[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'A')nd yet another question.... Does anyone know if it is easier to get algae to produce lipid type fats and where I could research it?

[TomSaidak]

Okay, here is the URL for my spreadsheet. Thanks for the suggestion Kublikhan.
My TDP spreadsheet
{Note Spreadsheet Revised 1/8/2009}
I apologize ahead of time if you don’t like the way I work my spreadsheets. Feel free to email me your version. If I like it, I will adopt and update accordingly. This file should work with anything that can except a 1997 to 2003 Excel Spreadsheet. If for some reason you cannot access the spreadsheet, let me know and I will try to email you directly.
I identified numerous feedstocks that would yield 32% of our current consumption. IF we mandated changes to power trains for transportation to more efficient drive trains, we could lower our consumption by 40%, which means the identified feedstocks would yield 54% of US consumption.
About comments. At this point the 10:1 ratio is meaningless for oil production. The figures are “hard figures” in that they represent documented amounts of matter and documented amounts of energy available. I really don’t care how the mass got there as long as it exists. If you spot a math error – let me know! This is not to say the 10:1 ratio is unimportant, but that it is not important HERE…. OTOH, debate about availability of a given feedstock IS, i.e. how much cow manure can we really use for oil.
About methods for determining energy….. In some cases I used BTU/mass. In those cases I multiplied by an additional 5/6 as I recall TDP uses 1 bbl out of every 6 to energize their process. In at least one case, I took the article at face value (Pig Manure), and then modified because of water content problems. So I may be off for these figures as I am assuming either TDP or CDP can wrestle out the BTU. If you have articles that would inform me on that subject do please send them my way!
For most of the feedstock, the oil produced was not significant. They did however address other environmental concerns. I included them for that reason alone, such as medical waste and sewage.
My intention is to arm rassle these figures first. I want to define what the deficit is so I know how big a hole to fill. I have already started that process by looking at Kenaf trees, which yield anywhere from .45 bbl per acre to 15+ bbl/acre, based on internet articles and calling people. I have given up on the internet and am calling people to verify numbers, as obviously at .45 bbl/acre, TDP is meaningless, while at 15 bbl/acre, TDP might well be a solution. More on that when a) I get some information I feel confident in, and b) I have time to play with my spreadsheets. I am starting a long term substitute teacher gig on 1/12, and this website has been sporadically hard or impossible to get to.
And remember – arm rasslers MUST bring beer! And if you bring any of that pale pilsner/light beer crud, I will pelt you with the individual cans or bottles. I prefer HEFTY ales. Same goes for lagers. I drink ALES – none of that sissy lager stuff!

[TomSaidak]

Pstarr wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hen you have no comprehension of net-energy analysis, eroie, or human/industrial ecology.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'O')kay, here is the URL for my spreadsheet.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'O')kay, so lets run the numbers based on 10:1

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'T')his website has been sporadically hard or impossible to get to.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')WT still exists as a company today. Like cellulosic ethanol, TDP is a technology that actually works. But the technology was hyped beyond reason. People did not apply enough skepticism before embracing the promise of the technology. It was really going to be "the next big thing."

But costs and complications were grossly underestimated. They fell victim to The Law of Receding Horizons. They learned that the public doesn't like smelly plants in their community. Discover ran an updated article in 2006 in which Appel admitted "We have made mistakes. We were too aggressive in our earlier projections." The hype just ultimately did not match the reality. And while TDP may make some small contribution to our energy needs, it isn't going to make any measurable dent in our fossil fuel usage.

I remember when Discover published their first article about this. Many readers couldn't believe it, and wrote angry letters accusing Discover of falling for a perpetual motion scam.

I knew it wasn't a scam, but those objections pointed to what I saw as the real reason this technology was never going to replace imported oil. The feedstock, even if it was free monetarily, would not be free energy-wise. There's not enough turkey waste out there to replace oil, and it would be really silly to farm turkeys just to feed the thermal conversion plant. Assuming we could farm enough of them, which we can't.

I think this technology may prove to be a useful way of getting rid of waste - sewage, old tires, mad cow infected carcasses, etc. - but as a replacement for oil, it was never going to fly.

Basically, it's a form of recycling. Recycling is good, but it doesn't actually produce any new energy.

