[PornoSatan]

Here's a good clip about the current discussion in this thread. It also mentions alot of things Jay Pan ROKK is talking about. Not to mention Robert Zubrin is one of the coolest guys on the planet.

[Chaos Mitten]

I have doubts about the efficacy of hemp as a fuel source.

[b0st0n]

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

Yes, i know, it helps my argument.

If ethanol is a success in Brazil for sure it can be more successful in USA.

USA is just few years behind, some questions placed in this forum were answered many years ago.

USA dont produce all the oil it needs, USA import most of it.

The same could be done with bio-fuel, the differences would be that many farmers around the world will fulfill USA needs, instead a cartel in middle east.

Well, Brazilian government had many highs and lows with the alcohol program, you probably know what happened here in the last 40 years, a dictatorship was in charge and they wanted to control everything.

But from many years now, bio-fuel industry is completely done by the market.

The problem with importing that amount of biofuel is that ethanol is not easily transported through pipelines...

Ethanol is not easily transported via pipelines for several reasons. First, it is water soluble (has a tremendous affinity to absorb or pick up water). Because water accumulation in pipelines is a normal occurrence (in most cases water enters the system through terminal and refinery tank roofs or can be dissolved in fuels during refinery processes), introducing ethanol into a pipeline risks rendering it unusable as a transportation fuel. Also, if gasohol is shipped in a pipeline, the water may strip some of the ethanol out, resulting in sub-octane fuel. According to a report prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Ethanol Project in 2000, “Once an ethanol blend phase-separates it is extremely difficult and usually impossible to reblend. In many cases the ethanol/water bottoms must be disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste regulations.”

Second, ethanol can dissolve and carry impurities that are present inside multi-product pipeline systems, making it harmful to motor vehicle engines when blended into gasoline.

Third, there is some evidence that ethanol in high concentrations can lead to stress corrosion cracking, which is hard to detect and manage. This may be accelerated at weld joints or bends where the steel ****llurgy has been altered and causes latent stresses. Ethanol stress corrosion cracking of untreated weld joints is currently the subject of industry research.

Finally, ethanol may degrade certain elastomers and polymers. In 2003, the state of California said that because ethanol “has a corrosive effect on the seals and valves of the pipelines,” it is blended at the loading racks of distribution centers

www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/pipeline/upload/pipelineethanolshipmentfinal-3.doc


As you can see there are many pipelines used to transport refined fuels throughout the US, how can it be energy efficient to dramatically increase our importing of ethanol, which has 34% less energy by volume than gasoline, if we have to transport the ethanol via tanker truck throughout the US?

[JerkWeed]

Originally Posted by chriskiss

No bacterium or algae can produce ethanol of the desired purity because they would essentially die in their own shit (ethanol).

Algae is more useful for diesel rather than ethanol. The algae produce lipids and can be engineered for specific carbon chains. Using vertical, closed water systems allows them to produce much greater quantities with less land space and water than open pond systems.

For those interested, here again is the link to the video interview with the head scientist at Vertigro.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by b0st0n

The problem with importing that amount of biofuel is that ethanol is not easily transported through pipelines...


www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/pipeline/upload/pipelineethanolshipmentfinal-3.doc


As you can see there are many pipelines used to transport refined fuels throughout the US, how can it be energy efficient to dramatically increase our importing of ethanol, which has 34% less energy by volume than gasoline, if we have to transport the ethanol via tanker truck throughout the US?

Well, sure we should address this, but it is not really a big problem.

The first step for a country to use ethanol is mixing it with gas, beginning with low percentage, for example, 2% to 5%, and increasing this mix every year to a maximum 25%, this way production and distribution will have time to adjust.

Up to 10% ethanol mixed with 90% of gas there is no problem at all, neither for cars nor pipelines.

However to carry 100% ethanol some parts should be upgraded, see what i got at:

US Senators propose ethanol pipeline - AutoblogGreen

"The primary concerns with ethanol in existing pipelines are water absorption and corrosion at valves and joints. The pipes themselves will be fine."

"Too bad it is so difficult for us to get past government and industry gatekeepers. We invented technology 12 years ago that is a complete resolve for the corrosion and SCC caused by Ethenol tranported in pipelines. Our technology is EcoBeam XL MHD. Not only does it prevent internal pipeline corrosion, it also reverses existing corrosion. EcoBeam XL requires no chemicals, no power source, simple to install, no pipeline downtime to install or operate, no maintenance, unlimited use lifetime, and is very cost-effective.
EcoBeam XL effects absolute environmental protenction, and safety for the public and employees. Ethanol industry can use existing pipelines without fear of corrosion or SCC, if EcoBeam XL is applied."

