Why Biodiesel is a TERRIBLE idea.

[Speck Tater]

This is an older editorial, but it's new info to me. To replace coal, oil, and natural gas at the present level of usage would require growing 400 times more biomass than the entire planet is capable of supporting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1658898,00.html

<snip>

In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44 x 1018 grams note; That should read 10 to the 18th power, not 1018) of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota". In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.

<snip>

In promoting biodiesel - as the EU, the British and US governments and thousands of environmental campaigners do - you might imagine that you are creating a market for old chip fat, or rapeseed oil, or oil from algae grown in desert ponds. In reality you are creating a market for the most destructive crop on earth.

<snip>

[FloridaPat]

1. The choice is - food or your car. The more of the crops go to oil,

the more people starve to death, the less cars are drive, and the less oil you need. Works out great.

[mike_c]

2. I've tried to make this point repeatedly in discussions about biofuels....

I think many just don't see past the utopian belief that we can green the energy economy with "natural" biofuels. Dukes' estimate of the biomass equivalent of annual fossil fuel consumption shows how utterly futile that is-- it simply cannot be accomplished on this planet using the primary producers we have to work with, and even attempting it will cause massive ecological devastation.

The only solutions--ultimately-- are to replace fossil fuels with an alternative energy source capable of producing equivalent energy densities on a planetary scale or scaling back to sustainable energy consumption levels with significantly less dense energy sources-- essentially nineteenth century energy budgets, IMO. People don't like the implications of that last suggestion, but if we can't develop the first alternative, the second is inevitable.

[Chomp]

7. Interesting, I didn't know this

All makes nuclear sound more and more likely to be the choice of world governments, doesn't it?

Hmmmm...if only there were seomwhere to put the waste, I wouldn't necessarily be closed to the idea.

[Tesha]

31. If you (we) intend to keep using energy like we do...

If you (we) intend to keep using energy like we do, the
only practical choices appear to be:

o Fission nuclear, available today

o Fusion nuclear, available "soon" (we can only hope!)

o Direct collection of massive amounts of solar energy

It's clear that indirect collection of solar energy
(via biological products) isn't likely to even come
close to satisfying our current energy demands.

Tesha

[SidDithers]

94. Hydroelectric is very common in some parts of the world...

but does require significant changes to the landscape when rivers are dammed to create "drop" needed for generation.

Geothermal heating and cooling can also be used to take some of the strain off of the need for oil and gas.

We're also seeing alot more wind power generation, even in urban areas. Here's one of the 750kW Toronto wind turbines, right on the Lakeshore in the downtown.

Sid

[XemaSab]

81. I was throwing this around in my head last night

And the problem with energy is that there's no panacea.

Every "fix" involves numbers of a few percent here and there, like reusing tempura oil or turning off the kitchen light every time you leave the room.

It's dismaying, but an energy "solution" won't come from one place, and even if recycled biodiesel is just a proverbial drop in the bucket, why not if there's a market for it?

That being said, I hear ya about planting crops entirely for biodiesel. Find Sean A. and hit him for me, wouldya?

[Ready4Change]

3. Opinions differ:

Link:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

This groups study indicates that algae biodiesel production would take a VERY tiny fraction of existing cropland. Further, it would consume many of the natural waste flows from our cities and farms, and produce useful fertilizers along with energy in the form of biodiesel fuel.

In terms of producing energy per acre it is FAR more efficient (ie: cheaper) than using corn to produce ethanol, which seems to be the current darling of news reports.

[Mr_Spock]

4. Not necessarily - inedible genetically engineered plants harvested

specifically for fuel would help dramatically in reducing the amount of area covered. Plus, who is stating that 100% of those resources would be replaced by biodiesel?

It's a start - got any better ideas?

[mopinko]

5. what about tdp?

does that count as biodiesel? or are we talking about 2 different things? cuz you can use tdp to make oil out of stuff that we are currently dumping in landfills, feeding to animals and spreading mad cow, and dumping in rivers. so?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. There's probably not that much of that

(but I don't think that is what they mean by biodiesel, apart from the "feeding to cows", if you mean crops). For instance, looking at a pack of frozen peas, they are about 21% organic chemicals (the rest being water) - most of that being carbohydrate, in which say half the weight is carbon (that's generous). So 10 lbs of organic material yields, at maximum, 1 lb of oil. An American gallon of oil weighs, roughly, 7 lbs; so you need 70 lbs of plant material to get 1 gallon of oil. TDP can make a contribution, but it won't supply all the needs for our current lifestyle.

[mopinko]

52. feeding to cows

not crops, but slaughter by products that are spreading mad cow. i guess you need to replace them in the feed stocks with crops, but still.
they are making oil out of chicken carcasses that they are BUYING from tyson, that is coming out at $80 bbl. slaughter house waste, manure, stuff that you have to get rid of. stuff that is being dumped in our rivers now. how many mountains of old tires are out there? the yield from them is high. medical plastics, lots of other stuff that is a biohazard can be cleanly disposed of, and produce oil.
i do not understand why we are not doing this right now.

[Jacobin]

6. Yeah, let's go conquer the middle east and steal their oil

Fork the brown people.

We have to cut down on greenhouse gases.

[EVDebs]

8. For heavy trucks, a good idea, but ZincAirFuelCells is better for cars

http://www.electric-fuel.com/evtech/index.shtml

Arotech and eVionyx are two companies from NY that are working on ZAFCs. Metal air fuel cells in general are a good place to start. Zinc oxide pellets with potassium hydroxide as a catalyst, plus other parts in abundance make up the system. Zinc costs around $50 per pound; for PEM Hydrogen fuel cells the platinum costs what now, $8K per OUNCE ? Zinc is abundant relatively compared to platinum, too.

