Living Green

[Buster]

Heck with them damn batteries..the only battery in my car will start a 510 hp Jaguar XFR..the one I am gonna get when I retire next year....Errrrrr, errrrr, errrrr...

 

[James48843]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/u...int&adxnnlx=1212850837-j6XQBxIzEQ5cNCjbNWFtAQAdding to the pressure on both food and water supply with corn biofuel production works for me as a very shortterm partial solution to nearterm pressure on longterm finite oil supply, maybe. What's short-term? Regional markets may figure that out before global markets do.

Note: The amount of water used to make ethanol is dropping as the technology to make ethanol improves. It now takes less than one-third of the amount of water to produce a gallon of ethanol, as it does to produce of gallon of oil from oil "tar sands". And most of the ethanol is being produced in areas where water is plentiful, compared to oil tar-sands being produced in areas of Wyoming, Colorado, and our Canadian neighbors- where water is not so plentiful.

Ethanol is a big part of the solution to going green.

 

[James48843]

PO
Found this on wimp.com...
For what it is worth.

http://www.wimp.com/solardonut/

Way, way cool!

 

[alevin]

Note: The amount of water used to make ethanol is dropping as the technology to make ethanol improves.
Ethanol is a big part of the solution to going green.

Agreed, corn transitioning to cellulosic or corn AND cellulosic AND batteries-multiple choice answers for now-we're in the fermentation/experimentation part of the next generation in the search for energy supply efficiency and multiple ideas how to get there. We need to get off gas use in vehicles tho, and save oil for every other industrial application you can think of where its even harder to break free,(oil in some form is in everything we use or make practically), the ultimate transition for transportation energy may be to some form of EV-battery system-but we're not there yet either-not for people other than short-distance commuters who never go anywhere else very far. Vrroom vroom Buster? :cheesy:

With ethanol, water useage isn't the only issue. Taking midwest crop land out of Soil Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) status to grow corn means using ever more natural gas-based fertilizer (diverted from/competing with growing food crops) not to mention an ever enlarging dead zone in gulf of Mexico from nutrient enrichment runoff. The following quotes are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)#Gulf_of_Mexico

Currently the most notorious dead zone is a 22,126 square kilometre (8,543 mi²) region in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Mississippi River dumps high-nutrient runoff from its vast drainage basin, which includes the heart of U.S. agribusiness, the Midwest. The drainage of these nutrients are affecting important shrimp fishing grounds. This is equivalent to a dead zone the size of New Jersey.

Fortunately, fertizer-induced Dead Zones can be brought back to life-IF the massive inputs stop. Case in point-

The Black Sea dead zone, previously the largest dead zone in the world, largely disappeared between 1991 and 2001 after fertilizers became too costly to use following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of centrally planned economies in Eastern and Central Europe. Fishing has again become a major economic activity in the region.[9] The Black Sea "cleanup" was largely unintentional and involved a drop in hard-to-control fertilizer usage.

Grant you, the latest intel on the Gulf of Mexico blames the City of Chicago, believe it or not, and Stimulus $ are being used to help clean up their **y act-literally. :toung:

http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/04/08/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-and-private-forests/

About 40% of the continental U.S. drains into the Mississippi River system and that sends a lot of water and pollution from across the country into the Gulf of Mexico.

The way the Dead Zone works is nitrogen and phosphorus flow into the Gulf of Mexico and fertilize giant algae blooms. As the algae decays it robs the water of oxygen making it uninhabitable for fish.
The U.S. Geological Survey ranked the worst offenders and say the most pollution comes from farm runoff, but cited sewage from Chicago and the single most contributor. The state of Illinois receiving $256 million from the stimulus package to work on water and waste water systems.

