Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Pimentel & Patzek totally disputed by scientists ... Not

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby davep » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 19:39:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')on't cattails require special harvesting equipment? Granted they are a wonderful plant, but, tend to grow in places it will be difficult to drive a tractor....


I guess so. I vaguely remember Blume talking about harvesting thin lines of the stuff, but I don't think it's been looked at by a decent engineer. Whatever it is should require less energy than corn because (a) there's less friction to move on water and (b) there's 10 times the energy compared to corn per unit area (purely for starches/sugars).
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 19:50:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gampy', 'M')aybe they should focus their efforts on another type of organism than yeast to get the alcohol. Kind of what the bovine stomach does.

I dunno, just thinking out loud really. Thanks for the reply.


That's what pstarr described already:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is conjecture based on the supposition of a bioengineered bacterial organism capable of mimicking the cow's rumen (4-part stomach) to break down woody material (cellulose) in a bioreactor.

This decomposition (of cellulose) would be only the first step in converting a complex carbohydrate into a simple starch and then a sugar suitable for fermentation by yeast.


Range Fuels plans to crank out 100 million gallons per year from forest refuse at their Georgia plant. Guess we'll see if they can deliver. RF evolved out of Khosla's company, Kergy I think it was called.

Surprised to see you in favor of EVs, Lorenzo. All those lead batteries and GHGs from lithium mining, not very Green. Got any new links on biomass electricity? Those earmarks for ethanol will be a terrible albatross on the US in the future.

You're right about the plans to harvest cellulose from funky land, Ludi. Lots of these plans involve use of range land that's hilly, covered with rocks, swampy, etc. Not being farmed on for good reasons, in other words. Blume's scheme involves most of America becoming happy smiling farmers, from the looks of things. Your usual well meaning leftist who could really send us down the wrong road. Makes me think of Soviet propaganda. How do you say "Kulak" in English?
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby Aaron » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 19:59:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', 'I') am confused.

Going back to Aarons point, can you clarify something for me please Lorenzo? :)

Was the energy profit calculated on the return of 5,000 barrels per acre or 200,000 barrels per acre?

In other words if they put x barrels of energy inputs in and they calculated the profit on getting 200,000 back (when they in fact only got 5,000), then surely that means that they DID NOT get a 540% return in energy invested?

Or was the 5000 barrels produced at a 540% energy proft? (ie it took less than a 1000 barrels of energy equivelant to produce?)

Please someone clarify :)


Does it even matter?

5000 isn't bad, but it sure puts the 540% statistic into perspective doesn't it?

Also frames Lorenzo's fierce defense of this marginal technology reinforcing not just his lack of credibility, but his willingness to deceive to serve his agenda.

At least he's consistent.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Re: Pimental & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby Aaron » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 20:00:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'A')s many of you may be aware I have worked hard to carve out a particular niche here at PO--lambasting Lorenzo. Somehow this particular bash passed unnoticed under my radar and I must say I am a bit put off by all this. How dare you kick lorenzo without me!! I should get in the first punch. This will be brought up with the appropriate moderators and perhaps I will have to go directly to the owner of this site until this situation has been rectified.

I considered asking everybody (except Lorenzo) to delete their posts so I would be the first respondent. But I would have just called him dumb or a 'tool.' Where is the fun in that? In the future I would appreciate being told of in advance when Lorenzo is going to be humiliated. thank you.


My apologies.

I stand corrected.

:)
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby gampy » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 20:24:44

This bio-fuel debate just looks like a Peter robbed Paul to pay Mary kind of scenario.

Corn and sugar cane produce carbohydrate, but require more land and
agriculture.

Celluose requires less land and fertilizer, but more energy to crack the cellulose.
Kind of a zero sum game here.

Petroleum is millions of years worth of phytoplankton (energy from the sun) crushed by gravity, and earth's own internal heat (another energy source. )
All stored conveniently in a liquid fuel.