Our national laboratories should have been working on ZAFCs but instead were probably forced into stressing hydrogen fuel cells because of the need to coddle a dying petroleum-based fuels industry; plus the Saudis et al wouldn't like an alternative

http://www.awesomelibrary.org/fuelcellcars.html

[Tesha]

34. You understand that batteries arent't an energy source, right?

You understand that batteries arent't an energy source, right?
They don't actually create any energy in and of themselves.

These batteries you're describing need an input source of
energy and the question remains: where does that *INPUT*
energy come from?

(Hint: Direct solar might be a possible answer.)

Tesha

[DUHandle]

47. I believe the source of raw materials for solar

has been spoken for the next few years.

[Tesha]

57. If by that you mean silicon, you're thinking too narrowly.

Implemented on a large-scale basis, you don't need to think
just silicon photoelectric effect. Thermal solar energy plants
are also quite possible, and there's no real shortage of glass
for mirrors. ;-)

Tesha

[EVDebs]

65. Yes, BP = 'Beyond Petroleum'.

But now we have Venezuela saying that at sustained $50/bbl oil, they have vast petroleum reserves, larger than the Middle East. I thought 'Peak Oil' meant that proven oil reserves would only last 25 years or so ?

Bush invaded the wrong region, apparently.

[NickB79]

75. Venezuala is including oil sands and tar shales

Very energy-intensive to excavate, and unable to replace declining production from easy-to-pump conventional oil installations.

Basically, they look good on paper but are incapable of providing sufficient oil to offset Peak Oil. They will only help in slowing the decline after the Peak.

[EVDebs]

76. I knew there would be a catch ! eom

[DUHandle]

90. Reliable Source, From a

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=43983



The worldwide silicon shortage is a major driver of the pickup in M&A activity says Walter Nasdeo of Ardour Capital Partners. Over 90 percent of global solar cell production is silicon based. Despite very high demand for photovoltaic equipment, the raw material shortage is squeezing margins. Solar World cited two major benefits of the Shell deal: one, it secures more access to silicon supply and, two, monocrystalline solar technology provides the highest yields and, thus, requires less silicon. The deal makes the German photovoltaic supplier the largest solar power company in the US.

[XemaSab]

82. Right now they're not economically feasible to drill

But in a few years when the price of oil REALLY climbs it'll make financial sense to extract the oil.

Right now it would cost more to drill than you would get out of it. :shrug:

[NickB79]

104. Even economics can be stifled if there's no water for extraction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x50730

Basically, it seems that the "wet" 20th century in Alberta was a fluke. They are actually talking about limiting immigration to Alberta because they don't want to become like the US Southwest!

Without sufficient water, you can't seperate the tar oils from the sands. The area is already draining entire rivers just to produce their current output; increasing output in the future seems dubious at best.

Unless water pipelines from the Hudson or the Great Lakes are built, the tar will stay there for the foreseable future.

[ptolle]

98. benefits

Thank you for illustrating one of the benefits of a place like this. Poor information/disinformation doesn't persist for long before someone knowledgeable comes along and kicks it in the ass and tweaks the conversation into more accurate and useful channels.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. Canada is the Saudi Arabia of tar sands, and they are already beginning

To build the infrastructure needed to essentially strip mine the entire northern tier of Alberta, which is sort of like the Texas of Canada. My uncle is a petroleum geologist, he is familiar with what they are talking about doing in that area. Basically, they will build two giant pipelines thru tribal and wilderness areas in the Mckenzie delta / Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to harvest huge untapped natural gas reserves which are currently burnt off or left undisturbed because they have no way of getting the stuff to market. This will of course destroy the wilderness (cf. National Geographic this month). One pipeline would go thru Canada, one would be much longer and go thru the Yukon to Fairbanks. The Yukon one is actually (supposedly) less damaging to the environment because it follows the route of the Alaska Highway, but really, both would do great damage to what are now wilderness areas and more important, open up vast wilderness areas to all other types of strip mining (copper, cobalt, you name it) that miners are slavering to get at. More importantly, rather than bring the natural gas directly to market, the Canadians intend to bring it due south to a transfer terminal in -- you guessed it -- Northern ALberta, where it would ALL be burnt off in order to convert tar sands to petroleum in an energy intensive process using the "cheap" gas harvested from the North Slope in the wetlands along the Alaska/Canada border. The strip mining involves taking off the top of millions of acres of boreal forest and taiga in Alberta, much like a sand and gravel mine, if you've ever seen one of those, it basically creates an artificial desert, or at best, a pine barrens-type landscape, although admittedly, that is what they have now. (remember when the sand and gravel company wanted to drain the Okeefenokee Swamp by literally removing the 50-mile long, one-mile wide sand bar that separates it from the coastal plain?) My uncle's view is that, as a geologist, he thinks that the area of Alberta will recover quite nicely in geological time, but he admits that cost of the resulting gas is a problem (and it will presubably run out quite fast on a geological time scale.)

[DUHandle]

89. Something to look at

http://www.solarbuzz.com/

The above was the only url I kept when I was looking into solar.

Efficient photovoltaic cells require a compound that is under limited production, and the supply for it a few years out is spoken for.

[EVDebs]

64. Recyclable zinc oxide pellets. Re-read the Arotech article.

Electrons in motion, batteries are rechargable. The system is recyclable. Electrons in motion chemically, as with natural processes like dams creating energy thru gravity of falling water, aren't as destructive as the effects of smog/ozone etc with petroleum. You'd switch from refineries to mining.

The Pacific Rim countries (US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, China, and Australia) have the world's zinc market 'cornered', just as the Middle East and former USSR have petroleum/oil/naturalgas.

