Biofuel Not Such a Good Idea?

[Joe Blake]

If this is even half true, then it could be a worry.

http://www.gizmag.com.au/go/7822/

Joe

[Alan Stevens]

Are biofuels a good or bad thing? and what are the issues.

Lets start with the concept that CO2 is bad. If that was the case then we would be arguing against organic life. CO2 is one form of carbon as it progresses through the carbon cycle. Plants take CO2, H2O and solar energy to make hydrocarbons. animals eat these hydrocarbons to release the energy which releases CO2 and H2O.
This is a very simplified version, but you get the idea.

This all works fine since it is a closed system, cycling the H2O and CO2 using the energy provided by the sun.

Now we have been digging up hydrocarbons that are not part of the current system and releasing the CO2 and H2O so that we can have cheap energy. This new carbon is the problem, with CO2 as the marker of excess carbon.

So, you should understand that if the hydrocarbon used existing carbon from the current system, then the CO2 produced is not part of the problem. Therefore, the CO2 output of a biofuel is not relevant to the problem.

But, what about the environmental impact of growing biofuels?

If countries cut down rain forests to grow palm oil that cannot be good.

If a farmer grows industrial corn using chemical fertilizers and fossil fuels, then the value is somewhat diminished. However, even as a wash, I would rather give my fuel dollar to the local farmer instead of the oil company.

However, there are other ways to make a good bio hydrocarbon, here are a couple of examples.

Cellulose ethanol can use a lot of agricultural waste where you cannot really count the inputs since they are counted against the main product and not the waste.

There is also a tropical bean that can grow on marginal soils that have a high oil content. The real advantage here is that while it will produce a high value crop for many years, it is improving the soil at the same time.

So there are good ways and bad ways of making biofuels. That doesn't make the idea bad, just that we need to be careful how we do it.

Also, reading the article, I say give me a break about using the vegetarian idea that all pasture land is better used for cropping.
That would be an ecological disaster!
Not all livestock is fed on grain, and we (and the environment) would be better off if we ate more grass fed meat.

Alan

[Joe Blake]

Lets start with the concept that CO2 is bad. If that was the case then we would be arguing against organic life. CO2 is one form of carbon as it progresses through the carbon cycle. Plants take CO2, H2O and solar energy to make hydrocarbons. animals eat these hydrocarbons to release the energy which releases CO2 and H2O.
This is a very simplified version, but you get the idea.


Alan

Alan
I think you've missed a point here. The level of CO2 is not necessarily bad in and of itself. It's the time taken for the level (whether higher or lower) to be reached that can cause problems.

I'll just put a link in here to another post from not too long ago.

http://www.greenpowertalk.org/showthread.php?p=3770#post3770


which probably explains my view.

But I will also reiterate my one of my final points:

I would say that there are far MORE things than just what I've mentioned we have to address,

so I'm trying not to get tied up to just one or two issues. (eg I'm an omnivore, and love my meat.) :eek: :D (But I won't eat fish because I disagree with the way the resource is "mined" ie unlike a farm animal which when slaughtered, is replaced by another purpose bred animal, very few people make any attempt to replace what they take. Almost every $ spent in the seafood industry is spent on tracking down a non-renewable resource, although I acknowledge there IS fish farming but it's nowhere near the scale of land based meat production.)


Joe

[Alan Stevens]

Joe

While I agree that it is the rate of change that caused the problem, we need to understand the reason for the rapid change.

The organic carbon cycle is supposed to be a closed system! If it is, then conditions will stabilize. However, by adding new carbon into the system the system will expand and change. The rate of insertion of new carbon is the driver for the rate of change.

This is why some people talk about carbon sequesterization. Removing carbon would counter the effect of adding carbon. However, since the carbon is added by the petroleum industry, it should be their responsibility (and cost) to remove it.

My point is that using a fuel that contains carbon from the current environment is not adding any new carbon to the system.

The nuclear lobby is working hard to muddy this issue. To them anything that produces CO2 is bad because that gives them an advantage. They conveniently forget to mention that they produce some of the deadliest toxins known to man and they don't have the foggiest idea about what to do with them.

[Joe Blake]

While I agree that it is the rate of change that caused the problem, we need to understand the reason for the rapid change.