So putting more and more acres into corn production isn't currently the main problem (we think), but the jury's out whether the Gulf Dead Zone will come back to life, if we end up replacing Chicago's "nutrients", with more and more fertilizer inputs to more and more acres of corn-one of the most demanding crops we have for fertilizer. There's trade-offs everywhere, question is which tradeoffs can we survive in the long haul, which ones we can't. The most productive coastal areas for marine biomass and protein production-dead? Not a good idea. Maybe there's a better idea out there somewhere, chaos theory suggests there is.

 

[James48843]

...
With ethanol, water useage isn't the only issue. Taking midwest crop land out of Soil Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) status to grow corn means using ever more natural gas-based fertilizer (diverted from/competing with growing food crops) not to mention an ever enlarging dead zone in gulf of Mexico from nutrient enrichment runoff. The following quotes are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)#Gulf_of_Mexico



Fortunately, fertizer-induced Dead Zones can be brought back to life-IF the massive inputs stop. Case in point-



Grant you, the latest intel on the Gulf of Mexico blames the City of Chicago, believe it or not, and Stimulus $ are being used to help clean up their **y act-literally. :toung:

http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/04/08/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-and-private-forests/


So putting more and more acres into corn production isn't currently the main problem (we think), but the jury's out whether the Gulf Dead Zone will come back to life, if we end up replacing Chicago's "nutrients", with more and more fertilizer inputs to more and more acres of corn-one of the most demanding crops we have for fertilizer. There's trade-offs everywhere, question is which tradeoffs can we survive in the long haul, which ones we can't. The most productive coastal areas for marine biomass and protein production-dead? Not a good idea. Maybe there's a better idea out there somewhere, chaos theory suggests there is.

Found this: Ethanol is not related to the "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico:



====================================================


NCGA study shows no link to nitrogen, hypoxia in Gulf of Mexico

(World-Grain.com, June 17, 2009)
by World Grain Staff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related stories
NCGA refutes charges in new documentary on food industry
(World-Grain.com, June 11, 2009)

NCGA says agriculture can reduce greenhouse gases
(World-Grain.com, April 30, 2009)

NCGA talk corn-related issues to Washington broadcasters
(World-Grain.com, April 29, 2009)


WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S. — Nitrogen from corn fields is not related to low oxygen — or hypoxia — in the northern Gulf of Mexico, according to the results of a study released on June 16 by the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA).

The NCGA said the study is a new analysis that looks at some of the assumptions surrounding hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico and helps clarify the causes, effects and scope of the phenomenon.

"We’ve always known there were a lot of misconceptions about the hypoxic zone and its causes, based often on a lack of data," said David Ward, chairman of NCGA’s Production and Stewardship Action Team, which funded the hypoxia report. "It is our hope that this report will help keep the discussion as grounded and data-driven as possible."

The association said there has been a great deal of uncertainty related to the seasonal hypoxia in the Gulf, much of it giving the impression that the zone covers a large portion of the Gulf, the zone is permanent, hypoxia is caused by nitrogen and that nitrogen fertilizer applied to corn is the main cause.

But the data do not support any of these contentions, according to Dr. James McLaren, who researched the issue for NCGA. McLaren is the founder and president of StrathKirn, Inc., a business consulting firm focused on new technology and emerging markets, ranging from primary agricultural production inputs to downstream value-chain impacts, biofuels and renewable resources, NCGA said.

"Complex natural phenomena, such as seasonal hypoxia in the Gulf, are seldom the result of a single cause," McLaren said. "Extensive analysis of the data across several factors indicates that there is no evidence relating modern corn nitrogen use with the occurrence of hypoxia in the Gulf. U.S. corn farmers have applied new genetics and cultural technologies in such a way that there is now a net balance between nitrogen fertilizer input and nitrogen removed in the grain. If there is any nitrogen fertilizer from corn going down the Mississippi then it is most likely to be in a barge in the form of grain exports that contribute to the economy of the Midwest and the Gulf ports."

McLaren’s analysis shows how the hypoxic zone is seasonal and, while localized effects can be severe, there are not "vast dead zones" that have widespread negative effects on the local fishing industry, according to the association. On the contrary, it is possible that the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin water flow delivers the basic nutrients required for the very existence of the northern Gulf fishing industry.