Read more at
http://evionyx.com/vision.htm#products_and_applications

""Many organizations are chasing hydrogen fuel cells as a solution. Yet, hydrogen fuel cell technology faces innumerable obstacles. Hydrogen as a fuel is not only expensive and difficult to produce, but also extremely flammable and unstable to transport. This means that hydrogen will require an exceedingly complex and costly infrastructure to support it, if and when all its technical challenges are resolved. eVionyx, however, envisages a different solution for the future: metal as the ideal energy source...Metals, such as zinc, aluminum, and magnesium store vast amounts of energy. Besides, they are naturally abundant, inexpensive, recyclable, and environmentally friendly. Perhaps most significantly, metals are intrinsically nonflammable and safe to handle, which affords us the opportunity to build a metal fuel economy with a simple, affordable infrastructure. In fact, the process of distributing and harvesting energy from metals is perfectly analogous to the way we distribute and harvest energy from planted crops.

# The nonflammable nature of metal fuel allows for a simple and affordable distribution model, as shown in the diagram above: Fuel Distribution Centers will provide consumers with access to fresh metal fuel to supply power for their devices. The centers will also collect discharged fuel (metal oxides) for recycling. The nature of metal opens many possibilities for utilizing existing distribution networks such as supermarkets, convenience stores, etc.
# Simple Transportation Means will be used to move fresh metal fuel as well as discharged fuel back and forth between retail centers and recharging stations.
# Metal recharging stations will utilize renewable energy sources such as hydro, solar and wind to electrically recharge metal oxides back into fresh metal.""

You could also switch to methane hydrates as a vast source of CH4 methane/natural gas if you could just find a way around the 'mining' problems undersea and in the arctic/antarctic.

BTW, zinc air fuel cells mimic the body's 'burning of fuel' needs within cells. Photosynthesis more closely resembles the hydrogen PEM process, which relies upon scarce platinum catalyst (and expensive, too), and is merely a crutch for continued petroleum/naturalgas interests to run out the clock on their investments.

[Tesha]

85. Did *NO ONE* at DU ever take physics?

Day after day, folks here post about perpetual
motion machines!

Pushing those electrons around *TAKES WORK*.
That's where the energy is put into the system.

Once you've drained your fabulous zinc/air battery,
it takes work to turn the zinc oxid back into zinc
for the next pass through the battery. Where do you
figure the energy to do that work comes from?


> You'd switch from refineries to mining

How much metallic zinc do you figure there
is floating around in the world free-for-the-taking
and unoxidized?

How much energy do you figure it takes to mine a
pound of zinc?

How big is the pile of tailings you'll have left
over?

How big a pile of used-up zinc-oxide will your
(seemingly-proposed) one-pass-through-the-batery
system leave?

Seriously, go study some physics and then tell
us about this modern-day miracle.

Tesha

[Tesha]

92. (I guess not.) (NT)

[EVDebs]

93. Substitute 'oil' for zinc in each of your statements.

I mention articles you can read that show that batteries, chemical energy, can use zinc air fuel cells. If I'd said 'hydrogen PEM' I guess you'd be jumping for joy ? Besides, the article mentions the use of recyclable solar and other non-petroleum sources of energy.

I guess no one at DU actually READS the links, LOL !

[Tesha]

95. No, "hydrogen" is just as much of a diversion as "Zinc-Air Fuel Cells"

> If I'd said 'hydrogen PEM'

No, "hydrogen" is just as much of a diversion as "Zinc-Air Fuel Cells";
neither one (at least on *OUR* planet) is what we might call a primary
energy source (as in, potential energy stored since at least geologic
times).

The Zinc-Air system you describe and the hydrogen system that Bush
describes both depend on some other source of energy. On the scale
that we use energy on this planet, that *PROBABLY* means nuclear
fission for at least the short term (the next several decades)*.


Sorry, but no fission-based system is going to get my endorsement.

Tesha

* Our current resources for wind, hydro, geothermal, and OTEC just
aren't anywhere near meeting our demands for transportation energy.

[EVDebs]

102. Now you get the picture. All I was saying was ZAFCs were an option

tied into a renewable source, usually solar, wind etc.

Check out Amory Lovin's www.oilendgame.com for a free download of his book of same name ($40 vs. free online download ! Such a deal...).

Also see Humboldt State Univ in Arcata CA's Schatz Energy Solar Hydrogen project
http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/trinidad.html

and the possibility of methane digesters from your own wastematter--the city of LA uses this on a VAST scale to generate methane. Also landfill gas recapture LFG systems.

The possibility of methane hydrates as a source of hydrogen is also being explored, but the challenges are almost 'fusion like' in the potential hazards

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

[melm00se]

9. i have a question -

So we stop burning dino oil and shift over to burning bio-diesel. How does that affect the production and emission of CO2, the biggest (by volume) greenhouse gas?

QV: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0419-03.htm

edit to fix grammar mistakes

[Sal Minella]

13. I just learned this -- the carbon in plants comes from the atmosphere

and goes back into the atmosphere and back into plants again -- the burning of fossil fuels brings carbon from below ground and puts it into the atmosphere.

[melm00se]

26. yes

it is called the carbon cycle...plant material acts as a giant sink to capture and bind the carbon and chemical reaction release them in some form - the less "complete" the reaction, the more complex the molecule (which is why zero greenhouse emissions is completely unfeasible - we'd have to stop breathing).

I am still not sure why folks keep touting bio-diesel and fretting about global warming...introduce bio-diesel and you just extend the underlying causation of global warming

[Chemical Bill]

40. Plants don't keep carbon out of the atmosphere.

They take carbon out, but most of it is released by natural decay within the next year. If we use bio-oils to replace the petroleum based plastics, we are making more of a dent in atmospheric CO2 than plants do in nature. And any biodiesel we burn is not adding net carbon, but any petrodiesel we burn is.

Bill

[melm00se]

50. i am not sure

when you burn anything, even in a 100% pure oxygen environment, you create CO2. But in the normal atmosphere, the energy and other gases can be comined to produce other by products (like NO2 other complex carbon chain molecules).

