another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

About the best thing we can do is export energy reducing technology. Although I hate those swirly light bulbs, if they save energy over other light producing technology, and the price is competive, they should reduce the demand for energy in third world countries.

Another thing we can do is export efficency technology in power production so that less fuel in burned in third world countries to produce each kW.

At the point we are at, reducing our lifestyle, or asking anyone else to not attempt to develop to our life style is asking for a war. The best way to reduce energy consumption is advances in technology. We will then have to accept some carbon until the technology advances.

Here's the sticky part. Goverment demands on car milages and smog reductions, has only seemed to create smaller cars to meet those standards. The demand for technology is exceeding the supply resulting in consumer unhappeness, as measured from the unpopularty of those smaller cars, and the increase in the life times of cars. People don't want smaller cars (in general), at least in the US.

There are ways to provide more efficent transportation (buses and trains) however the high price coupled with the crime and grime factors, and the inconvience of the schedules and stops makes this an issue that they can't live with.

Here's a novel idea, fix the problems, not force people into things they don't want. After all who buys shoes that don't fit?

 

[rb1957]

"asking anyone else to not attempt to develop to our life style" is in response to "developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels". rather than telling not to develop (which would be either futile or destructive) i was thinking more along the lines of developing as an electricity based energy source which is at least more efficient from a carbon perspective. and if that costs more, then that is something that could be funded by taxes (so long as the money flowed to where it was needed). eg better coal powerstations pollute less (but cost more) ... i'm willing to bet that China's new crop of powerstations isn't "cutting-edge", more like cheap Walmart "made in china" knock-offs.

i hadn't (in Canada) noticed your issue about car sizes. i'd've thought the main buying segment today was SUVs (which seem to be big enough for anyone ?).

i think we're all cynical enough to see how carbon taxing isn't going to fix much. oh, there'll be some new wind turbines and the such, but on the most of it a few people will get richer and lots of people will get slightly poorer and the "problem" will remain !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

When talking about "renewables" it is very important to isolate "wholesale" from "retail". I use solar panels and small wind turbines all the time on individual well sites that are remote from the power grid and I only need power for calculations, control, and valve actuation. Great technology for that, but I would never consider a windfarm or solar array to run a downhole pump. On the other hand when I see wind-turbine farms or solar-panel arrays that cover square miles I want to strangle our federal representatives. A wind farm or a solar array is unlikely to ever generate as much power as went into manufacture, assembly, and transportation of the raw materials and finished products and the only reason that these inefficient technologies are so widespread is the Federal subsidies.

It takes me about 4 workdays a month to pay for the energy I consume (heat, power, transportation, and food). I read an article in an ASME magazine last week that contended that approximately half the people on the planet spend over half of their time (more than 12 hours a day) getting fuel and food, tending fires, cooking, etc. If someone had a goal of lowering the average effort required to acquire energy from 360 hours each per month per person down towards the 24-80 hours we spend in per month in the west, then they would be doing a good thing. Just don't try to force the change through hysteria about the "climate changing", the guy in the hut in Borneo couldn't care less.

I understand that it is becoming common for farmers to capture the methane and heat off of digesters used to process biological wastes and use the methane to run gensets and the waste heat to warm barns and greenhouses. What a fantastic trend. It has nothing to do with reducing the methane in the atmosphere, it is all about improving profit margins (and thereby lowering the effort required to acquire fuel on the days-of-labor scale).

It is absolutely possible for the developing world to leapfrog the west. Hell, it is essential and inevitable if governments don't muck it up. So when you bring electricity to a hut in Borneo or a village in Kenya, screw in LED lights instead of incandescent. Instead of resistance cooktops use induction. Instead of mega-powerplants use community-sized co-gen plants.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[JJPellin]

I would tend to disagreed about the assumed value of bio-fuels. It is true that the CO2 released by the burning of the fuel is "young" carbon that was captured within the past few years. The problem is that this is not the only CO2 released. Specifically, corn based ethanol is an energy disaster. By the time you put the ethanol into your fuel tank, the equivalent of almost a gallon of diesel fuel has been burned to produce it. It takes a lot of energy to make ethanol from corn. And, it takes incredible amounts of water. If you add in the fact that using corn to make ethanol drives up the cost of food, it is generally destructive, economically and environmentally. Corn based ethanol is not part of the solution. It is part of the problem.

