NationStates Jolt Archive

We need to convert corn ethanol plants to switchgrass. More energy efficient.

So the price of oil hit (last I heard) $104 a barrel, and guess what, it's going to keep going up. Sooner or later the price of oil is going to be too much for your average American (of course some say it's too much now). However, before we get to the breaking point, I'd say that now is a good time to start rolling up our sleeves and figuring out a solution to the energy crisis. There are several path that we can go.

Some people, mainly Right Wing Talk Pundits say that we should start drilling in Iraq and taking their own, drill in ANWAR, or just simply drill more of our own oil. While that all seems nice and dandy, it is just a band-aid. Even if we did increase our own production of oil, sooner or later we'll be back in the same spot we're in now. What we need is a permanent solution.

Which is where Bio-Fuels and Alternative Energy comes in. Now the main leader is Ethanol, which is fuel made from corn. However, does the United States really have the resource to make enough Ethanol to make a cheap alternative to oil? Let's keep in mind not only do we need fuel for our cars, but we also need oil for lubrication, to make stuff out of plastic, etc. I can't even begin to imagine how much corn it'd take to match our current oil consuption. Of course, there are those who say that the pushing of Ethanol is mostly done by the Corn Growers of America (I just pulled that name of of my Ass), and isn't really that viable of an Alternative Fuel.

Now there is Alge Fuel. Which apparently is a low cost but high imput fuel alternative. They make the oil from the Alge. Apparently (From Wiki) you can make more fuel per Acre from Alge than you can with corn, so maybe Alge is a better alternative. It also appears that you can refine it for other uses, like Butanol, Methane, and Gasoline. So who knows, maybe Alge is the way of the future. Wiki Article on Alge Fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel)

Now there is also the talk of a cheap eletric car coming out from Chrsyler which is called Volt. It's susspose to be the first Electric car produced for the masses. I actually have high hopes for eletric cars because now we have Lithium Batteries. It's the same kind of batteries that your laptop uses. There are some high end eletric cars that boast I think 200 miles on a single charge. I don't know if the Chrysler Volt will deliever the same performance, but I hope by the time it comes out I'll have a job and I'll be able to buy one.

As for energy for house, you can either go Solar Panel, wind energy, water energy, or Nuclear Power.

That is basically our energy future ladies and Gentlemen, comments?

Hydrogen seems a better method don't you think?

Not necessarily. Not until it's obtained greenly. Most hydrogen today is obtained from petroleum cracking and natural gas processing.

I just got a few free coffee mugs made from corn/ethanol. I didn't even know you could make plastics from ethanol, but I guess I assumed wrong. Anyway, yeah, corn isn't the best way, but it's what we got. We'd do well to buy ethanol distilled from sugar from the Brazilians or whomever else makes it, but we'll do fine either way.

Back in the 70's when we were waiting in gas lines and basically being rationed there was big talk of alternatives to oil. That episode did kick start progress towards getting us off of fossil fuels. It did lag in the 80's due to cheap oil. Today we are facing the same issues however it is not because of an embargo but worldwide economic demands that will keep it high. With that I think this will sting for awhile however the long term effect of oil rising will spur alternatives that will pay off with big dividends in the future. I believe the federal government could take the money they are spending on wars over oil and inject it into development of alternatives we would be far better off. Imagine the cost savings just through the military that we could achieve if we didn't have to keep the oil line to the west secure.

We need to convert corn ethanol plants to switchgrass. More energy efficient.

Hydrogen seems a better method don't you think?

We could get off oil in 10 years. This country is so fucking lazy. When Obama wins, he should use his oratory skills to bring America together off oil and onto cleaner energy. Don't tell me 300 million people can't do that.

We could get off oil in 10 years. This country is so fucking lazy. When Obama wins, he should use his oratory skills to bring America together off oil and onto cleaner energy. Don't tell me 300 million people can't do that.

You are right, people in this country are lazy, and apathetic.

I'm for solar power and electric cars.. but we need tons of government funding!!

and yet, Chevy (a Private company) is making the Chevy Volt, and so are other private companies, without government funding! *gasp* SHOCKING!

Hydrogen seems a better method don't you think?

It takes more power to produce the hydrogen(as of yet) than the hydrogen actually supplies. So it isn't really viable right now.

I'm for solar power and electric cars.. but we need tons of government funding!!

Yes... but how much will it cost?
I can almost assure you that the vast majority of people won't buy them because of the obscene price.

I'm actually hearing the cost for the Volt to be around $30,000.