I am curious if I burn 1 gallon of gas and 1 gallon of gasahol is there is significant difference in the volume and mass of pollutants created or are we trading one evil for another?

[Chemical Bill]

97. Well, as to biodiesel...

biodiesel.org says that there is a 90% reduction in carcinogenic activity (or some such scientific phrase) when you burn biodiesel compared to petrodiesel. As for greenhouse gas, the carbon released into the atmosphere today was taken out of the atmosphere last year. For me the kicker is that we don't have to invade Iowa.

BTW, yes, burning a hydrocarbon by definition produces CO2, and H2O. You also get CO (carbon monoxide). Certainly you get other complex hydrocarbons. NOx is also produced when something is burned in the atmosphere.

In some ways we are choosing the lesser of two evils. Is that a good reason to reject the idea and stay with the greater of two evils?

Bill

[Sal Minella]

42. But if it's a question of pumping fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere

versus recycling vegetable carbon -- plant/atmosphere/plant -- isn't the biofuel route BETTER than using fossil fuels?

I'm not saying bio fuels are zero-emission, I'm saying it's INSANE to keep burning fossil fuels and just pumping more and more carbon into the air.

and now British Petroleum and Exxon want to pull up oil from where the arctic ice used to be -- this is about the most insane thing I've ever heard of.

[politicat]

77. Plant based CO2 has a Zero CO2 loop.

What gets burned and put in the atmosphere is used up by the next generation of plants in building themselves up. This is why biomass electric plants running on elephant grass are being built right now in Europe.

[Fridays Child]

10. Oil From Anything

I keep wondering why this isn't getting more attention: http://www.changingworldtech.com/

[Squeech]

17. Good question

I'm afraid the answer is, because they don't actually have their process working.

I've been checking into their web site periodically, and what I don't find is actual production statistics from their installations. In a five minute search just now, every link I clicked on took me to the same FAQ page, containing largely the same blue-sky claims the company has made all along. They tell you what's supposed to happen, but not what really happens.

I'm not being snarky, I want this process to succeed, but I think I'm entitled to be suspicious.

[Fridays Child]

30. Me, too. They have two plants online...

...one in Missouri and one in Pennsylvania. But their last press release, as shown on their web site, was issued nearly two years ago. That isn't good. The question is whether they're having problems getting the technology to work or is something else--political, legal, etc.--going on. I wish I knew.

[rman]

73. Because no conversion process yields more then you put into it

Converting "anything" to oil costs more energy then it produces - and where's that energy going to come from? Alternative sources? Then we have A LOT of work to do in developing technologies to use alternative energy sources.

[librechik]

96. My question to: Does that dire prediction include fuel from organic waste?

or only crops? Cuz there is a LOOOOOOT of organic waste, and it seems to me that source would at least offset the cost of biodiesel.

[Joe Fields]

11. If the world resorted to the use of chip fat, then you would be correct.

But chip fat from trees is not the most productive or easily renewable energy resource. What is? Hemp. It has the highest percentage of biomass cellulose than any plant known at this time-twice that of corn or wood chip. It can be grown virtually anywhere, and would, because of it's extremely high cellulose content use less land mass.

The author of the story in the Guardian was assuming that if wood chip were used as a replacement for crude oil, then deforestation would ruin the planet. This is a possibility. Where he is mistaken is the contention that wood chip for fuel would be a viable commercial resource.

Again, hemp is the best solution, although it is the most politically incendiary one.

[BiggJawn]

18. Isn't "Chip Fat" what we call in Murka "French Frier Grease"?

I see a lot of these "Hey, I run my truck on old fry-vat oil that i get for FREE, and you can too!" articles and I wonder what happens when there's 3-4 people duking it out behind Burger Doodle for the fry vat leavings?

[Joe Fields]

19. Chip fat is not french fry grease.

It is derived from the pulp of trees.

[BiggJawn]

21. OK.

Never heard of it, it's good to learn something new.
Never considered trees as a source of "fat", except maybe conifers with their resin.

[Speck Tater]

29. Wrong: Not OK

Google "chip fat". Every article that comes up is talking about what Americans can "french fry grease". There is not one single metnion of "chip fat" in any other context.

Can you cite a source for your claim that it derives from woods chips? Especially since there is no fat in wood chips.

Refs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1750734.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3959977.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3959977.stm
http://www.sundayherald.com/48283
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0300southwark/tm_objectid=16193632&method=full&siteid=50100&headline=it-s-fried-and-tested-name_page.html
http://www.co-op.co.uk:8080/ext_1/Development.nsf/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/6c2959e2f1ca507b802570a00035e763?OpenDocument
http://www.pentaclemagazine.org/pn760/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1658

[mike_c]

35. lots of biological misinformation in this thread....

Trees do indeed contain oils-- not fats in the triglyceride sense-- but certainly fatty acids and other lipids. They are the primary component of biological membranes, which every cell in every tree is filled with. Most of our non-petroleum oils are derived from plants.

on edit-- most WOOD is composed of dead cells, which lack cell membranes, so wood-- secondary xylem-- is a poor source of oils, but it's not accurate to say that wood does not contain them.

[Joe Fields]

67. It is cellulose from trees that biomass fuel plants are after.

Cutting trees down for biomass fuel is not an efficient form of biomass fuel production.

[BiggJawn]

69. No, I really think they're talking about fry grease.

I re-read the article, slowly this time, and noticed that they referred to "OLD Chip Fat".
What current thing is anyone extracting oils from trees and wood chips for that they would call a surplus of it "old" Chip Fat?

It's a UK article in a UK paper, I tend to lean towards my original french fry grease conclusion.

[Speck Tater]

72. I appologize for my over-simplification

Woody fibers do not contain fats and oils "in significant quantities". Certainly not in the quantities that would make oil extraction from wood chips viable.