Yup. If we don't understand how/why it happens we can't fix it. May make it worse


The organic carbon cycle is supposed to be a closed system! If it is, then conditions will stabilize. However, by adding new carbon into the system the system will expand and change. The rate of insertion of new carbon is the driver for the rate of change.

Not completely closed. There are leakages in both directions, sometimes caused by the same thing. eg a volcanic eruption can eject massive amounts of noxious gases into the atmosphere, yet at the same time cause an upheaval and exposure of volumes of various rocks, which, if my memory of schoolboy chemistry is correct, will cause a reduction in carbon dioxide by weathering action (I'm happy to stand corrected on that one though).

This is why some people talk about carbon sequesterization. Removing carbon would counter the effect of adding carbon. However, since the carbon is added by the petroleum industry, it should be their responsibility (and cost) to remove it.

But in the end the consumers will have to pay the price in higher cost in fuel and materials made from petroleum products. I can't see the manufacturers keeping THAT to themselves.

My point is that using a fuel that contains carbon from the current environment is not adding any new carbon to the system.

Except that assuming that X number of tonnes of carbon are released when a forested area is burned, the biofuel plants, upon being harvested will only have taken up Y tonnes of carbon, which in all probability will be less than X, since trees (dense wood) will have a greater carbon content than the replacement biofuel plant, which one would hope (on economic grounds) would have a short growing cycle, and take up less carbon. It's only once the carbon in biofuel is released (Y) that we start having a balance, since at best Y tonnes of carbon be resorbed during biofuel cycle II, and there will probably be a net imbalance of X-Y tonnes of carbon.

The nuclear lobby is working hard to muddy this issue. To them anything that produces CO2 is bad because that gives them an advantage. They conveniently forget to mention that they produce some of the deadliest toxins known to man and they don't have the foggiest idea about what to do with them.

I couldn't agree more.

At least in terms of Australia, where there is an increasing loss of arable land due to salination of the soil due to removal of trees in the past and the consequent rising water table, what I see would be needed is a way of solving BOTH problems, which would require a much longer "turnaround time", as I would see it involving trees, and probably quite big ones, with high carbon density AND deep roots, that would take a long time to grow. To try and use our farming land to grow an annual biofuel plant would be fighting an uphill battle, since the current (and lengthy) drought has reduced our food crop yield, both in plants and meat. It's not so many months that Australia was having to import some foods it had previously exported.

I think the true value of biofuel is going to be limited once it gets beyond using "waste" product, such as the biodiesel recycling of "chip oil".

Anyway, it's a very pressing problem and it needs an answer fairly quickly.

Joe

[Rob Beckers]

There's another, more fundamental, issue with biofuels: A study published some time ago found that even if all crops that are capable of producing biofuels are used as such, they will only offset a relatively small amount of conventional (petrochemical) fuels at current usage. I memory serves me it came down to 20% or 30%, but I may be wrong. Doing so would of course not only leave a large balance of conventional fuels, but it also means those crops won't be available for food.

The latter point is one that's already happening. Prices of specific crops have been going up (was it corn, and/or soy?). The reason cited is their demand for bio-diesel production.

What all this means is that biofuels can be part of a solution, but not quite the single comprehensive one that's sometimes portrait in the media IMO. We'll need other energy sources for transportation and industry, much more so than biofuels.

-RoB-

[Alan Stevens]

There's another, more fundamental, issue with biofuels: A study published some time ago found that even if all crops that are capable of producing biofuels are used as such, they will only offset a relatively small amount of conventional (petrochemical) fuels at current usage. I memory serves me it came down to 20% or 30%, but I may be wrong. Doing so would of course not only leave a large balance of conventional fuels, but it also means those crops won't be available for food.

The latter point is one that's already happening. Prices of specific crops have been going up (was it corn, and/or soy?). The reason cited is their demand for bio-diesel production.

What all this means is that biofuels can be part of a solution, but not quite the single comprehensive one that's sometimes portrait in the media IMO. We'll need other energy sources for transportation and industry, much more so than biofuels.

