Efficient biofuel? Too good to be true?

#26
#26
Rasputin_Vol said:
You still can't get something for nothing, though. You have to input energy in the process to create the ethanol fro sugar beets.

has anyone done a study to see how much more efficient it is to harvest beets as a source of fuel? I'm guessing you still have to input a lot more than you get back.
Click to expand...

I don't know the numbers for beets, so I could be wrong - but there is probably energy gain. You aren't getting something from nothing - the sun is giving you the energy. Now, whether it is worth the land use and capital investment is another thing to consider. But, even ethanol from corn has a (VERY) slight energy return on energy investment. The EROEI may not be high enough to make it worth it, but I would wager you are getting some energy out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
TennTradition said:
Possibly. They use a lot of nuclear. Not sure what they do for their petrol.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I will feel dirty after saying this, but.... we need to follow France's example and build more nuclear power plants. Will continue the discussion in a bit. I suddenly feel the need to take a long cleansing shower after saying that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#29
#29
France has done many things I am in complete disagreement with but nuclear power is something they got right IMO. It is an example we should follow but there would be alot of NIMBY opposition to any movement toward a meaningful nuclear solution in this country.
 
#30
#30
KB5252 said:
France has done many things I am in complete disagreement with but nuclear power is something they got right IMO. It is an example we should follow but there would be alot of NIMBY opposition to any movement toward a meaningful nuclear solution in this country.
Click to expand...

I'm all for nuclear, but I want to see a commitment to providing long-term storage of spent fuel before we build more power plants.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#32
#32
TennTradition said:
I'm all for nuclear, but I want to see a commitment to providing long-term storage of spent fuel before we build more power plants.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Absolutely something that has to be done. Not sure on what those options for storage are, maybe you could enlighten me. What does France do with their spent fuel?
 
#33
#33
TNTradition, what's your take on the article and the new biofuel?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#34
#34
Did anyone catch the special a few years ago where they revisited the areas around Chernobel? While it is still not considered safe for human habitation it is amazing howm much wildlife has moved into the abandoned areas and are groing in numbers, animals that were once rae are now abundant in those areas.
 
#35
#35
JayVols said:
TNTradition, what's your take on the article and the new biofuel?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I worked on some reactor modeling with some researchers using non-algae organisms for the direct production of bio-diesel. The concept is real and in practice. I think that the separation, or collection, issues that are noted will remain a significant challenge - but that isn't unique to these guys. I don't know the science and haven't read the paper, but I would put it in the category of believable and a reasonable step in a good direction.

But, I would caution with large-scale issues such as energy, the devil is often in the engineering, not the science. I'm not sure they have begun to tackle all of those engineering challenges.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#36
#36
KB5252 said:
Did anyone catch the special a few years ago where they revisited the areas around Chernobel? While it is still not considered safe for human habitation it is amazing howm much wildlife has moved into the abandoned areas and are groing in numbers, animals that were once rae are now abundant in those areas.
Click to expand...

Like three-eyed deer? Quite rare indeed... :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
TennTradition said:
Like three-eyed deer? Quite rare indeed... :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

They did note that levels of radiation were higher than accepted safe levels but by and large the seemed to have coped well with these levels. They were astounded with how fast nature seemed to adapt, certainly not a vast wateland many would have expected.
 
#38
#38
Rasputin_Vol said:
You still can't get something for nothing, though. You have to input energy in the process to create the ethanol from sugar beets.

has anyone done a study to see how much more efficient it is to harvest beets as a source of fuel? I'm guessing you still have to input a lot more than you get back.
Click to expand...

We can't grow fuel longterm, I agree. It just violates basic physics.
 
#39
#39
TennTradition said:
I don't know the numbers for beets, so I could be wrong - but there is probably energy gain. You aren't getting something from nothing - the sun is giving you the energy. Now, whether it is worth the land use and capital investment is another thing to consider. But, even ethanol from corn has a (VERY) slight energy return on energy investment. The EROEI may not be high enough to make it worth it, but I would wager you are getting some energy out.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Soil depletion is real.
 
#40
#40
KB5252 said:
They did note that levels of radiation were higher than accepted safe levels but by and large the seemed to have coped well with these levels. They were astounded with how fast nature seemed to adapt, certainly not a vast wateland many would have expected.
Click to expand...

Ya, it's really amazing how swell things are around Chernobyl

Paul+Fusco.JPG
 
#41
#41
IPorange said:
Ya, it's really amazing how swell things are around Chernobyl

Paul+Fusco.JPG
Click to expand...

Not trying to minimize the effect it had on people at all, just saying that wildlife that was once sparsely distributed and rare in that area have moved in and exploded in numbers.
 
#43
#43
TennTradition said:
I worked on some reactor modeling with some researchers using non-algae organisms for the direct production of bio-diesel. The concept is real and in practice. I think that the separation, or collection, issues that are noted will remain a significant challenge - but that isn't unique to these guys. I don't know the science and haven't read the paper, but I would put it in the category of believable and a reasonable step in a good direction.

But, I would caution with large-scale issues such as energy, the devil is often in the engineering, not the science. I'm not sure they have begun to tackle all of those engineering challenges.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks for the analysis.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
TennTradition said:
Valid point for long-term production. It takes energy to fill that soil depletion gap, though some of that is factored into life cycle analyses (with some kibd of amoritization).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Agreed. Cover crops out of growing season can help somewhat....and cow manure
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
KB5252 said:
Absolutely something that has to be done. Not sure on what those options for storage are, maybe you could enlighten me. What does France do with their spent fuel?
Click to expand...

They reprocess some if not most. The rest is probably dry storage either on site or wherever they reprocess. France's nuclear program is gov't controlled which is why it was so successful there. Plants are standardized and cost was not an issue.

I would like nuclear to take off, but I'm biased. As far as storage, my hopes are low if Yucca stays shut down. That could've changed if Reid would have lost. We are looking at other options such as reprocessing and burner reactors, but I'd say we are very far off from those really solving the spent fuel problem.

I think cost is still the biggest issue for nuclear. The Calvert Cliffs project was shut down because the DOE and Areva/Constellation couldn't reach an agreement for the interest rates on the loan guarantees.
 
#49
#49
JayVols said:
Yahoo! News: Top Stories

Hope the link works. Looks funny. The owners claim to be able to produce deisel and ethanol by introducing sunlight, CO2, and water to a non algae organism. Lot of skepticism. If it works, we could possibly reduce our policing of the Middle East. Or at least quit kissing oil producing countries' asses. I read the difficulties of the process. I know it is years away at best, but every great journey begins with a single step.

Edit: forgot to mention the owners' claim the cost of production is basically equivalent to $30/ barrel in oil prices.
Click to expand...

very interesting thanks for posting. it would be wonderful if true.
 
#50
#50
Been doing some research about the guys who started this company. They seem incredibly bright and on the up and up. It seems legit. It will change the world we know. :crossfingers:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top