Re: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
Jason,
When you say
"as for using fossil fuels
to harvest ethanol crops, i would say it is a nessecary evil until the
harvesting equipment can be fueled entirely by alternatives."
I wince a bit.
Why not run the tractors
on alternative fuels?
The cost of alternative
fuels such as BD and ethanol, includes the fertilizers used to produce the
feedstocks, the fuel used to run the tractors for tilling, planting, harvesting,
the energy is processing/distilling, anf the cost of transportingand
distributing the fuel.
The cost is often based on
the mistaken notion that the BD produced OR the ethanol distilled is the only
valuable product of the harvest. I compare this to raising beef cattle only for
rib eye steaks, or chickens only for theirwings, and throwing the rest out
(paying to have it disposed of). If this were the case then the cost rib eye
steaks and chicken wings would be prohibitive (even more
prohibitive?)
What if:
1. Vegetable oils were
extracted and used for cooking, then recycled and, with animal fats - BD
to run the tractors/distill the ethanol, or use the WVO directly to run
generators/burn in oil-fired burners to distill ethanol.
2. The remaining starch from the plant
after pressing for oil was fermented and distilled (w/o using fossil
fuels).
3. Stems, leaves, roots
silage for grazing animals enriched by the protein that remains in
the feedstock after it has been pressed for oil and fermented for
ethanol.
4. Use biogas (methane) from the
animal manure to run generators, tractors, or burned for heat (including
distillation).
5. Methane gas (biogas)
production does not compromise the value of manure as fertilizer. Use the manure
for fertilizer after methane gas has been produced.
6. Recycle the glycerin
"cocktail" produced during BD production. If split w. phosphoric acid, the
excess KOH in the mix forms potassium phosphate a valuable fertilizer that could
be added to the manure. If split w. sulfuric acid the KOH forms potassium
sulfate (Nitrogen in the manure + Potassium, Phosphorus, and Sulfur from process
are the "big 4" in fertilizer. The manure already contains the
micronutrients).
After recovering excess
methanol, the glycerin from the mix not only composts well, but I've found that
it actually stimulates decomposition.
7. Do this onlocally to minimize
transport costs/waste.
I've been told that little
is wasted in processing butchered animals. This mentality might be applied to
our crops. A given crop might one day be viewed as part food and part
fuels.
I'll leave it toyou
to factor in the cost tax payers already pay for fossil fuel subsidies, and what
we all payfor health care, property damage, human suffering due
to air pollution. What is the cost in tax dollars, insurance premiums
human suffering for the disasters that global warming brings? Feel free to add
other "hidden" costs associated with the current reliance on fossil fuels and I
think we would agree that their cost is prohibitive.
The above scenario may
well require some planning andrestructuring. It probably will require
peoplefrom different backgroundsto work together towards a common
goal. Impossible for our children's sake, I hope
not.
Best to you and your family,
Tom
- Original Message -
From:
Jason Katie
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:30
PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] From the BBC --
Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
[OPINION] this is
crap.
[EDUCATED GUESS] this guy
assumes ethanol and soy are the only viable feedstocks.
[FACT] they are
not.
[OPINION]Mr.
McNeelyhas not looked into his options very well, /and/ biofuels are
only a stopgap measure to give us a few more decades to come up with a decent
workingsolution. as for using fossil fuels to harvest ethanol crops, i would
say it is a nessecary evil until the harvesting equipment can be fueled
entirely by alternatives. there is by default going to be some turnover
time.
JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
Randall
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:18
PM
Subject: [Biofuel] From the BBC --
Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm
Send your comments:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3971edition=2ttl=20060922184357
Jeffrey A McNeely
Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather
than saving it from global warming, argues Jeff McNeely in the Green Room.