-RoB-


This is again part of the spin to diss biofuels. Rob do you get the Ontario Farmer newsletter? there was a good article on what drives the price of food. It debunks the myth that diverting grain to ethanol production drives up food prices.
What most people don't realize is that if use use corn to make ethanol, you still have the spent grain as a feedstock. Alcohol production uses the starch component and leaves everything else.
Also, as noted in a recent post, it will take more that one magic bullet to replace petroleum. For example burning hydrocarbons for low grade heat (home heating and hot water) is ludicrous. The solar thermal technologies today can easily offset the major proportion of that.
In the transportation area, we may have to give up the idea that one vehicle is good for all purposes. In the future I can see an electric car for short haul use, and a different vehicle for long haul. This will probably bring back demand for inter city mass transit systems. But, I still believe that to operate a vehicle that has a range of 600Km or more and that can be refueled within 10 minutes, AND be safe to use, you will need a liquid hydrocarbon. It would be best if that carbon came from within the system. That is the main point that I am making.

Alan

[Paul Bailey]

I'ts well put in your posts that fuel should be used in its purest form and not ..or hopefully not transferred back and forth to its end use destination, to minimize ALL the inefficiencies along the way. . Thats why distributed electrical generation works, and better yet why most houses need to personally address inefficiencies (energy audits), apply solar thermal, and possibly grid tie Pv as there doing in California and most of europe. NA is lagging way behind , although strong growth is looming. An interesting biodiesel post . Thanks Paul:)

[Joe Blake]

In the transportation area, we may have to give up the idea that one vehicle is good for all purposes. In the future I can see an electric car for short haul use, and a different vehicle for long haul. This will probably bring back demand for inter city mass transit systems. But, I still believe that to operate a vehicle that has a range of 600Km or more and that can be refueled within 10 minutes, AND be safe to use, you will need a liquid hydrocarbon. It would be best if that carbon came from within the system. That is the main point that I am making.

Alan

You mean a vehicle like this?

http://www.gizmag.com.au/go/7486/


I don't know that 600 km is a realistic figure. I live well outside the Perth metro area, and I could see myself living with a range of 250 km quite easily, and still be able to meet my long distance transport needs.

I agree with you entirely about different vehicles for different purposes. For shopping within 3 km of home I have a fold up bicycle which can tote a one-wheel trailer with a 30 kg load capacity. To go up to 10 km I've got a recumbent tricycle fitted with a 200 watt electric motor that again can tote the trailer. It runs entirely off human sweat and a small trickle charge solar panel array. For the occasional run into the "big smoke" I've got a 650 cc motorcycle which consumes 25/27 km/litre, if I'm in a hurry. If I've got a lot of time I can use the trike.

I think, like the 600 km range, the 10 minute recharge is very nice, but I certainly can't see it as being a "must-have" for the majority of users. So if you are prepared to make just a couple of small sacrifices, there's already a few viable alternatives available.

eg

http://www.gizmag.com.au/go/7486/

or for the smaller family

http://gizmag.com/go/4083/

For the more sporty performer

http://gizmag.com/go/7564/

So really, they're here already, and no liquids involved.

If one wishes to travel down the hydrogen road, there are similar advances in various areas.

Plus there seem to be advances in the area of capacitor storage for electric power, as opposed to batteries. These capacitors have the capacity (pardon the pun) to do a quick charge.

However, even with current technology, it is possible to have a viable system if one is ingenious. eg if I rode my electric trike so much that I flattened the batteries, I would merely have a second set of batteries (under $150 Aus on standby either connected to the grid or my solar panels).

Joe

[Negru Valea]

There's another, more fundamental, issue with biofuels: A study published some time ago found that even if all crops that are capable of producing biofuels are used as such, they will only offset a relatively small amount of conventional (petrochemical) fuels at current usage. I memory serves me it came down to 20% or 30%, but I may be wrong. Doing so would of course not only leave a large balance of conventional fuels, but it also means those crops won't be available for food.

The latter point is one that's already happening. Prices of specific crops have been going up (was it corn, and/or soy?). The reason cited is their demand for bio-diesel production.

What all this means is that biofuels can be part of a solution, but not quite the single comprehensive one that's sometimes portrait in the media IMO. We'll need other energy sources for transportation and industry, much more so than biofuels.

-RoB-

I would agree here with Rob.
Firstly i think we miss the main point! The world is having difficulty in feeding its self! By taking away part of our farming area and diverting it to fuel production.....this does not take a genius to see that food supply drops and demand rises pushing food prices up. Dead end!