My real point was to correct the misinformation that the term "chip fat" refered to wood chips. That's simply not true.

[dysfunctional press]

22. hemp is NOT the best solution for bio-diesel-

algae is much more efficient, and can yield over 100 times more biodiesel fuel over the same sqare-footage.

hemp is good for paper and cloth, though.

[Tesha]

37. ("paper and cloth" ain't why the hemp proponents are behind it. ;-) ) (NT)

[MadHound]

44. Stop spreading the snide bullshit,

Because it's obvious that you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Hemp and marijuana, while related, are not the same plant. You can literally smoke pounds of hemp and all you'll get is a large headache.

And since the two plants are related, they can cross pollinate. The quickest way to make a marijuana patch worthless is to plant hemp within a five mile radius. The two groups of plants cross pollinate, and the dope grower winds up with ditch weed, completely worthless.

This meme among the drug warriors that people want hemp legalized just to mask the growing of pot is as much propaganda as Reefer Madness was, and based in about the same amount of reality. Anybody with even a passing knowledge of growing dope knows that the worst thing to do is to plant it in or around a hemp crop.

Hemp however can help save the planet. It can replace wood as a source for paper, thus saving our forests. It can replace cotton in clothing, it is much more durable than cotton, and can be manufactured into a cloth that is as fine, if not finer, than cotton. The oil can be used for biodiesel, inks, dyes, plastics and many other uses, all of which would replace chemicals which are much harder on our enviroment. Also, hemp is much easier on the soil than cotton crops are. Cotton strips the soil of nutrients, nitrogen and other soil components, whereas hemp crops add to the soil.

This misguided bullshit bugaboo about hemp masking dope is a huge lie that is preventing the US from using this valuable crop as we once did. Stop repeating this lie to fool the gullible.

[mike_c]

49. I agree with much of what you say, but cross pollination is a non-issue...

...unless one lets cannibis grown for ganga go to seed. The parent plants do not become "ditch weed" at all, and cannibis clones easily, so seed production is neither necessary nor in most cases desirable.

[MadHound]

53. Actually I know for a fact, both from research

And experience that if you are growing dope that is crossed with hemp, your end product, even if it doesn't seed, is going to be much less potent, in a lot of cases to the point of being competely worthless. Consider it one of the lessons of my misspent youth, decades ago;)<http://www.hemp.net/news/9904/06/farmers_lobby_for_hemp.html>

[Tesha]

55. Magic pollen that affects the clones? Whatever. (NT)

[MadHound]

58. Not talking clones here

Read for comprehension, not speed, OK. If you would have done that, you would realize that the article, and I, are both talking about naturally grown dope, not clones.

It's obvious from your one liners that you have nothing to back your happy ass up with. If you do, I'd be interested in seeing it, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

[Tesha]

60. Funny, clones were exactly what mike_c was talking about. (NT)

[MadHound]

62. Again, reading for speed, not comprehension

I would suggest that you go back and read post #49 again, this time for comprehension. He mentions both natural(notice the part about seeds?) and clones.

[MadHound]

66. Clones was ONE topic mike brought up

The other was cross pollination of natural plants. Again, read for comprehension please.

[Tesha]

83. I have no argument with natural cross-polination.

But do *YOU* accept his statement about clones
remaining fully potent, even when created/grown
near hemp?

You pretty well seemed to say that you don't,
which prompted my comment about "magic spores.

Tesha

[mike_c]

63. how do you "cross dope and hemp" without producing seeds?!

It can be done in tissue culture, of course, but that's a level of technology completely unnecessary for gardening. You're confusing apples and oranges, or something.... I had a misspent youth too. :evilgrin:

[MadHound]

68. Cross pollination friend, the stuff that floats on the wind

I've got plenty of links throughout this thread for you to read. They back my point up rather well.

[mike_c]

91. OK, I thought you were talking about the F1 hybrid progeny....

eom

[dysfunctional press]

70. WRONG.

the BEST cannabis grown for smoking comes from UN-pollinated female plants- once they get their "britches starched"- their chemistry changes- and if it's from a hemp plant, the changes are very much for the worse. that's why growers rip up male plants at the very first sign.

[MadHound]

78. Thank you,

Damn, I was beginning to think that I was the only "experienced" one around:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

80. june 1 is outdoor planting day...

and yes- legalized hemp production in the u.s. would put an end to outdoor marijuana cultivation.

[Tesha]

54. Whatever. (NT)

[MadHound]

56. Do you have anything remotely resembling facts

To back up your snidely stated thesis up with?

Whatever:eyes:

[Tesha]

59. You apparently don't.

> Do you have anything remotely resembling facts
> to back up your snidely stated thesis up with?

You apparently don't.

I'm basing my evaluation on your clever thesis above about
how plants (and their cloned progeny) lose potency when
grown "near" hemp.

Tesha

[MadHound]

61. Ah, so you're reading only one side of the debate,

And not dealing with either the article I linked to, nor the real world experience that I and many others have.

Try listening to both sides in a debate, OK? Here, I'll make it easy for you

<http://www.hemp.net/news/9904/06/farmers_lobby_for_hemp.html>
<http://www.420times.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7802>
<http://www.hempworld.com/Hemp-CyberFarm_com/htms/countries/usa/kentucky.html>
<http://www.hemp.net/news/9904/06/farmers_lobby_for_hemp.html>

Notice the notation on the last link, that hemp could actually be used as a weapon to fight marijuana production, due to cross pollinating.

Oh, and just for your own information, cloning either hemp or marijuana generally results in a weaker plant within a couple generations.

