Corn and Ethanol.

Sort by newest Sort by date
Cool! Wood chips and other junk we don't need.
On the other hand this whole thing about ethanol reminds me of the people in the third World countries using wood for heating and cooking, now they have NO TREES!!! I know, I know you don't have to say it but take Natural Gas if we use all of it (I don't think we can) what have we lost, is there a replacement? Yes!
What do these people do with that good old Carbon Monoxide they are making? Dangerous stuff, it killed my older brother and my dad! I know, I know it is broken down and separated and the only waste is water. :cool:
 
Blairstown plant turns trash into ethanol

by Matt Kelley on May 28, 2010
in Business & Economy


A converted ethanol plant near Cedar Rapids that used to process corn is now making a product its owners affectionately call “trash-a-nol.” Craig Stuart-Paul, the C.E.O. of Fiberight, says the plant in Blairstown is using waste fibers from International Paper’s nearby Cedar River mill to make cellulosic ethanol, but he says they have even bigger plans — to turn garbage into “green” gasoline.

“We plan to build another building onsite which will be able to handle residential waste from — starting off with Benton County,” Stuart-Paul says. “We are in discussions with Benton County on the appropriate ways to do that. Their landfill is only 1.7 miles away and that landfill is filling up. We’re able to offer a good solution to Benton County that hopefully saves them a significant amount of money moving forward.” Stuart-Paul calls the source for their new fuel “black bag M-S-W” or municipal solid waste.

“You fill your trash can, generally people use black bags, as opposed to construction waste, which is more difficult to convert,” Stuart-Paul says. “We’re really looking for residential waste.” In the final scene of the movie, “Back to the Future,” a time-traveling scientist up-ends a trash can and dumps household garbage into a processor atop the DeLorean’s engine to use as fuel, everything including coffee grounds and banana peels. Stuart-Paul says the real-life “trash-a-nol” conversion process isn’t quite that simple yet, but constant advances are being made.

Stuart-Paul says, “What we can do is take black bag waste, the stuff you throw out, run it through our process, separate the metals, the recyclables, the plastics, the shall we say ‘other’ material, the smellier stuff, and an awful lot of pulp, which is residual packaging waste, things as diverse as potato peelings and so on, which are high in cellulose and are convertable under our process into biofuel.” International Paper started shipping Fiberight its organic fiber waste at the beginning of May.


More: http://www.radioiowa.com/2010/05/28/blairstown-plant-turns-trash-into-ethanol/


That's ethanol from municipal waste.
 
That is an excellent use of waste material. As we become a less wasteful sociey (less consumerism), the waste stream should decline. Much of what is currently "waste" could be going back into the soil as compost-replacing fossil fuel fertilizers and loss of soil nutrients from crop production (it is at my house anyway). competing applications (ethanol vs. compost) to reduce overall dependence on fossil fuels. Price of energy would still go up. We need all options. no single good answer.

The ultimate question will be the relative balance of alternative energy sources.
 
If Carbon Monoxide is what we're looking for why don't they catch all of it that is put out by cars, trucks, coal fired electrical plants compress it and sent it to these folks to make ethanol, NAH, that stuff is free.:)
IT"S MY idea don't try and steal it!!!:suspicious:
Been done holzvergaser!
 
Last edited:
James48843 said:
Blairstown plant turns trash into ethanol
Click to expand...

I think there's a bacteria bug for that!
With Moore's Law I suspect the Large Hadron Collider can be reduced in size in 25 years to fit in that Intergalactic HoverRound I'll need to get back and forth on the habitable retirement colony on Venus!
 
crws said:
I think there's a bacteria bug for that!
With Moore's Law I suspect the Large Hadron Collider can be reduced in size in 25 years to fit in that Intergalactic HoverRound I'll need to get back and forth on the habitable retirement colony on Venus!
Click to expand...
biglol.gif
biglol.gif
 
What we really need is better FILTERS on exhaust emissions, all of them, then the problem is solved!:cool:
Got any ideas? skunk.gif
 
nnuut said:
If Carbon Monoxide is what we're looking for why don't they catch all of it that is put out by cars, trucks, coal fired electrical plants !
Click to expand...
...Just expressing a little trivia here about Carbon Monoxide (CO).

CO is a result of too much fuel and not enough oxygen (O2) in the combustion process for a complete fuel burn, so some fuel is left unburnt...What is done in fuel oil and coal furnaces, is to meter the oxygen (O2) in at such an excessive level that there is always an excess of unburned (in lay-terms) O2...This combines with the carbon residue from the completely burnt fuel and makes CO2 (Carbon-Dioxide) which is safe for the environment (contrary to Algorites thinking)...So, if internal combustion engines could be tuned to run on more air to fuel ratio..the emissions would be mostly CO2, but they can't yet under current technology..The Catalytic Converters was implemented on Cars and trucks for afterburning (the catalytic process)the CO to produce some hydrogen sulfide and water..
 
Buster said:
...Just expressing a little trivia here about Carbon Monoxide (CO).