On the other side of the coin we can take and harvest crops for bio fuel from new land that needs to be cleared. This is a dead end, and no futher explanation is needed. To ad to this the unpredictable weather paterns are just to much to gamble on. Last year the bannana production was wiped out where we were paying $1.50/kg before the storm, to $17/kg after the storm. Rice production for 07 down to 0 tonnes from something like 10 - 15 tonnes. So what ever you want to look at it let leave fuel production out of the farming circle


Lets face it America as well as Australia are not suited to jumping on bikes and pedalling on the HWY to work for 1 to 2 hours. The distances are just too great.

We are reliant on fuel and that fuel will need to be H2.

There have been many attempts and successful ones at running a car on H2, the only problem is that our current engines are either aluminium alloy or cast iron and after prologed exposure to H2 they become brittle and crack. Engine pistons can be modified to ceramic or Stainless steel and you have a hydrogen burning engine. Now can we make the fuel our selves:rolleyes:?
How would our current fuel manufactures/suppliers like that:eek:? Could they then sell it to us and increase the price of H2 just because kongo or iran are constipated:cool:

Hydrogen energy/economy is a real solution folks.

[Negru Valea]

Joe

While I agree that it is the rate of change that caused the problem, we need to understand the reason for the rapid change.

The organic carbon cycle is supposed to be a closed system! If it is, then conditions will stabilize. However, by adding new carbon into the system the system will expand and change. The rate of insertion of new carbon is the driver for the rate of change.

This is why some people talk about carbon sequesterization. Removing carbon would counter the effect of adding carbon. However, since the carbon is added by the petroleum industry, it should be their responsibility (and cost) to remove it.

My point is that using a fuel that contains carbon from the current environment is not adding any new carbon to the system.

The nuclear lobby is working hard to muddy this issue. To them anything that produces CO2 is bad because that gives them an advantage. They conveniently forget to mention that they produce some of the deadliest toxins known to man and they don't have the foggiest idea about what to do with them.

Hi Alan:D

I feel that by making petrol companies responsible for their CO2 emmisions this would achieve nothing except pass on the cost to consumers, furthur increasing the cost of fuel, making your comute to work even more expensive making some people think twice if they can afford to drive for a holiday; making food delivery and other delivery related industry pass the cost down to you and I!!!!:(:(

I really dont think people like that scenario, a new more permanent solution is needed! "An inconvenient Truth" is an amazing amount of evidence that everyone can veryfy on the net! I feel that this constant theorising about out Global situation is nothing more than procrastination and we are not looking at convinsingly pushing out new H2 infrustructure

[Alan Stevens]

The main point that I am hearing in this thread is that we all seem to want to keep our current lifestyle, we don't want to make any sacrifices, and we are waiting for a 'silver bullet' to solve all of the problems.

Wake up guys, it is not going to happen.

If we don't get a handle on our energy usage we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

We have a situation where the world over produces food, but then wastes most of it. We have marked disparities between haves and have nots.

We have very intense lobbies promoting their own agenda for nothing more than short term profit. Misinformation is being spread without people really thinking about it.

I am not being paranoid and neither do I believe in any big conspiracy. This is just the natural tendency of various groups to look after their own short term interests.

We have come to believe that energy should be cheap. That idea has caused more damage to our economies, environment and culture that any other development in the modern word.

The food on your table comes from the other side of the world while the local farmers are selling out because they cannot make a living any more.

People are getting more aggressive and insular because they spend to much time wrapped in a metal cage and not interacting with fellow humans.

There are many more examples, but don't get me started.

So, as relates to this thread, this is my take.

Energy will get more expensive, learn to live with it!
We need a variety of energy sources, tailored to the requirement. Say goodbye to the "one size fits all oil" strategy.

Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It is an energy carrier.
Pure H2 has very low energy density, making distribution difficult, and the energy->H2->energy conversion ratio is very low, i.e you lose a lot in the process.
Hydrogen is obtained either by extracting it from fossil fuels which consumes a lot of energy, or by electrolysis of water which used electricity (which is also an energy carrier, but more efficient).
You could make your own H2 from a Solar powered hydrolysis system, compress the gas, transfer it to your (very expensive) H2 powered vehicle and then burn the H2 to run a heat engine.
Calculate the efficiency of that versus charging a battery and using an electric car.