I don’t know if the same points are valid for soy based bio-diesel. It is possible that ethanol made from cane sugar or algae is a better choice. But, I would doubt that they are much better without solid evidence.

I really don’t see cars getting smaller to comply with the fuel economy requirements. The technology has made great improvements. But, most of the improvement has not been directed into reduced fuel consumption. Instead, they have used that efficiency to drive up horsepower. Watch the TV ads for new cars. They brag about engine horsepower more than economy. One of the first new cars I ever purchased got 30 miles per gallon with a 1.6 liter engine rated for about 100 horsepower. Now, you can buy cars that get 30 miles per gallon with 2.5 liter engines and more than 200 HP.


Johnny Pellin

 

[rb1957]

"Instead of resistance cooktops use induction." ... looking into induction stoves, the couple i looked at weren't Energy Star rated which surprised me if this is the reason (being more energy efficient) that they have a $1000 premium ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

The standards for "Energy Star" on cooktops are all about reducing the power load of a hugely inefficient technology. The power consumption on induction cookers is really impressive and the standards have not caught up yet.

They are expensive right now. The place I bought mine sells 10-15 resistance cooktops for every induction unit they sell. Three years ago it was 50-100 resistance cooktops for every induction, so they are moving up in consumer awareness. The one I bought two years ago was cheaper than the previous year's model by about $1,500 (but it was still over $2000). I always ask in omelet lines at hotel breakfasts what kind of hot plate they're using. The answer for nearly 4 years has been "induction". I'm starting to hear that professional kitchens are installing them instead of gas (blaspheme). The hotplate I bought to see if my wife and I liked the technology was under $300. I just looked on Google and today they run from $80 to $250 for homeowner models and up to $1500 for commercial models. The one I paid nearly $300 for is similar to the $80 one. That is in 3 years. At that rate of change, in another 3 years the high end will be under $100 and the low end will be around $50. I keep thinking back to my $3000 VCR (the first one I bought) and the one that a car dealer gave me for doing a test drive (the last one I acquired). I think induction cooking is on that path.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[rb1957]

isn't all tech ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

So far

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[ScottyUK]

Induction hobs are great for most cooking. I've had one for about seven years, replacing a totally useless halogen type which was installed when we bought the house. Deep down I'm a gas die-hard but there isn't a gas service in the kitchen and the destruction which would be required to install it isn't likely to occur for another five to ten years when the current kitchen is replaced, so for now my choice is constrained to electric types.

I love the controllability of the induction type and ease of keeping it clean. It is more limiting in terms of certain cooking styles than gas, which is my reference point: a proper wok simply won't work on an induction hob because the induction coupling can't deal with the curved base and the thin metal of the wok. I have bought a cast-iron wok which is ok on the induction hob and it is nice to cook with one you adjust to it, but it doesn't behave like a conventional one due to the much larger thermal mass.

Perhaps the biggest downside is that spare parts are expensive. I bought mine on ebay and it blew up within about half an hour of use. Ebay were very good about it and I got a partial refund because I said I would get it repaired, but a new power output module for two of the four rings was about £280 at the time. Since then it has been flawless in operation, but I don't look forward to next time something breaks.

 

[moltenmetal]

JJPellin: it does not take the energy equivalent of a gallon of diesel to produce a gallon of corn ethanol.

 

[moltenmetal]

(oops- hit the send by accident!)

You're forgetting about a major co-product of corn ethanol production which is the distiller's grain plus solubles, which is used to feed cattle. That's like saying that 5 barrels of crude oil are required to make a barrel of gasoline- forgetting about the diesel, naphtha, jet fuel, fuel oil, bunker etc.

All the reasonable, validated analyses I've seen of corn ethanol production show it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least a little relative to burning fossil gasoline. And for emissions reasons, we do want oxygenates in gasoline. Ethanol is a better choice than MTBE for environmental reasons, even ignoring GHG.

