http://www.physorg.com/news7309.html
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
In a town full of candlestick makers,
everyone lives in the light,
In a town full of thieves,
there is only one candle,
and everyone lives in the night.
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:12:14
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
More idealism? or an ill-wind for Big-oil...
There are many NREL inventions related to ethanol from biomass, such as a
genetically modified bacteria 'Zymomonas mobilis,' which has had the
capability to ferment
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 17 Oct 2005
22:26:44 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Jones Beene wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16679599%255E30417,00.html
[snip]
How do you control the stuff? (Assuming we don't want to turn the
entire continent
Jones Beene wrote:
The efficiency of the system is irrelevant. If every single leaf, grass,
branch and food crop that grows in North America were converted into
ethanol with 100% efficiency it would not be anywhere near enough.
Whoa !!! This is so outrageously false it defies the imagination
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Please note that I object to invalid logic, not politically incorrect
statements. I do not give a fig about political correctness.
I know. I still chuckle a little every time I think of the Vortex post in
which you complimented some public figure by comparing him
It's not easy to dramatize potato farming.
But if anyone can do, it would probably happen in Idaho.
After all, the potato king - Jack Simplot was able to outdo the
giants of Silicon Valley and Japan to become the only successful
US startup in computer memory chips - with Micron Technologies,
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
The efficiency of the system is irrelevant. If every single leaf,
grass, branch and food crop that grows in North America were
converted into ethanol with 100% efficiency it would not be anywhere
near enough.
Whoa !!! This is so outrageously false
I wrote:
Method 2. Take the old rule of thumb that in hard times an acre garden can
support a family of four. . . .
That should be method 4.
This estimate was made by my mother-in-law, who in fact does live on
produce from her garden, and my mother, who studied agronomy and
agricultural
Any questions?
Jed,
No, the errors are blatantly obvious already !
And about the best you have done is reproven the old adage that
there are lies, damn lies, and statistics! I shouldn't be too
smug about this, as I am often guilty of the same reliance on
published material, which is
Jones Beene wrote:
Huge difference! In fact the *fatal* error in this particular argument is
rather easy to spot: Photosynthesis is roughly 0.1% effective, so that
comes to 0.9 watts/m^2.
Every reference I have seen, from the USDA, the Dept. of Biology, Tokai U.,
and other sources,
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
...
Isn't it Brazil that's growing fuel on a large scale at
this point? Why are they doing that if it's an energy
-negative process? Is it just politics, or something
about the situation there that makes it work for them?
(This is actually a serious question,
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
very high dry yield/acre. So, figure 20 tons/acre in reasonable
conditions; a bit more in Florida, a bit less in North Dakota.
The difference between Florida and Dakota is very large. It is at least a
factor of two, because of winter, and probably a factor of ~10,
I wrote:
That would be Edwin Rommel, a man I admire a great deal.
I meant Erwin Rommel. I probably said that, too, but thanks to voice input
it came out Edwin.
It is a shame Rommel's ancestors did not move to the US, the way
Eisenhower's did. He might have been one of our greatest
Jed Rothwell writes,
Huge difference! In fact the *fatal* error in this particular
argument is rather easy to spot: Photosynthesis is roughly 0.1%
effective, so that comes to 0.9 watts/m^2.
Every reference I have seen, from the USDA, the Dept. of
Biology, Tokai U., and other sources,
I have been harping on about 0.1% photosynthesis efficiency. I used this
number in chapter 16 of my book. Actually, I just realized I am off by a
large margin because, as Pimentel and other sources say, this is the annual
average for North America. In the book, I had this right: Plants growing
SVJ:
I believe you are correct, Stephen. Brazil produces a lot of
crop fuels - alcohol, lots of it. They must be doing something
right.
While the on-going debate between Jed and Jonse is indeed
entertaining it might be useful to check the status of Brazil's
energy independence these days.