[TomSaidak]

Kublikhan Quoted:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nother US pulp mill contact said black liquor, a byproduct of cooking wood chips, is burned in a recovery boiler and the heat value creates steam to power the pulp mill.
The contact added that the key problems with considering black liquor as a biodiesel source is in the reliability of the gasification process and the need to replace the energy source created from the black liquor. About two-thirds of the energy for running a pulp mill comes from the black liquor recovery.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'C')ow manure. Some of it SHOULD be put back into the soil. Not all of it - the soil can't utilize it. That is in numerous articles. The phopshates end up in the water. I know that is a problem personally - used to work a Renne Faire next to a reservoir, and no end of dicussion of problems caused by manure. Or vomiting drunks. Don't ask unless you really, really want me to explain.... This includes NOX emissions and methane emissions. Both of which are nasty air pollutants.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', ' ')Pstarr likes to criticize, but has yet to EVER produce numbers when numbers are used.

[TomSaidak]

Kublikhan wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is basically the bottom line for this technology. Because of the laws of thermodynamics, you will get less energy out of the feedstock than the energy that was put into it. Now not all of that energy in the feedstocks came from fossil fuels. Some of the energy came from the sun.

[MonteQuest]

Man. I still see that a few fail to grasp that, in nature, there is no such thing as waste.

This waste is some other living thing's food.

Now, we want to deprive the fungi, bugs, and other detritivores their food so we can feed it to our machines.

Since we already apppropriate 40% of terrrestrial NPP, how much more do you think we can take from other living things and divert it to human use?

And to top it off, this is still trying to find a way to continue "happy-motoring."

We don't need more fuel for cars, or more cars for that matter, electric or otherwise.

This constant struggle for solutions for a continuation of an unsustainable existance is part of the problem, folks.

Give it up.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'A')LL the energy found in food comes from the Sun. Corn silo's take energy to fill. Nowhere does it add to the energy content of food. Milling wheat takes energy, but adds NOTHING to the energy content of the food. Please do NOT keep repeating the laws of thermodynamics. USE NUMBERS AND PROVE IT FOLKS!!

[TomSaidak]

Kublikhan wrote:

Water runoff and odor problems can be addressed by using alternative farming methods

I wasn't referring to odor problems. I was referring to emissions. Manure gives of NOX and methane. To stop that, it has to be transformed. Soil can only transform it at a slow rate, during which the gas emissions continute. Chemically speaking, the odor comes from a third emission, which I believe is a hydrogen sulphide. Also not a good gas to just let go into the atmosphere. But humans can detect that at an incredibly low level, like 1 part in a million.

Hmm.. How to say this..... I am not concerned at this point with peak NG. I AM concerned about peak oil. IF I can stave that off or avoid it completely, mission accomplished for me. . Keep in mind, there is going to be a deficit to fill. Solving that deficit may provide a solution too. In examining TDP/CDP as a solution, getting a number for current feedstocks is only the FIRST of several steps.

Also, the articles state specifically "more then the soil can handle". That is NOT an interpretation on my part, that is the conclusion of numerous scientists. Crop rotation plays a significant part in soil depletion as well. If corn farmers planted kenaf or soybean every other year, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as that would replace nitrogen. Grr... Trying to think of how it could be explored numerically. That it is causing problems with ground water is proof that it is "too much" as done. If you inject, that takes MORE energy. If you tranport it, that takes more energy as well. Gathering it takes energy, even from feedlots. Other questions that would help define the situation - are we experiencing fertility problems with Pasture lands? My experience even in pasture land there is a run off problem (signs of too much). Remember, water run off leads to ecological problems in water environments.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'A')lso, the articles state specifically "more then the soil can handle". That is NOT an interpretation on my part, that is the conclusion of numerous scientists.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ') Monte can probably explain it better than I. You might want to check out his post on why taking "waste" manure and turning it into oil is not such a good idea.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'M')an. I still see that a few fail to grasp that, in nature, there is no such thing as waste.

This waste is some other living thing's food.

Now, we want to deprive the fungi, bugs, and other detritivores their food so we can feed it to our machines.

Since we already apppropriate 40% of terrrestrial NPP, how much more do you think we can take from other living things and divert it to human use?

And to top it off, this is still trying to find a way to continue "happy-motoring."

We don't need more fuel for cars, or more cars for that matter, electric or otherwise.

This constant struggle for solutions for a continuation of an unsustainable existance is part of the problem, folks.

Give it up.

[dohboi]

Umm, tanada, note that he said "in nature" right up there in the first line.

The point is that the more we make things that don't fit this natural cycle, the more we are dooming ourselves and everything else.

You might not like mq's rhetorical style, but the basic point is valid, IMVHO.