[Graeme]

isgota, Thanks for your input here. The fossil fools don't want to know about new enzymes or any new innovation. They will mislead you.

GJ, I can't understand why you are so gullible. Didn't you see Carnot was trying to defend the FF industry by listing how life would be different? Then he has the audacity to tell us that the worst outcome of fossil fuels is that they allowed our population to expand. Oh no it isn't the worst outcome. Total extinction of all life on the planet is the worst. That's where we are heading right now.

I will only accept the conclusions in the Lux report:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')enewable diesel producers Neste Oil and Diamond Green Diesel, gasification specialist Red Rock Biofuels, and Edeniq, which makes cellulosic ethanol, were among 13 producers of alternative fuels best positioned to compete with cheap oil, according a report from Lux Research.

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hese plants would have to service in a world without fossil fuels from field to wheel. That means all the inputs would have to come from biofuels.

[Graeme]

Policy: Define biomass sustainability

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he bioeconomy is rising up the political agenda. More than 30 countries have announced that they will boost production of renewable resources from biological materials and convert them into products such as food, animal feed and bioenergy. Non-food crops, such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), are the main focus, as well as agricultural and forestry residues and waste materials and gases.

It is one thing to write a report; it is another to put a plan into action sustainably. The biggest conundrum is reconciling the conflicting needs of agriculture and industry. In a post-fossil-fuel world, an increasing proportion of chemicals, plastics, textiles, fuels and electricity will have to come from biomass, which takes up land. By 2050, the world will also need to produce 50–70% more food1, increasingly under drought conditions and on poor soils.

[lpetrich]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carnot', '
')But is has also provided us with many of the things we take for granted. Think how different life would be if we did not have fossil fuels:

No clean drinking water
No means of travel other than by foot, horse or some wind powered device.
No continuous electricity supply
No space heating
No internet
No wind power
No pv power
No hydro power
No biofuels (yes that is the reality)
Very limited choice of foods
Very limited health care

Need I go on, because the list is endless. What can and will your green fuel alternatives provide in the future. Very little indeed, because most of it, if it ever materialises, will be consumed in production. Either a limited at best, or a net negative energy gain.

[americandream]

Scientists have made a huge leap in lessening our dependence on fossil fuels, managing to break down raw biomass without using chemicals for the very first time. The result was record high amounts of clean liquid hydrocarbon fuel, according to a new study.

https://www.rt.com/news/337785-biomass- ... els-study/

[SeaGypsy]

"Small particles of Platinum...." Chemicals which aren't chemicals? This article reeks.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'S')cientists have made a huge leap in lessening our dependence on fossil fuels, managing to break down raw biomass without using chemicals for the very first time. The result was record high amounts of clean liquid hydrocarbon fuel, according to a new study.

https://www.rt.com/news/337785-biomass- ... els-study/

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'S')cientists have made a huge leap in lessening our dependence on fossil fuels, managing to break down raw biomass without using chemicals for the very first time. The result was record high amounts of clean liquid hydrocarbon fuel, according to a new study.

https://www.rt.com/news/337785-biomass- ... els-study/

[vox_mundi]

Fuel from sewage is the future – and it's closer than you think

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')img]http://algae.illinois.edu/Images/ProjectImages/MacroLevel.jpg[/img]

Video - The technology, hydrothermal liquefaction, mimics the geological conditions the Earth uses to create crude oil, using high pressure and temperature to achieve in minutes something that takes Mother Nature millions of years. The resulting material is similar to petroleum pumped out of the ground, with a small amount of water and oxygen mixed in. This biocrude can then be refined using conventional petroleum refining operations.

Wastewater treatment plants across the U.S. treat approximately 34 billion gallons of sewage every day. That amount could produce the equivalent of up to approximately 30 million barrels of oil per year. PNNL estimates that a single person could generate two to three gallons of biocrude per year.

Sewage, or more specifically sewage sludge, has long been viewed as a poor ingredient for producing biofuel because it's too wet. The approach being studied by PNNL eliminates the need for drying required in a majority of current thermal technologies which historically has made wastewater to fuel conversion too energy intensive and expensive. HTL may also be used to make fuel from other types of wet organic feedstock, such as agricultural waste.

In addition to producing useful fuel, HTL could give local governments significant cost savings by virtually eliminating the need for sewage residuals processing, transport and disposal.

"The best thing about this process is how simple it is," said Drennan. "The reactor is literally a hot, pressurized tube. We've really accelerated hydrothermal conversion technology over the last six years to create a continuous, and scalable process which allows the use of wet wastes like sewage sludge."

In addition to the biocrude, the liquid phase can be treated with a catalyst to create other fuels and chemical products. A small amount of solid material is also generated, which contains important nutrients. For example, early efforts have demonstrated the ability to recover phosphorus, which can replace phosphorus ore used in fertilizer production.

An independent assessment for the Water Environment & Reuse Foundation calls HTL a highly disruptive technology that has potential for treating wastewater solids. WE&RF investigators noted the process has high carbon conversion efficiency with nearly 60 percent of available carbon in primary sludge becoming bio-crude. The report calls for further demonstration, which may soon be in the works.

PNNL has licensed its HTL technology to Utah-based Genifuel Corporation, which is now working with Metro Vancouver, a partnership of 23 local authorities in British Columbia, Canada, to build a demonstration plant.