Jones Beene wrote:
It is crazy to confuse an average figure for mosts plants - which by
definition will need to include all plants on all terrains - from desert
cacti to alpine bristlecones, with the figure for the best plant under
average conditions.
This is the average for the US. Most US
OrionWorks wrote:
I believe you are correct, Stephen. Brazil produces a lot of crop fuels
- alcohol, lots of it. They must be doing something right.
As I mentioned, according to my friends in the human rights business, what
they are doing is exploiting peasants to make fuel for the middle
Jones Beene wrote:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/06/brazil_ag_and_b.html
Imagine what they can do when they switch from sugar (as the ethanol
feedstock) to biomass.
Jones: I do not follow what you mean here. Sugar is biomass. What crop are
they considering to replace it?
I do not
Jed sez:
...
The situation in Brazil is different for two reasons: 1.
There is a lot of land per capita and it is highly productive,
and 2. There are many starving peasants, especially women and
children, who will work for a pittance. Biomass is grown
mainly with human and animal labor,
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 3:32 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: Sugar production
There should be some caution about applying our standards to 3rd world labor.
During the controversy about poor kids working in
Zell, Chris wrote:
There should be some caution about applying our standards to 3rd world
labor. During the controversy about poor kids working in sweatshop factories
a few years ago, a basic fact was overlooked: life is cheap in those
nations. Pushing poor kids out of factories may force
Quoting Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
Virginia . . . Sometimes there is only a paper-thin difference between a
hero and a villain.
- Jed
I suppose Rommel, Eisenhower and Lee all are excellent examples of the principle
of:
General Relativity
-Zak
From: Zell, Chris
...
Actually, I've wondered if a really cheap new energy source
like cold fusion could doom the 3rd world. If Nigeria and
Angola saw their oil dollars fade away, how much would we
care about them?
Adding to Jed's comments...
I would agree. Collectively speaking
OrionWorks wrote:
I think it has even been claimed that supplying the feedstock market
might even be more lucerative than selling oil just to burn it.
I believe it is, because there is value added to the chemicals. (I should
mention that in chapter 13.)
However, I recall that Mr. Rothwell
-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Sugar production in Brazil
From: Zell, Chris
...
Actually, I've wondered if a really cheap new energy source like cold
Been scanning this thread for any mention of bacteria - did I miss it?
I've read that bacteria account for the greatest percentage of the
earth's total biomass by a very large margin. Some grow extremely fast
under the right conditions, some consume non-organic food, and they can
be bred/modified
Jed Rothwell wrote:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/06/brazil_ag_and_b.html
Imagine what they can do when they switch from sugar (as the
ethanol feedstock) to biomass.
Jones: I do not follow what you mean here. Sugar is biomass.
What crop are they considering to replace it?
In the
Jones Beene wrote:
Jones: I do not follow what you mean here. Sugar is biomass. What crop
are they considering to replace it?
In the past, the cellulose or woody part of the cane was not fermented -
only the sucrose extract was used, and the bulk of the biomass was burned
for the energy of
Zell, Chris wrote:
I believe I read that 20% of oil production is used for chemical
feedstock.
Yup.
At $65 a barrel, would CF make it plunge to $13 ?
That's about right.
My guess is that it would drop the price to around $9 or $10 dollars at
first and later $1 or $2 dollars per
A small long term problem.
In the normal agricultural cycle, the fruit or seed is harvested and the
rest composted or allowed to decay in the field, recycling the mineral
contnet. If the plants are totally harvested for fuel, this replenishment
does not occur and eventually the soil will be
Excellent case below mate, you should publish it in Infinite Energy or
somewhere. Have you considered the national oil stockpiles. Big
underground tanks in the desert. The transition from oil fired
industrial base to a fusion powered one may drive cash strapped
governments into a fire sale of
Jones Beene wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16679599%255E30417,00.html
Trials have shown that the plant flourishes on most arable land,
requires no fertilizer, suffers no pests or diseases, and produces
huge volumes of material that can be harvested
33 matches
Mail list logo