Better policies, better science and genetic modification, he says, can all
contribute to a greener biofuels revolution
Wit
Re: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
yes, my explanation did not include a full cycle, but i was commenting with the assumtion that a cycle would be used. even then it would takeweeks to produce enough fuel to run one tractor for a full season, and personally i would want at least one tank filling spare in case something went wrong with the equipment that caused lost fuel. even then you would have to run the first harvest on fossil fuels unless you knew someone that had already beaten the system and was willing to sell you a supply. when i say "until..." i am suggesting only a couple of months at most. JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper? Jason, When you say "as for using fossil fuels to harvest ethanol crops, i would say it is a nessecary evil until the harvesting equipment can be fueled entirely by alternatives." I wince a bit. Why not run the tractors on alternative fuels? The cost of alternative fuels such as BD and ethanol, includes the fertilizers used to produce the feedstocks, the fuel used to run the tractors for tilling, planting, harvesting, the energy is processing/distilling, anf the cost of transportingand distributing the fuel. The cost is often based on the mistaken notion that the BD produced OR the ethanol distilled is the only valuable product of the harvest. I compare this to raising beef cattle only for rib eye steaks, or chickens only for theirwings, and throwing the rest out (paying to have it disposed of). If this were the case then the cost rib eye steaks and chicken wings would be prohibitive (even more prohibitive?) What if: 1. Vegetable oils were extracted and used for cooking, then recycled and, with animal fats - BD to run the tractors/distill the ethanol, or use the WVO directly to run generators/burn in oil-fired burners to distill ethanol. 2. The remaining starch from the plant after pressing for oil was fermented and distilled (w/o using fossil fuels). 3. Stems, leaves, roots silage for grazing animals enriched by the protein that remains in the feedstock after it has been pressed for oil and fermented for ethanol. 4. Use biogas (methane) from the animal manure to run generators, tractors, or burned for heat (including distillation). 5. Methane gas (biogas) production does not compromise the value of manure as fertilizer. Use the manure for fertilizer after methane gas has been produced. 6. Recycle the glycerin "cocktail" produced during BD production. If split w. phosphoric acid, the excess KOH in the mix forms potassium phosphate a valuable fertilizer that could be added to the manure. If split w. sulfuric acid the KOH forms potassium sulfate (Nitrogen in the manure + Potassium, Phosphorus, and Sulfur from process are the "big 4" in fertilizer. The manure already contains the micronutrients). After recovering excess methanol, the glycerin from the mix not only composts well, but I've found that it actually stimulates decomposition. 7. Do this onlocally to minimize transport costs/waste. I've been told that little is wasted in processing butchered animals. This mentality might be applied to our crops. A given crop might one day be viewed as part food and part fuels. I'll leave it toyou to factor in the cost tax payers already pay for fossil fuel subsidies, and what we all payfor health care, property damage, human suffering due to air pollution. What is the cost in tax dollars, insurance premiums human suffering for the disasters that global warming brings? Feel free to add other "hidden" costs associated with the current reliance on fossil fuels and I think we would agree that their cost is prohibitive. The above scenario may well require some planning andrestructuring. It probably will require peoplefrom different backgroundsto work together towards a common goal. Impossible for our children's sake, I hope not. Best to you and your family, Tom - Original Message - From: Jason Katie To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:30 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper? [OPINION] this is crap. [EDUCATED GUESS] this guy assumes ethanol and soy are the only viable feedstocks. [FACT] they are not. [OPINION]Mr. McNeelyhas not looked into his options very well, /and/ biofuels are only a stopgap measure to give us a few more decades to come up with a decent workingsolution. as for using fossi
[Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm Send your comments: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3971edition=2ttl=20060922184357 Jeffrey A McNeely Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming, argues Jeff McNeely in the Green Room. Better policies, better science and genetic modification, he says, can all contribute to a greener biofuels revolution With soaring oil prices, and debates raging on how to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change, many are looking to biofuels as a renewable and clean source of energy. The European Union recently has issued a directive calling for biofuels to meet 5.75% of transportation fuel needs by 2010. Germany and France have announced they intend to meet the target well before the deadline; California intends going still further. This is a classic "good news-bad news" story. Of course we all want greater energy security, and helping achieve the goals (however weak) of the Kyoto Protocol is surely a good thing. However, biofuels - made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter - may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so. Consider the following: The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind Meeting the 5.75% target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year.Little wonder that many are calling biofuels "deforestation diesel", the opposite of the environmentally friendly fuel that all are seeking. With so much farmland already taking the form of monoculture, with all that implies for wildlife, do we really want to create more diversity-stripped desert? Others are worried about the impacts of biofuels on food prices, which will affect especially the poor who already spend a large proportion of their income on food. Biotech boost So what is to be done? The first step is to increase our understanding of how nature works to produce energy. Amazingly, scientists do not yet have a