Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
On Jul 16, 2007, at 7:12 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: Hi Horace, You're right but what would be the right message? Regarding your EnergyCosts.pdf I noticed you focused on capital cost in USD/W, following most authors. It seems to me a more meaningful although probably more difficult to evaluate figure would be the actual bottom line energy cost for the user (e.g. in USDcents/kWh as in your last table which is a bit outdated unfortunately (1996)), as capital cost reflects neither labor cost nor longevity nor transportation costs nor CO2 emission compensation costs etc... Then maybe the message could be brought to the people in the form of a single cents/kWh vs Year graph featuring one curve per energy type, showing the past evolution and projecting into the future. Past and foreseeable technological steps, such as printed CIGS for solar, would show as (hopefully downgoing) steps in the curves. This is all sensible except for the sadly limited ability of the general public (in the US anyway) to understand or even listen to these things when all they really want to think about is their next new gas guzzling status symbol. I expect it will take some kind of sound bite jingoist approach, plus the hard knocks that are bound to show up soon. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
. Nuclear power, for example, has enjoyed consistent support from the Senate Energy Committee no matter which party is in power - in large part because Senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici, the Democratic chairman and the ranking Republican, are both from New Mexico, home to Los Alamos National Laboratory and a branch of the Sandia National Laboratories. Biofuels, mostly ethanol and biodiesel, have attracted lawmakers who support farm subsidies. Last year an impromptu coalition established a goal of producing 25 percent of the country's energy, including vehicle fuel, from renewable sources by 2025. Legislation to that effect attracted 34 senators and 69 representatives as co-sponsors; the resolutions are pending in both houses. Most of the measure's supporters are from agricultural areas. For the moment, the strongest government support for solar power is coming from the states, not Washington. But there, too, the focus remains on stimulating markets, not laboratory research. The federal government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a large, sustained energy quest, many experts say. This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough, said Nathan S. Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. Many environmental organizations are pushing for tax credits for people who buy solar equipment, which helps manufacturing but not research. Still, some experts say government-financed research efforts often go awry. And several government officials defended the current effort, saying an outsize investment in solar research is not needed because the industry is already in high gear. Bush administration officials say they are committed to making power from photovoltaic technology as well as solar thermal systems competitive with other sources by 2015. Alexander Karsner, the lead Energy Department official for renewable energy technology and efficiency, said the expanded use of photovoltaic cells could have its greatest impact by substantially reducing the energy thirst of new buildings. To be sure, there are some promising signs in solar energy. Big arrays of mirrors that concentrate sunlight to run turbines, which first emerged in the early 1980s, are resurgent in sun-baked places like the American Southwest, Spain and Australia. Some developers say this solar thermal technology is competitive now with power generated by natural gas when demand, and prices, hit periodic peaks. With more research, the solar thermal method might allow for storing energy. Currently, all solar power is hampered by a lack of storage capability. The scale on which things actually have to happen on energy is not fully either appreciated or transmitted to the public, said Dr. Lewis of Caltech. You have to find a really cheap way to capture that light, for the price of carpet or paint, and also convert it efficiently into something humans can use for energy. After more than two decades in which research on converting solar power to electricity largely lapsed, the Bush administration and lawmakers in Congress are now discussing more money for the field. Dr. Orbach said the Energy Department's proposed research plan for 2008 to 2012 includes $1.1 billion for solar advances, more than the $896 million going toward fusion. But many scientists, perhaps seasoned by past energy cycles, doubt that the new burst of interest is sufficient to lure the best young minds in chemistry and physics. After encouraging 346 research groups last year to seek grants for surmounting hurdles to harnessing solar power, the Energy Department this year ended up awarding $22.7 million over three years to 27 projects - hardly the stuff of an energy revolution, several scientists said. There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S., said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge. End of quote. -- Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel On Jul 15, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Michael Foster wrote: A while back I posed the question if burning corn, or any other food crop is immoral. It is utterly immoral and stupid besides, if the following article is correct: http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf It is immoral also because other superior options are available which don't deplete croplands, don't require petrochemical fertilizers, and which do consume CO2. An obvious example is biodiesel from algae: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html A hydrogen economy of course only makes sense when abundant renewable energy supplies are available to make
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