[rman]

74. Best is oil palm, at 5950 litres/hectare per year.

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html

[dysfunctional press]

79. algae is MUCH MUCH better than palm oil-

plus- palm oil palm's are tropical plants- we'd never be able to grow enough in the u.s.
algae, like hemp, can be grown in every state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

For a truly renewable source of oil, crops or other similar cultivatable sources would have to be considered. Plants utilize photosynthesis to convert solar energy into chemical energy. It is this chemical energy that biodiesel stores and is released when it is burned. Therefore plants can offer a sustainable oil source for biodiesel production. Different plants produce usable oil at different rates. Some studies have shown the following annual production:

* Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (35 to 45,000 L/km²)
* Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 130,000 L/km²)
* Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130,000 L/km²)
* Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160,000 L/km²)
* Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (580,000 L/km²) <6>
* Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (9,000,000 to 18,000,000 L/km²)

[mike_c]

23. correction....

Dukes' estimate does not make assumptions about the source of biomass (other than it being primary), and the assumptions he makes about global primary productivity are broadly accepted, certainly to within an order of magnitude. Ironically, atmospheric CO₂ augmentation might increase productivity somewhat, although the jury is still out on this (other effects might compensate). High biomass crops like hemp reduce the footprint somewhat, but again, the numbers just don't even come close to bridging the gulf separating planetary production from 44 x 10¹⁸ g C annually. Not on this planet, not with any crop.

High density algae growth can reduce the footprint somewhat by using tall vertical growth tanks, although I'm not aware of any direct comparisons between algal biomass yield per unit area and time, and high yield crops like hemp. But in either case significant energy expenditure must be made to insure fertility through nutrient subsidies-- even though hemp grows well without fertilization, obtaining maximum yields and serial cropping will necessitate it, and algal growth is directly dependent upon nutrient additions. Not only are those nutrients energy expensive to produce and use, they ultimately find their way into other systems and cause ecological havoc, e.g. the "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico, the Med Sea, and the Chesapeake Bay occurring at CURRENT nitrogen runoff levels. Recapturing all those mineral nutrients has not been factored into the EROEI calculations of biofuels production, IIRC, and they will have to be recaptured to avoid ecological disaster.

on edit: just to make it clear what this means, we would need to figure out how to bioengineer the planetary nitrogen cycle to prevent massive eutrification. This is already a HUGE problem with high intensity cropping systems, and would only get worse if we attempted to significantly increase biomass yields for fuel production, IMO.

[XemaSab]

84. Waste water from sewage plants and hog lagoons could be used for algae

There's certainly a fair amount of polluted, nutrient rich water floating around and the algae could be used as a step in the treatment process... the problem that instantly comes to mind is that you'd have a helluva smell coming off of the ponds.

I was at the Redding sewage ponds yesterday and they add a LOT of chemicals to knock the smell down. I also grew up by Lake Merritt in Oakland, and every summer the algae growing in the lake would start to rot and create a HELLUVA smell until the city could get out there with a dredge and clear some of it out.

I don't think between the smell and the possibility of a supposed public health nightmare, that it would get through the regulatory process.

And on edit: (I have the bad habit of assuming the reader is riding on the same train of thought) the public health nightmare would be either from breeding mosquitos or the possibility of something like cholera escaping. I don't know how you would fix those problems in a large system.

[MadHound]

12. I agree with this fellow, up to a point

We can't make enough biodiesel to fully replace oil for our fuel needs, as it stands. we have to, absolutely, cut back on the amount of oil that we use. That said, we should at least start making the conversion over to biodiesel powered hybrids, especially ones that have an extra battery in order to use less fuel. They could be plugged in at night for a recharge, preferably into an electric grid that is powered by wind.

I also agree that we shouldn't be cutting down any forests for biodiesel production. That's plain wrong. However the author is failing to take into account one crucial crop that drastically changes the equation he's set up, hemp.

Hemp can literally grow almost anywhere. Here in Missouris, the further south of the river you get, the worse the land is. Within thirty miles the ground turns into the combination of red clay and rock that is the Ozark Mts. The soil is poor, it cannot support traditional crops. However, you can grow hemp on it, lots and lots of hemp. In fact it was using these nutrient poor fields in the Ozarks that enabled Missouri farmers to lead the country in hempo production back in the first half of the century. Other soil poor states like Arkansas, Louisiana, etc. also grew lots of hemp, despite the fact that the same soil that they grew hemp on couldn't support food crops.

Can we use hemp derived biodiesel to meet our current fuel needs, no. But in combination with hybrid technologies, electrical vehicle technologies, and other alternative fuel sources along with conservation measures, we can make the transition off of oil a relatively painles one. But we have to start soon, and we have to enact the measures needed to make this a reality, and that includes legalizing the production of hemp.

[anarch]

14. I tend to believe that hemp cultivation, along with deep cutbacks

to both energy use and meat-related agriculture (e.g. using ridiculous amounts of grain crops to feed cattle for American beef consumption, when all that grain could basically feed all the hungry people in the world, or the land be used to cultivate bio-fuel plants) would go a long way toward mitigating the sort of doomsday scenarios that many Peak Oil alarmists bring up.

Or, hey, we could just have 9/10 of the population die off, and presto, no more shortage of energy. We seem to be steering toward that option at the moment....

[Joe Fields]

15. Yes we could replace our current fuel needs with hemp.

It would take approximately six percent of the land mass in the United States to do so.

It can be done.

[dysfunctional press]

24. algae is MUCH more efficient than hemp for biodiesel.

and no- we wouldn't be able to replace our current fuel needs with biodiesel.

do you have anything to back up your claim that it could be done with 6% of the u.s. land mass?

[MadHound]

38. Thanks for bringing up algae, it is more effecient than hemp

And it seems that we indeed COULD replace all of our current fuel needs with biodiesel, using algae as the oil plant. And we wouldn't even have to touch our food carrying acres
<http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html>

Of course it would still be prudent to combine this with a basket of other alternatives, such as hybrid vehicles, cars that could charge off of a wind powered electrical grid, etc. But the basics are there, we now just need to start developing it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Some brief calculations

US oil consumption: 20 million barrels per day = 20/7.3 = 2.7 million tonnes of oil per day
US area: 9.16 million sq km or 916 million hectares
arable use: 18%
all from CIA factbook

(A high) hemp yield: 20 tonnes dry matter per hectare per year: source

6% * 916 million * 20 = 1.1 billion tons dry matter per year
= 3 million tonnes per day of dry matter.

