MM wrote: >Did I read correctly somewhere in one of these conversations: it will be 2007 >before we have low-sulfur diesel fuel? Or is that a state-to-state issue?
IIRC new EPA requirements for low-sulfur diesel (cutting sulfur by 97%) come into effect in 2007. >If >so, that is *way* too long and is the >Oil-lobby-at-its-best-in-delaying-things. Yes - yesterday would be better. >Seen it with the EV situation, seen it with the California ethanol situation. >When you think you've beaten them, that usually means you've lost. They are >that good. Never mind, we'll kill 'em anyway! :-) >We might as well say that for diesel powered vehicles to be make a significant >reduction in fossil fuel emissions, we need "first" for diesel fuel >to not only >be largely biodiesel, but for that biodiesel to be made by certified >sustainable >low-CO2 producing sources, and then we can put the diesel engines out there to >use it. Yes, putting diesels on the road would accomplish some CO2 >reductions, >evidently, but the bigger reductions will come with the added biodiesel angle. >Should we wait? Hell no. No problem producing CO2-free biofuels. I've often said this, I have wide personal experience of these production systems to base it on, and it's very well corroborated by field results and research all over the world, dating back many decades - nothing new here. This is from the latest report I've received (I get something like this every few days). Some of these tests may have used fossil fuels for tractors etc, but not for fertilizers. The tractor fuel is easily replaced by on-farm produced ethanol, biodiesel or SVO. Note that the best improvements come from Third World countries (in fact organics was mostly developed in Third World countries). A lot of people think "organics" is just farming without chemicals (organics by neglect), or substituting organic-origin chemicals for synthetic ones (organics by substitution), generally low-input low-output, but well-managed organic systems (organics by management) are low-input high-output. This report is from ISIS in the UK: >Another experiment examined organic and conventional potatoes and >sweet corn over three years. Results showed that yield and vitamin C >content of potatoes were not affected by the two different regimes. >While one variety of conventional corn out-produced the organic, >there was no difference between the two in yield of another variety >or the vitamin C or E contents. Results indicate that long-term >application of composts is producing higher soil fertility and >comparable plant growth. > >A review of replicated research results in seven different US >Universities and from Rodale Research Center, Pennsylvania and the >Michael Fields Center, Wisconsin over the past 10 years showed that >organic farming systems resulted in yields comparable to industrial, >high input agriculture. > >Corn: With 69 total cropping seasons, organic yields were 94% of >conventionally produced corn. >Soybeans: Data from five states over 55 growing seasons showed >organic yields were 94% of conventional yields. >Wheat: Two institutions with 16 cropping year experiments showed >that organic wheat produced 97% of the conventional yields. >Tomatoes: 14 years of comparative research on tomatoes showed no >yield differences. > >The most remarkable results of organic farming, however, have come >from small farmers in developing countries. Case studies of organic >practices show dramatic increases in yields as well as benefits to >soil quality, reduction in pests and diseases and general >improvement in taste and nutritional content. For example, in Brazil >the use of green manures and cover crops increased maize yields by >between 20% and 250%; in Tigray, Ethiopia, yields of crops from >composted plots were 3-5 times higher than those treated only with >chemicals; yield increases of 175% have been reported from farms in >Nepal adopting agro-ecological practices; and in Peru the >restoration of traditional Incan terracing has led to increases of >150% for a range of upland crops. > >Projects in Senegal involving 2000 farmers promoted stall-fed >livestock, composting systems, use of green manures, water >harvesting systems and rock phosphate. Yields of millet and peanuts >increased dramatically, by 75-195% and 75-165% respectively. Because >the soils have greater water retaining capacity, fluctuations in >yields are less pronounced between high and low rainfall years. A >project in Honduras, which emphasized soil conservation practices >and organic fertilisers, saw a tripling or quadrupling of yields. > >In Santa Catarina, Brazil, focus has been placed on soil and water >conservation, using contour grass barriers, contour ploughing and >green manures. Some 60 different crop species, leguminous and >non-leguminous, have been inter-cropped or planted during fallow >periods. These have had major impacts on yields, soil quality, >levels of biological activity and water-retaining capacity. Yields >of maize and soybeans have increased by 66%. [more] http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicAgriculture.php Organic Agriculture Fights Back So, no problem producing the crops for ethanol, SVO or biodiesel, and the entire operation can easily be powered on biofuels or by-products. That would include such integrated prodedures as using the DDG from ethanol production as livestock feed, the livestock manure producing biogas for process heat, the residue subjected to aerobic composting for recycling to the soil - with the aerobic composting a constant and free source of heat for hot water (60 deg C+), also useful for process heat. Burning glyc (safely) and recovered FFAs offer further such options. Easy. Done this way, biodiesel can be ethyl esters as the oil is virgin, a stable supply with constant characteristics, and can be suitably deacidified first (FFAs from acidulated soapstock providing further process fuel). Such stable feedstock means that if using pure ethanol in transesterification is troublesome, other methods such as enzyme catalysis can be used (where ethanol works better than methanol anyway). It's also worth experimenting with ethanol with acid-base processes, perhaps under pressure. Anyway, it can already be done - if in the meantime some methanol has to be used with the ethanol in simpler operations, the overall reductions in CO2 would still be enormous, compared with current industrialized production of soy- or rapeseed-methyl esters biodiesel, and especially compared with petro-diesel. Nonetheless, the early introduction of ULSD is essential. As Motie and others are pointing out, it's the poor-quality fuel that's the major obstacle now. Best wishes Keith > >The current US situation is crazy and the lack of utilization of diesel > >completely non-understandable. > > > >The only reason I can think about, that might be against energy saving and > >diesel, is the possible negative effect on the all mighty GNP. In this > >cases the net effect could be positive anyway and we have to find a more > >reliable measurement on economic success than GNP. > > > >Hakan ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
