Biofuels phail! >:}

[Mao]

What I find interesting in all of this has little to do with the fuels themselves but rather with the adaptive nature of the human race and it's conscious problem solving.  It's really amazing to watch all of you discuss solutions and reshape/discard/integrate them as needed and the same goes for the nature of the problem.  Am I alone in enjoying this?

Anyways, continue please and don't mind my interruption and potential thread derailment.  I just marvel in the process of weaving solutions and unraveling of problems.

[Brunhidden]

it is impressive to watch- for example NASA has had spaceship parts for decades in storeage, and regularly use degrease rs to maintain them. all the degrease rs leeched into the soil, making it toxic. some of the NASA dudes, sitting on their hands, figured out a way to make a synthetic enzyme out of iron or a reusable one out of a more pricy material which when in contact with hazardous degrease rs would break it apart into harmless chemicals such as water, salt, and whatnot else. they're thinking they could use this technology to treat mass amounts of contaminated groundwater or just sprinkle onto tainted soil to remedy the effects of toxic substances.

If at first you don't succeed, read the instruction manual, quit, and then watch some TV

[Stig Hemmer]

Biofuel can mean (at least) two different things:  Alcohol and biodiesel.  If you start with carbohydrates (sugar, starch and cellulosis) you can make alcohol, if you start with oil/fat you can make diesel.  Diesel is a better fuel, but there is a lot more carbohydrates than oils in the plant world.

Making biofuel from foodstuffs is generally not a good idea.  Takes an aweful lot of ground and water.  However, todays food industry generates a lot of waste material that can be used instead.  This waste is free in terms of ground use, since we are growing these food crops anyway.  Unfortunately we still need to use a lot of water for process the waste into usable fuel.

What needs to be done is to place these factories in sensible places, where there is no local water shortage.  Central Florida ... is not the place for this.

What I think looks most promising is algae.  Algae grow insanely fast when you treat them right, so ground use is not a big problem.  I am not sure about water use.

In the longer term, I think electric cars is the way to go.  Hydrogen makes no sense, since you use more energy making it than you get out of it, and hydrogen has a low energy density, which means large gas tanks.  Batteries are also bulky compared to biofuel, but not as bad as hydrogen.  Batteries are also getting better year by year thanks to the laptop revolution.

To do this we would need to build more electric power plants.  In addition to wind power, solar power and tidal power we can also make power plants that burn some form of biofuel.  The nice thing about this is that a power plant doesn't need as clean a fuel as a car does. Heck, you can burn plain wood if you want to. (But you don't want to)

Some people are pessimistic, always predicting imminent disaster of some sort.  I prefer to be optimistic.  So far humanity has always solved its problems, and often ended up better than before the "disaster of the century".  I think we will continue to do so.

For example:  A long time ago, human civilization faced serious crisis, they were running out of easily minable copper and tin, the components of bronze.   No more bronze!  Imminent death of civilization predicted!  They recycled the last bronze for as long as they could, but they ran out anyhow.

This was a rough time, empires collapsed.  But people survived.

In their desperation, they started using iron, a metal that up until then had been considered too hard to work with and almost useless.

As they got the hang of it, they found that iron wasn't so bad after all.  And when they found out how to make steel, they really had turned the disaster into a blessing.

History is full of examples like that.  Learn from it.

[Alondro]

Yes, but you're comparing a time in history when the total human population was measured in the tens of millions and people still thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.  No one at that time could literally move mountains or had the slightest notions of how the simple chemical alterations they could manage actually worked.

Today there are billions of people (~100X more!), vast scientific knowledge, technical innovations beyond imagination less than a century ago, and the Earth's resources are very really stretched to far.  This is not a simple lack of knowledge, this is the place where humanity finds out it has over-extended its reach.  We're using resources at a rate so exponentially higher than those old-time civilization crises that it's incomparable. 

The solution: cut out the dead weight.  I'd say at least 5.9 billion, leaving only the select whom I deem worthy.  We can use the bodies to make biodiesel and have plenty of oil for the rest of us for untold millenia! 

Feh, just try and show me something else that'll actually work.   

[Brunhidden]

how about we go back to using olive oil? it was good enough for a few thousand years, before people ever even figured out you could eat the olives

[Reese Tora]

Yes, but you're comparing a time in history when the total human population was measured in the tens of millions and people still thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.  No one at that time could literally move mountains or had the slightest notions of how the simple chemical alterations they could manage actually worked.