full understanding of the workings of photosynthesis, the process by which plants use solar energy to absorb carbon dioxide and build carbohydrates. Biotechnology, its reputation sullied by public protests over GM foods, may make important contributions. According to the science journal Nature, recombinant technology is already available that could enhance ethanol yield, reduce environmental damage from feedstock, and improve bioprocessing efficiency at the refinery. The Swiss biotech firm Syngenta is developing a genetically engineered maize that can help convert itself into ethanol by growing a particular enzyme. Others are designing trees that have less lignin, the strength-giving substance that enables them to stand upright, but makes it more difficult to convert the tree's cellulose into ethanol. Some environmentalists are worried that these altered trees will cross-breed with wild trees, resulting in a drooping forest rather than one that stands tall and produces useful timber and wildlife habitat. In the longer run, biotech promises to help convert wood chips, farm wastes, and willow trees into bioethanol more cheaply and cleanly, thereby helping meet energy needs while also improving its public image. Public stake But that is not nearly enough; bioenergy is too important to be left in the hands of the private sector. Many of the social and environmental benefits of bioenergy are not priced in the market, so the public sector needs to step in to ensure
Re: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
[OPINION] this is crap. [EDUCATED GUESS] this guy assumes ethanol and soy are the only viable feedstocks. [FACT] they are not. [OPINION]Mr. McNeelyhas not looked into his options very well, /and/ biofuels are only a stopgap measure to give us a few more decades to come up with a decent workingsolution. as for using fossil fuels to harvest ethanol crops, i would say it is a nessecary evil until the harvesting equipment can be fueled entirely by alternatives. there is by default going to be some turnover time. JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Randall To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:18 PM Subject: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper? Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm Send your comments: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3971edition=2ttl=20060922184357 Jeffrey A McNeely Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming, argues Jeff McNeely in the Green Room. Better policies, better science and genetic modification, he says, can all contribute to a greener biofuels revolution With soaring oil prices, and debates raging on how to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change, many are looking to biofuels as a renewable and clean source of energy. The European Union recently has issued a directive calling for biofuels to meet 5.75% of transportation fuel needs by 2010. Germany and France have announced they intend to meet the target well before the deadline; California intends going still further. This is a classic "good news-bad news" story. Of course we all want greater energy security, and helping achieve the goals (however weak) of the Kyoto Protocol is surely a good thing. However, biofuels - made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter - may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so. Consider the following: The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind Meeting the 5.75% target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year.Little wonder that many are calling biofuels "deforestation diesel", the opposite of the environmentally friendly fuel that all are seeking. With so much farmland already taking the form of monoculture, with all that implies for wildlife, do we really want to create more diversity-stripped desert? Others are worried about the impacts of biofuels on food prices, which will affect especially the poor who already spend a large proportion of their income on food. Biotech boost So what is to be done? The first step is to increase our understanding of how nature works to produce energy. Amazingly, scientists do not yet have a full understanding of the workings of photosynthesis, the process by which plants use solar energy to absorb carbon dioxide and build carbohydrates. Biotechnology, its reputation sullied by public protests over GM foods, may make important contributions. According to the science journal Nature, recombinant technology is already available that could enhance ethanol yield, reduce environmental damage from feedstock, and improve bioprocessing efficiency at the refinery. The Swiss biotech firm Syngenta is developing a genetically
Re: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
[OPINION] this is crap. Agree. [EDUCATED GUESS] this guy assumes ethanol and soy are the only viable feedstocks. [FACT]they are not. [OPINION] Mr. McNeely has not looked into his options very well, /and/ biofuels are only a stopgap measure to give us a few more decades to come up with a decent working solution. as for using fossil fuels to harvest ethanol crops, i would say it is a nessecary evil until the harvesting equipment can be fueled entirely by alternatives. there is by default going to be some turnover time. More fossil fuels than that Jason, those are industrialised monocrops, heavily dependent on fossil-fuel inputs far beyond just fuelling the machinery. Sustainable biofuels produced this way are not sustainable, but then neither is industrialised monocropping, and not just because of all the fossil-fuel inputs. The other mistake he makes is to think that industrialised grain crops feed people, and that making ethanl from them deprives those people of food. That's the basic mistake all these guys make - we could call it the Pimentel syndrome. Re who, or rather what, industrialised grain feeds, please see: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Biofuels - Food or Fuel? http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Is ethanol energy-efficient? But this is a trendy view at the moment, a way of showing you're ahead of the game: ie, showing people who're even more ignorant than you are that you're ahead of them. One might call it the Monbiot syndrome. If we can't produce biofuels sustainably, then we can't produce food sustainably either, but we can, and are. Not that way though. Best Keith Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Randall To: mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:18 PM Subject: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper? Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stmhttp://news.bbc .co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm Send your comments: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3971edition=2 ttl=20060922184357http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?thread ID=3971edition=2ttl=20060922184357 Jeffrey A McNeely Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming, argues Jeff McNeely in the Green Room. Better policies, better science and genetic modification, he says, can all contribute to a greener biofuels revolution With soaring oil prices, and debates raging on how to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change, many are looking to biofuels as a renewable and clean source of energy. The European Union recently has issued a directive calling for biofuels to meet 5.75% of transportation fuel needs by 2010. Germany and France have announced they intend to meet the target well before the deadline; California intends going still further. This is a classic good news-bad news story. Of course we all want greater energy security, and helping achieve the goals (however weak) of the Kyoto Protocol is surely a good thing. However, biofuels - made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter - may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so. Consider the following: The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind Meeting the 5.75% target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year. Little wonder that many are calling biofuels deforestation diesel, the opposite
Re: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
Hello members, In Malaysia alone there are miilions of tonnes of cellulosic materials availablevirtually free of cost or even credit atreplanting which is rated at 3% per annum from which many derivatives can be obtained. Currently these are not being exploited. They are openly burnt resulting in smog which envelopeseverything. We all live in smog when it does not rain which is pretty much all the time. Not counting padi waste and other agriculture products.Wasn't it Christ who said:"the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few". I think we are still in backwoods even though our politicians claim we are quite forward now. lolJason Katie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [OPINION] this is crap. [EDUCATED GUESS] this guy assumes ethanol and soy are the only viable feedstocks. [FACT] they are not. [OPINION]Mr. McNeelyhas not looked into his options very well, /and/ biofuels are only a stopgap measure to give us a few more decades to come up with a decent workingsolution. as for using fossil fuels to harvest ethanol crops, i would say it is a nessecary evil until the harvesting equipment can be fueled entirely by alternatives. there is by default going to be some turnover time. JasonICQ#: 154998177MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]- Original Message - From: Randall To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:18 PM Subject: [Biofuel] From the BBC -- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?Original Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stmSend your comments: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3971edition=2ttl=20060922184357 Jeffrey A McNeely Biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming, argues Jeff McNeely in the Green Room. Better policies, better science and genetic modification, he says, can all contribute to a greener biofuels revolutionWith soaring oil prices, and debates raging on how to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change, many are looking to biofuels as a renewable and clean source of energy. The European Union recently has issued a directive calling for biofuels to meet 5.75% of transportation fuel needs by 2010. Germany and France have announced they intend to meet the target well before the deadline; California intends going still further. This is a classic "good news-bad news" story. Of course we all want greater energy security, and helping achieve the goals (however weak) of the Kyoto Protocol is surely a good thing. However, biofuels - made by producing ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from maize, sugar cane, or other plant matter - may be a penny wise but pound foolish way of doing so. Consider the following:The grain required to fill the petrol tank of a Range Rover with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person per year. Assuming the petrol tank is refilled every two weeks, the amount of grain required would feed a hungry African village for a year Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving If ethanol is imported from the US, it will likely come from maize, which uses fossil fuels at every stage in the production process, from cultivation using fertilisers and tractors to processing and transportation. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind Meeting the 5.75% target would require, according to one authoritative study, a quarter of the EU's arable land Using ethanol rather than petrol reduces total emissions of carbon dioxide by only about 13% because of the pollution caused by the production process, and because ethanol gets only about 70% of the mileage of petrol Food prices are already increasing. With just 10% of the world's sugar harvest being converted to ethanol, the price of sugar has doubled; the price of palm oil has increased 15% over the past year, with a further 25% gain expected next year.Little wonder that many are calling biofuels "deforestation diesel", the opposite of the environmentally friendly fuel that all are seeking. With so much farmland already taking the form of monoculture, with all that implies for wildlife, do we really want to create more diversity-stripped desert? Others are worried about the impacts of biofuels on food prices, which will affect especially the poor who already spend a large proportion of their income on food. Biotech boost So what is to be done? The first step is to increase our understanding of how nature works to produce energy. Amazingly, scientists do not yet have a full understanding of the workings of photosynthesis, the process by which plants use solar energy to absorb carbon d