Bio-Butanol another alcohol has none of these problems and it is better than ethanol:

BP DuPont BioFuels

New pipeline for ethanol:

Ethanol Pipeline Proposed by Producers

Magellan, Buckeye looking into $3B ethanol pipeline | Cleantech.com

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by PornoSatan

Here's a good clip about the current discussion in this thread. It also mentions alot of things Jay Pan ROKK is talking about. Not to mention Robert Zubrin is one of the coolest guys on the planet.

Thanks, good speech.

[chriskiss]

Originally Posted by JerkWeed

Algae is more useful for diesel rather than ethanol. The algae produce lipids and can be engineered for specific carbon chains. Using vertical, closed water systems allows them to produce much greater quantities with less land space and water than open pond systems.

For those interested, here again is the link to the video interview with the head scientist at Vertigro.

You're missing a key point. Using the speech: "the only water we lose is what's actually bound up in the algae and goes into the oil itself." Every mixture of hydrocarbon and water contains has an azeotrope. You will run into the same problem everytime. You cannot get the purity required by distillation.

It's going to be more expensive than simply pulling it out of the ground or using the tar sands. Any additional processing increases cost. And when he says they can engineer specific carbon chains, that's not quite true. The algae produce simple hydrocarbon compounds that can then be used to produce things like jet fuel. There's a reason this isn't being used already considering how simple it is.

[Stringer Bell]

Originally Posted by chardog

My neighbor lives 2 miles away from school. Her mother takes her to school and goes home. She picks her up after school to bring her home. 8 miles a day could be saved. 40 miles a week. That is a possible significant savings they could have. With their SUV, they could save 4 gallons a week.

that would increase productivity. Their daughter should take a bike to school. 1 person, 4 miles total commute, rather than 2 people 8 mile commute. Time for commute would be less with the bicycle since traffic is bad near the school zone.

I don't know where you live, but no one is going to let their daughter ride her bike to school, especially in the city.

Originally Posted by chardog

This may not be a likeable solution, but it's still a solution. People tend to live far for affordable housing... now that gas is not very affordable, living close may not be a bad idea. it comes down to either the house bleeding you dry or gas bleeding you dry.

[/quote]

the savings from gas is nowhere near the savings from your mortgage; not in L.A. anyway. I think people are really starting to blow this gas price thing out of proportion.

Let's keep things in prospective here, this is not tens of thousands of dollars here. It's an extra $2/gallon. If you fill up a 15 gallon tank twice a week that's $3k/year. You cannot compare that to savings on housing, especially if the factors are not only cost but crime, and schools.

[1MuayThai]

There is no simple solution. People can tout all the "renewable" resources as they can, and it definitely sounds cute, but physics says there is no simple solution.

1st of energy states you cannot just create energy, you transform it from one form to next. So you've to spend some energy (lets say 1 unit) to create another form of energy in the form of work (theoretically max 1 unit, conservation of mass). But 2nd law states, then you change 1 unit of initial form of energy to secondary form, you will not get 1 unit. Even Carnot Cycle, which is the most efficient theoretically possible heat cycle, cannot get 100% efficiency (unless the outside/non-system temperature is absolute zero). You always loss useful form of energy. So you will be using hydrocarbon (in the form of farm equipments, pumps, compressors, etc) to "get" another form of energy, in process losing some exergy. Even electricity is generated from natural gas, coal, hydropower...and that is not going to be 1 unit of the initial form of energy. No matter how sexy the idea is, if it doesn't follow these fundamental laws of thermodynamics, then it is not valid.

Best solution is the solar radiation, but we do not have the technology to capture the solar energy to transport. The biggest form of "renewable" is the conservation, and nobody emphasizes conserving and optimizing the use of energy, like increasing the mpg, et al.

[AZ BJJ]

I was listening to a Ph.D science researcher who had been working with switchgrass farmers in New England, and he said they had a 5 to 1 energy yield. In other words, 1 gallon of fossil fuel input was creating 5 gallons of ethanol. He was on NPR a month or two ago. Assuming he isn't making shit up, switchgrass seems to be a useful tool in solving our dependence on foreign sources of fuel. It's not the sole solution, but it's a part. I don't know much about hemp, but it certainly seems possible that it could also prove useful. The stigma however, may be too great to incorporate it in the near term.