CO is a result of too much fuel and not enough oxygen (O2) in the combustion process for a complete fuel burn, so some fuel is left unburnt...What is done in fuel oil and coal furnaces, is to meter the oxygen (O2) in at such an excessive level that there is always an excess of unburned (in lay-terms) O2...This combines with the carbon residue from the completely burnt fuel and makes CO2 (Carbon-Dioxide) which is safe for the environment (contrary to Algorites thinking)...So, if internal combustion engines could be tuned to run on more air to fuel ratio..the emissions would be mostly CO2, but they can't yet under current technology..The Catalytic Converters was implemented on Cars and trucks for afterburning (the catalytic process)the CO to produce some hydrogen sulfide and water..
Click to expand...

The marxist EPA requires that vehicles with catalytic converters run way too rich 14.7:1 at hwy speeds so that the CC will work. With todays electronics a vehicle could get at least 10 mpg more if the manufactures weren't held to 14.7:1. Honda actually made a car that was using about 25-27:1 ratio but its was banned from being used in calf and NY due to the epa. So of course I think they stopped production in the US. This actually was very very clean burning but didn't meet the 14.7:1.
The epa and osha have destroyed this country and our jobs.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every principle of our socialist program, until one day American will be a socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened. ...I no longer need to run on the Socialist Party ticket because the Democrat Party has now adopted our platform."
--Norman Thomas. 1944 Socialist Party Presidential Candiate.
 
Valkyrie said:
The marxist EPA requires that vehicles with catalytic converters run way too rich 14.7:1 at hwy speeds so that the CC will work. With todays electronics a vehicle could get at least 10 mpg more if the manufactures weren't held to 14.7:1. Honda actually made a car that was using about 25-27:1 ratio but its was banned from being used in calf and NY due to the epa. So of course I think they stopped production in the US. This actually was very very clean burning but didn't meet the 14.7:1.
The epa and osha have destroyed this country and our jobs.
Click to expand...

Bunk-

The EPA does not require a air/fuel mixture of 14.7 to 1 for gasoline to burn. The laws of physics do.

and as for your statement of "Honda actually made a car that was using about 25-27:1 ratio but its was banned from being used in calf and NY due to the epa. "

What evidence can you provide to support such a statement?

By the way- the EPA doesn't set state-by-state emissions standards.

I call bunk on the whole post.
 
James48843 said:
Bunk-

The EPA does not require a air/fuel mixture of 14.7 to 1 for gasoline to burn. The laws of physics do.

and as for your statement of "Honda actually made a car that was using about 25-27:1 ratio but its was banned from being used in calf and NY due to the epa. "

What evidence can you provide to support such a statement?

By the way- the EPA doesn't set state-by-state emissions standards.

I call bunk on the whole post.
Click to expand...

your lack of knowledge of how an internal combustion engine works is disturbing when it comes to air/fuel ratios and fuels when u promote ethanol. do your research and prove me wrong.
A vehicle going down the hwy under lite load does not need 14.7:1, it is wasting fuel. every car could be getting approx 10mpg at a leaner a/f. however the cat will not work correctly. do your research and prove me wrong.:)

my mistake it was CARB of ca, however they're in bed with the epa.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide
 
sounds like a market for an in-between-testing EEPROM to me

Valkyrie said:
your lack of knowledge of how an internal combustion engine works is disturbing when it comes to air/fuel ratios and fuels when u promote ethanol. do your research and prove me wrong.
A vehicle going down the hwy under lite load does not need 14.7:1, it is wasting fuel. every car could be getting approx 10mpg at a leaner a/f. however the cat will not work correctly. do your research and prove me wrong.:)

my mistake it was CARB of ca, however they're in bed with the epa.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide
Click to expand...
 
Valkyrie said:
your lack of knowledge of how an internal combustion engine works is disturbing when it comes to air/fuel ratios and fuels when u promote ethanol. do your research and prove me wrong.
A vehicle going down the hwy under lite load does not need 14.7:1, it is wasting fuel. every car could be getting approx 10mpg at a leaner a/f. however the cat will not work correctly. do your research and prove me wrong.:)

my mistake it was CARB of ca, however they're in bed with the epa.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide
Click to expand...

Edit: should have been "approx 10mpg more at a leaner a/f."

why can't we edit our orginal posts?
 
Pre ignition, Spark knock, over heating BYE BYE engine!
Buster is the winner and wins the grand prise of a winkidink and a woopi button!!:D:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NewsFeeder
Cocoa prices hit $10,000 per metric ton for the first time ever
Replies
1
Views
95
mmk119
M
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - Stocks face new policies, a debt ceiling, and liquidity
Replies
0
Views
150
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - Stocks pull back and the Fed sounds less dovish
Replies
0
Views
154
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - Small caps and high beta investments are on the move
Replies
0
Views
175
tsptalk
tsptalk
RevShark
  • Article Article
RevShark's TSP Timing Changes
Replies
0
Views
150
RevShark
RevShark
Back
Top