Several things could happen to help deal with this crisis. The high prices of oil may be enough of an incentive to develop techniques to profitably drill oil from otherwise unprofitable sources. Car will also become more fuel effecient. Thus eventually the price of oil will bottom out like it did in the 90s. Of course there are other alternatives but it does not seem like biofuels will be one of them with gases even more unfriendly to the environment than plain old gas. Hopefully hydrogen fuel cells will become viable.

and yet, Chevy (a Private company) is making the Chevy Volt, and so are other private companies, without government funding! *gasp* SHOCKING!

Yes... but how much will it cost?
I can almost assure you that the vast majority of people won't buy them because of the obscene price.

I'm actually hearing the cost for the Volt to be around $30,000.

Now if we cut the spending used to attempt and keep oil coming to America and the government helps out car companies to make the vehicles as efficient as possible while offsetting some of the cost.. Could work.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSN0625745620080306
The company said it will start construction of a 3,500 barrel per day pre-commercial plant that uses the technology, called Vacuum Resid Slurry Hydrocracking, later this year.

It said the technology could significantly increase yields of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from heavy and ultra-heavy crude oils, like those produced in Venezuela and the Canadian oil sands.

"The best heavy oil upgrading technology today gives you 80 percent ... transportation fuels like gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. So you get 80 percent conversion and 20 percent is this heavy coke, which is a coal-like substance," Chevron Executive Vice President Mike Wirth said in an interview.

"This gives you one hundred percent conversion from the heavy feed stock," and in some cases yields of up to 120 percent, he said.

Not necessarily. Not until it's obtained greenly. Most hydrogen today is obtained from petroleum cracking and natural gas processing.

Was thinking more along the lines of using water in a closed system. Just watched a show on the science channel where a inventor had built a system that used solar power to convert water into hydrogen and then stored it in a mini tank farm. When he needed the power he converted the hydrogen back into water creating electricity thus making it basically a closed system. He thought with mass production he could get the system down to 5k. He powered his home and car with this system. Was impressive.

Edit: The process I watched demonstrated was called water electrolysis I believe.

http://www.sdreo.org/ContentPage.asp?ContentID=323&SectionID=319&SectionTarget=316

Portions of this seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics, but I'm too tired to figure out how. I'll post when I know why.

It does. It's not really a closed system. Hydrogen will be lost in the storage system, since it's damn near impossible to have a perfect hydrogen containment system, so fresh water is still needed to replenish the system.

Not to mention that as I understand it, it takes more energy to extract hydrogen than it provides, so on days where there's no sun and plenty of water, he's out of luck.

Come to think of it, the system sounds less energy efficient than a pure solar system. I suppose the hydrogen comes in handy when he needs to cook or drive a car though.

Was thinking more along the lines of using water in a closed system. Just watched a show on the science channel where a inventor had built a system that used solar power to convert water into hydrogen and then stored it in a mini tank farm. When he needed the power he converted the hydrogen back into water creating electricity thus making it basically a closed system. He thought with mass production he could get the system down to 5k. He powered his home and car with this system. Was impressive.

Portions of this seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics, but I'm too tired to figure out how. I'll post when I know why.

Portions of this seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics, but I'm too tired to figure out how. I'll post when I know why.

It doesn't. Obviously, the electricity derived from burning hydrogen won't equal the energy used to produce it. While I can see benefits to such a system, I suspect the loss is too large to make it worthwhile on a larger scale.

It does. It's not really a closed system. Hydrogen will be lost in the storage system, since it's damn near impossible to have a perfect hydrogen containment system, so fresh water is still needed to replenish the system.

Not to mention that as I understand it, it takes more energy to extract hydrogen than it provides, so on days where there's no sun and plenty of water, he's out of luck.

Come to think of it, the system sounds less energy efficient than a pure solar system. I suppose the hydrogen comes in handy when he needs to cook or drive a car though.

It's used similar to a battery. Energy is stored as a containable, transferable... well, fuel.

Now if we cut the spending used to attempt and keep oil coming to America and the government helps out car companies to make the vehicles as efficient as possible while offsetting some of the cost.. Could work.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/05/business/main3907823.shtml?source=mostpop_story
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Oil/idUSWAT00908320080306
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j057jBReERcsF-FcZRSWe0h1gaXQD8V7FJLG0

Interesting collage.

Portions of this seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics, but I'm too tired to figure out how. I'll post when I know why.

He seemed to make it work at his house. The show was about Eco-building on the science channel. Figured it was legit.