The study shows that fishing data from 1985 onwards suggest no negative impact nor any clear relationships between the fish catch, the flow of water through the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin, or the size of the seasonal hypoxic zone, according to the NCGA.

The association said one of the hallmarks of the McLaren research is that it shows how, in recent years, as corn production has become more efficient and yields have increased, the nitrogen removed from corn fields in the grain is approximately equal to the amount of nitrogen applied in the fertilizer.

"U.S. corn growers have been focusing on efficiency as an important part of their traditional stewardship of the land and other natural resources," Ward said. "Boosting yields thanks to technology helps us increase the number of bushels produced per unit of nitrogen fertilizer applied."

From World Grain; http://www.world-grain.com/news/daily_enews.asp?ArticleID=103473&e=pyounger@uticaenergy.com

==================================

Granted- it's a study paid for by corn growers-

However, it's a study.

I'd give it more credit than straight wikipedia, and enough of challenge to warrant further investigation.

 

[alevin]

Found this:

...one of the hallmarks of the McLaren research is that it shows how, in recent years, as corn production has become more efficient and yields have increased, the nitrogen removed from corn fields in the grain is approximately equal to the amount of nitrogen applied in the fertilizer.

"U.S. corn growers have been focusing on efficiency as an important part of their traditional stewardship of the land and other natural resources," Ward said. "Boosting yields thanks to technology helps us increase the number of bushels produced per unit of nitrogen fertilizer applied."

From World Grain; http://www.world-grain.com/news/daily_enews.asp?ArticleID=103473&e=pyounger@uticaenergy.com

==================================

Granted- it's a study paid for by corn growers-

However, it's a study.

I'd give it more credit than straight wikipedia, and enough of challenge to warrant further investigation.

Good find, James. Given this intel, I'll gladly lighten up and wait for further developments. Meanwhile the NW is moving forward with cellulosic pilots. Maybe there is room for both in this big country of ours. Still want to see EV-battery projects move forward as well. Cover all the bases in the creative ferment.

 

[James48843]

Cellulosic is the next generation.

Look at it this way:

It took from 1900 (or so) until the 1920's to first come up with a crude form of gasoline and make it work for cars.

In the 1930's, they developed leaded fuels for use in high performance military airplanes. It took until the 1940's to develop the first jet engine fuels, and the 50's to provide jet fuel deicers to keep it flowing at high altitude (JP-1, JP-2, JP-3, etc).

It took until the late 70's to develop "Unleaded" gasoline, with additives to keep the octane high without the lead.

to today's gasolines, which are reformulated, have no lead, and have different additives to maximize performance.

Ethanol in mass production is relatively young. the first large plants were just made in the last ten years.

New technology in the last three years now allows a newly built (not most of them) plant to produce
1. corn oil - to be made into biodiesel;
2. Dried Distiller's grain to be used as animal feed;
3. Use the byproducts of corn cobs, and stover (leafs and stalks) to be used as the fuel source to heat the still. (first generation plants used natural gas mostly. )
4. New technologies to shorten the steps it takes to get from grain to fuel.

All those changes and updates are just in the last couple years, on the newest Corn plants. the design stage now is to try and set the next generation plants up for dual feedstock source- corn and sugar, for instance. Water use is down from 9 gallons H2O per gallon of ethanol produced, to less than 3 gallons h2O per gallon of ethanol produced.

And cellulostic is the next generation, still in field trials, but shows great promise in five years or so before they have it down and ready for mass scale production. That's only 20 years from first tiny introduction, to large scale production of clean, renewable large scale production. But ONLY if we can get the infrastructure up and going, and get it widely available, and people get comfortable using it.

In the meantime, we have 8 MILLION flex-fuel cars ready to use ethanol, if only more stations would carry it. We've gone from 400 stations in 2005, to 2154 stations nationwide today.