"Metro Vancouver hopes to be the first wastewater treatment utility in North America to host hydrothermal liquefaction at one of its treatment plants," said Darrell Mussatto, chair of Metro Vancouver's Utilities Committee. "The pilot project will cost between $8 to $9 million (Canadian) with Metro Vancouver providing nearly one-half of the cost directly and the remaining balance subject to external funding."

Once funding is in place, Metro Vancouver plans to move to the design phase in 2017, followed by equipment fabrication, with start-up occurring in 2018.

"If this emerging technology is a success, a future production facility could lead the way for Metro Vancouver's wastewater operation to meet its sustainability objectives of zero net energy, zero odours and zero residuals," Mussatto added.

[StarvingLion]

British Columbia is a shit hole. They will end up eating their own shit.

They even have the most ridiculous joke of a fusion "company" going....

General Fusion is a Canadian company based in Burnaby, British Columbia, which was created for the development of fusion power based on magnetized target fusion. As of 2015 they were developing subsystems for use in a prototype to be built later

[eclipse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')ideo - The technology, hydrothermal liquefaction, mimics the geological conditions the Earth uses to create crude oil, using high pressure and temperature to achieve in minutes something that takes Mother Nature millions of years.

[eclipse]

All right, I'll sumarise:
1. If we assume nuclear power is going to do the bulk of electricity
2. Trains, trams, trolley buses and EV's are going to do the bulk of land transport
3. EROEI from nuclear is high enough to process whatever synthetic fuel we need to crank up or process from biomass, sewerage, or just cracking water to get hydrogen... then....
4. We 'only' need to replace shipping fuel and airline fuel!

So, what if we grow enough kelp in the oceans to replace those?

[eclipse]

That's what I've been trying to say. If high EROEI nuclear is the backbone of our power system and the backbone of an electric transport system (trains, trams, trolley buses and EV's), then there's more than enough biomass (including sewerage, forestry off-cuts, etc) to do niche liquid fuel markets.

Semi related to this topic from a petro-chemical feedstock perspective is Plasma Burners that can recycle EVERYTHING in your local tip into useful building and construction and petro-chemical feedstock by prodcuts. Once Plasma Burners become cheap enough, it's the end of landfill tips, and the start of converting old jogging shoes, lawn clippings, asbestos sheets, sunglasses and a thousand other bits of plastic and soiled nappies/diapers all into useful stuff again!
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recycle/

[eclipse]

So the problem is we need a cubic mile of oil a year, or a cube 1.6km on a side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

Tim Flannery has suggested kelp as a CO2 sequestering mechanism, where 9% of the oceans are gargantuan kelp farms, probably with robotised harvesting systems, and this soaks up 40GT of Co2 a year.

40GT per year is 10 times the oil refined in 2008.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265 ... tric-tons/

The real problem, though, is if we're trying to sequester kelp farms the size of 9% of the ocean's, where do we put it all? We've already seen that we're burning just 10% for oil! (I'm seriously weirded out thinking of biomass as an oil replacement! I gave that up years ago!) What to do with the other 90%? Apparently it works out to about just under a cubic km of dried fibre every week!

What about biochar to help sequester CO2 in farmland soils?

What about to cows to feed them and eliminate their methane burps?
Indeed, if it can feed all our cows, and they don't need grass or other supplements but can live of kelp? (I don't know!?) Then it could reduce their grazing impact on the environment as well. I wonder what other ruminants basically just need biomass that their 4 stomachs can break down? Goats? Sheep?

If we could harvest 9% of the world's oceans in kelp, the world's oil multinationals would be saved. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as I had hoped electric transport would clear up the air over our cities.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eclipse', 'S')o the problem is we need a cubic mile of oil a year, or a cube 1.6km on a side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

Tim Flannery has suggested kelp as a CO2 sequestering mechanism, where 9% of the oceans are gargantuan kelp farms, probably with robotised harvesting systems, and this soaks up 40GT of Co2 a year.

40GT per year is 10 times the oil refined in 2008.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265 ... tric-tons/

The real problem, though, is if we're trying to sequester kelp farms the size of 9% of the ocean's, where do we put it all? We've already seen that we're burning just 10% for oil! (I'm seriously weirded out thinking of biomass as an oil replacement! I gave that up years ago!) What to do with the other 90%? Apparently it works out to about just under a cubic km of dried fibre every week!

What about biochar to help sequester CO2 in farmland soils?

What about to cows to feed them and eliminate their methane burps?
Indeed, if it can feed all our cows, and they don't need grass or other supplements but can live of kelp? (I don't know!?) Then it could reduce their grazing impact on the environment as well. I wonder what other ruminants basically just need biomass that their 4 stomachs can break down? Goats? Sheep?

If we could harvest 9% of the world's oceans in kelp, the world's oil multinationals would be saved. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as I had hoped electric transport would clear up the air over our cities.

[eclipse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '
')Before you worry about which nine percent of the worlds oceans to convert to kelp farms you might try a single square mile somewhere easy and prove the concept start to finish. Kelp taking CO2 out of the water is simple enough but how you keep the carbon from re entering the atmosphere and how that saves any oil or oil companies is not clear.