Bio-fuels .... good or bad? 16

[jmw]

Does anyone have any idea of the impact of bio-fuels? pros and cons?
We are no longer talking about recycling used chip fat here, but purposeful production.
Even as Bio-fuels begin to atract attention we hear about grain and meat prices rising, as we should expect when there is competition to turn our wheat into either bread or fuel.
We also have concerns about our environment. Indonesia is said to be prepared to plant more palms for the palm oil and that means more destruction of the forrests (more burning and smoke?) and loss of habitat to the already endangered (how seriously?) Orang Outang.
This report suggests Brazilian sugar cane as a source.

http://www.livemint.com/2007/09/24013816/BPCL-looks-to-tie-up-with-Petr.html

We all know that we are already losing rain forest at an alarming rate so how bad will this be? 600 acres doesn't sound like a whole lot of land but:
[ul][li] how much bio-fuel will it produce?[/li]
[li]Should bio-fuel be organic? (seriously, the impact of chemicals etc isn't just on foods but on the local ecosystems... )[/li]
[li]How much land would be required to produce enough bio-fuel to replace petrol/diesel?[/li]
[li]If we replace petrol/diesel with bio-fuel, how cost effective is secondary refining [/li]
[li]what are the impacts on the oil industry? Does crude get more expensive or less?[/li]
[li]what are the economic impacts of such changes on refining and thus on society?[/li]
[li]What are the questions we should be asking?[/li][/ul]


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

I can understand them getting a start but the UK isn't even in the race. The SMMT routinely complained of the tax situation to no good effect.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Sid7]

I believe there is straight 50pence tax out of the 112pence per litre of unleaded petrol (at northern Scotland filling station).

In yesterday's Energy article, the author mentioned that the utility bills have gone up by some huge % in the name of helping green agenda, but without reducing a single mole of CO2 from the world. Its just an very good excuse for the govts and corporations to boost the income/profits by taxing more in the name of being more GREEN....


Siddharth
These are my personal views/opinions and not of my employer's.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Don't forget that the gov slap 17.5% VAT on both the price of the fuel AND the duty, so we are looking at something like 65p+ of total tax per 100p litre (using figures when 100p was the going rate).

- Steve

 

[rb1957]

oh come on guys ... surely (stop calling me shirley) you know that the price of petrol (= gas) is controlled by taxes. that's why it costs more in europe and canada than it does in the US or middle east.

IMHO bio-fuels and hybrids are just smart companies exploiting the tax incentives/gov't grants that are available. and don't get me started on "carbon-neutral" ... i'm warning you all !

the west is not, repeat not, going to significantly reduce it's per capita consumption of power ... that'd cost too much it living standard(/consumption). the under-developed countries are busily (and dirtily) trying to match the western "standard".

the "only" long term solution is fusion power.

off soap-box

 

[jmw]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml

Hmm.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[evelrod]

There must be a better way to correct our current problems in the fuel/pollution situation. Bio fuels just ain't gonna cut it in the long run. All I see is a lot of political grand standing with NO real results. Short of correcting the underlying problem with our planet, too many of us, what is there? I like fusion...we know it works...we just need a 'little' more time.

If we all pull together...Yeah, riiight...Like that will ever happen!

Rod

 

[jmw]

Er, isn't fusion the cause of excess population?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[owg]

That is a great link jmw. However the information that I need to convert me to becoming a disbeliever of the IPCC is an analysis of what is wrong with the IPCC solar forcing model. It seems to me if someone offers an alternative explanation, they need to critique the status quo.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[GregLocock]

Not really - Feynman points out that if you are doing real science then /you/ should be the strongest critic of the results that you give, and should publish why you think the observations that you have made could not be due to any other cause. If you aren't doing that then you aren't doing real science.





Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[rb1957]

owg,

would you be interested to know that a canadian scientist (Steve McIntyre) has shown that you get Mann's hockey-sstick with a random input !

i don't think you can prove the climate models are using the wrong solar forcing any more than you can prove they're using the right one !