However, you cannot convert dry plant matter to the same weight of oil. Even if it mean truly dry matter, ie pure cellulose with no water content whatsoever, the carbon content of cellulose is half that of oil. So, assuming a process that can convert every last bit of carbon in cellulose to oil, we'd need twice that 6% land area - 12%, or two thirds the current arable area. This also assumes the nitrogen content of the hemp can be completely recycled by this process - or you'd need to allow more land for rotation of crops to get nitrogen from a fixing crop.

Have you figures for the efficiency of conversion of cellulose to oil?

[Pavulon]

20. This is Short of data, slanted

Bio diesel can be created from trash crops. Farmers use castor beans and other plants to cycle fields. These are tilled under. The beans can be harvested and the rest of the plant tilled under.

It can ge created from oil that is thrown away.

These crops are resistant to insects and disease and are generally lightly sprayed and fertilized, if at all. Because they are being tilled under. Paying farmers to harvest from this trash crop will encourage the farmers who do not use this method for rotation to start.

This is important for the farmer and land anyway.

The goal is not replacement of #2 diesel. Most vehicles do not run on b100, they can, but it is easier to use blended fuel. Even the wide adoption of b50 would cause a staggering effect in oil consumption and pollution.

Every alternative energy source has a drawback. Fuel cells require massive power generation. Right now the only way to do that is with nuclear generation.

The reality is that right now the world has limited choices in how to power industry. Until there is a major shift in energy we have to choose the best option.

[mike_c]

32. those "trash crops" are nitrogen fixers and nutrient replacers...

...as well as soil amendments. Harvesting them for oil production means that greater nutrient subsidies need to be applied in the future, and that causes further ecological damage, as well as requiring a significant energy input.

[Pavulon]

39. Correct

Leave the majority of the plant and just take the bean. The machines can do this now. No need to take the entire plant. Most harvesters run on diesel and could benefit from b50 use.

[XemaSab]

86. Castor beans are VERY poisonous

The harvesting and processing would be nightmarish.

Plus those "trash crops" are used for N fixation.

Oh, and seperating and processing the beans may take as much energy you'd get out of them.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. I've seen this article before, and...

while there might be a way to get all that vegetable oil without cutting down every forest on earth, I doubt anyone would consider anything but continuing to cut tropical forests for palm oil monoculture.

And there goes the Amazon basin, faster than it did for cattle ranching or mango growing.

And, although diesels are marginally more efficient than gasoline engines, getting this endless supply of diesel fuel will just encourage us to keep on driving and butning fuel for other reasons, not reducing our carbon footprints one bit.

Nope, biodiesel isn't the answer, just the beginning of another nightmare.

[Chemical Bill]

100. Sorry, but...

>And there goes the Amazon basin

We are not in Brazil. We are not using Brazillion, um, Brazilian biodiesel. The biodiesel produced in the US has no effect on the Amazon basin.

>not reducing our carbon footprints one bit

I beg to differ. The carbon we burn in biodiesel was taken from the atmosphere last year. That's recycling, and it creats no net CO2 gain in the atmosphere.

>biodiesel isn't the answer

It isn't the only option, but I prefer it to petroleum, and it's available today.

Bill

[dysfunctional press]

27. there is no ONE replacement for fossil fuels-

it will be a multi-pronged approach, and bio-diesel is DEFINITELY one of those prongs.
just because it can't totally replace fossil fuels doesn't mean that it should be scrapped as an idea/approach.

[porphyrian]

28. Why would anyone think biodiesel would replace everything alone?

There's also wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Isn't putting all of our eggs in one basket the problem we're dealing with now?

[alfredo]

33. When too many businesses vie for the same market, a

shake out happens. It is not much different than when too many deer populate a small area. Starvation or disease culls the herd. In the end it is good for the overall health of the population, though the process looks cruel.

Maybe we should let it happen, even though it will be horrific.

You know, in the bigger scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Suns burn out and are created, galaxies are absorbed by larger galaxies. Our presence on this clump of rock makes no difference.
On how many worlds have had life begin then end over the billions of years in our universe. Let's get over ourselves.

"Eskimo Blue Day"
Jefferson Airplane


Snow cuts loose from the frozen
Until it joins with the African sea
In moving it changes its cold and its name
The reason I come and go is the same
Animal game for me
You call it rain
But the human name
Doesn't mean shit to a tree
If you don't mind heat in your river and
Fork tongue talking from me
Swim like an eel fantastic snake
Take my love when it's free
Electric feel with me
You call it loud
But the human crowd
Doesn't mean shit to a tree
Change the strings and notes slide
Change the bridge and string shift down
Shift the notes and bride sings
Fire eating people
Rising toys of the sun
Energy dies without body warm
Icicles ruin your gun
Water my roots the natural thing
Natural spring to the sea
Sulphur springs make my body float
Like a ship made of logs from a tree
Redwoods talk to me
Say it plainly
The human name
Doesn't mean shit to a tree
Snow called water going violent
Damn the end of the stream
Too much cold in one place breaks
That's why you might know what I mean
Consider how small you are
Compared to your scream
The human dream
Doesn't mean shit to a tree

[htuttle]

36. It's NOT a matter of replacing our current usage of oil.

No matter what fuels our civilization switches to, NOBODY is going to be driving a Hummer. We're literally pissing away the future with our current wasteful energy usage practices. We will not be able to continue that when 'free' oil is no longer available.