BioFuels are not a silver bullet, we cannot simply replace oil with biofuels.
We can however complement our energy mix with these high energy density liquid fuels. The corn to ethanol is just the first generation, and will be replaced by more efficient systems. More technologies are coming on-line that made fuels from agricultural waste.
Also, anything that puts money into the pockets of your local farmers improves your economy and society.

That is enough ranting for one morning.

Alan

[Joe Blake]

Lets face it America as well as Australia are not suited to jumping on bikes and pedalling on the HWY to work for 1 to 2 hours. The distances are just too great.


I have to say I find that a VERY sweeping and generalised statement, and, at least from the point of view of Australia, very inaccurate. Australia is a BIG place.

It may be true in a couple of places. I've lived in 5 different cities in Australia, and I've only ever found Brisbane too hilly to be cycle friendly, but I'm sure many of the people I met who cycle around the city disagree with me.

WHAT distances are too great? The distance between home and work? Many people work at home, at least partly. The distance between home and school? I live in a fairly average suburb and there are 4-6 schools within a radius of 3 km. Home and shops? I seldom have to travel more than 1 km to do my shopping, sometimes I may have to go about 3 km. Then it's time for the electric trike.

The problem is that the society is set up to work only with motor vehicles. Suburban roads are only being made wide enough to accommodate two standard sized motor vehicles travelling in opposite directions, with little or no allowance for pedal powered vehicles. Dual use paths, ie mixing pedestrian and pedal-traffic are not an answer since this increases the chance of a collision between pedestrian and cyclist, whilst slowing the maximum speed that a cycle can travel. Even without using my motor I can travel at about 30-35 km/h on my trike, and on my recumbent bicycle, on the flat I can travel for several km at over 38 km/h, but this not fast enough for motor vehicles.

I think instead attempting to switch holus bolus to H2, we need to rethink our urban planning, and by designing the urban environment to be more efficient, encourage people to NOT rely so heavily on motor vehicles, regardless of WHICH fuel they run on.


Joe

[Ralph Day]

Joe,
How much carpentry do you do? You always seem to hit the nail on the head here:p

Ralph

[Negru Valea]

I have to say I find that a VERY sweeping and generalised statement, and, at least from the point of view of Australia, very inaccurate. Australia is a BIG place.

It may be true in a couple of places. I've lived in 5 different cities in Australia, and I've only ever found Brisbane too hilly to be cycle friendly, but I'm sure many of the people I met who cycle around the city disagree with me.

WHAT distances are too great? The distance between home and work? Many people work at home, at least partly. The distance between home and school? I live in a fairly average suburb and there are 4-6 schools within a radius of 3 km. Home and shops? I seldom have to travel more than 1 km to do my shopping, sometimes I may have to go about 3 km. Then it's time for the electric trike.

The problem is that the society is set up to work only with motor vehicles. Suburban roads are only being made wide enough to accommodate two standard sized motor vehicles travelling in opposite directions, with little or no allowance for pedal powered vehicles. Dual use paths, ie mixing pedestrian and pedal-traffic are not an answer since this increases the chance of a collision between pedestrian and cyclist, whilst slowing the maximum speed that a cycle can travel. Even without using my motor I can travel at about 30-35 km/h on my trike, and on my recumbent bicycle, on the flat I can travel for several km at over 38 km/h, but this not fast enough for motor vehicles.

I think instead attempting to switch holus bolus to H2, we need to rethink our urban planning, and by designing the urban environment to be more efficient, encourage people to NOT rely so heavily on motor vehicles, regardless of WHICH fuel they run on.


Joe

hi joe,

You like the idea of cycling? Well, how do you cycle a family around, maybe its 30 plus degrees, or rainy? I too love cycling but unfortunately in a society driven by the "now factor" and the amount of time we work there is really very little time to interact with our families let alone spend hours riding to work and arriving all sweaty! I work in a office my self and i travel 20+km. I have friends (not Hippies) that require a car to get to their work and funny enough they came from China and find it hard in Australia to use bikes.

Joe i shop for a family, when i go shopping i always fill up almost a full trolley (i also see many people with full trolley as well), how do you sagest i fit all my shopping on my bike? Taking boy to kinda before work....bike? visit friends 15km away....bike? Grandma in a nursing home Carlton (40km).....do i visit her on a bike.......Take my wife to a restaurant....bike (not very romantic, she will be to tired for fun later:p)

Anyway i understand your point if i would live by myself...

negru

[Joe Blake]

Negru,

I'm not sure you understand my point(s). I'm not suggesting we ban the motor car entirely, but re-arrange society so we rely LESS upon it.

As for your points about shopping and having a full trolley and interacting with your family, in my earlier post I mentioned having a trailer for my trike which will carry 30 kg. Were I person with a family (a choice I made many years ago to NOT have a family - since there are already far too many people) I'd see it as a great bonding experience to take the entire family shopping and carry home our goodies in trailers. If two adults tow (NOT carry) 30 kg of shopping each, I'm sure that would more than meet your requirements. A side benefit of having to tote my food in the trailer is that I am much more discerning about what I purchase. "Do I really need this item, or is it just something I buy because the advertisers tell me to?"

As for taking your child to school/kindergarten, there are many alternatives, including (at a younger age) towing him/her in a multi-purpose trailer behind a bicycle (the trailer can be used for shopping), and as s/he gets older a "half-bike" that clamps to the parent's bicycle, which the child can sit on and help by pedalling; then later on their own bike.

Riding in 30 degrees/rain? Well, life's like that. It doesn't always go the way we want it, and we have to live with that.

Not romantic on a bicycle? My experience, having been riding since 1972, is quite the opposite. The constant exercise gives the body a thorough aerobic workout and increases one's stamina and heightens one's awareness of self and body. I think riding a bicycle is a subtle aphrodisiac.

I fail to see what "Hippies" have to do with anything. Most Hippies I've ever seen drive round in clapped out Volkswagen Kombi vans.

Riding 20 km to work? Social engineering should be addressing this by creating sympathetic environments, including employer's attitudes in supplying showers at work, as well as public access to showers and bike parking. I worked for a few years in an office which required a "corporate" standard of dress (the legal profession is fairly staid in this regard) and I wasn't the only one to pedal to work. Besides, riding 20 km, when using an electric assisted bike, is not a "big deal". I live in the Hills behind Perth, which requires every trip to the city to finish on a fairly long, steep climb, and whilst I work at home I'm required to occasionally head to the "big smoke" (on my motorcycle) and I see many cyclists making the daily descent/ascent. Electric motors can be designed for either high speed (30+ km/h) or high torque, for climbing steep hills, without being so powerful as to need to be registered.

I can only agree with Alan

The main point that I am hearing in this thread is that we all seem to want to keep our current lifestyle, we don't want to make any sacrifices, and we are waiting for a 'silver bullet' to solve all of the problems.

Wake up guys, it is not going to happen.

To me, it's a matter of choice. We make our decisions and we have to live with the consequences, for good or ill. Since the built environment is constantly changing and evolving, we will always be making choices, and the time is now on us to make different choices to those that we made in the past.

Joe

[Negru Valea]

in short biofuel is nothing more than a diversion for us common folk.
no mater how anyone argues the credibility or its positive effects, the negatives far outweigh them.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/

[Roy Lent]

I keep seeing messages from people who categorically state that all biofuels are bad. If they are not in the pay of petroleum companies then why so negative? They can't have investigated all possibilities.

In this area I have a question. Does duckweed have enough starch to produce significant amounts of alcohol? Of course you use the waste mash as hog feed and the hog manure to produce biogas to power the distillation. The water output from the biodigestors fertilizes the duckweed. If not duckweed then grow taro in water purification marshes. Frankly, I don't think they have even begun to investigate biofuel possibilities.

[Russ Bailey]

@Roy - You have one group of people who believe all biofuel is bad - You have another who believe it is all good - in particular ethanol.

Truth is in between the extremes. At present biofuels generally have a net negative return on inputs - meaning they require more energy to make than you get out.

Many parties are working on this from multinational giants to backyard guys. Someone will come up with solutions to various sticking points as we go along. At best they will be a partial solution from what İ can see.

[Rob Beckers]

The source of the biofuel seems to be a big part of the equation: Subsidizing corn in the western countries to turn it into ethanol is likely not a great idea. Nor is cutting forests to plant crops just for ethanol production (as they're doing in Brazil). Using fiber for ethanol, such as crop waste, may be a much better idea.

-RoB-

[Joe Blake]

When I was a young fella in Brisbane back in the early '60s the Brisbane River was plagued by water hyacinth, an absolutely noxious weed.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/images/2008/10/06/kholo.jpg

And according to this link

http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2008/10/brisbane-river.html?program=gold_coast_afternoon_chillout

it's still a problem.