It doesn't. Obviously, the electricity derived from burning hydrogen won't equal the energy used to produce it. While I can see benefits to such a system, I suspect the loss is too large to make it worthwhile on a larger scale.

He used solar to produce it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/05/business/main3907823.shtml?source=mostpop_story
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Oil/idUSWAT00908320080306
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j057jBReERcsF-FcZRSWe0h1gaXQD8V7FJLG0

Interesting collage.

Yes the truth hurts sometimes. People just don't auto-link dropping dollar and rising oil costs. The articles clearly point at the problem. However they are stating the obvious at this point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/05/business/main3907823.shtml?source=mostpop_story
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Oil/idUSWAT00908320080306
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j057jBReERcsF-FcZRSWe0h1gaXQD8V7FJLG0

Interesting collage.
Yes the truth hurts sometimes. People just don't auto-link dropping dollar and rising oil costs. The articles clearly point at the problem. However they are stating the obvious at this point.

So the price of oil has risen because the dollar is worth less, and not necessarily due to a lack of supply? That makes sense, but it is no reason not to break dependence on oil.

However they are stating the obvious at this point.
Yes, obvious. Good choice of words:
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080305%5CACQDJON200803051127DOWJONESDJONLINE000889.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=UPDATE:%20Bush:%20'Obvious'%20That%20Oil%20Demand%20Outstripping%20Supply
"It should be obvious to all that the demand is outstripping supply, which causes prices to go up, and it's making it harder here in America for working families to save and for farmers to be prosperous and for small businesses to grow," Bush told the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference on Wednesday.
-
So the price of oil has risen because the dollar is worth less, and not necessarily due to a lack of supply?That may depend on who you're listening to.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/05/business/main3907823.shtml?source=mostpop_story
The 13-nation Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said it would maintain current production levels because crude supplies are plentiful and demand is expected to weaken in the second quarter.

OPEC President Chakib Khelil told reporters the global market is being affected by what he called "the mismanagement of the U.S. economy," and that America's problems were a key factor in the cartel's decision to hold off on any action.

"If the prices are high, definitely they are not due to a lack of crude. They are due to what's happening in the U.S.," Khelil said. "There is sufficient supply. There's plenty of oil there."

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSN0625745620080306

Originally Posted by article
The company said it will start construction of a 3,500 barrel per day pre-commercial plant that uses the technology, called Vacuum Resid Slurry Hydrocracking, later this year.

It said the technology could significantly increase yields of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from heavy and ultra-heavy crude oils, like those produced in Venezuela and the Canadian oil sands.

"The best heavy oil upgrading technology today gives you 80 percent ... transportation fuels like gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. So you get 80 percent conversion and 20 percent is this heavy coke, which is a coal-like substance," Chevron Executive Vice President Mike Wirth said in an interview.

"This gives you one hundred percent conversion from the heavy feed stock," and in some cases yields of up to 120 percent, he said.



Ok, can someone translate this into laymen terms for me?

Ok, can someone translate this into laymen terms for me?

It means you shouldn't expect the weaning off any time soon as this catches on.
The whole incentive is disproportionate yield, and if you can kick it from 80% to the seemingly-dubious "120%", you better believe they're gonna keep doing it and there'll be more work on refineries to do as much. Especially as supplies are adjusted for amount and availability.

everyone keeps talking about fuel to the cars, but the real solution will be electric driven puplic transport (where the puplation alows it, in not verry puplated places just eletric cars), it coud get the power from putting solar panels on top of the Vehicle or from hydrogen cells in cloudy weather.

The reson puplic transport clearly is best is the fact that even with using puplic transport today while much of it still runs on oil, it saves a lot of energy comparred to a normal car as moving a bus (for example) full of people (lets say 35) 5 km takes lets say 2-3 liters (only guess, but thinks it is rigth) of gasoline while moving a car with 1-5 peopl 5 km takes around 1/2 liter (higthly depending on fuel efficenty, can take up to 3 litter with old or big or big and old cars) means that a filled bus uses 3 liters to move 35 people while a filled car takes 1/2 litter to move up to 5 people giving a bus a useage of 0,087 litters pr passenger and a car 0,1 litter pr passenger (and those numbers is still pr 5 km) that may not sound much, but if the whole new york was using busses, it woud save a lot of oil and then think of how much energy it woud save if they was eletric...

so puplic transport is the rigth way forward now and in the future.