All the other things you said are true. Corn ethanol does drive up the price of corn, which is great if you're a farmer and a disaster if you're a poor person in Mexico. There are significant environmental impacts associated with intensive agriculture that cannot be ignored. And those ethanol stills are being fired mostly with natural gas, rather than using corn stover etc., because natural gas is so cheap at present. If you can't make it economical to burn corn stover to produce heat to run a distillation, it's idiotic to think that you're going to use corn stover to make cellulosic ethanol by any process I can imagine.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Molten, ethanol plants all over the upper midwest (US) are having their output throttled down because it is such a good idea and cashflows so well in its manufacture. Not. The political correctness and warm fuzzy of this boondoggle is beginning to wear off, and people are seeing it for what it is, a product of the green and farm lobbies. Without the subsidies, the thing would have been dead before it left the drafting board.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[zdas04]

Moltenmetal,
What you are saying doesn't jibe with my research so I went looking for another source. A Cornell Study doesn't seem to support your position. The article had a lot of very good points, but really like:

* Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel said. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

Basically, if corn ethanol were such a great idea, they would be using it as a fuel source instead of importing natural gas to the process. I really like his last point, if we went to 100% corn ethanol we would have to plant 97% of the land area of the U.S. in corn to meet demand. That doesn't leave much space for living, food crops, and Starbucks or McDonalds.

The big issue in this discussion is "boundaries". When you read the Wikipedia whitewash you get the feeling that ethanol returns between 1.06 and 1.6 times the energy input. Like so many of these studies, the line is drawn around the still. No consideration is given to the energy to produce the fertilizers, insecticides, pumping water to the crops, maintaining infrastructure, transporting workers, etc. There is a good paper at Harvard Study that draws the boundaries further out. It condemns this process based on economics, energy balance, land use, public health, air emissions (including a discussion of increasing so-called greenhouse gases due to ethanol production), and diverting arable land from food production. The quote below is germane:

These farm subsidies required that farmers raise only a single crop, like corn. This led farmers to sell off their livestock and end their production of a diversity of crops. Removing livestock from grain farms and placing them in feedlots constitued a major mistake as livestock manure could no longer be recycled effectively in crop production on the farm. This has resulted in a major pollution problem in the United States. More people are now exposed to livestock wastes than ever before. Earlier this year, the Center for Disease Control reported that there are 5,000 people, primarily children, die each year due to exposure to livestock wastes. Subsidization of corn crops has created further environmental difficulties. With corn production forced to be a continuous corn on corn production system, soil erosion increased dramatically from only 5 tons/ha/yr to 17 tons/ha/yr. The soil erosion problem costs the nation more than US$40 billion per year, and valuable cropland is degraded at the same time. Furthermore, weed and disease problems increased in corn production as farmers were forced to abandon growing corn in rotation with other crops. The most serious problem was the increase in the corn rootworm problem, leading to the high use of insectices. If farmers grew their corn in rotation with other crops, they could abandon the use of insecticides and also increase corn yields. Wheat, for instance, could be grown in alternation with corn, but the lower market value of wheat would lead to a reduction in economic benefit for farmers. Another problem associated with reducing crop rotations in corn production is that farmers are required to use more nitrogen fertilizer. As mentioned, corn uses more fertilizer today than any other crop grown, and the heavy use of nitrogen fertilizer in corn production results in nitrogen leaking from cornfields, the prime reason for the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. The result has been a serious reduction in fish and shrimp production. Corn ethanol subsidies are contributing further to the pollution and economic problems in the US. Currently US$6 to US$7 billion is spent each year subsidizing corn ethanol

As to "better than MTBE" that conclusion I don't know enough about it to be able to contribute, but I do know that MTBE does not have the unpleasant of sucking water out of the air and then releasing it into the bottom of a tank like ethanol does.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[JJPellin]

Corn based ethanol was created with three rather large assumptions. They believed that the production of ethanol would become more and more efficient, lowering the price. They believed that gasoline production from crude oil would become more and more expensive as crude oil became scarce. They believed that growing the corn would provide great benefit to the farmers. Only the last assumption proved to be true. Even when the price of gasoline shot up close to $5 (US) per gallon, ethanol could still not compete. That is primarily because the production of ethanol uses so much fossil fuel. If the cost of gasoline goes up, so does the cost of other fossil fuels. This drives up the cost of making ethanol. It is a race you can never win. Gasoline could go up to $10 per gallon and ethanol would still not be competitive. Ethanol producers are able to improve their competitive position by selling a by-produce that can be fed to cattle. But, this does not change the energy balance significantly.