I wonder whether this overabundance of flora could be converted into something useful like biofuel at a reasonable cost?

Joe

[Russ Bailey]

Problem wild the wild stuff is quantity - what looks like a lot is a drop in the bucket to a commercial energy producing plant.

[Joe Blake]

From my own memory (and lately from reading this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hyacinth )

quantity is not likely to be too severe a problem. It can double its area within 2 weeks.

In any case, according to the above link:

Industrial utilization

Since the plant has abundant nitrogen content, it can be used a substrate for biogas production and the sludge obtained from the biogas. However, due to easy accumulation of toxins, the plant is prone to get contaminated when used as feed.


so I guess my idea is already in action.

I was not initially thinking of large scale industrial production, but perhaps a mobile plant which could re-sited every so often when the level of flora drops in one area and moved elsewhere, returning when/if the problem re-appears.

Joe

[Joe Blake]

Following on from my last posting, I found this document.

http://practicalaction.org/docs/technical_information_service/water_hyacinth_control.pdf

Makes interesting reading.

Joe

[Russ Bailey]

For use of biological materials as a feed stock one of the best sites is Robert Rapier at

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com

Robert is a sharp engineer and an acknowledged expert in the field. Some of the comments are written by genuine idiots but that is true on many sites.

[Dale Sheler]

I get used oil from local restaurants and make 350 gallons at a time, between my erstwhile partner and myself we fuel three tractors a lawn tractor, two generators and four vehicles on locally collected and home made bio.

[IPHONE SLOTS]

Thanks Russ Bailey. it was quite informative. I think bio fuel is a mixed blessing the efficiency of it depends on us, how efficiently we use it. Bio fuel's existence is for a lon time. Biofuels have been around as long as cars have. At the start of the 20th century, Henry Ford planned to fuel his Model Ts with ethanol, and early diesel engines were shown to run on peanut oil.
For the future, many think a better way of making biofuels will be from grasses and saplings, which contain more cellulose. Cellulose is the tough material that makes up plants' cell walls, and most of the weight of a plant is cellulose. If cellulose can be turned into biofuel, it could be more efficient than current biofuels, and emit less carbon dioxide.

[Stewart Corman]

Let me chime in here.

Biofuels come in different flavors for different applications.

My house furnace consumes #2 HHO which is basically diesel fuel.
Like Dale, I have incorporated WVO (waste vegetable oil) but in a wood burning boiler,
not for vehicle use.
I live in midstate NY and have stockpiled 800gals for this next winter and can keep the house at 70F continuously.
It burns cleanly w/o smoke or soot and we don't get the hard residue from HHO minerals.

That said, putting on my chemical engineers hat, and reading some of the arguments in this thread, I would like to refer to the sanest approach , especially in hot dry climates like US southwest and Australia. Do google search on algae as a biofuel source.

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

It does not contain the cellulose cell wall problem for processing, does NOT compete with food supply like corn or sugar cane, does not get affected by storms or drought. And I'd bet that the solid residue can probably be marketed as fuel pellets.
BTW, hemp grows 12 ft high in record time and is the best cellulose product per acre.

What most people miss in the corn processing operation, is the need to use fuel to distill the ethanol off. Here then is the best application of solar concentrators to use the smallest carbon footprint in processing. So, you have large settling ponds to grow the algae in desert like environments, then use solar heating to boil off the ethanol.
BTW, algae takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen.... the carbon has to come from somewhere.

There are some very big corporate $ going into the algae business ...and I'd bet they are bioengineering the species of algae for the fastest growth and best yield.

just my $0.02

Stew Corman from sunny Endicott

correction: I had presumed incorrectly that algae would be fermented to produce ethanol ...they actually want to process the algae mechanically/chemically to produce bio-fuel ...drying is a key component and arid conditions would be a benefit

[Steve Beck]

It goes into the air as carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming." "Any biofuel that causes the clearing of natural ecosystems will increase global warming,"

[Rob Beckers]

It goes into the air as carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming." "Any biofuel that causes the clearing of natural ecosystems will increase global warming,"

Not quite...
Biofuels release just as much CO2 as they sequestered when they were growing. As such they are carbon-neutral. As long as you grow back the same amount as you're burning.

-RoB-