Michael reported NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html?_r=1th=emc=thpagewanted=all quoting... There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S., said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge. The article covers a wide area of energy themes. The world is become an energy glutton. Little emphasis is given on reducing use of energy. The drunks at the Dime Box saloon have little interest in the subject until the store runs outa beer. Then all hell breaks loose. That's firepower., not very encouraging. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:07 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: The article below from today's NYT throws some light on the reasons why US energy research funding doesn't make sense. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html? _r=1th=emc=thpagewanted=all It is really all a matter of where prices are heading, a subject about which the author seems to have no grasp. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf Solar has been experiencing exponential growth and price drops for some time and will continue to do so. The price of energy is going up. Solar will soon be competitive with coal steam turbine (for many applications, especially car battery charging), based on manufacturing capacity increases alone. It appears solar panels have already beat the sterling engine solar collector game by a large margin. Effective energy storage systems are just now coming into the picture, and can change things dramatically. The problem is developing the political will to make things happen fast in the face of lobbying which not in the best interest of the public, a fact the author covered well. One of the arguments against making things happen fast is typically protecting jobs. The fact is, there are few jobs in the energy industry at present compared to the number that could be generated by replacing the cost of mining energy (low local labor intensity) with the cost of producing equipment to manufacture it from a free source and install and retrofit existing real estate and vehicles (high local labor intensity). The key to making things happen right may be to simply get the message to the people. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
Hi Horace, You're right but what would be the right message? Regarding your EnergyCosts.pdf I noticed you focused on capital cost in USD/W, following most authors. It seems to me a more meaningful although probably more difficult to evaluate figure would be the actual bottom line energy cost for the user (e.g. in USDcents/kWh as in your last table which is a bit outdated unfortunately (1996)), as capital cost reflects neither labor cost nor longevity nor transportation costs nor CO2 emission compensation costs etc... Then maybe the message could be brought to the people in the form of a single cents/kWh vs Year graph featuring one curve per energy type, showing the past evolution and projecting into the future. Past and foreseeable technological steps, such as printed CIGS for solar, would show as (hopefully downgoing) steps in the curves. Michel - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:07 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: The article below from today's NYT throws some light on the reasons why US energy research funding doesn't make sense. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html? _r=1th=emc=thpagewanted=all It is really all a matter of where prices are heading, a subject about which the author seems to have no grasp. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EnergyCosts.pdf Solar has been experiencing exponential growth and price drops for some time and will continue to do so. The price of energy is going up. Solar will soon be competitive with coal steam turbine (for many applications, especially car battery charging), based on manufacturing capacity increases alone. It appears solar panels have already beat the sterling engine solar collector game by a large margin. Effective energy storage systems are just now coming into the picture, and can change things dramatically. The problem is developing the political will to make things happen fast in the face of lobbying which not in the best interest of the public, a fact the author covered well. One of the arguments against making things happen fast is typically protecting jobs. The fact is, there are few jobs in the energy industry at present compared to the number that could be generated by replacing the cost of mining energy (low local labor intensity) with the cost of producing equipment to manufacture it from a free source and install and retrofit existing real estate and vehicles (high local labor intensity). The key to making things happen right may be to simply get the message to the people. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
Interesting article, Michel. But this is the part that attracted my attention. There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S., said Prashant V. Kamat, an expert in the chemistry of solar cells at the University of Notre Dame, who has some Energy Department financing. But there is limited encouragement to take up the challenge. He should have said, There is plenty of intellectual firepower in the U.S., but they're all in law school, which is why they had to import me from India. I tried to interest my daughter in chemistry, but she went to law school too. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
[Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
A while back I posed the question if burning corn, or any other food crop is immoral. Check this out: http://tinyurl.com/24gqmk Here we see immediate results of corn crops being diverted to make ethanol fuel and its effect on the ice cream business. Now obviously, no one is going to starve to death from lack of ice cream. But this same problem has arisen in China in a shortage of pigs. They actually have national pig reserve, similar to our nattion petroleum reserve. These are essentially the first two symptoms of what could be a disastrous diversion of corn to make ethanol for fuel, with third world populations suffering the most. While no one questions the necessity of finding alternatives to petroleum, I think it incumbent on thinking people to point out that pursuing inefficient methods such as this are merely diverting us from finding real solutions to the problem. In this case, this whole enterprise is just a government subsidy to Archer Daniels Midland and their cohorts. They lobbied hard for this in the congress. This is just another feel-good useless program to make it appear that someone