I believe that if you consider all energy used to produce ethanol, from the farm to the gas tank, it produces a negligible benefit for global warming. And, any small benefit that might exist is not justified based on the increased food costs. By the way, it is not just poor people in Mexico who suffer. Corn is in almost everything we eat. It drives up the cost of food for everyone.

In the name of full disclosure, the company I work for owns and operates six ethanol plants in the US Midwest. I would have preferred that they did not get into that business.

Johnny Pellin

 

[GregLocock]

Modern engines don't need mtbe or ethanol. They do prefer 95 octane to 92, but that particular cat can be skinned several ways. I can see little positive advantage in putting partially burnt hydrocarbons in the fuel tank.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JohnRBaker]

I think you will find that MOST modern automobile engines, at least here in North America, are designed to run on 'regular' gas or 87 octane (using the AKI rating scheme). Of course, if you're using the RON scheme that could account for the difference in your claim.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[GregLocock]

Depends on the calibration. Typical engines expecting higher octane will run on lower octane fuel, but they'll pull spark in order to prevent knock, and so they will run slightly worse pre-cat emissions and economy.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

I don't know about "most", but the last vehicle I purchased that ran on regular was a 2003 model. I'm doing good to find 91 octane gas at the pump (the minimum on the sticker in my gas door), I can't remember the last time I saw 95 octane in the States.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[moltenmetal]

I'm NOT an advocate for corn ethanol. I'm merely pointing out the ERROR in the statement that it takes a gallon of diesel to produce a gallon of ethanol. It doesn't- it's not even close- and even if it were, the farmer would still be ahead the DG+S. DG+S replaces animal feed that it would take diesel to produce.

Pimentel's study has been discredited widely. It's in fact a case study in how misleading such studies can be. All you need to do to prove your point is to draw the system boundary at a different place, forgetting certain inputs or outputs etc., and the study will tell you what you'd already concluded.

The points in the Harvard study that have been quoted are absolutely correct, and are a criticism of intensive agriculture in general and of the distorting action of market subsidy. If you were concerned about those issues and wanted to correct them, you should be going after the consumption of meat just as vehemently as against the use of corn for fuels ethanol production.

Corn ethanol definitely doesn't make economic sense without subsidy- again something which is true of much of intensive agriculture these days. I am utterly AGAINST the subsidization of energy production or consumption of any kind. I am vehemently against governments being in a position of selecting economic winners and losers amongst competing technologies, "green" or otherwise, since they have done and continue to do such a woefully pathetic job of it.

What I am for is a system by which the users of energy pay the full costs of that consumption, including a tipping fee for fossil CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, as well as for the vast quantities of emissions which are known to be harmful rather than merely being strongly suspected of being harmful. Should that include a ban on the use of food for fuel? Probably.

There is no way that any particular biofuel, cellulosic or otherwise, is going to replace even our transportation uses of fossil fuels. Even all of them together would have a very tough time of it. There just isn't enough energy returned per unit energy invested from any imaginable process to make that happen, though the EROEI is better for their use for stationary energy generation by far. It would be tough to replace our transport fuels uses with biofuels if we all gave up eating entirely, and impossible unless most of us gave up eating meat.

If we are ever to kick the fossil monkey off our backs, we're going to have to change how we consume energy. And I'm not holding out much hope that we ever will- it's pretty much a political impossibility. And that depresses me, because these fuels ARE finite. We will need to wean ourselves from them eventually, even if the planetary carrying capacity at no significant harm for their CO2 effluent and other effluents is infinite- which I cannot image could possibly be true.