View attachment 6452

That was 1890 stations in October 2008, seven months ago. Today, there are 2154 stations. Growth is happening, despite the bad economic conditions.

IN a couple years, we'll be at a point where E85 is widely available, and cellulostic will come on line, cheaper than gasoline. that's why it is important to continue to support this aspect energy independence- it's here, it's now, and it's availability is growing. It's renewable, we can do it, and it costs just about $100 more than a non-flex fuel car for the car- which is easily paid back in fuel cost savings in the first year.

And it give you a CHOICE of which fuel to use.

You can sit there and say "Drill baby drill" all you want- but eventually there will be no more dinosaur juice left. And your money is going to AMERICANS, not foreign lands.


​

​

 

[alevin]

Figured I'd bring this discussion back into a better thread (started in the "import tires" thread the other day-some relationship, but better here maybe).

Here's the article I referenced the other day re selling technology and reimporting products based on the technology-solar panels, and what it would take to get solar energy off the gov subsidies and rebate train in this country (oh, and create jobs here). Silverbird, feel free to weigh in now that I have ungarbled material to work with, you're the acknowledged trade expert on the MB.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/opinion/16friedman.html?

Applied Materials is one of the most important U.S. companies you’ve probably never heard of. It makes the machines that make the microchips that go inside your computer. The chip business, though, is volatile, so in 2004 Mike Splinter, Applied Materials’s C.E.O., decided to add a new business line to take advantage of the company’s nanotechnology capabilities — making the machines that make solar panels. Applied maintains a real-time global interaction with all 14 solar panel factories it’s built around the world in the last two years.
Not a single one is in America. Applied sells its solar-panel factories for $200 million each. I suggested a new company motto for Applied Materials’s solar business: “Invented here, sold there.”

The reason that all these other countries are building solar-panel industries today is because most of their governments have put in place the three prerequisites for growing a renewable energy industry: 1) any business or homeowner can generate solar energy; 2) if they decide to do so, the power utility has to connect them to the grid; and 3) the utility has to buy the power for a predictable period at a price that is a no-brainer good deal for the family or business putting the solar panels on their rooftop.
Regulatory, price and connectivity certainty, that is what Germany put in place, and that explains why Germany now generates almost half the solar power in the world today and, as a byproduct, is making itself the world-center for solar research, engineering, manufacturing and installation. With more than 50,000 new jobs, the renewable energy industry in Germany is now second only to its auto industry. One thing that has never existed in America — with our fragmented, stop-start solar subsidies — is certainty of price, connectivity and regulation on a national basis.

right now, our federal and state subsidies for installing solar systems are largely paying for the cost of importing solar panels made in China, by Chinese workers, using hi-tech manufacturing equipment invented in America.

At Applied, making these complex machines requires America’s best, high-paid talent — people who can work at the intersection of chemistry, physics and nanotechnology.

The world is on track to add another 2.5 billion people by 2050, and many will be aspiring to live American-like, high-energy lifestyles. In such a world, renewable energy — where the variable cost of your fuel, sun or wind, is zero — will be in huge demand. China now understands that. China is now creating a massive domestic market for solar and wind, which will give it a great export platform.

In October, Applied will be opening the world’s largest solar research center — in Xian, China. Gotta go where the customers are. So, if you like importing oil from Saudi Arabia, you’re going to love importing solar panels from China.

The point of the article to me is, if we got out of our own way, WE could be the worlds solar energy producers and exporters instead of or at least competitive with China or Germany. They are using our technology and feeding it back to us with finished products. If we changed our policies and regulatory structures to create better incentives for companies like AM to put manufacturing here, and give every day people better incentives than presently exist, to invest in solar for homes or businesses we could not only cut national and personal energy costs, but also provide energy to the grid (provide enough cashflow to reinvest in upgrading/updating the grid?), we could get away from subsidies and rebates and have economically viable domestic solar energy production and use, and better balance of trade, no?