Today there are billions of people (~100X more!), vast scientific knowledge, technical innovations beyond imagination less than a century ago, and the Earth's resources are very really stretched to far.  This is not a simple lack of knowledge, this is the place where humanity finds out it has over-extended its reach.  We're using resources at a rate so exponentially higher than those old-time civilization crises that it's incomparable. 

The solution: cut out the dead weight.  I'd say at least 5.9 billion, leaving only the select whom I deem worthy.  We can use the bodies to make biodiesel and have plenty of oil for the rest of us for untold millenia! 

Feh, just try and show me something else that'll actually work.   

I donated to your booth as AC, I get to live, right? right?

At some point, we will reach our limits, and people will starve.  This is how population has always been kept in check: the scarcity of food and competition for it.  The population boom we have seen in the past few centuries is primarily related to the fact that we have been able to extend our ability to produce food well beyond what nature can provide unaided.  The use of oil is very strongly responsible for allowing us to reach the point where we are now, and the loss of that energy source may well leave us with a population far beyond our means to provide for.  Unlike Alondro, I do believe that we can discover or develop a replacement for oil fuels that will allow us to avoid the suffering that will come with the loss of oil, but efforts need to be made to produce that replacement before it becomes necesary, or lots of people will die.

At some point, humanity will grow to the point where limited resources will cause starvation and death(and probably war... all that's missing is pestilence), but I hope it will be far enough in the future I don't have to live through it.

[Valynth]

I donated to your booth as AC, I get to live, right? right?

At some point, we will reach our limits, and people will starve.  This is how population has always been kept in check: the scarcity of food and competition for it.  The population boom we have seen in the past few centuries is primarily related to the fact that we have been able to extend our ability to produce food well beyond what nature can provide unaided.  The use of oil is very strongly responsible for allowing us to reach the point where we are now, and the loss of that energy source may well leave us with a population far beyond our means to provide for.  Unlike Alondro, I do believe that we can discover or develop a replacement for oil fuels that will allow us to avoid the suffering that will come with the loss of oil, but efforts need to be made to produce that replacement before it becomes necessary, or lots of people will die.

At some point, humanity will grow to the point where limited resources will cause starvation and death(and probably war... all that's missing is pestilence), but I hope it will be far enough in the future I don't have to live through it.

No oil=no plastics.

Hospitals use a hell of a lot of plastics to treat EVERYTHING.  Without plastics, hospitals lose their ability to treat diseases as effectively.  Pestilence soon follows.

As you see, they're all there.  War, however, is simply a constant in Africa/Middle-east.  It just depends on how large a conflict you consider a war to be and that'd be splitting hairs.

[Reese Tora]

No oil=no plastics.

Hospitals use a hell of a lot of plastics to treat EVERYTHING.  Without plastics, hospitals lose their ability to treat diseases as effectively.  Pestilence soon follows.

As you see, they're all there.  War, however, is simply a constant in Africa/Middle-east.  It just depends on how large a conflict you consider a war to be and that'd be splitting hairs.

Right, but we recycle plastic (which also uses much less energy than producing it new from oil) and if we stop using oil as fuel then the current supplies will be able to provide plenty of new plastic to replace what can't be recycled and account for population growth for quite a while. (one chart I found had non-fuel uses of oil at 15% of total usage in the US, but I don't know how accurate it was... obviously, some uses, like Jet fuel, will not be so easy to replace as gasoline or diesel.)

[Brunhidden]

also keep in mind a few cunning scientists have devised a way to turn fructose into a petroleum like substance that can be used to make plastics and pharmaceuticals. it cant be done on the scale needed to be fuel, but its a viable way to turn waste foodstuffs that have spoiled into useful materials.

[Valynth]

Right, but we recycle plastic (which also uses much less energy than producing it new from oil) and if we stop using oil as fuel then the current supplies will be able to provide plenty of new plastic to replace what can't be recycled and account for population growth for quite a while. (one chart I found had non-fuel uses of oil at 15% of total usage in the US, but I don't know how accurate it was... obviously, some uses, like Jet fuel, will not be so easy to replace as gasoline or diesel.)