Do you mean public Transport? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just asking.

everyone keeps talking about fuel to the cars, but the real solution will be electric driven puplic transport (where the puplation alows it, in not verry puplated places just eletric cars), it coud get the power from putting solar panels on top of the Vehicle or from hydrogen cells in cloudy weather.

The reson puplic transport clearly is best is the fact that even with using puplic transport today while much of it still runs on oil, it saves a lot of energy comparred to a normal car as moving a bus (for example) full of people (lets say 35) 5 km takes lets say 2-3 liters (only guess, but thinks it is rigth) of gasoline while moving a car with 1-5 peopl 5 km takes around 1/2 liter (higthly depending on fuel efficenty, can take up to 3 litter with old or big or big and old cars) means that a filled bus uses 3 liters to move 35 people while a filled car takes 1/2 litter to move up to 5 people giving a bus a useage of 0,087 litters pr passenger and a car 0,1 litter pr passenger (and those numbers is still pr 5 km) that may not sound much, but if the whole new york was using busses, it woud save a lot of oil and then think of how much energy it woud save if they was eletric...

so puplic transport is the rigth way forward now and in the future.

It's used similar to a battery. Energy is stored as a containable, transferable... well, fuel.

Yes, I know, but energy loss and the low rates of return means that this guy will have a lousy time of it trying to generate hydrogen on a rainy day. It helps cut down on fuel consumption, but it won't replace it utterly. You'll need to regularly replace the water too.

wherever policy favors the use of combustion to generate energy and propel transportation, we, as humans, are being suicidal idiots. or our leaders are being short sighted and greedy. or both.

alternative fuels are not a real alternative to anything, other then an alternative way of attempting to gratify greed alternative to murdering everyone sitting on top of an underground pool of oil. not that that isn't a little bit of a good thing.

it just isn't a good enough thing when there are better things proven, reliable and available, which there are. the only alternative fuel and the only use of burning it that makes any sense, is methane from organic wastes, which are then composted once the methane is extracted. not crops grown to produce it. and then used ONLY for home heating and cooking.

oil can and will continue to get scarcer and scarcer in real actual supply, in what remains in the ground to be extracted. this is a good thing. but not, by itself a good enough thing.

the carbon being dumped into the air and water by the rate at which we're using combustion, partially of course because of the shere numbers of us, is creating real and serious chainges in our natural environment. chainges that MAY have implications for our own survival as a species, perhapse not that far down the road. chainges in perminent climatological weather PATTERNS that are already quite visible and profound in many places.

there is a further danger from this, but leaving that aside, those chainges already taking place as a resault of excessive use of combustion are quite real. and quite unneccessary to continue.

there's really no other obstical to solving this problem besides greed and social momentum of greed based ways of doing things and the popularity of emotional attatchment to them.

wind, solar, geothermal and small scale hydro, in combination, can, and at some point are going to have to, do everything we get from the combination of oil, coal and nuclear.

and nuclear ISN'T the 'clean' panacea it was once dreamed to be. at least not until we develop clean fusion as opposed to simply boiling water to make steam using the heat of fission to do so.

it will be continue to be useful to help fill the gap until clean energy production catches up with and surpassess the dirty energy production of today's robber barons.

it will never be more then the stopgap it already is though. the numbers, the reality, the costs and problems with current nuclear tecnology just won't let it, whereas, the REAL 'clean' (as in signifigantly cleanER) can and will.

so forget 'alternative' fuels OR nuclear as we know it todoay, as being any sort of magic wand.

we will have a future of abundant and gratify tecnology. but it will be extremely energy efficient tecnology, and, if we are to have a future at all, an energy and transportation infrastructure not powered and propelled by burning anything.

and we DO have, and have had for decades in the case of solar, centuries and milinea in the cases of hydro and wind, the proven and reliable means of doing so.

only the political will and the good sense to create that will, remain to be adaquitely developed, as evolving conditions will almost certainly insure eventually that they will.

=^^=
.../\...

and nuclear ISN'T the 'clean' panacea it was once dreamed to be.
...

it will never be more then the stopgap it already is though. the numbers, the reality, the costs and problems with current nuclear tecnology just won't let it, whereas, the REAL 'clean' (as in signifigantly cleanER) can and will.
I'm not buying this. Nuclear power is one of the safest industries in the US. The only pollution inherent to the process is produced by a minimal amount of waste that's wholly containable. A nuke plant can support a massive baseload, and nuclear power will only become more economically competitive as technology improves and fossil fuels become scarce.

