover" previous innovation we now take for granted.
Is this form of energy realistic now, no! The potiental outcomes of such research are so freaking huge, and so drastically needed for long term health of this planet, we should be trying harder!
If we are going to argue the burning of fossil fuels impact on the earth, we won't get anywhere.
Biomass seems to be a system of converting carbon in the "air" and turning it to fuel. I'm sorry, but to b criticial of such a process is foolish. Innovation doesn't just happen over night. It took really smart people a long time to "discover" previous innovation we now take for granted.
Is this form of energy realistic now, no! The potiental outcomes of such research are so freaking huge, and so drastically needed for long term health of this planet, we should be trying harder!
Tree Spud
5 year old buck +
This article is really just propaganda deflecting away from the real issues with ethanol whether it be grain or cellulosic biomass. Growing biomass mass in not the hurdle to over come. In some cases, the costs to transport the biomass to the processing facility is prohibitive and the costs to separate the starch (which is liquefied to glucose which is then converted to ethanol) is ridiculously high.
For all you food plot dudes, imagine what happens to the soil when you grow very large, and in high density, biomass, then you remove all biomass and do not return any of the biomass to the soil?
Right now ethanol based fuels put out a higher carbon footprint than carbon based fuels, they are harder on engines, and it takes more energy to produce them than the fuel they produce. Remember, ethanol was never intended to be a fuel, it was an additive to address fuel oxidization.
From a cost perspective, it takes $0.12 to produce & refine 1 quart of gas, $0.67 to produce 1 quart of grain based fuel, and $0.94 to produce 1 quart of cellulosic biomass based fuel. The cost to produce cellulosic based ethanol is probably underestimated because they are only produced in pilot labs environments. There are no actual production level facilities delivering the fuel to market.
Ethanol would not exist without govt subsidies and the govt mandating ethanol in fuel. With corn below $4/bushel and gas below $2/gal, just do the math, there is nothing sustainable about ethanol.
For all you food plot dudes, imagine what happens to the soil when you grow very large, and in high density, biomass, then you remove all biomass and do not return any of the biomass to the soil?
Right now ethanol based fuels put out a higher carbon footprint than carbon based fuels, they are harder on engines, and it takes more energy to produce them than the fuel they produce. Remember, ethanol was never intended to be a fuel, it was an additive to address fuel oxidization.
From a cost perspective, it takes $0.12 to produce & refine 1 quart of gas, $0.67 to produce 1 quart of grain based fuel, and $0.94 to produce 1 quart of cellulosic biomass based fuel. The cost to produce cellulosic based ethanol is probably underestimated because they are only produced in pilot labs environments. There are no actual production level facilities delivering the fuel to market.
Ethanol would not exist without govt subsidies and the govt mandating ethanol in fuel. With corn below $4/bushel and gas below $2/gal, just do the math, there is nothing sustainable about ethanol.
chickenlittle
5 year old buck +
I would think the willow in the article would be burned in a biomass cogeneration setup. We use a biomass system at work using chips and waste from a local sawmill. As long as you are not trucking it far, the economics could be good.
Turning cellulose from wood or grass to ethanol needs some breakthroughs to be competitive with oil. Ethanol from corn is more mature but not cost competitive with oil at recent pricing. Any talk of pricing and economics depends on regulatory and taxing schemes.
Turning cellulose from wood or grass to ethanol needs some breakthroughs to be competitive with oil. Ethanol from corn is more mature but not cost competitive with oil at recent pricing. Any talk of pricing and economics depends on regulatory and taxing schemes.
chickenlittle
5 year old buck +
Add far as what it takes to grow biomass, it is no different than any other farming. It takes a lot of inputs to get a nice beef steak onto my plate. Should I eat tofu instead?
Tree Spud
5 year old buck +
It is very different than other farming. Corn, bean, vegetable, etc. farmers all turn significant amounts of biomass back into the soil. They are generally only removing the grain or vegetable. This is very important from a nutrient balance and soil compaction.
Biomass farming would return no components back to the soil and would require heavy amounts of fertilizer to sustain growth. Fertilizers require significant amounts of energy to produce so that has to added to the equation. Soil quality would suffer along with other issues.
chickenlittle
5 year old buck +
Why couldn't the by-products be returned? Burn the biomass and return ashes. Compare that to growing alfalfa hay in California or Arizona and shipping it around the country or overseas. Or baling and selling straw.
Tree Spud
5 year old buck +
You could return ash to the soil; however, it would significantly alter the ph making it more acidic. The ash would also have no biomass benefit to returning nutrients or reducing soil compaction.
I also think these wood burning biomass operations will soon run afoul of the EPA which is staffed with eco-nuts & liberals who are against emissions of any kind. These are the same folks who are shutting down the coal industry and have not allowed a new refinery to be built in the US in 40 years.
I also think these wood burning biomass operations will soon run afoul of the EPA which is staffed with eco-nuts & liberals who are against emissions of any kind. These are the same folks who are shutting down the coal industry and have not allowed a new refinery to be built in the US in 40 years.
chickenlittle
5 year old buck +
I guess we'll have to learn how to live with energy just from Chinese solar panels.
D
dipper
Guest
The huge biomass plant is installing a massive filter as we speak. It's the second in the world.
I get soul issue, ash isn't acidic. I believe it's actually alkaline. Wood ash is really good at killing moss-btw.
I wonder what happens to n, k, and p when something is burned? Does it turn into a gas?
D
dipper
Guest
Humans could become much more efficient in the handling of our organic waste. We are really just to dumb and lazy to do so.
Similar threads