is doing something. Personally, I feel that the so-called hydrogen economy is another policy wonk's solution to a problem better solved by other methods. I went to the L.A. Auto Show a few months ago, where BMW was displaying its hydrogen powered vehicle. Some fellow was touting this as the next wonderful thing, explaining that only water vapor was coming out of the exhaust. Keep in mind, this guy was not just a car show barker; he was a BMW engineer. I asked him where he thought the hydrogen came from. Like most people suffering under the same delusion, he informed me that the hydrogen was made from water. When I told him that virtually all the commercial hydrogen on earth was reformed from natural gas and that the other byproduct was the much vilified carbon dioxide, he was rendered temporarily speechless. My point is this. If a person who is heavily involved in creating the hydrogen economy doesn't know this, how can any intelligent decisions be made about it? M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
Ethanol or any other biofuel such as methanol (which has more energy density than ethanol) should be made from a denser feedstock than corn, such as switchgrass. Corn is being used to make ethanol mainly because there are so many corn farmers in the U.S. and it is readily available as a feedstock and the techniques for turning corn into ethanol have been well research and developed. Like any other business, corn/ethanol is driven by political and monetary pressures. If we were really running out of oil and needed every spare acre for biofuels to run our economy (or if we wanted to act ethically to ensure that food did not become too expensive and cause even more starvation), we'd be growing switchgrass instead of corn and turning it into a denser hydrocarbon fuel such as methanol to maximize the distance per gallon and forcing a significant increase in fuel economy for our transporation needs. Peak oil is likely coming later this decade or early next (everyone should look into this, because peak oil will have a profound impact on our modern world), so we'd better figure out an alternative fuel stock that doesn't have the side effect of causing foodstuffs to become too expensive and we'd better start implementing the high efficiency transporation technologies on a large scale that are emerging right now, such as hybrids and plug-in electric hybrids. - Original Message - From: Michael Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:16 PM Subject: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel A while back I posed the question if burning corn, or any other food crop is immoral. Check this out: http://tinyurl.com/24gqmk Here we see immediate results of corn crops being diverted to make ethanol fuel and its effect on the ice cream business. Now obviously, no one is going to starve to death from lack of ice cream. But this same problem has arisen in China in a shortage of pigs. They actually have national pig reserve, similar to our nattion petroleum reserve. These are essentially the first two symptoms of what could be a disastrous diversion of corn to make ethanol for fuel, with third world populations suffering the most. While no one questions the necessity of finding alternatives to petroleum, I think it incumbent on thinking people to point out that pursuing inefficient methods such as this are merely diverting us from finding real solutions to the problem. In this case, this whole enterprise is just a government subsidy to Archer Daniels Midland and their cohorts. They lobbied hard for this in the congress. This is just another feel-good useless program to make it appear that someone is doing something. Personally, I feel that the so-called hydrogen economy is another policy wonk's solution to a problem better solved by other methods. I went to the L.A. Auto Show a few months ago, where BMW was displaying its hydrogen powered vehicle. Some fellow was touting this as the next wonderful thing, explaining that only water vapor was coming out of the exhaust. Keep in mind, this guy was not just a car show barker; he was a BMW engineer. I asked him where he thought the hydrogen came from. Like most people suffering under the same delusion, he informed me that the hydrogen was made from water. When I told him that virtually all the commercial hydrogen on earth was reformed from natural gas and that the other byproduct was the much vilified carbon dioxide, he was rendered temporarily speechless. My point is this. If a person who is heavily involved in creating the hydrogen economy doesn't know this, how can any intelligent decisions be made about it? M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: [Vo]:Ethanol as a fuel
On Jul 15, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Michael Foster wrote: A while back I posed the question if burning corn, or any other food crop is immoral. It is utterly immoral and stupid besides, if the following article is correct: http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf It is immoral also because other superior options are available which don't deplete croplands, don't require petrochemical fertilizers, and which do consume CO2. An obvious example is biodiesel from algae: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html A hydrogen economy of course only makes sense when abundant renewable energy supplies are available to make hydrogen and when reliable cheap means exist to store and transmit it. Hydrogen is no more a source of energy than is an electric outlet. Somebody has to be on the other end of the system burning more energy than consumers get from the system in order to make it work. There are no hydrogen mines or hydrogen wells. Hydrogen provides no solution to our present energy problem. A serious national program, on the order of the WWII arms build up, for conservation, biodiesel, solar and wind energy development could eliminate US dependence on foreign oil in a few years. I don't know if it is true or not that hydrogen and grain based ethanol were ruses promulgated by big energy companies etc. because they could not be timely and effective and thus resources thrown at them must necessarily thwart true progress. It doesn't matter though if that thwarting was the intent or not, because that is the effect. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