Let's not forget that hydro, wind, and maybe even solar aren't devoid of negative environmental ramifications either.

and yet, Chevy (a Private company) is making the Chevy Volt, and so are other private companies, without government funding! *gasp* SHOCKING!Given how late it is, I will forgo my long rant (unless you request it, and I am still able to remember the rant/this thread in the morning) but I'll give you the tl;dr: Chevy and other private industry has made fuck all for improvements for the flaws of electric vehicles and has rather piggy backed off the computer industry or publicly funded reasearch for most improvements to their vehicles.

Yes, I know, but energy loss and the low rates of return means that this guy will have a lousy time of it trying to generate hydrogen on a rainy day. It helps cut down on fuel consumption, but it won't replace it utterly. You'll need to regularly replace the water too.

Personally I think electric cars would be better. I don't know enough about the efficiency of batteries opposed to hydrogen but it would less of a infrastructure change (we already have the ability to produce and distribute electricity). All we now need are cars that run on electricity, although plug-in hybrids sound more realistic in short term. (I know a guy who already has a plug-in car though)
And a way to make greener electricity, but we needed that anyway. together with better car design (lighter more efficient cars) this could partially eliminate our need for oil.

I'm not buying this. Nuclear power is one of the safest industries in the US. The only pollution inherent to the process is produced by a minimal amount of waste that's wholly containable. A nuke plant can support a massive baseload, and nuclear power will only become more economically competitive as technology improves and fossil fuels become scarce.


I think he's talking about the cost of construction, uranium mining, refining, maintenance, etc, etc.

So the price of oil has risen because the dollar is worth less, and not necessarily due to a lack of supply? That makes sense, but it is no reason not to break dependence on oil.

We should use this opportunity to convince the general public that oil is not in our best interests to keep using as a major national energy supply. As for the Dollar it has dropped dramatically in five years. A 30% drop to be exact. Oil was roughly $30 a barrel in '03. What has happened since then? Iraq war, dollar dropping 30% coupled with a higher demand. OPEC is telling the US to look at our own problems first. If one were to back out 30% of the $100 barrel price you would have $70. If one were to back out the fact that we are in a war right in the middle of a major oil producing area. Is that worth another $30 a barrel? I would say yes. Oil is now down to $40 a barrel. That would be about the right price I would think. Do you agree with my assessment here?

Now the main leader is Ethanol, which is fuel made from corn. However, does the United States really have the resource to make enough Ethanol to make a cheap alternative to oil?
No, because corn is used for god damn near everything because of the corn farmer lobby and it equally sucks for god damned near everything compared to anything else used for the same purpose.

There are some high end eletric cars that boast I think 200 miles on a single charge.
Well that's great for people who live in cities where you might as well walk or take public transportation, but for commuters and people out in the big open states, that probably won't cut it.

Strange nobody linked to this yet:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/02/12/the-last-straw/
In short, there are currently no biofuels that are OK with the environment. And those of them that are economically viable are so only thanks to tax manipulation.
Nothing will save us if we don't stop with the abuse of resources. Nothing short of cold fusion, that is.

Strange nobody linked to this yet:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/02/12/the-last-straw/
In short, there are currently no biofuels that are OK with the environment. And those of them that are economically viable are so only thanks to tax manipulation.
Nothing will save us if we don't stop with the abuse of resources. Nothing short of cold fusion, that is.
I may as well post the response:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/28/alternativeenergy.biofuels

I may as well post the response
Ah, yes, the waste. The problem is, we'd have to massively increase our waste output to provide the amount of gas needed to replace the fossil fuels. Of course we should recycle this way as much refuse and agricultural waste as possible, but we will not meet the demand this way. Combined with the solar, wind and water energy - maybe, someday.

Clearly America needs to go fully Amish.

Clearly America needs to go fully Amish.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GsfVw9xxoNY

All the Amish cows would cause global warming........

All our problems can be solved by going back to using manpower...ENSLAVE THE HOMELESS!

Who wouldn't want one of these

http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/_archives_300Xerxes.jpg


Also, we can eat them...Jonathan Swift FTW

previous thread on alternate source of energy.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548213
Me i'm not decided, there's much debate about safety of Nuclear power, Coal power is too dirty, Wind power although good will not work on it's own, geothermal energy again good, and wave energy is a serious consideration, for the US i think Solar energy is a good possibility, ethanol has the problems of space to make it work.
One way or the other energy crisis will be solved by, humans dieing in freak weather events, or energy is sorted for everyone.