Actually, plastic recycling isn't as effective as that.  The facilities that produce the recycled plastic can only run at a profit with government grants.  On it's own, the recycled plastic industry would crumble because the plastic you get from it is an inferior grade, and it takes a significantly greater amount of power to recycle it (assuming you want the same quality) as opposed to producing more from oil.  Infact, the only things you can recycle effectively for repeated use and run at a cheaper price are metals like steel, iron, aluminum, etc.  And Paper recycling can really only give you those crappy paper cup-holding plates you get at a drive-through resteraunt.

Anyway, the reason plastic recycling isn't as effective is that while yes, you get SOME of the plastic back, you LOSE a lot of it, this is because plastic is a series of molecules and every time you re-work the substance those molecules get shoved around and many of them break into various other compounds.  Metal recycling on the other hand is looking for raw elemental components with very few if any molecular bindings, which can be achieved by essentially throwing the metal into the forge.  This cuts out the mining since forging is designed to only leave one particular element, not an entire series of molecules as with plastics.

Also, keep in mind that most of our plastics are actually PRODUCED in other countries, so of course the U.S. use of oil for plastics is low.

[Jairus]

Actually, plastic recycling isn't as effective as that.  The facilities that produce the recycled plastic can only run at a profit with government grants.  On it's own, the recycled plastic industry would crumble because the plastic you get from it is an inferior grade, and it takes a significantly greater amount of power to recycle it (assuming you want the same quality) as opposed to producing more from oil.  Infact, the only things you can recycle effectively for repeated use and run at a cheaper price are metals like steel, iron, aluminum, etc.  And Paper recycling can really only give you those crappy paper cup-holding plates you get at a drive-through resteraunt.

Anyway, the reason plastic recycling isn't as effective is that while yes, you get SOME of the plastic back, you LOSE a lot of it, this is because plastic is a series of molecules and every time you re-work the substance those molecules get shoved around and many of them break into various other compounds.  Metal recycling on the other hand is looking for raw elemental components with very few if any molecular bindings, which can be achieved by essentially throwing the metal into the forge essentially cutting out the mining since forging is designed to only leave one particular element, not an entire series of molecules as with plastics.

If I recall, glass is actually pretty easy to recycle as well, or at least much better than plastic. Can anyone check on this? As for the plastics thing, I recall reading that you actually have to add plastic into the recycling process just to get something good out of it, which just screams inefficient to me.

[Valynth]

If I recall, glass is actually pretty easy to recycle as well, or at least much better than plastic. Can anyone check on this? As for the plastics thing, I recall reading that you actually have to add plastic into the recycling process just to get something good out of it, which just screams inefficient to me.

Clear glass yes, but colored glasses are a different story (since they have other elements in them giving them their color).

More often than not a glass maker will toss out the smalled colored glass shards and keep the larger ones to use in making designs, but the colored glass shards don't typically get melted completely down.

[Jairus]

If I recall, glass is actually pretty easy to recycle as well, or at least much better than plastic. Can anyone check on this? As for the plastics thing, I recall reading that you actually have to add plastic into the recycling process just to get something good out of it, which just screams inefficient to me.

Clear glass yes, but colored glasses are a different story (since they have other elements in them giving them their color).

More often than not a glass maker will toss out the smalled colored glass shards and keep the larger ones to use in making designs, but the colored glass shards don't typically get melted completely down.

Ah, that does make sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Reese Tora]

Also, keep in mind that most of our plastics are actually PRODUCED in other countries, so of course the U.S. use of oil for plastics is low.

Do you know which stages of production of plastic goods are done in other countries, and which are domestic?

In any case, when you consider that the US uses three or four times more oil per year than the next highest consuming country, and a country producing plastics for the US will most likely be a developed country that will also have a high fuel consumption level, and that (if the numebrs of the chart I found are to be believed) more than 50% of our oil usage is in cars and trucks.
(of course, there's a lot more open space in the US than in other developed countries, and we may well have a higher per capita use of fuel for transportation than other nations due to increased travel distances)

the chart I have referenced these apst two posts is here:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/326-detailed-breakdown-of-us-petroleum.html

note that I consider the numbers suspect for being third hand, but lacking any better source, it's what I've got to work with.
note, also, that it lists palstics at only 10.3%; I said 15% because I lumped in asphalt  and then rounded up to the nearest 5% to account for limited production through otehr sources and miscelaneous stuff that may well fall under other catagories.

