[halcyon]

Never trust a single study

A meta-study reveals this:



That is the best scientific and most up-to-date meta-study I've been able to find.

And of course, the boundary drawing problems are still there. That debate will not die, as it is at the heart of the matter.

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Y')ou understand halcyon, the "lignocellulose biomass" figures in the chart refer to burned material, and not liquid- fuels.

[Concerned]

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

[halcyon]

All of the above data is for bio-ethanols, not for raw biomass.

I posted the study, because it is a round up summary study, and to show that the range is still believed to be fairly large and that the debate is not over.

However, as we all know, the boundary definition is at the heart of the matter.

I can make a 10:1 system if I define a really narrow boundary.

Likewise, it is possible to make 0.5:1 system with a really wide boundary.

Personally I also believe that a self-sustaining test production system would be the best proof either for or against.

However, I don't think we are likely to see such a production system anytime soon.

Personally I remain pessimistic even about potential positive EROEI numbers, as they are not big enough. Cleveland's/Hall's work on total system EROEI is crucial in this regard, imho.

[dohboi]

Anyone who has frequented this forum for any amount of time need only see that a post is from lorenzo to know what kind of slant it is going to have. We are all predictable, in one way or another, but lorenzo is perhaps the most...consistent...reliable (I'm searching for nice words.)

Lorenzo seems to be a decidedly interested party. He seems to be involved in some kinds of get-rich-quick schemes to turn tropics into biofuel sources for developed countries.

One point he is not completely wrong about is the relatively small amount of bio-fuel capacity of the US. A recent post at TOD showed that US energy consumption exceeds all energy captured by all photosynthesis everywhere (cultivated and non) in the US.

So if the US is planning to power its future with biofuels, it will have to turn to the tropics...and lorenzo becomes a very, very rich man.

I personally think there should be a massive return of wealth from the first to the third world to start to make up for the massive piracy that has and continues to rob huge amounts of mineral, biological and human wealth from the have-not to the haves.

But it would be a deep shame to do so at the expense of what is left of the biodiversity of the tropical world, and for what is a futile and mad pursuit, as heini so eloquently put it, of maintaining our insane and eco-cidal civilization.

In short, lorenzo and his ilk are predictable consequences of our current situation.

(Google or Wiki "palm oil biofuel" for plenty of info on how much wreckage can result from such schemes.)

[MacG]

If they got that EROEI on ethanol from switchgrass, why the hell did they tell anyone about it? That's not SOP when you discover a new source of energy. The SOP is to STFU about it and take the money and run as far as you can get.

Where is that ethanol BTW? Already sold? Or was it just imagined?

[Alcassin]

Growing food for fuel is monstrority. It needs expanding agriculture into endangared forests. Price of food will go up, and more and more people will die from hunger.

We have changed 50% of land surface on this planet, I think lorenzo can grow his biofuels on deserts or keep chopping down the rainforests for his biofuels.
Climate anyway will get worse.

I don't care so much about EROEI on that matter - I see this as a tool to mass starvation, new colonial 'cash crops' and destruction of Nature.

[Alcassin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')ut Lorenzo claims to be a Marxist working for the power of the people, and so justifies environmental degradation. Is he a self-deluded ideologue, or merely posing for his own profit?
I suggest the latter because he used to front for a company called biofact (tm) which scammed biofuels. Regardless he is full of it, algae or avocados, it hardly makes a difference.

[efarmer]

Has anyone ever researched a Spanish Company named Infinita
Renovables who is building biofuels plants?

www.timeinc.net/fortune/services/sectio ... Energy.pdf

The surplus glycerin from the biodiesel process is in demand in Spain according to this document, it is hard to sell or even giveaway in the USA.

I still hate the idea of betting the topsoil in a resources "strip poker"
game to see if we can keep the car culture alive for the duration of
our generation. We are very bad at making topsoil and we need it
more than we need to zip around in personal vehicles.

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gampy', 'S')orry to interject here, I am not too savvy when it comes to the biofuel debate, or what place biofuels should take in our economies going forward.

But I have a kind of dumb question. Why are people trying to convert cellulosic material into sugars, when they could just grow sugar cane?

Or corn?

Or oilseed?

It seems to me that even with less actual biomass to work with, corn, sugar cane, or oilseeds would be the most economic way to get simple carbohydrate from the sun's energy.

Are they working on ways to bioengineer plants that produce the maximum amount of carbohydrates?

[davep]

BTW, I don't think any of the studies envisaged using stillage to generate methane (rather than distillers grains).

Generating methane can produce 66% more energy than is required for the ethanol distillation process.

Also, the waste from the anaerobic digester is a great fertiliser.

Given these elements, we can take out all the process heating required during distillaiton from the eequation. We can also take out a large percentage (all?) of the fertiliser costs.

According to this report a thermophilic methanol production facility added to an ethanol plant can reduce to zero the on-site need for fossil fuels (note, I'm not saying that the whole process is fossil fuel free, just the ongoing operation of the ethanol plant). Apparently $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ombining the decreased energy needs with the sales of green electricity, Kopp says the EnviroPlus model offers a net energy gain of 138 percent, compared to the conventional ethanol process.

[dohboi]

One of the problems with this kind of thread is that it seems to frame the topic so that all sides are stuck arguing along one dimension--in this case, production. We all become little Cheneys, obsessed with energy production, but implicitly or explicitly dismissing the, in fact, central importance of conservation.

If we wanted to reflect their relative importance, we should have 10 or more threads on conservation (reuse, using less, doing without...) for every thread on production, whether from conventional or from alternative sources.

We already use, directly or indirectly, some 40% of the earth's current biological capacity, and many times that when you factor in fossil fuels, which represents use of the earth's earlier biological capacity.

It's time, actually long past time, to think about how to massively scale back from this absurdly enormous use of energy, to "power down," to decide what power is (and we are) really for.

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'O')ne of the problems with this kind of thread is that it seems to frame the topic so that all sides are stuck arguing along one dimension--in this case, production. We all become little Cheneys, obsessed with energy production, but implicitly or explicitly dismissing the, in fact, central importance of conservation.

If we wanted to reflect their relative importance, we should have 10 or more threads on conservation (reuse, using less, doing without...) for every thread on production, whether from conventional or from alternative sources.

We already use, directly or indirectly, some 40% of the earth's current biological capacity, and many times that when you factor in fossil fuels, which represents use of the earth's earlier biological capacity.

It's time, actually long past time, to think about how to massively scale back from this absurdly enormous use of energy, to "power down," to decide what power is (and we are) really for.

[dohboi]

Point well taken. (And I love your avatar.)

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'W')e already use, directly or indirectly, some 40% of the earth's current biological capacity, and many times that when you factor in fossil fuels, which represents use of the earth's earlier biological capacity.