Nothing we can do can replace that. Unless we look for another source of STORED and CONDENSED energy.

The low hanging fruit is gone, and instead of looking for a way to get the high fruit, we are nibbling on the twigs, and shoe leather.

It will fill our belly, but it tastes bad and causes problems.

Only thing I can think of is radioactive uranium. Funnily enough, another product of the sun (not ours, but the big exploding ones that fed our own solar system.)

Just need to find a way to make it useful for transportation. (Say good bye to the ICE.)

I think it would more wise to start moving away from liquid fuel, and
developing modes of transport that can make use of nuclear energy. (Fusion or fission or something else?)

Just thinking about the grand scheme of things.
User avatar
gampy
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri 27 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Soviet Canada

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 20:42:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gampy', '
')Just thinking about the grand scheme of things.



Really.


In what way are nuclear fuels sustainable? (off topic)
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby gampy » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 21:10:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gampy', '
')Just thinking about the grand scheme of things.



Really.


In what way are nuclear fuels sustainable? (off topic)


They're not. That's my point, I guess. To maintain a semblance of our present level of civilization, we need an energy source on a par with petroleum. Something that is already stored and available. Eventually that will run out out or become unworkable. Bio fuels will become unworkable too, as we run out of arable land, and soil nutrients.

Nuclear fuel and nuclear generated electricity is certainly no where near as easy as oil, but at least it does not require the massive inputs that raising fuel crops does, or trying to turn wood into a fuel.

I can't see bio-fuels powering our current level of civilization...just not enough concentrated energy. I imagine they will mitigate the loss of petrol based liquid fuels to a degree, but I can't realistically see them replacing them.

A pipe dream really. The best scenario is less population, less power. Or power from another concentrated source.

Just looking at the grand scheme of things. Renewable energy just seems too optimistic, if you look at it from that perspective.

Lol...half empty from my perspective I guess.
User avatar
gampy
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri 27 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Soviet Canada
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 21:13:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gampy', '
')Nuclear fuel and nuclear generated electricity is certainly no where near as easy as oil, but at least it does not require the massive inputs that raising fuel crops does, or trying to turn wood into a fuel.




What are you talking about? Nuke plants require enormous amounts of materials, concrete, metals, plastics, etc to build and operate, and to store the waste materials.


8O


Not require massive inputs?


8O



What are you thinking?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby gampy » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 21:23:14

Well, they require energy to build and maintain, but fission certainly releases more energy than is required to start it. That's all I am saying.

It's stored energy.

Growing corn or what have you is not stored energy. It's derived from whatever amount of arable land and nutrients are available. Those are certainly not renewable. Sunlight and photosynthesis can only take you so far. Not on the scale that some folks are talking about. There is only so much energy to be derived from a single growing season. It won't support a highly energy intensive civilization.

I can't see a technology arising that can make a go of it.
User avatar
gampy
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri 27 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Soviet Canada

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 21:33:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gampy', '
')Nuclear fuel and nuclear generated electricity is certainly no where near as easy as oil, but at least it does not require the massive inputs that raising fuel crops does, or trying to turn wood into a fuel.


What are you talking about? Nuke plants require enormous amounts of materials, concrete, metals, plastics, etc to build and operate, and to store the waste materials.


They need a lot of water, too: Drought could force nuclear-plant shutdowns

Advanced reactor designs promise to generate a lot less waste, at least. And the materials cost is upfront, until you have to upgrade it down the road that is. But most of these drawing board facts about nuclear are like the inefficiencies of car designs. The Hypercar's amazing and all, but we have highways clogged with Dodge Dakotas for the time being.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby Starvid » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 00:03:56

You are all idiots (OT-commenters excluded).

Switchgrass ethanol has been shoved to have an EROEI of 5,4 (540 %).

Maybe we should discuss this instead?