[Valynth]

Also, keep in mind that most of our plastics are actually PRODUCED in other countries, so of course the U.S. use of oil for plastics is low.

Do you know which stages of production of plastic goods are done in other countries, and which are domestic?

In any case, when you consider that the US uses three or four times more oil per year than the next highest consuming country, and a country producing plastics for the US will most likely be a developed country that will also have a high fuel consumption level.

Last I heard, China wasn't exactly a "developed nation."  It's getting there, yes, but not quite.  Also, China uses more oil than we do now, but people keep throwing "per capita" as if that means jack-squat in the fields of supply-demand (it only counts in, wait for it....MARKETING!).

Also the fact that many of our refineries are aging and shutting down with no replacements in sight (there was a lot of huplah about that when gas prices first went up), seems to suggest that they're outsourcing that too.

[Reese Tora]

Last I heard, China wasn't exactly a "developed nation."  It's getting there, yes, but not quite.  Also, China uses more oil than we do now, but people keep throwing "per capita" as if that means jack-squat in the fields of supply-demand (it only counts in, wait for it....MARKETING!).

Also the fact that many of our refineries are aging and shutting down with no replacements in sight (there was a lot of huplah about that when gas prices first went up), seems to suggest that they're outsourcing that too.

China is developing, and I would question whether or not they are producing the plastic or simply making products our of 'raw' plastic produced elsewhere.  (which would make that plastic no more appear on China's consumption than on the US's consumption, if consumption is measured by where the oil stops being oil.)

as for numebrs, according to the CIA fact book(according to a site I got via google; more suspect numbers, I'm afraid), as of June 14th, 2007:
#1   United States: 20,730,000 bbl/day   
#2   China: 6,534,000 bbl/day   
#3   Japan: 5,578,000 bbl/day   
#4   Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day   
#5   Russia: 2,500,000 bbl/day   

This agrees with the numbers that I've been seeing elsewhere on oil consumption.

Yes, the US refineries are at capacity, we aren't allowed to build more, we aren't allowed to expand them, we aren't allowed to drill for more oil.(well, not exactly on taht alst one, but...)

These are problems with governent, though, and won't solve the real problem if we ever can fix them.

[Nikki]

I have the perfect solution to this problem.

Rubber-band cars.

Pedal to wind up the rubber band, then let it  go and steer to where you wanna go.

-or- do like the Flintstones and run you car manually =3

-or- invent flying cars that run on solar and water power |D

[Omega]

its simple, a hydrogen car has been kicked around for so long and in places like Norway they're already setting up roads equipped with enough stations capable of supplying hydrogen that you could easily just 'gas' up and go. the only emission is water, and all you really need is a reliable source of electricity and clean water.

And don't forget Iceland. They may be small, but they sure are crafty when talking about energy.

Am I alone in enjoying this?

Oh my, no. The level of this conversation is way above the average and knowledge that people have shown here is really impressive compared to few other places where I've seen this same topic being argued over. Gosh, we're even talking about chemistry in here <3


Now here's my humble acorn:
There's only one substance than is vast enough to cover the lack of oil, that is water. Sadly, the -effective- fusion power is still out from our reach, meaning we should cut down the consumption of gas. I'm putting more emphasis on the word "should", because there's no way anyone is going to do that. Could you live with out a car for a week?

If we replace oil with ethanol, we need more fields for crops, leading the rise of expenses in food industry. We would probably have to cut down eating meat.
If we replace oil with electricity, the need for power rises. More power plants. More expensive electricity. Same problem.
Methane?  uhh.... why not? It's just a greenhouse gas. Not that hard to obtain, really.

[Jairus]

There's only one substance than is vast enough to cover the lack of oil, that is water. Sadly, the -effective- fusion power is still out from our reach, meaning we should cut down the consumption of gas. I'm putting more emphasis on the word "should", because there's no way anyone is going to do that. Could you live with out a car for a week?

At best, I can go a week and a half without my car, but that's because A) I live in a place where every store I could need to go to is within about two or three miles (i.e. walking distance) and B) because I like walking. The only times I drive are when I visit my family (about a hundred miles away from where I live) or when I need to do a shopping trip for food and stuff like that. Most of the time it's closer to five days or so (again, family visitation is to blame).

And this really is getting to be an interesting conversation.

[Omega]

Could we cut down those few trips then? Could the food be delivered to you (and to everyone else?) after you'd order it from on-line? Do you have to see your relatives IRL, wouldn't you settle for video phone or text messages? What Alondro said about decreasing the human population isn't so far fetched idea after all. The problem in that is how, who and by what right.

[Jairus]

Could we cut down those few trips then? Could the food be delivered to you (and to everyone else?) after you'd order it from on-line? Do you have to see your relatives IRL, wouldn't you settle for video phone or text messages? What Alondro said about decreasing the human population isn't so far fetched idea after all. The problem in that is how, who and by what right.

The problem is that the reason I visit my family so much is because I have a job every other weekend down there, and I also go down to visit when my dad has a sound job that he needs help on. Like this weekend where we had to do sound for a big Blues festival.

As for getting the food delivered... well, that is a possibility. I'll think about it.

And decreasing the human population: why don't we try to stabilize the growth instead of actually lowering it. That should be slightly easier, and it'll still buy us some time to fix our problems. Partly because I'm a little worried about the line "decreasing the human population." You're right in asking how, who, and by what right.

[Omega]

I can't force anyone of you to do anything (or I won't force you.)
Still, I'd advice you to use a train for long distances instead of airplanes and your bike for short distances more often. IF you don't want to cut down the use of cars, bear in mind that soon you might have no choice in the matter.
I don't really see the reason why to whine the high gas prices when, people in Europe and Asia pay way more for the gasoline than Americans.

Here's a picture to cheer the mood for you.

[Faerie Alex]

I'm curious Omega, on train vs. plane, for some distances, I think you might do better to take a plane. I'm not sure, but I would think that an airplane might gain an advantage over particularly longer distances. And not that I have anything better than dead reckoning to back that up on, but I'm wondering if you do.

[Valynth]

I'm curious Omega, on train vs. plane, for some distances, I think you might do better to take a plane. I'm not sure, but I would think that an airplane might gain an advantage over particularly longer distances. And not that I have anything better than dead reckoning to back that up on, but I'm wondering if you do.

Planes really only have the advantage of being able to cross almost any sort of terrain in a straight line, where as a train's tracks have to weave around obstacles and can't cross the oceans.  Newer "frictionless" trains, however, might be able to make up for that land problem with sheer speed, but the oceans still pose a problem.

Even then, trains are the best choice in terms of fuel efficiency since they don't need the several hundred-thousand pounds of lift that airplanes do and the frictionless train generate their lift by electro-magenitism which relies on energy more than direct fuel usage.

[Omega]

I'm curious Omega, on train vs. plane, for some distances, I think you might do better to take a plane. I'm not sure, but I would think that an airplane might gain an advantage over particularly longer distances. And not that I have anything better than dead reckoning to back that up on, but I'm wondering if you do.

I live in a land of over a hundred thousand lakes, vast forests and wet swamps. Train traffic is horrible in here. It's expensive and very uncertain. The trains are late every other day even more often in winter, when the tempature drops down belove twenty degrees of celsius. Still, I prefer travel made by train over plane. When flying into another country, things get different. One does not simply travel from Helsinki to Madrid on tracks. I think that an effective range of trains is from 100km to 800km. Longr than that might take too much time to travel to most people.

[Reese Tora]

I'm curious Omega, on train vs. plane, for some distances, I think you might do better to take a plane. I'm not sure, but I would think that an airplane might gain an advantage over particularly longer distances. And not that I have anything better than dead reckoning to back that up on, but I'm wondering if you do.

Planes really only have the advantage of being able to cross almost any sort of terrain in a straight line, where as a train's tracks have to weave around obstacles and can't cross the oceans.  Newer "frictionless" trains, however, might be able to make up for that land problem with sheer speed, but the oceans still pose a problem.

Even then, trains are the best choice in terms of fuel efficiency since they don't need the several hundred-thousand pounds of lift that airplanes do and the frictionless train generate their lift by electro-magenitism which relies on energy more than direct fuel usage.

Freight trains have a fuel use to cargo ratio orders of magnitude greater than the largest(and therfore most efficient) airplanes.  What airplanes have that trains don't is speed, and trains could make up some of that simply by improving the existing network of rails we have in the US on with the current technology. (The system is in disrepair in many places, and efficiency has been let slip and scheduled trip lengths increased rather than fix the problems.)

Electromagnetically lifted trains need to get their lift power from somewhere, whether it comes from a powerplant burning coal, oil, or just gathering sunlight, and they only offer an advantage in speed and the smoothness of the ride; you would likely not use them for mass cargo transport because it would probably be as expensive as flying without being as fast.

[Alondro]

Could we cut down those few trips then? Could the food be delivered to you (and to everyone else?) after you'd order it from on-line? Do you have to see your relatives IRL, wouldn't you settle for video phone or text messages? What Alondro said about decreasing the human population isn't so far fetched idea after all. The problem in that is how, who and by what right.

Might makes right.  Evolution says so.   

[Jack McSlay]

Actually, oil is not the only thing you can make plastic out of. soy can do too.

Here in Brasil, cars that can run on both ethanol and gasoline are becoming a standard, and natural gas is constantly becoming a pretty common fuel as well, wherever city a gas station with natural gas show up, it starts filling up with natural gas-enabled cars relatively quickly.

More efficient means of transportation is a great idea, but the structural requirements are immense. buses will travel just as fast if not slower than cars if there's no specific driveway, trains need a lot of space too or to spend a LOT making a subway, and you just can't make an airport anywhere you want, mountain-filled places will make landing too difficult.

I think the car design needs to change as well. most of the time people drive alone in cars designed to put up to 5 people in it, meaning a huge load of power is used with no need at all. if all people in the world used motorbikes whenever they wanted to go somewhere alone, today we possibly woudn't even be in a enviromental/fuel crisis.
Also in some large cities, the streets are so overcrowded with cars that riding a car is no longer considered an effective mean of going anywhere. In São Paulo, the average car speed is 17km/h - any healthy person runs faster than that on foot. It would be a good idea to start investing in bikes, europe has got positive results by making it easier for people to go around in bikes

Then seriously, they need to stop thinking wheat is even a choice for fuel. too few energy per acre and pollutes more than sugar cane. also if they start using wheat for fuel you run out of wheat for food, which is a major deal, if they use sugar cane for fuel you just don't get sugar, which is in general good for your health. also, not sure if it's valid for wheat as well, but newer techniques allow to process the whole sugar cane plant into fuel

And we need Brazil to go fuck itself. Because seriously, those people are...

Do you read National Geographic? I swear to all that is unholy, if you ever read more than five issues of that magazine, you'll begin to develop a hatred for all of South America too.

wow thanks a LOT[/sarcasm] 

the aircar is an ingenious idea i cant figure out why nobody thought of it either- your 'gas tank' is actually three large compressed air tanks under the car, and the car runs on compressed air being released into the engine.

If I remember correctly, mythbusters tried to do so, and managed to move a boat only a few meters with dual 65 litre tanks

[Brunhidden]

thats boat, not car, and mythbusters not a team of highly trained mechanics, engeneers, designers, machinists, metallurgists, and so fourth.

[Stygian]

I live in a land of over a hundred thousand lakes, vast forests and wet swamps. Train traffic is horrible in here. It's expensive and very uncertain. The trains are late every other day even more often in winter, when the tempature drops down belove twenty degrees of celsius. Still, I prefer travel made by train over plane. When flying into another country, things get different. One does not simply travel from Helsinki to Madrid on tracks. I think that an effective range of trains is from 100km to 800km. Longr than that might take too much time to travel to most people.

Personally, to me that just sounds like people need to learn to allocate their time, and like we need better trains and railways. Because no one will ever convince me that modern airlines are an efficient means of transportation, no matter how much I like the technology involved. Effective, yeah, but not efficient.

Myself, unless time is very short, I cover any distance below 15 km by bike on principle. And fast. Often I go longer than that in one stretch. And I think that more people should. It would help increase national health too. The problem is just that for lots of people, high-earners in particular, the money they save on driving to work in work hours outweighs the money that fuel and even such things as 'crowding tax' (introduced to the Stockholm area recently to cut down on in-city driving) will cost them.

At least I've managed to get my dad (one of those high-earners) to bicycle to work every so often...