There are already diesel engines that get nearly 100mpg. I think that with further engineering, they'll be able to do much better than that. Hauling around 3,000 pounds of extra steel -- requiring hundreds of horsepower -- just to feel more 'secure' on the way to the grocery store will be a thing of the past. Can you imagine someone driving a solid-iron carriage, pulled by a team of 200 horses? Even the Emperors of Rome were not so wasteful.

The best strategy is about using as little energy as possible in every aspect of our lives, and then finding diverse energy sources that fit those (now much smaller) energy needs. Trying to fulfill our currently bloated usage with a different fuel is a pointless exercise, and only serves to discourage people from trying to change.

[tjwash]

43. The big problem, is penis size.

The smaller the dick, the bigger the damn gas guzzling truck/suv/hummer the asshole has to drive around sucking up resources to compensate for. Maybe we can send all these idiots to an enlargement clinic or something to fix that.

OK seriously, there is also a larger problem that no one seems to be addressing as well. We can't just "stop" using carbon based fossil fuels at once. There has to indeed be a process that slowly weans us off of them, before we move to cleaner, non carbon bases fuels.

Why? Well, without breaking out an entire library full of text and scientific data to explain, here is the ultra-condensed version:

Mankind emits a hell of a lot of carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. Plants and algae live on carbon dioxide, and grow profusely, because there's a lot of it around. This effect is clearly seen at present in our oceans, where algae and plankton are thriving more than ever.

Now, all of a sudden we stop, and switch to an alternate fuel that produces no CO2.All of a sudden, the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere drops, BUT all those extra plants and algae are still there, sucking up all carbon dioxide they can get. In a short period of time, they suck almost all carbon dioxide out of the Earth's atmosphere.

And then boom, we have a different problem, NO greenhouse gas to keep warmth in, and we go from one extreme to the other.

So, we are going to have to eventually come up with a plan, and soon, because peak oil is here, and we are going to have no choice, but to address this.

[mike_c]

46. lol-- oh my....

Algal growth in the oceans is nutrient limited, not CO₂ limited. When you talk about algal productivity booming I presume you mean eutrification of closed basins like the Med, the Gulf of Mexico, and etc. That's the result of nitrogen and phosphate runoff from agricultural lands and nutrient enrichment from sewage and manure. Oceanic production has not changed much as far as I'm aware-- certainly not enough to affect global atmospheric CO₂.

[LSK]

45. and why does Biodiesel have to replace everything???

Why cant we use a combination of Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric and Biomass fuels to replace fossil fuels? Some people tend to think that one solution fits all and then determine that cant work and thats false logic. The different types of alternative energies COMBINED can replace fossil fuels.

[DUHandle]

48. Darn your eyes, I just wrote the following and didn't post it

Most everything I’ve read on this topic

Assumes a complete shift from petroleum based fuels to a bio diesel, and that doesn’t have to be the case.

[GreenPartyVoter]

51. How dare you

bring logic into this conversation!!! *raising fist in rage*

:P

[rman]

71. Depends on which bio oil crop you plan to grow,

but it doesn't look feasible at any rate. Not as a complete replacement of hydro-carbon fuels.

----

Bio Fuel by the numbers:

# 1 barrel of oil = 159 liters
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/SohailAhmed.shtml

# avg yield of bio oil crop
~ 1000 liters/ha (many crops have a lower yield)
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
=~ 6 barrels of oil per hectare per harvest (assuming one harvest per year)

# need to meet current demand
30 billion barrels/year globally
need 5 billion hectare

# earth surface area
earth = 12756 km diam

formula to calculate surface area: 4*pi*r(sq)
r = 1/2 diam

4 * 3.14 * 6400 * 6400 = 514.457.600 sq kilometer =~ 50.000.000.000 hectare

surface of dry land on earth =~ 1/4 of total =~ 12 billion hectare


# conclusion
need to cover approximately 1/2 of all available dry land surface with bio oil crops (much of which is mountains, desert, forest, jungle, tundra, arctic)

----

I'm not saying bio fuel is a bad thing. I'm saying it is not practical to replace oil with bio fuel, even if we'd manage to significantly increase the efficiency of machines that run on fuel.
I think we need to look at more efficient ways to turn solar energy into some kind of fuel (ie solar-electric > hydrogen).

Theoretically there are all kinds of practical solutions, but we should already be working on replacing the hydro-carbon fuel infrastructure with alternatives - and we are not doing that.

[nosmokes]

87. bio-diesel is one piece of the puzzle, and a good one.

it's cheap and easy to make and requires no major retro fitting of existing technology to current engines and current engine manufacturing, but you're right in thatwe as americans can no longer maintain our lifestyle of everyone owning a car and mass transit being all but non existent in large parts of the country. folks are gonna hafta get into a mindset that the rest of the world exists too, whether you were ever taught anything about it in school or hear anything it on TV unless we're at war with them. from everything i can find biodiesel is a better long term choice than ethanol which still requires a massive amount of petro base, but bio-d can be 100% organic. but for sure there is no *magic bullet*.

[XemaSab]

88. For the algae grown in desert ponds

Where's the water going to come from for that? :shrug:

[Chemical Bill]

99. It can be a closed system, in a greenhouse...

and it doesn't have to be in the desert, it can be small production attached to municipal waste treatment plants, in our cities and towns.

Bill

[Land Shark]

103. Certainly terrible if intended as 50% or 100% replacement but NOT

if 1% of a very diverse fuel supply, especially if recycling of waste products is the primary use. The key here is also that biodiesel can use the existing gasoline/diesel distribution system and can usually be mixed in any proportion with regular diesel. It's a few hundred drops in the bucket of a much more diverse fuel supply.

we don't render humans into soap so I think we CAN draw a line. the only question is where the line will get drawn with respect to biofuels, ASSUMING that economics makes it profitable for some of the more nightmarish applications.