 

[owg]

rb1957 - Yes, I chaired a pro/con meeting on global warming a few years ago and McIntyre's co-worker McClintock was on the con side. If the hockey stick can be shot down, I am not clear why the IPCC solar forcing approach cannot be shot down. I was wondering whether the time frame of their solar data was too short. That would be a similar "cheat" to one of the ways the IPCC (Mann) made the hockey stick work. If there are two theories on the same subject, both of which are too complicated for me to understand, it helps me if I see a lucid criticism of one of the theories.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[ChrisAust]

There was an interesting update on the biofuels debate carried in the 'International Herald Tribune' last Wednesday.

"In a recommendation released last weekend, the 20-member panel [reporting to the European Environment Agency], made up of some of Europe's most distinguished climate scientists, called the 10 percent target "overambitious" and an "experiment" whose "unintended effects are difficult to predict and difficult to control."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/15/business/greencol16.php

One wonders if distinguished climate scientists have given any thought to the possible 'unintended effects' of a 60 percent reduction in global carbon emmissions.

 

[SomptingGuy]

For those who missed the news last week (including me):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7347142.stm

- Steve

 

[LCruiser]

The BBC is tainted. That has been observable for a long time now, and here is the proof:

http://www.environmental-finance.com/onlinews/0417inv.html

 

[SomptingGuy]

That may well be true, but this one's been handed down by UK Government PLC. The Beeb's reporting was the first place I could confirm the start date (just read an article in PE, but couldn't reference it).

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/rtfo/

- Steve

 

[CrazyHorse81]

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but cannot be recreated, although it may change forms, e.g. friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy. In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy for thermodynamic systems, and is the more encompassing version of the conservation of energy. In short, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

With that stated, I believe that we do not have an influence on climate change - warming cooling or anywhichaway

 

[CrazyHorse81]

Please excuse my clumseyness - this post was meant for another thread.

 

[owg]

Here is a note being circulated on ethanol from corn. The author specialized during much of his career in the use of additives in gasoline.

Common sense does not prevail when technology and politics are combined. Case in point: the current energy situation. A crisis has been lurking for years with no understanding from Washington DC. The latest mainstay for the self-serving politicians is the mandate for use of ethanol in gasoline. Here, they purport that it is good for the environment and adds to the fuel supply. Amazing, how wrong our illustrious leaders can be for both needs. As to the environment, oxygen (i.e. ethanol addition) in gasoline to reduce auto exhaust emissions should have had a sunset (i.e. been terminated) years ago because of the advances in fuel metering (stoichiometric sensing). Plus, the addition of ethanol increases evaporative emissions simply from adverse mixing conditions. Also, ethanol has significantly less energy/gallon than gasoline thus reducing miles/gallon of fuel per car.
Now, as to adding to the fuel supply, corn ethanol results in a heavy consumption of gasoline...It requires as much or more energy to obtain seed, plow the ground, plant, grow, cultivate, harvest, produce, transport and market the ethanol relative to its energy worth in gasoline! But what a bonanza for the corn producers---- simply a shift in dollars for farmer support at the expense of food and gasoline consumers. Plus a govt. subsidy for this! Worse than any subsidy is the depletion of our water resources when growing excess corn for ethanol. According the Dept of Agric studies, it takes apprx. 4000 gallons of water to produce a bushel of corn. About 2 and 1/2 gallons of ethanol can be obtained from a bushel. How nonsensical, so, what else is bad? Well, ethanol blends are being sold as marine gasoline....GREAT... but ethanol is hygroscopic and absorbs moisture from the air. And with sufficient absorption of water from the air, the ethanol/water will separate from the gasoline. Of course the humidity near a boat approaches 100%. Thus, a boat with a breathable fuel tank will provide an ethanol/water layer and a gasoline layer of fuel. How nice for the poor boater with erratic engine behavior, provided he can even get the engine started.

I hope my addressees will give this brief a wide distribution to inform the electorate of the fraudulent promotion of ethanol/gasoline blends.


HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[rb1957]

summarising then ... dumb and dumber ?

 

[jmw]

That's as good a description of politicians as any.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com