Potential? Price? Problems? Etcetera.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby Heineken » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 00:15:05

Mass agriculture has done more damage to the Earth than any other single human activity.

Now, even as we are for the first time grasping the extent of the damage, and its terrifying implications for the future, we are launching a gigantic expansion of agriculture to include not only food growing but also fuel growing.

Madness begets madness.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby Concerned » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 05:08:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PopeGideon', 'R')ead it. Unimpressed.

These studies are all tainted with assumption.

You want to convince me?

Do this - it shouldn't be too difficult, with millions in taxpayer assistance.


Set up a farm that is entirely run on the ethanol it produces.

Entirely.

That's it. No petroleum input at all.




Slow clap breaking out into a rousing wild applause.

Bravo for post No 1 you have nailed it.

I think you truly "understand" the energy dilemma.
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
User avatar
Concerned
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby lorenzo » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 09:05:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'L')orenzo you are a piece of work. You ripped into good reputable scientists Pimentel and Patzek, you ignore my comments and responses, and know you want to have a gentlemanly discussion. You remember that avocado you used to display on your avatar? Well you can shove it right back up there where it used to be.


Pstarr, poor boy, it clearly hurts to see Pimentel & Patzek being whiped off of the map of energy science.

But don't worry, it's not because your EROEI-fantasy has been proved dead-wrong, that you won't be able to find a new hobby.


The problem with Pimentel (along with his big oil money and his highly variable inputs from one study to another) is that PStarr and the like say he is the only one to properly factor in the costs of the machinery etc. Even if we accepted his highly dubious evaluation for the energy required in the machinery, it would never make up the shortfall relative to other studies. In other words, even if we added his machinery costs to other studies, they would not achieve the same energy deficit that Pimentel arrives at. This indicates that he vastly overinflates other aspects of the energy requirements as well.


True, and the good thing is, this large-scale trial actually used real machines, real trucks, real tractors, real combines and real pumps. And it proves Pimentel - who merely used his own fantasy to come up with some hilariously inflated numbers - is way off.

It just gives credence to all those who have said that an oil-sponsored guy should not be taken seriously in a debate about renewable energy.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby lorenzo » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 09:08:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')ith greater production per acre, how will you keep from depleting the soil?


If you use high-diversity perennial grass polycultures, you can restore soil health.

The energy crops of the future are congruent with soil conservation and habitat restoration.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby lorenzo » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 09:15:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')'m just not so convinced of the net energy benefit. It takes a great deal of work to move materials around, even in a small space. Hence the benefit of using animals, as they move themselves around, rather than vehicles.


Do you really think animals are more efficient at converting the energy contained in their feed into useful work and muscle power, than converting the energy contained in the entirety of the crop into an energy dense fuel and using that fuel in an ICE/fuel cell to do useful work?
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby Concerned » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 11:47:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')'m just not so convinced of the net energy benefit. It takes a great deal of work to move materials around, even in a small space. Hence the benefit of using animals, as they move themselves around, rather than vehicles.


Do you really think animals are more efficient at converting the energy contained in their feed into useful work and muscle power, than converting the energy contained in the entirety of the crop into an energy dense fuel and using that fuel in an ICE/fuel cell to do useful work?


Thats pretty much what the guy was saying and I happen to agree with him.

Like someone said if you can lock yourself up in a big dome as an experiment and build all your ice engine, home, food, XBox, Tractors etc.. Then you would quickly see your hidden oil subsidy and your 540% would wither on the vine and die.

But don't worry, if you are young you will likely live to see it. Whats the price of fuel in your area?
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
User avatar
Concerned
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Pimentel & Patzek totally debunked by scientists

Unread postby lorenzo » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 12:27:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', 'W')hats the price of fuel in your area?


€1.21 per liter for gasoline (US$6.67/gallon). €1.14 for E10.

In Brazil, unsubsidized ethanol is about 40% cheaper than unsubsidized gasoline. We're going to import the fuel.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest